Note: As you read this side-by-side comparison, keep this very important caveat in mind. Most people in this country believe quite strongly in the moral conclusions which flow from a Creation view. Many of them also believe in Evolution. The point of this comparison is that holding Evolution as a historical view of the origin of human life most naturally leads to a set of moral conclusions which are radically different from and incompatible with those which lead naturally from a Biblical Creation view. Rather than having a debate about the factual merits of either claim in a historical sense, I think it's very useful to look at it from the standpoint of implications. If we really embrace Evolution and then are willing to follow that through to its moral and political conclusions, we find ourselves arriving at an abominal conclusion. For this reason alone, I believe we should embrace a Creation view. What most Americans do here is straddle the fence, embracing Evolution as a factual theory but then embracing (most) of the Creation moral system. But if the conceptual foundation for that far more desirable moral system evaporates, then it's no longer intellectually honest to keep those conclusions.
To give one example, there is a rather infamous article (Why Men Rape, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2000) in which rape is explained and justified as an evolutionary adaptation that not only isn't wrong but actually makes sense from a gene-propagation viewpoint. Now the article's authors (and every other person I've ever met who believes in evolution) deplore rape, and the article's intent is to clarify the origins of rape-inclincation so that it can properly be treated and prevented. But a more natural observation is that they are right and there isn't really any good reason for us to abhor rape, except that we embraced a religious perspective which condemned it. So, we have three choices on this particular issue:
1. Fully embrace Evolution by applying it consistently to our ethics by endorsing rape,
2. Partially embrace Evolution and yet refuse to apply it consistently to our ethics by remaining opposed to rape without a logical ground for that objection.
3. Embrace Creation and oppose rape as a violation of God's Will and the dignity of women made in His image.
People who oppose religion regularly try to put us in the position of having to accept the most unappealing implications of our other intellectual commitments. I think it's only fair to require the same thing of those who offer an alternative worldview to religion. Do most ordinary people who believe in Evolution accept its moral implications? Of course not. Not even core of ardent academic advocates for Evolution do so? Why not? Because the conclusions are abominable. But this dogmatic refusal turns out to be one of the very best reasons to reject Evolution in the first place.
One other observation. When the implications of Evolution are presented this way, the theory's defenders scoff and offer theories about how Evolution might actually work to create the current morality we enjoy. What they never seem willing to notice is that the morality we all want to believe in is inseparable from the religious backstory given to justify it. If religious morality is an Evolutionary adaptation to benefit society, then religion itself is an Evolutionary adaptation to benefit people. But it's not enough to believe this half-heartedly the way someone who views it AS an adaptation would. For these things to work, we have to REALLY believe them deeply AS IF they are real. Hence, Evolutionary theorists should pretty much just stop proclaiming their theory (which underminse the beneficial impact of religious thinking on ethics) and let our beneficial religious adaptations do their thing. There's just no clean way of keeping their theory and also keeping the real benefits of Biblical Creation morality.
With these notes in mind, here are the two theories compared concerning their most natural ethical implications.
Evolution view of the nature of human life
1. Animals with reason (degree/kind)
2. Random, accidental
3. Value by skills, strength
4. Some are worth more than others
5. Genetics, environment, programming
6. No purpose
7. Improving over time (Cavemen)
8. Can’t have knowledge
1. Entirely separate, soul, morality, God’s image
2. Designed, planned
3. Infinite individual value regardless of skills
4. All are equal
5. Free will
6. Purpose
7. Getting worse over time (Early men were smart)
8. Can have knowledge
Comparing Evolution and Creation on a variety of concepts.
Human Rights
Evolution—Myths, there’s only strength
Creation—Real things, protect the weak from strong
Life
Evolution—Common, not special
Creation—Unique and precious
Marriage
Evolution—Social arrangement, myth
Creation—God’s designed purpose for us
Family Structure
Evolution—No formal structure
Creation—Parental authority, nuclear family = building block of society
Clothing
Evolution—For warmth, only functional
Creation—To cover nudity, why we’re against pornography
7 Day week
Evolution—Why not something other than this?
Creation—Essential. It’s the foundation of time, beneficial
Knowledge
Evolution—Still guessing
Creation—God defines Truth, revealed despite our limitations
Government
Evolution—Control animals, do good
Creation—Limited, with authority in certain areas, prevent evil
Population
Evolution—Scarcity, Zero-Population-Growth is a goal
Creation—Abundance, be fruitful and multiply
Purpose of life
Evolution—Nothing, live and die
Creation—To glorify God, there is a purpose to everything
Sex
Evolution—As much as possible, no rules, anything goes
Creation—A blessing within marriage for a purpose
Morality
Evolution—At best, no rules at all, at worst, being vicious is good, might makes right.
Creation—Give, serve, be kind, follow rules and principles
Environment
Evolution— Animal rights, environmentalism, they are as precious as we are, ironically not at all, also.
Creation— We have dominion with responsibility
Science
Evolution—Just a silly game we play
Creation—Discovering the rules God built into the universe
Soul
Evolution—Nope
Creation—Real, the actual basis of human identity
Afterlife
Evolution—Nope, enjoy life now
Creation—Accountability, Eternal destiny
Races
Evolution—Each race is different, and racism makes perfect sense
Creation—All equal because all from Noah. No races.
Who has really taken the ideas of Darwin seriously?
Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Castro. Foundation for communism. People are animals.
Hitler--Kill off inferior races
Malthus, Jacues Cousteau and Ted Turner—abortion, cut down reproduction, scarce resources
Education
Either it doesn’t matter and we shouldn’t teach it or it does matter and we should discuss how so.
If you teach kids they are animals and then they act like animals, should you be surprised?
"Why not teach them both theories and let them decide for themselves?" They're kids! Plus, the prior question is whether it really matters, back to the dilemma above.
What if they started teaching that Jesus never lived or wasn’t resurrected as a scientific fact in school?
“That to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of opinions which he considers abhorrent is tyranny.” Thomas Jefferson
Implications for Christianity
Creator, Accountability, Sin, Death, Blood sacrifice, Cross, resurrection
If not created perfect, don’t need atonement
Paul, Jesus were fools for believing in Genesis.
Authority of Scripture, Bible is a lie, no need for Jesus to die
God—stupid, incompetent, vicious, liar.
Why would you want to believe in this theory? Advocated by people who hate religion.
“Makes atheism respectable.” Icthus bumper stickers.
How do you separate the mythology from the hyper-accurate detail in Genesis?Education and parental obligation—introduce to God.
No comments:
Post a Comment