Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Survival Of The Fittest

I’ve been reflecting on a comment a friend made recently regarding evolutionist beliefs. Although I did come close to hitting on the same point in another post, what this friend said was profound (at least it seemed so to me).

If you do not believe that God is the maker of all things, that “it is he that has made us, and not we ourselves” (via evolution or any other means), then consider the following. Part of the evolution doctrine is the so-called “natural selection” (aka “survival of the fittest”). Many evolutionists that I’ve spoken to claim that this dictates that the strongest, most domineering should be what survives. Such a belief would treat moral integrity as a weakness. So let me ask you, if you believe that survival of the fittest should be devoid of anything dealing with moral code, do you think that

      1.       Laws that place people in prisons should be abolished because we are just acting like the animal we are?
      2.       Society should just save money and allow injured and ill ones to just die? (After all, they are the weak ones, aren't they?)
      3.       Science should cease spending millions (if not billions) on disease prevention? (Also, there are known potentials for strains of viruses that are lethal to man, not to mention genetically engineered chemicals and substances. If these viruses wipe out segments of human population, isn't that just survival of the fittest--the brainless viruses being the fittest and mankind being the weak?)

When such thinking is taken all the way down the road, the folly of it is demonstrated. I've heard evolutionists say that chaos and violence have been in nature and human society since day one and it is change that drives evolution. If so, why try to stop violence? The fact is most of the laws governing social structure are not based on science and logic but rather on moral codes—our perception of right and wrong. By evolutionist thinking, human sense of morality is attempting to establish order in the chaos. Oh no! We're fighting against our own further evolution! (Obviously, such reasoning is designed to show the absurdity of superficial evolutionist thinking.)

By the way, I am using the terms “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” as espoused by the majority of those claiming to adhere to those tenets. In actuality, those terms were not intended to be used that way, as explained by this Wikipedia article.

But some might challenge me: “Wait a minute! Are you claiming that you don’t believe violence has always been around? What about our very own sun? It is a demonstration of violent explosions.” While current science holds that the material universe was the result of massive and even multiple explosions, there is also beauty, uniformity and control. Although the scale is much smaller, think of a controlled explosion we call the internal combustion engine. Intelligence, not random evolution, is the maker of that engine. Likewise, such control can be witnessed in the physical universe. Paul used a similar line of reason regarding the building of houses. Today both brute force and power tools are used, including hammers and pneumatic nail drivers, both of which emit loud “bangs” when used. But it is all a controlled use of energy. Some phases of house construction may seem to be in disarray but to the intelligent minds that are making it, they know it will all come together into the house they envisioned.  Truly, as Paul further reasoned, it is inexcusable to make any other conclusion but that God made (likewise through the use of controlled energy) the physical universe. Just because the magnitude of that power is immense (from our small & limited perspective) does not mean it is not under control.