Posts Tagged ‘gentics’
Once again the Darwinists have put their foot in it, so to speak. Here’s an excerpt from a recent column by Chuck Colson:
I don’t get it. What does evolutionary theory have to tell us about the “positive aspects” of genetic defects? More importantly, what does it tell us about the human capacity for altruism and compassion—the very things Dr. Boehm is advocating? The answer is: Nothing.
Dr. Boehm is a classic example of muddled thinking.
Darwin insisted that natural selection would “rigidly destroy” any variation—such as Down syndrome—that would hurt its possessor “in the struggle for life.” As much as we love kids with Down syndrome, it’s impossible to imagine how Down syndrome helps people in “the struggle for life.” Quite the contrary: it’s a variation that, if Darwin were right, should have been “rigidly destroyed” a long time ago.
And clearly evolutionary theory can’t explain the compassion and love that parents shower on their Down syndrome children. If evolutionary theory is right, then the time, resources and energy it takes to raise a child with special needs could be put to better uses: such as raising children who are more likely to strengthen the species.
The late philosopher David Stove, who was an atheist, called Darwinian explanations for altruism and compassion “confused” and a “slander” against man. They miss the obvious fact that man “is sharply distinguished from all other animals by being in fact hopelessly addicted to altruism.”
The “addiction” that Stove talked about is not the product of evolution. It is the product of being made in the image of God.
Now, as you might expect, this is not good enough either for the evolutionists. One person had posted a response and said that Colson ignored ‘evidence’ so that he could jump straight to a ‘goddidit’ explanation. He put a link to an essay by one Eric Strong called ‘The Evolution of Altruism.’ Here’s how Mr. Strong explains altruism (in part) in nature:
Since b and c are always positive, and N is always greater than 1, we can immediately see that selfish individuals will always have more offspring within a given population than altruistic individuals. A specific numerical example is shown below using a hypothetical population of 100 individuals in which half are altruistic and half are selfish. N’ is equal to the total number of individuals in the next generation and p’ is the proportion of A-type individuals in the next generation.
Look, I make no secret about the fact that those numbers are absolutely meaningless to me and, I suspect, most people (except for Dan and Jon) who will read them here or there. But what do they prove?
He concludes this way:
Altruism is one of the great mysteries of social behavior in animals, as it appears to contradict our understanding of natural selection. Even one hundred years after the birth of Darwinism, scientists are still continuing to debate the causes and effects of altruistic behavior. Whether the mathematical models of group selection, the instinctive qualities of kin selection, or the trusting attributes of reciprocal altruism, are the prime explanations of the development of this behavior is still largely unknown. In the end, it will probably be found that it is the combination of all three possibilities that plays a significant role in the natural world.
Or, could it be that as creatures made in the image of God, at least in humans, we have been given just a bit of that divine character? Could it be that we learn how to love by being loved, by witnessing love? I agree with Colson, whatever the case, that it has something to do with our being made in the image of the One who is supremely loving, kind, and compassionate. I don’t think altruism just happened by chance. But you see, for the atheist, for the evolutionist, there has to be a natural history of everything. (That’s why they can write books titled ‘The Natural History of Rape’ and get away with it. It’s scientific inquiry, after all!). So, when we do bad things it’s not because we are morally defunct, corrupt to the core, or, worse, sinners. No, for the evolutionist its because we have, somehow, had our genetic code altered in some way by our environment. And when we do the right thing its, well, there’s a mathematical formula to explain how we came to be so.
“We love because He first loved us,” 1 John 4:19.
There. I have presented two sides of the argument. I have examined the evidence on both sides. I still disagree that evolution is wrong and a lie.
PS–I wonder how many other ‘natural history’ stories we can find on the internet? Hmm. “A natural history of twinkies.” “A Natural History of Rape.” “A Natural History of Human Sexuality.” “A Natural History of Love.” Are there any others?