The battle for reason continues in the scientific world of biology. The paradigm of evolution controls the education of students from jr high to graduate school and the media rushes to support the idea without critical thought. In debates with evolutionists, I find a scorn for all things spiritual and these things include decency, kindness, morality, justice, honesty, integrity let alone any belief in the existence of God. Such a blanket statement must admit that many people who seriously believe in evolution have an agenda to debunk a belief in God or to demote humanity to the level of a slug. Many students get just enough evolutionary doctrine to justify their contempt for spiritual things and with it, a general contempt for the sacred, including human life. That scares me.
The backlash from those who were, for some time, baffled as to how science and God could be found at different ends of human philosophy comes from their study of evolutionary claims; and found them wanting. What fascinates me is the scientific understanding of “creationists.” Discovering that the whole story is not being told, most active creationists can easily out-reason evolutionary thought by showing the incredible leap of faith needed to actually accept that anything like Darwin’s form of evolution has occurred. Any motivated student can quickly become a molecular and cellular biologist, ecologists, geologist, even cosmologist sufficient to show that much of what is taught to be fact in evolutionary stories are not at all true. In fact, the literature is replete even with the thoughts of evolutionists who doubt the efficacy of evolution to do what it is said to do.
Today and for the foreseeable future the battle must take place in the education system; the exclusive right of left-wing humanists duped into thinking soup can change into you and me giving enough time. And that scares me. There is a hostility from academia and state and federal agencies against anything sensible that rubs against the evolutionary story. It is this myth that is the backbone of the humanistic philosophy that we are just hairless apes and our existence is a threat to the globe. In such a culture, human life is easily managed through eugenics, government oversight, legislated access to inalienable freedoms and control of the family, religion, and economics. Quite a far cry from the special creation of a Designer who had the intentions of granting the planet to our care. And yes, creationists care about the planet.
Do you find it reasonable to argue that the unborn humans should have no rights to life but a murderer should be protected? Is it reasonable that any kind of human sexual deviancy be given special protection but the nuclear family is investigated and regulated to legitimize parental rights? Is there a purpose to our existence beyond what we can do for the state and should that purpose be protected universally for all citizens? Do people have freedoms that should be inalienable rights to life, to freedom and the pursuit of happiness (unalienable = unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor)?
Fundamentally, the winner of this philosophical debate will determine the future progress and development of humanity as a successful inhabitant of the planet. Evolution and its hedonistic privileges will permeate the culture making lying, stealing, sexual immorality, selective forms of murder acceptable, and criminal behavior excusable on the grounds of “evolution’s experiment.” But any nation willing to accept the sanctity of human life at least in principle if not in faith will legislate against immoral and lawless behavior; securing the freedoms and rights that, in the U.S. Constitution, will give us all a chance to be everything we can possibly become within a society where goodness is recognized and understood. I vote for the latter. I am afraid of the former.