Evolutionary Thinking and ISIS Atrocities

As we have seen here many times, the evolutionary worldview cannot account for morality. Someone was brutally murdered, and compassionate people react in horror. If evolution were true, there would be no point in that. There is no free will, we're simply controlled by our chemical impulses. Why should one sack of chemicals care about what happens to another sack of chemicals?

When an anti-creationist cries, "Unfair! Censorship! You're a bunch of liars!", he's appealing to a transcendent morality. The same with the Darwinist who complains about murder, genocide and atrocities, as in both cases, they are tacitly admitting that their worldview cannot account for morality, it is not truly livable, and they cannot justify outrage — when they actually have it. The biblical worldview is the only one that is coherent and can account for morality, and these people are actually standing on our worldview.

Instead of taking action at ISIS atrocities, leaders who are steeped in evolutionary thinking have responses to ISIS that are mediocre — and dangerous.

Unfortunately, since evolutionary "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" thinking have taken such hold in society, there is actually very little attempt to deal with vicious ISIS killers, especially when they are committing murders of Christians. Evolution is a foundation for the religion of atheism, so it should not be that much of a surprise that some vile atheists actually applaud the deaths of Christians such as "Ian" in this comment; we "deserve" it (and no, this is not an isolated instance, I've seen it in other places). This is tolerance and rational thinking in action, right? Not hardly! This is corruption from sin.
What will it take to turn outrage into action, if genocide won’t? Destruction of antiquities? What would Darwin do?

Never Again

80 years after a decade of appeasement empowered genocidal dictators, it seems to be happening once more. Many countries, including America, have given half-hearted attention to genocidal actions by ISIS: mass beheadings, crucifixions, population displacements, enslavement, and more. The Islamic terrorists have also been on a Nazi-like campaign to gain territory, with only a tepid response. But now, they’ve really got the UN upset because of the videotaped smashing of antiquities in Iraq, and more recently, the bulldozing of the ancient city of Nimrud. Megan Gannon reports on Live Science that the destruction of antiquities has been declared a “war crime” by the UN. But what are they going to do to stop it? Other priceless antiquities throughout ISIS-controlled territories are now at immediate risk.

Meanwhile, National Geographic (an organization one would think would be outraged the loss of priceless artifacts) published a surprisingly lukewarm description of the destruction, as if to say, “How sad, too bad.” (Compare with statement from the Oriental Institute.) No one seems willing to attribute the blame to Islamic ideology, although Nat Geo’s article by A. R. Williams does mention “Islamic militants” a couple of times. If there was ever a justification for the UN to intervene and put a stop atrocities, why not now?
To read the rest, click on "ISIS Atrocities: Does Outrage Evolve?"