If You're Violent, Blame Evolution

By -
Although everything was created "very good" (Gen. 1:31), there has been much violence in the world after the fall of man (Rom. 5:12, Gen. 4:8 and 6:11). It has even been a spectator sport, such as in the Roman Coliseum and its modern offshoots in several competitive sports. This is a product of our sin nature (Gal. 5:17-22, Eph. 2:1, Col. 3:5), but naturalistic thinking is attributing it to common-ancestor evolution.
Darwinists are giving people excuses for violent behavior (without evidence, of course) and ignoring the real cause.
Fight With Cudgels, Francisco Goya, 1820-1823
There's a passel of evils that can be traced to evolution, such as "Social Darwinism", the Nazi legal system, "scientific" racism, eugenics, abortion, and other horrors. Now we can blame evolution for the violence inherent in our systems based on more evolutionary speculations? Not hardly! Last I knew, people are supposed to be responsible for their own choices.
The implications of saying violence is a product of natural selection are disturbing.

 Lethal violence is rooted deep in our animal ancestry, says Mark Pagel in Nature. “Researchers estimate that the incidence of human lethal violence at the time of the origin of our species was about six times higher than for the average mammal, but about as violent as expected, given our great-ape ancestry.” Well if researchers say it, it must be true, right? The researchers are from Spain, with their Nature paper titled, “The phylogenetic roots of human lethal violence.” Phylogeny is code for universal common ancestry by natural selection, i.e., neo-Darwinism. Pagel makes that clear:
To find out what Pagel said and finish the article, click on "Violence Is Natural, Darwinians Say". 
 

Popular posts from this blog

Evolution and the New Atheo-Fascism

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen A large difficulty in researching and writing this article is that of definitions. It is important to have precise definitions when people can understand words and concepts in different ways 1 , and this article involves words with various meanings and connotations. There has been a noticeable increase in vitriol from the so-called "new" atheists (often followers of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Shermer, Nye, Krauss and others) and from evolutionists toward Christians and creationists. (I am making distinctions here because not all evolutionists are atheists, and not all Christians are creationists.) Some of us speculate that adherents of the religion of atheism 2 ,which has evolution as one of its cornerstones, feel threatened because evolution's flaws are exposed by Intelligent Design and creation science. This battle is not simply intellectual, but also spiritual. From a biblical Christian perspective, atheists realize that God e
Read more

Discerning Fake Science

By -
Image
Unfortunately, I have to keep gnawing on this bone: scientists are people, too. They make mistakes and have biases. As such, they are not the impartial arbiters of truth and science that many people believe. Many want to do science, others manipulate data for their own agendas. Since nobody is a blank slate and everyone has some kind of bias, it follows that nobody is completely impartial. Try to present creation science materials to atheists and other evolutionists, they often cry, "But that's biased! Those liars for Jesus are trying to convince us of their views!" Brilliant, Sherlock! Doesn't everyone want to present an argument to convince others of their point of view? Also, the ad hominem  is entirely irrational — not only from it being a logical fallacy, but also because biblical creationists serve a holy God who requires righteousness and hates lying. To say that we are lying to get others to believe in God is utterly vacuous. As mentioned several times before,
Read more

Misotheists Dehumanizing Christians and Creationists

By -
Image
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen  Making fun of an institution through satire and parody can be found throughout millennia to illustrate perceived absurdities of belief systems. These are used for various targets, but the most common seem to be political or religious.  C. Richard Dawkins ridiculing Ray Comfort, image credits: Flickr / David Shankbone ( public domain ), modified with FotoSketcher So why attack individuals instead of ideas ? It seems like practically everyone does it. Just ask the uncool kids in school. This is far beyond satire or persuasion . A quote commonly (but probably erroneously) attributed to Socrates is, "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser". This child sees a useful principle in that statement. Although it is common to encounter proponents of atheistic naturalism ridiculing biblical creationists in rallies, books, videos, and so on, it is greatly intensified on social(ist) media. With the option of anonymity, attacks increase with
Read more