Societal atrocities and Darwinism are in some cases Obligate Mutualism. Like Jeffery Dahmer and the rape, murder and actual cannibalism of fellow human beings?
Not Many Wise is a blog written by Peter Reason, who tells us why he writes:
Why have I called this site: ‘Not Many Wise’?
Well, that phrase comes from some verses:
“… think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.I can certainly relate to God choosing me – the foolish and weak person that I am. With God’s help may He fulfil the rest of the verse in all of us!
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no-one may boast before him.”
1 Corinthians 1:26-29 (ANIV)
I started on my Faith Journey whilst on my sandwich year from college when Iwas first invited to a church meeting in Diss, Norfolk by an enthusiastic fellow student, and became a Christian then in 1976.
Upon returning to college and right up to the present day, I’ve not been restrained to any one denomination – believing that local Church is always important. Through career moves and life changes this has enabled me to play a part in the Assembly of God Church, Elim, various House Church Groupings, Brethren, Anglican and Baptist Churches.
I am married to Jackie and we live in Cambridgeshire in the UK.
I hope you find good, eternal things within my posts, thanks for calling by.
From Peter Reason
We can be wise if the wisdom comes from God. I am not wise without God's wisdom.
Proverbs 1:7The reverent and worshipful fear of the Lord is the beginning and the principal and choice part of knowledge [its starting point and its essence]; but fools despise skillful and godly Wisdom, instruction, and discipline. (Amplified Version)
Here is his post about Obligate Mutualism to give you a start on the concept:
Where two different things cannot survive without each other …
Ficus macrophylla, commonly known as the Moreton Bay Fig, comes from Australia and has an obligate mutualism with fig wasps.
This means that the figs are only pollinated by fig wasps, and fig wasps can only reproduce in fig flowers.
There were totally failed attempts at growing the plant in Hawaii and California until they introduced the correct wasps.
How can two totally different things just evolve by chance – one cannot survive without the other.
There’s not enough time for trial and error.
I would say that it is by ‘Intelligent Design’ and not chance.
Thanks, Peter. Now we give ICR a chance to go into more depth:
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
The wasp and fig relationship is an example of "obligate mutualism," in which each organism depends on and would eventually die without the other. As the fig fruit develops, its central chamber contains many small flowers inside, where fig wasps also spend much of their lives.What makes this fossil fascinating is not just its age, but that it is so similar to the modern species. This means that the complex relationship that exists today between the fig wasps and their host trees developed more than 34 million years ago and has remained unchanged since then.2
When a female fig wasp hatches from her egg, she is nourished by the fig seeds. Upon maturation, she mates with a male wasp that is also located in the "fig condominium" and then gathers pollen into specialized recessed sacs. The male digs a tunnel out the side of the fig and then dies, freeing the female to escape and seek another fig tree of the same species.
When she finds a new young fig, the wasp squeezes her way in through an opening so small that her antennae and wings are often torn off in the process. Specialized backward barbs under her "chin" aid her difficult progress into the fruit. Meanwhile, the fig presents female flowers near to the entrance so that the wasp's pollen fertilizes them on her way in. After depositing her eggs, the wasp secretes growth factors that stimulate fig tissue growth in the tiny flowers that harbor her eggs, providing the larvae with food. This way, both figs and fig wasps achieve a new generation.
The maturing fig thus not only provides a place of incubation for the incipient fig wasp larvae, but also a source of nourishment. But what keeps the fig seeds from all being consumed by the larvae, which would be fatal to both species since it would prevent the development of future generations?
The answer is elegantly simple. The female's slender ovipositor (egg-laying organ) is exactly long enough to deposit eggs into short flowers but not long enough to reach into longer flowers in the fig. Those flowers can then mature into fig seeds to make future fig trees.
Compton's study provides yet another example of what those who study fossils call "stasis," which describes the stability of creatures' body forms wherever they are found--even among living representatives. This is not expected in an evolutionary world, where trees and wasps supposedly underwent long periods of evolutionary progress separately. How or why would "nature" ever have brought these two together, much less somehow equipped both fruit and insect with the exact features needed for their mutual dependence?
According to the creation model, such life forms came into existence at one time during the same week of creation, so one might expect to see very different species living in interdependence with one another. From the perspective of biblical creation, interdependent systems like this display the wisdom and glory of the Creator, who specifically outfitted His creatures with all that would be needed for life.
- Dr. Steve Compton. Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds. Accessed on www.fbs.leeds.ac.uk June 16, 2010.
- World's oldest fig wasp fossil proves that if it works, don't change it. University of Leeds press release, June 15, 2010, reporting on research published in Compton, S. G. et al. Ancient fig wasps indicate at least 34 Myr of stasis in their mutualism with fig trees. Biology Letters. Published online before print June 16, 2010.
Article posted on June 29, 2010.
Let's go ahead and let ICR expand on the concept of stasis in the world of organisms:
The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.
According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:
1. wholesale change of organisms through time
2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms
3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.
However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.
Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.
Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of today’s invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.
Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.
Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.
In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.
The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.
For those of you who want to know truth, you could explore all these links and learn a great deal! ICR was the first large and successful YEC organization of scientists and professional laymen. There are such organizations all over the world now, and plenty of Intelligent Design organizations as well.
We are at one of those science/worldview crossroads similar to that time when the Big Dogs In Charge wanted a Geocentric Solar System but real scientists like Copernicus believed that they could prove otherwise and were willing to risk their careers and perhaps even their lives to promote a Heliocentric Solar System. Today mainstream science, academia and news and entertainment media as well as entire governments are sold out to Darwinism and Climate Alarmism in direct opposition to the raw evidence to the contrary. How long with popular fallacies hold out against truth? Another 20 years maybe? It is hard to imagine, in this information age, that younger brighter scientists coming into the field won't suddenly stop and say, "Hey, all this Darwinist BS is just....BS!!"
I patiently aid the process in my own small way. There are a few worldviews that are remarkably dangerous and harmful to mankind. Malthusian thought, Eugenics, Socialism, Communism and Islamic Jihadism are all harmful to humanity. But Darwinism may be the worst of all, as it underlies or goes hand-in-hand with most of them. Certainly you could make a case that Eugenics and Darwinism are examples of obligate mutualism and that the German Nazi vision required Darwinism as an essential element.
Anyhow, a very good article on the very BAD EFFECTS OF DARWINISM from creation.com would be appropriate now:
A review of The Political Gene: How Darwin’s Ideas Changed Politics by Dennis Sewell
Picador, London, 2009
According to evolutionist Daniel Dennett, Darwinism is the universal acid that affects everything.1
Dennis Sewell does an excellent job documenting this claim. Sewell, a journalist and broadcaster, has assembled a well-written review of the political uses and abuses of Darwinism. He has documented how often—and how easily—Darwinism has been harnessed for sinister political ends by a wide assortment of persons and movements laboring under a variety of political persuasions from radical right to extreme left. The history of Darwinism’s critical role in eugenics and Nazism is told in an engaging way that reads like a novel. He shows that, although racism existed before Darwin, Darwinism gave the human inferior-superior racial hierarchy theory the respectability and authority of science, increasing the problem of racism by an order of magnitude.
This authority inspired the eugenics movement that swept the world for parts of the last two centuries. Sewell focuses on the practical and political results of Darwinism, not its validity. For example, in researching eugenics his focus is not on the theoretical but on understanding
“ … how a tightly knit group of scientists (and most of the main actors in this story were scientists—biologists, zoologists, psychologists and doctors) went about trying to sell an esoteric idea to the general public; how they organized, mobilized, and influenced politicians; and how they succeeded in getting laws enacted to suit their ideological purposes” (pp. xi–xii).
Stressing that he is not a creationist apologist but a journalist (p. xiiii), Sewell details the enormous harm Darwin has caused society and he carefully documents his conclusions with 25 pages of notes and references, almost ten percent of the book. The references and quotes alone are worth the price of the book.
Accessible review of the effects of Darwinism on society
“Darwin’s son Leonard replaced his cousin Galton as chairman of the national Eugenics Society in 1911. In the same year an offshoot of the society was formed in Cambridge. Among its leading members were three more of Charles Darwin’s sons, Horace, Francis and George. The group’s treasurer was a young economics lecturer at the university, John Maynard Keynes, whose younger brother Geoffrey would later marry Darwin’s granddaughter Margaret. Meanwhile, Keynes’s mother, Florence, and Horace Darwin’s daughter Ruth, sat together on the committee of the Cambridge Association for the Care of the Feeble-Minded … a front organization for eugenics” (p. 54).To set the theme of the book, Sewell quoted from Daniel Dennett who wrote that evolution is a “universal acid that dissolves every ethical and moral system it encounters” (p. 8). The extent that evolution is a universal acid that affects, and even explains, societal decay, is covered in detail.
Sewell shows that, for some, evolution even explains and justifies rape. Evolution teaches that nature selects those organisms that leave more offspring, and the more sexually aggressive a person is, the more offspring he will usually produce, leaving the genes that cause sexual aggression to a disproportionate number of offspring. As a result, this trait will become more common in the population.
Sewell adds that although Richard Dawkins has convinced many persons that he has a “slam-dunk case for giving up any search for meaning, purpose or direction in human affairs” (p. 8), Sewell is not so confident of the validity of Dawkins’ case. Furthermore, Sewell notes that evolution does give meaning and direction to its academic believers, but this meaning and direction is now recognized, for example, as strongly influencing the acceptance of the now infamous eugenics movement:
“Eugenics might have remained where it began, on the margins of British political life, something to be discussed in draughty temperance halls at meetings of the Rationalist Association (for the Darwinist/atheist axis had already become well established). However, unlike many other esoteric theories of the day … the eugenics movement could count on the support not only of cranks, but of Cambridge academics, fellows of the Royal Society and large numbers of the medical profession itself” (p. 55).He then concludes:
“Together they were capable of launching what would prove to be an impressive political lobbying campaign. In a remarkably short space of time, the vocabulary and basic principles of eugenics spread through the middle class, becoming almost the rule rather than the exception. This rapid mainstreaming of what began as a quirky set of ideas is rather like the way that the environmental movement developed in our own times” (p. 55).
The case of Ota Benga
Some African American Baptist pastors, though, were not very impressed either with the display or with evolution (p. 3). Actually, about the only opposition to the display was from African American ministers who did not believe in evolution (p. 6). The evolutionists defended the display by noting that evolution is taught in the school textbooks and “is no more debatable than the multiplication table” (p. 6).
Furthermore, one supporter of the exhibit, Heney Fairfield Osborn “one of the most esteemed American anthropologists of the first half of the twentieth century, seemingly could not bring himself to include the African as a member of the human race at all” (p. 19). Sewell adds that a century later, American Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin took the side of the African American ministers on evolution, and, he concludes, this was a significant factor as to why she was treated so poorly by the left, the media, and academia (pp. 6–7).
The exhibit designed to teach the “public that the human is just another primate” (p. 12) was repeated almost a century later when 3 men and 5 women put on “fig leaves” and were put in a cage to frolic with apes “to demonstrate the basic nature of man” is an animal, and that we are “not that special” (p. 12). Sewell then asks, “have things changed much?”
Although the once almost universal conclusion by scientists “that black people were closer in the evolutionary scale to apes than white people is seen by scientists today as a ghastly mistake,” scientists “are not taking any responsibility for [this mistake] … yet its traces linger in the minds of millions, infecting attitudes to race everywhere” (p. 20). As evidence, Sewell noted that Nobel Laureate James Watson “explained his gloomy prognosis for Africa’s social and economic development” by arguing that we could not expect that “the intellectual capacities of people graphically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically” to the level of the higher evolved technologically sophisticated whites (p. 19).
Sewell documents the jump of eugenics from theory to politics and control, by noting that
“ … the eugenics movement required an expansion of state agencies and an expansion of their scope for prying into—and ultimately directing—the lives of the poor. ‘A system will also be established for the examination of the family history of all those placed on the register as being unquestionably mentally abnormal,’ said Leonard Darwin, ‘especially as regards the criminality, insanity, ill health and pauperism of their relatives … If all this were done, it can hardly be doubted that many strains would be discovered which no one could deny ought to be made to die out in the interests of the nation [in what in Germany became a short step to the holocaust]’” (pp. 54–55).A theme Sewell stressed in much of the book is that eugenics is not dead, just more subtle today. Sewell gives several examples to support his conclusion that the thinking behind eugenics is still very much with us today. One example he noted was the case of the self-proclaimed Social Darwinist Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish high school student who murdered eight people, including the school’s head teacher, on November 7, 2007. Auvinen was concerned that humans had slowed, or even reversed, evolution in Western society (p. 45). He wrote on his blog that the “stupid, weak-minded people reproduce … faster than intelligent, strong-minded” persons like himself (p. 45).
Sewell noted that Auvinen carefully had thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin’s argument and concluded that humans, like every other animal, have no special value because life was without purpose, the result of a long process of survival-of-the-fittest evolution (p. 45). His special plea was he hoped his actions would result in the role of social Darwinism to be taken more seriously.
Auvinen stressed that movies, computer games, TV, and music were not the source of his motivation to murder those he judged as inferior persons, but rather Darwinism (p. 46). He chose his victims with care, “trying to weed out those who were, in his judgment, the unfit” (p. 46). To those of us not intoxicated with Darwinism, he was psychotic or, at the least simply an evil, misguided person.
An example: the American Columbine killersThe Columbine killers—“two amateur social Darwinists”—made similar arguments as Auvinen (p. 47). Columbine killer Eric Harris wore a “Natural Selection” T-shirt on the day of the massacre, and both killers made remarks on video about helping natural selection along by eliminating the weak (p. 47). They also made frequent references to evolution, all ignored by the press.
Sewell also discusses issues such as the use of abortion to produce fitter humans and government programs to control medical decisions based on modern soft eugenics. In short, he does not feel comfortable with leaving such judgments to scientists or politicians.
He also questions the extent of practical benefits for humanity that the theory of evolution has contributed, concluding that Darwinism hardly occupies a high position compared to the discovery of DNA and antibiotics, the invention of the transistor and MRI, or even the World Wide Web revolution. Sewell then argues that Darwinism has been put at the pinnacle of media and scientific esteem, not by scientific fact or history, but rather by a vast expensive public relations program paid for by tax dollars.
Sewell’s overriding concern, as the book documents, is that Darwinism has caused dehumanization and has misled us in the past and in the present—and will likely continue to do so in the future as a result of the genetics revolution and the ability to select fitter children by techniques such as DNA sequencing and in vitro fertilization. The example he gives is a woman who aborted her first two children due to fact that the sonogram of each showed an extra finger. The doctor in the case investigated and found the mother had the same condition, which in her case was dealt with by a fairly minor operation. Yet the doctor reported that she chose to abort two children who had inherited her minor flaw, one that had few, if any, adverse consequences in her life.
ReferencesDennett, D.C., Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996.
Before you close your eyes and minds to the truth, consider the beginning of the 20th Century in the USA, where Eugenicists had people sterilized (mostly poor and "colored" folks) and President Woodrow Wilson had the military segregated and promoted "Jim Crow Laws" in the South. While Abraham Lincoln had freed the slaves, Darwin began putting them back "in their place" in American society, particularly in the South. Meanwhile Wilson sought to begin forming a one world government system (The League of Nations) and many Eastern Elitists began to applaud the work of a German leader named Adolf Hitler including the Rockefellers in particular but many others. Eugenics was dealt a fearsome blow by the revelations of the Holocaust at the end of World War II and many whisperings that had been going on about what Germany was doing became shouts.
Margaret Sanger and her organization had to go underground and convert themselves into Planned Parenthood and have since promoted Eugenics on the sly by positioning most abortion clinics near poor and minority neighborhoods. But the goal remains the same - weed out the poor and "less-evolved" so that more superior races can dominate. How anti-God this entire concept is! How evil and miserable a way of thinking AND YET it cannot be separated from Darwinism because Darwinism was joined at the hip to racism from the very beginning.
Everyone of every race on Earth should be insulted by the very existence of Darwinism. We were made by God in His image, not descended from primates! It is a nasty, ugly, mean, grotesque worldview of the filthiest possible mindset. You cannot clean it off with time and marketing. What about the aborigines caught, killed, skinned and put on display in museums? It was Darwinism that encouraged such acts and Darwinism lived out in real life was Jeff Dahmer's excuse for his macabre habit of tormenting and killing and preserving and...well, most folks know what he did. How many realize he was simply living out the Darwinist mantra?
Here is some evidence concerning Dahmer's adherence to Darwinism, notice that YouTube has censored the content?
What, in the Darwinist morality, is the difference between Dahmer raping and killing and eating one of his victims and a leopard chasing down, playing with, killing and eating a young baboon? If we all came from nothing for no reason and will wind up just dying and being gone, who determines right and wrong? In my last post I presented Determinism as a bankrupt and disastrous worldview and it just so happens that it is the default worldview of Darwinism. No matter how many millions of dollars you give to charity, no matter how many people you give jobs with your company, there is indeed a real morality and God has declared it in the Bible. All who teach others to cast aside God have a part in every atrocity they commit! You are part of the problem OR you are part of the solution. There is no middle ground.
When someone murders another human with a knife or axe, blood is spattered everywhere. The murderer will probably try to wash away the bloodstains. But forensic investigation can use special lighting and/or reagents to detect bloodstains that murderers have tried in vain to hide. I will put an ad for a very efficient reagent below my final remarks. The bottom line is that Darwinism has helped butcher millions upon millions of people and degraded "races" other than white as inferior or "less evolved" when in fact all people are human and the skin color is a matter of the way in which melanin is displayed in our skin. Read and learn a simple set of articles here. Actually some researchers believe it is the way melanin is displayed rather than the amount, but that is not germane to the issue. Adam and Eve were given a rich set of genetic information, with which all skin and eye and hair colors could be produced. That is truth. Darwinism? Wicked and harmful lies!
available at Amazon - Dahmer on evolution and faith
Here Dahmer puts in all into perspective, below. Dahmer believed in Christ after he was caught, sentenced and incarcerated and then believed he should have been put to death by the State. It may be that since the State would not kill him and he believed that his crimes deserved death that he was not afraid that a fellow inmate might kill him and possibly welcomed the event as something he would have done himself if not for God. Yes, someone as terrible as Dahmer can become a Christian and someone seemingly as wonderful as your next-door neighbor could be heading straight to Hell. Because we all sin and we all are destined for Hell if we do not repent. So Darwinism is perhaps the most harmful influence in modern society today. Worse than Neo-Nazis, worse than Black Muslims, worse than Islamo-terrorists, worse than the self-named Westboro Baptists, worse then the Ku Klux Klan. At least the groups of people who promote hatred and death openly are easily indentifiable. Darwinism sneaks up on you as science and sends you to Hell with eyes wide open.
"Some people wonder how baptism might have benefited Jeff in terms of his stature with the prison system. The answer is that it had absolutely no effect on his life sentences. He still had 15 life sentences to serve in Wisconsin and one in Ohio, if he was ever released from the Wisconsin prison. But being released never would have happened. He had accepted the fact that he would die in prison.
Jeff had nothing to gain in this life by being baptized; he had everything to gain in the next life. He was baptized for the same reason anyone else is baptized. In the light of the Bible, he surveyed his life and concluded that he needed to be saved."
BLUESTAR® FORENSIC is a new reagent whose purpose is to reveal blood stains that have been washed out, wiped off or which are invisible to the naked eye. This product is intended for crime investigators.
BLUESTAR® FORENSIC Latent Bloodstains Reagent
Based upon chemiluminescence, its unique formula qualifies it as the most effective blood revealer available on the market, for crime scene as well as forensic lab use.
BLUESTAR® FORENSIC is compatible with ABO typing. It does not alter the DNA of the revealed blood which allows for its subsequent genotyping. Furthermore, it is non toxic and easier to prepare and use.