April 12, 2016
I bet about right now you are getting a little weary from all the political chaff exploding around us. How about something a little different this week?
Here goes. A team of scientists from the University of California at Berkeley using a supercomputer have generated a vastly more complex model of the Darwinian “tree of life”. In a report published online in Nature Microbiology, the researchers explain how they have dramatically expanded the amount of diversity included in the new tree by incorporating new genomic data from 1000 little known organisms, primarily bacteria.
This latest version of the tree of life (which looks more like a bird to me) has three main branches that encompass all known life forms – Eukarya which includes animals, plants and us; Bacteria and Archaea, cellular life that live in extreme or harsh environments.
Darwin conceptualized his theory of natural selection acting on random mutation as a tree, a tree that took root when a collection of complex molecules in a totally random, unguided way self-organized into the first living cell. This first cell then began replicating and random changes in the DNA contained in its nucleus produced changes that were either beneficial or detrimental to its progeny. The beneficial changes survived to reproduce and the detrimental changes died out. This process extended for hundred of millions of years, life upon life, resulting in what could be characterized as a tree with increasingly intricate branches as is described in the Nature Microbiology report.
I do appreciate the work and effort it took to classify and catalog the incredible number of genomes we know of today. However, I have a real problem with Darwin’s original idea of a tree of life that these scientists expand upon. The concept is simply not supported by the archeological data we have. A more accurate botanical description of life arising on the planet would be that of a lawn, not a tree.
The fossil record clearly shows life in many forms arising independently, not from some common ancestor. From over 500 million years ago, the data we have from the Cambrian Explosion confirms that many of the body plans present today sprang into existence independently in parallel and in a period of time far too short for Darwinian evolution to have been the mechanism.
If Darwinian evolution was responsible for all life as it proponents assert, then there should be innumerable transitional forms that lead from lesser complex animals to more complex animals, in turn forming the tree of life. However, there is a dearth of transitional forms that have been found. The only confirmed data we have about life is the end of the tree’s branches. The larger connecting branches and the trunk are just scientific inference. The actual archeological data connecting all life forms together is not there and easily should be if Darwinian evolution was really responsible for all life.
What we know for sure is that the fossil record is characterized by sudden appearance and stasis of organisms. Life forms just show up in the fossil record suddenly, fully formed. They exist for a while with minor changes due to environmental pressures (like Darwin’s finches) and then die out. There is no directional progression from less complex to more complex that Darwinism insists on.
So the fossil record is a big problem for Darwinian proponents. The information contained in DNA is an even bigger problem. DNA, contained in the nucleus of cells, is very much like the software that enabled me to type this article and enables you to read it – only it is far more advanced according to Bill Gates. While computers run on a two character language, DNA is based on a four character language and constitutes the instructions for how a cell manufactures the proteins it needs to exist. Without the information in DNA, proteins don’t exist. Without proteins, we don’t exist.
The salient point about the information content in biology is that we know of only one mechanism capable of generating such complexity – a mind. And materialistic scientists avoid this conclusion at all costs. Evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin states that a majority of scientists will not consider an intelligent origin for life because “…materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door”. I thought science was about a search for causes wherever the data leads. Clearly that’s not true in the world of highly politicized science today.
We’ve seen this before. At the beginning of the last century, science assured us that the universe was static and eternal. However, through Einstein’s theoretical work and Edwin Hubble’s empirical data, it became clear that the universe had a beginning a finite time ago. Scientists then had to face the fact that there was a cause of the universe beyond time, space, and matter/energy with obvious theological implications. They’re still fighting those implications today.
Now the information foundation of biology again is pointing clearly to a Creator yet so many try to suppress this truth. The apostle Paul describes this clearly in his letter to the Romans. He teaches how men will suppress the truth, their thinking then becomes futile and they descend into depravity. Yeah, I think I’m seeing that.
November 5, 2015
Now that Ben Carson is leading in some national polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, the left is beginning to sharpen their attacks on the former neurosurgeon.
This week, Fareed Zakaria, the CNN news host, conducted an interview with famed atheist and evolution pundit, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins who has written such best sellers as “The God Delusion” and “The Selfish Gene”, is the face of modern atheism today and is one of the leaders of the “Brights” movement, you know the really smart people whose proclamations frame the liberal worldview today.
Zakaria asked Dawkins to comment on the fact that all but one of the major Republican candidates believe that humans were created and were not the result of natural selection acting on random mutation, i.e., Darwinism.
Dawkins replied, “This is not something you believe in or not. I mean, this is a fact. It is a fact. It’s just as much of a fact as the Earth goes around the Sun. You can’t not believe it unless you’re ignorant.” He did soften his remark some by saying that the candidates may be stating that belief because that is what their constituency believes and that was depressing in itself.
Dawkins though singled out Ben Carson for more focused criticism and called his belief in creationism especially troubling. While the rest of the field espousing creationism is a disgrace, Dawkins asserted that a distinguished neurosurgeon holding such beliefs is far worse, because, “evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.”
Well yes indeed, biology is the bedrock of medicine but evolution has been rendered junk science based on what we now know of the fossil record and of the information content of all biological life.
We now know that the fossil record documented in the Cambrian explosion which occurred some 542 million years ago, shows that most of the major body plans around today came into being in a period of time far too short for Darwinian gradualism to have been responsible. Gradualism is the foundational principle of the evolution Dawkins espouses and this FACT refutes its validity.
While Dawkins has to acknowledge the information content of biology, he narrowly makes the point that DNA similarity between species means that we all came from a common ancestor. However he ignores the other possibility that it may mean that all species have a common designer. Engineers reuse software all the time for different devices. The very same principle could apply to biological life. Whatever you do though, do not ask Dawkins where the information came from in the first place; he’s liable to lose his blood pudding right there in front of you.
There is a bigger issue at hand though. There are two fulcrums that the Marxist left is using to undermine Western Judeo-Christian culture. The first is indeed that human life is the result of Darwinian evolution. The other is that through man’s pursuit of freedom and prosperity we are causing calamitous damage to the climate. Therefore, through evolution, the Marxists are able define who we are. Through global warming, they are can now define how we should live. It’s a complete worldview takeover and it is succeeding.
And key to the success of this diabolical strategy is the necessity to co-op science and coax out of it whatever supports the Marxists’ goals. Scientists have been seduced by grant money, department chairs, and notoriety supplied abundantly by the left. And the left has used its “Big Lie” machinery to set up scientists as the arbiters of reality, the high priests of all that is. Scientists are now the Marxists’ battering ram designed to demolish the foundational principles of America. The aforementioned Dawkins and former NASA head James Hansen are clear examples.
Because scientists are the bright ones, the educated ones, all debate is shut down. We are admonished to just listen and accept what the really smart people say. If you challenge their orthodoxy then you are labeled a denier or an ignorant fundamentalist.
The mainstream media plays an important role too. They dutifully report and support whatever the latest scientific proclamation is in support of Marxist global domination. They are the left’s attack dogs that pounce on any dissent and belittle those who offer real truth or data opposing the party line, when they really don’t have a stinking clue.
This strategy really started to take hold in the early 1990’s. Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian writing for the American Enterprise Institute in 2010 provided clear evidence of this unholy strategy taking hold. They conducted a Lexus Nexus search of a number of authoritarian scientific phrases used in print media to see how the use of such misleading phrases has risen over the last couple of decades.
The authors searched on the prevalence of such phrases as “science says we must,” “science says we should,” “science tells us we must,” “science tells us we should,” “science commands,” “science requires,” “science dictates,” and “science compels.” The results which clearly show a dramatic rise in the use of such terms can be seen here: https://www.aei.org/publication/science-turns-authoritarian/
Clearly global Marxism has been pounding away at our culture with this technique for a long time and it’s time to wake up and challenge everything the mainstream media is trying to manipulate us with. Get mad America and don’t take it anymore.
October 7, 2015
The debate on man-caused global warming is now over. Yes, the recent action of twenty scientists confirms the fact that dangerous warming of the planet due to man’s capitalistic activities is NOT happening. These scientists published a letter on the Institute for Global Environment and Society (IGES) website, urging President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch to begin prosecution of climate change deniers under provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This is the act originally used by the government to go after organized crime and later was used against the tobacco industry.
Clearly climate change proponents are now throwing in the towel on convincing the public of this hoax and are instead appealing to governmental power to silence dissent. All of the alarming rhetoric, falsified data, and constant drumbeat about the evils of capitalism have just not moved the public to accept the draconian solutions leftists need to consolidate power through this scheme.
I suspect globalist minded politicos have instructed these scientists to make this request of government as a trial balloon of some type. As I have stated in previous writings, the actions of the climate changers are going to get more frantic as we approach the United Nations Climate Change Conference at the end of November. Big global regulatory commitments are projected to come out of this conference.
During my years in engineering, we had an expression that conceptualized what scientific debate was all about: “Data talks and bull crap walks” (I cleaned it up a bit). What we’ve had from global warming proponents in the form of data IS nothing but bull crap.
We’ve had hockey stick charts that show an imaginary sharp temperature rise. We’ve had historical temperature data actually tampered with.
We’ve had global sea ice depletion claims that are totally unfounded. While there has been some decrease in Artic ice, the amount of Antarctic ice has increased more than enough to offset the loss of Artic ice, confounding the global warmers’ computer models. Have you heard about that?
And of course, we’ve had political correctness unleashed labeling any dissenters from the climate change orthodoxy as deniers. The left is still really into shame.
If you have clear data to support your claims you don’t need to legislate opposing views out of existence. Scientific truth will speak for itself. It’s only when you’re perpetrating a hoax that you need to suppress and eliminate opposing explanations.
There’s more at stake though than just having our economy smothered and our monthly power bills double or triple. What if this overt use of government power was used to enforce other irrational and unfounded orthodoxies?
Suppose any dissent to a strictly materialistic, evolutionary explanation to the origin of life became a felony. The argument between evolutionists and the adherents of Intelligent Design (ID) is very analogous to the global warming debate.
Darwinism’s view of man’s origin is integral to the left’s plans for globalization and its need to devalue human life. The overwhelming evidence for ID renders the Darwinian view of the origin of life to little more than a humorous anachronism.
The late Stephen J. Gould, a Harvard evolutionary biologist and staunch Darwinian defender, in a moment of candor stated this: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable not the evidence of fossils.”
So Darwinists are not basing their view on data, just whimsy. They want us to have evolved in an accidental way because it is morally and politically expedient for them. And this is fiercely defended on college campuses today. A professor expressing support for ID has tenure shorter than the half life of a carbon15 atom (about 2 seconds for the non-scientific). For further verification of this, check out Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HErmp5Pzqw.
We could then easily see another group of scientists asking for government prosecution of “Darwin Deniers”.
To perfect society, the left will endeavor to perfect thoughts and opinions. Only certain ideas and concepts are beneficial to the statist utopia. Therefore, many ideas we freely hold and discuss today could become offenses of statist groupthink. Concepts like:
- Life begins at conception
- Objective morality exists
- Men and women really are different
- Profits breed innovation
- Man desires freedom more than security
will have to be eliminated.
Leftist utopia and individual autonomy are diametrically opposed to each other. It is truly a zero sum game. As the perfecting utopian tide rises around us, our ability to live as freethinking agents recedes. Get engaged before it’s too late.
September 11, 2015
Have you had enough of the falsehoods and deceit coming from our societal leaders? The steady stream of what the sophisticated elite call nuance and clear thinkers called damned lies is becoming more than nauseating.
Last week I wrote about the current “Big Lie” – manmade global warming. Every day we get another pronouncement about the horrors of carbon, you know the element all life is based on. Honestly, a fourth grader can defeat this nonsense.
Remember, “If you like your plan, you can keep it”? Tell that to the millions that have had their medical insurance policies cancelled. Of course, Washington bureaucrats have exempted themselves.
How about all those “shovel ready” jobs that turned out to be not so shovel ready?
Then there’s, “I never sent or received any classified emails on my server”. Hey Hillary, orange is the new black!
And one of my favorites, “If you give us a majority in the Senate, we will repeal Obamacare”. We gave the Republicans the Senate and what did they do? They immediately voted to fund every aspect of Obamacare. The scoundrels!
And a blast from the past just to keep things lighthearted, “I never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky”. There is still a sizable part of our population that wants this back in the White House.
I can go on and on rattling more of these off. The point is that these examples of deceit not only damage us in ways specific to the situations they pertain to, but they also tear at the fabric of our civil society. We are lied to every day by those paraded in the media as the ones that really matter. Our cultural foundations are being steadily eroded as a result.
The lies, dishonesty, and immorality we live with today stem from what I believe is the biggest lie of all. This lie has been promoted for over a century and has done more to destroy our culture and our sense of who we are than any other idea in history.
The Biggest Lie robs us of our value as human beings. The Biggest Lie robs us of universal right and wrong. The Biggest Lie robs us of unalienable rights. The Biggest Lie robs us of absolute truth. The Biggest Lie allows us to sacrifice sixty million unborn children and throw out thousands of years of history on what constitutes marriage.
So what is the Biggest Lie? The Biggest Lie is what your children are exclusively being taught in school. The Biggest Lie is what will prevent a college professor from getting tenure if he dares to speak against it. The Biggest lie is what tyrants used to justify the extermination of tens of millions of people in the twentieth century.
The Biggest Lie defines man as simply the result of natural selection acting on random mutations to cellular DNA. This lie says that we are merely the culmination of a long line of accidents and we really don’t have any more value than a bird, a tree, or a snail darter. Coupled with the misconception that there is nothing beyond the physical, material universe, the Biggest Lie dictates that truth and morality become expedient and are defined by whoever has the most power.
There is hope though. The viability of the Biggest Lie is rapidly eroding. All scientists agree that biological life is based on information. The DNA code in your cells is very much like the computer program that is allowing you to read this. However, it is far more complicated than anything man can do at this point. There is only one source we know of that can produce such complexity – a mind.
We now know contrary to the Neo-Darwinist view, that just making changes to cellular DNA will not get you to a new organism. That simply allows for new proteins to be synthesized and will not result in new body plans.
Scientists have recently discovered another vast amount of biological information called epigenetic information contained in cellular structures. This information governs how cells form into tissues and then into organs and new body plans. And to make sure the process of organism growth and development is properly coordinated, scientists have discovered what they call developmental gene regulatory networks. These make sure the right genes in the DNA code are executed are the appropriate time.
The bottom line is that if you are going to develop a new species, you have to change all three of these, the DNA code, the epigenetic information, and the developmental gene regulatory network in a very coordinated way. The odds of this happening by chance are virtually impossible. Stop listening to the anthropologists and zoologists (and politicians) and start listening to what the microbiologists and biochemists are saying.
The point is that the best fit to the data we have is that there is a vast intelligence behind life. This intelligence is not only responsible for the creation of biological information but also provides the grounding necessary for objective truth and morality. It is the source of our unalienable rights. This intelligence made a decision to create and impute us with immeasurable worth.
Our society has become unmoored from the understanding that there is a creator beyond space and time and that He created us for His purpose. The results of this decoupling are all around us.
February 13, 2015
So who’s birthday did you celebrate last Thursday? Most people know that February 12th is the birthday of our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln. He was also our first Republican president but liberals please keep reading.
A lot of people however do not realize that February 12th is also the birthday of another maybe even more influential person in history. Charles Darwin, father of the “theory” of evolution was also born on that day. In fact Lincoln and Darwin don’t just share the same birthday, they were both born on the same day in 1809.
Historians point out that there were a number of similarities these two men shared besides just being born on the same day. For instance, they both lost their mothers when they were young boys, Darwin when he was eight and Lincoln when he was nine.
In adulthood, they both lost young children, Lincoln a son of three and Darwin a daughter at the age of ten.
Neither man achieved any level of success or notoriety until their late forties. Lincoln gained national attention from his debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858 and a year later Darwin became one of the most famous scientists in history when his opus “On the Origin of Species” was published.
While there are parallels in their lives, the lasting contributions these two men made to human history stand in stark contrast.
Abraham Lincoln, of course, held together the union of the United States, fractured over the issue of slavery (though there were other issues like states rights, tariffs, and trade). Lincoln took this nation to war against itself to preserve the foundational principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Another interesting parallel between the two men is that Darwin like Lincoln was a staunch proponent of the abolition of slavery. Darwin felt it was a great curse on humanity.
What’s ironic however is that the very theory Darwin developed lends justification to the slavery he so abhorred. While Lincoln’s worldview saw that all men were of equal value and constituted with a divine spark, Darwin’s theory reduced man to just another animal living by survival of the fittest.
Darwin’s theory eliminated the need for a Creator and in turn by necessity disposes with natural rights, the rights our civil society is based on. Therefore, why treat your fellow man better than a horse or some other beast of burden? If you are the stronger or smarter or more powerful, in Darwin’s strictly materialistic world, dominating whoever you can to get what you want is not only possible but for the increasing viability of the species, desired.
I always found it interesting that Karl Marx was so interested in Darwin’s theory. He and Darwin were quite the pen pals. Getting rid of God the Creator and reducing the intrinsic value of man to no more than that of a deer or Pacific kelp makes it much easier on the conscience to “manage” the proletariat.
The eugenics movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in this country thoroughly embraced the Darwinian model and was seen as the way to preserve and improve the groups already dominating society. Oh yes, survival of the fittest was all the rage in this country before Hitler even put on his first boot.
Over thirty states in the early twentieth century passed sterilization laws to prevent “inferiors” from reproducing. Euthanasia on a wide scale was contemplated though fortunately never implemented.
Of course the aforementioned Hitler later used race superiority and survival of the fittest to fuel and justify the most heinous chapter in human history. And later, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did their best to keep the string going. And there will be others if we allow it.
The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote in his novel “The Brothers Karamazov” that if God did not exist, everything is permitted. There is some dispute that Dostoyevsky really wrote this, but whether he did or not, it is absolutely true. Without God, there is no grounding of morality. Morality becomes what we make of it. Therefore, he who has the power makes the rules, you know, survival of the fittest.
Darwin’s theory is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of wide ranging scientific evidence to the contrary. However, it remains the lifeblood of world politics. It’s the gift that keeps on giving for tyrants.
Darwinism will eventually make its way to the ash heap of history and a better day will reign. Until then, the battle will rage.
January 30, 2015
The New England Patriots head coach, Bill Belichick, is now officially busted in the “Deflate-Gate” scandal. Bill Nye, commonly referred to as “the science guy” has shown through ironclad, empirical data that the weather at the AFC championship game could not have affected the air pressure in the footballs as Belichick claimed. Therefore, watch for severe penalties to be meted out against the Patriots after this Sunday’s Super Bowl courtesy of the science guy.
Of course, Nye could not resist during his rant against the Patriots to admonish us all for not paying attention to a real problem – climate change. And as a science “expert”, lay people like us are not to question Nye about anything he says because well, he’s smart. And like climate change we shouldn’t challenge what Nye proclaims about the origin of life and evolution either.
Nye makes this clear in his new book, “Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation”. The motivation for writing this book came from his debate entitled “Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?” with Answers In Genesis founder, Ken Ham. In the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit that I have not read Nye’s new treatise. However, I did watch the debate and it’s clear that Nye’s position on the origin of life is the common neo-Darwinian view that forms the foundation for secular life today.
Neither Nye nor Ham made a coherent case for their position in the debate. As much as I respect my Christian brother, Ham’s insistence on a six thousand year old earth with its creation in six twenty-four hour days is hurting our efforts to make Christianity a viable alternative for thinking people.
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports a four and a half billion year old earth and this is NOT in conflict with the Bible. The most reasonable interpretation of the underlying Hebrew in the Book of Genesis supports the creation days being eras and not twenty-four hour days. However, with respect to the universe and life being created by a vast intelligence, I am in total agreement with Ham.
Nye on the other hand ignores the overwhelming data pointing to intelligence behind the material universe and instead promotes the life by chance position, i.e., Darwinism. Actually it’s neo-Darwinism that says the vast array of life on this planet is due to random mutations to DNA within cells producing changes in the organism that either improve survivability or decrease survivability.
Darwin apologists today ignore the doubts that Darwin himself had about his own theory. Darwin was very concerned that the fossil record did not support his naturalistic mechanism. If natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for all life as we know it, there should then be a wealth of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Darwin wrote that a severe lack of such intermediate steps between species would essentially negate his theory, but he was sure the fossil record would be filled in as time went on. Well, it hasn’t. One hundred and fifty years later, the fossil record is as sparse in transitional forms as it was when Darwin first published his theory.
There is a bigger problem for Darwinists than the fossil record though. We now understand that all life is based on vast amounts of very sophisticated information. The DNA code is essentially a computer program but far, far more advanced than any program generated by man according to none other than Bill Gates.
We are also finding now that there is far more information in biological systems than just that contained in DNA. Scientists have found a new reservoir of information termed epigenetic information that is contained in certain cell structures and may be more elegant and sophisticated than DNA. While DNA contains the information the cell needs to make the proteins it must have to function, the epigenetic information is what determines how cells join to become tissues and in turn organs and on to organisms.
And to manage this entire process, scientists have identified mechanisms they call developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRN’s). These networks control which genes turn on and when they turn off.
You simply cannot get new life forms by changing one bit of DNA information in the nucleus of a cell. You have to have a coordinated set of changes in DNA, the epigenetic information and the dGRN’s. The odds on this coordination happening in a positive way to produce a more sophisticated life form are so astronomical as to be impossible.
This kind of sophistication has only one cause – a mind. Natural processes do not produce information. Information only comes from a mind and with the complexity and sophistication we see in biological systems, the mind behind it is astoundingly intelligent.
I’d like to ask Bill Nye how the first life got started. Where did the information come from to run the first cell?
The Darwinist premise is kind of like an old Steve Martin joke. Martin would proclaim that he had a sure fire way to make two million dollars. “First”, he would exclaim, “get a million dollars!” The Darwinist argument is highly analogous. They like to talk about how evolution works on life that is already here. They never want to talk about how the first life got started using simply naturalistic processes. I guess they can always fall back to Richard Dawkins’ position – aliens!
December 11, 2014
Last week in a little noticed decision, a three-judge panel in Albany, New York unanimously ruled to deny personhood to a chimpanzee. Yes, a chimpanzee. Tommy, as the chimp is known, lives in a cage under conditions that the animal rights group, Nonhuman Rights Project, argued were essentially that of a person living in solitary confinement.
The group’s lawyer argued that chimps have qualities similar to humans and therefore deserve rights normally provided to humans, like freedom from imprisonment. While this case is a setback for their effort, the Nonhuman Rights Project intends to pursue additional cases in other states.
In a similar case in 2012, a suit was filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) on behalf of five killer whales at SeaWorld charging that the captivity of the whales constituted slavery. Fortunately, the clear thinking judge in that case ruled that the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applied only to humans and dismissed the suit.
Now you might be thinking how wonderful it is to see our courts decide something in a rational manner. However, even though these cases went the right way, there is great danger lurking ahead with this issue.
Animal rights advocates are working hard to find one court that will grant to animals what our legal system calls legal standing. Providing legal standing to animals such as chimps or maybe cows or even chickens would allow lawyers to sue on behalf of these animals for whatever injustices they could creatively dream up. Need a new European supercar? Well, just sue the American Kennel Club for the injustice of keeping the dogs in cages or on leashes at the last dog show.
PETA’s attorney in the orca case indicated that even though the SeaWorld suit didn’t go their way, “progress” was made. Once one court allows such a case to proceed, there will be a stampede to bring others to trial.
In cases of this type, animal rights advocates are arguing for the granting of human rights to animals. However, what really lurks behind this is much darker. The intense desire of the core of this movement is not to bring animals up to human status but to bring humans down to the animal level.
The radical animal rights movement believes that humans are the earth’s biggest enemies. Many argue that the human population should be pared back by ninety percent so that the rest of the animal world has their equal share of the earth’s resources. They proclaim that human life is of no greater value than bacteria and deserves no special status.
Filmmaker David Attenborough sums up it up this way:
“Humans are a plague on the earth.”
This, I believe, constitutes the cultural battleground we find ourselves in today. Are humans exceptional, made in a supreme creator’s image, endowed with unalienable rights or are we of no greater worth than the common house fly? Are we the pinnacle of creation and have sovereignty over it or are we just another one of its constituents of no greater worth? The answer has enormous implications for life as we know it.
I believe Darwinism has played a key role in defining human worth down. It has provided fertile ground for the non-exceptional view of humans to take root. Darwin’s theory of the origin life where we are simply the result of natural selection acting on random mutation removes the need for a supreme creator. We just came randomly from previous life. Humans become just another branch on the evolutionary tree and therefore have no more intrinsic value than a snail darter. By the way, don’t ever ask Darwinists where the first life came from. I have seen dislocated elbows result from their hand waving.
I have always found it interesting that Marxism began to take flight as Darwin’s theory became widely known in the culture. Marx was quite fascinated with the natural selection premise and in a letter to German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle he wrote:
“Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in the natural sciences for the historical class struggle.”
The idea that humans have no divine spark and are just animals plays very well in a totalitarian scheme. How much easier it is to gain and hold power when survival of the fittest is the prevailing mechanism of societal structure. When humans are merely a co-equal constituent of nature, reducing the population is no different that clearing a forest. Starving millions to eliminate the possibility of rebellion is merely prudent.
When we are reduced to animals, do we not then have license to behave as animals do? What happens to the qualities of kindness, altruism, charity, self-sacrifice and honor when we simply occupy one of Darwin’s branches? The view that we are just animals promotes ruthlessness, aggression, and cruelty all in the name of survival. We have seen this repeated many times in history and it appears this new legal route is another indication that our society is headed towards the same destination.