Saturday, April 15, 2006

Ain't Nothin' But Mammals?

Hi All! I'm back! Took a mini spring break vacation and didn't have access to a computer for a few days. I have so much blogging to catch up on! Lots of great new articles to share as well as my Good Friday/ Easter post coming up later today.

For now, I'd like to share an excerpt from a book that I plan to read. This article is adapted from Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey. It recently appeared in the periodical called Biola Connections.

One of my passions is exposing the fraud and social implications of Darwinism and how the specific belief in macro-evolution can lead many people away from belief in God.

There is much at stake in the theory of origins battles that we are hearing about in the news. The impact of social Darwinism ultimately leads to the destruction of morality and the false concept that there is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will. This brief article touches upon such errors in thought and demonstrates why origin of life issues and debates are so crucial for every thinking individual to examine for themselves. The so-called "evolution is fact" mantra repeated by the scientific elites is crumbling under the weight of the frauds, fallicies and misconceptions that have been misguiding people for over 150 years.

In my opinion, the "materialism only" views of evolutionists has attempted to continue to stagnate the "origins of life" field of study. It is time for Intelligent Design and Creation to be studied alongside Darwinism. It might take a few more years (and probably lawsuits), but one day the stronghold of neo-Darwinism will be broken. The rewards for this will not only be felt in the scientific realm of thought and discovery, but also in the sociological realm that affects and steers us towards God as our Creator. The result will be that more people will discover much more meaning in their lives. They will realize the moral and ethical implications of their own existence, and that the free-will choices we all make in this life ultimately affects where (and with Whom) our souls will spend eternity.



The Beastly Boys

Darwinists Say: ‘You’re
An Animal So Act Like One’

In the past, it was Christians who warned that Darwinian evolution would ultimately destroy morality, by reducing it to behavioral patterns selected only for their survival value. Back then, evolutionists would often respond with soothing reassurances that getting rid of God would not jeopardize morality — that “we can be good without God.” But in recent years, evolutionists themselves have begun bluntly declaring that the theory undercuts the basis of morality.

For example, biologist William Provine of Cornell travels the lecture circuit telling university students that the Darwinian revolution is still incomplete, because we have not yet embraced all its moral and religious implications. What are those implications? Provine lists them: “There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will.” Thus evolutionary psychologists are simply completing the Darwinian revolution by drawing out its full implications. They are connecting the dots, by showing what consistent Darwinism means for morality.

The results can be quite abhorrent. A few years ago, conservative commentators around the country gave a collective gasp when an article appeared by a Princeton University professor supporting — of all things -sexual relations between humans and animals. The professor was Peter Singer, already notorious for his support of animal rights. (Apparently we didn’t realize what kind of rights he meant . . . )

The article was titled “Heavy Petting,” and in it Singer makes it clear that his real target is biblical morality. In the West, he writes, we have a Judeo-Christian tradition” that teaches that “humans alone are made in
the image of God.” “In Genesis, God gives humans dominion over the animals.” But evolution has thoroughly refuted the biblical account, Singer maintains: Evolution teaches us that “We are animals” — and the result is that “sex across the species barrier [isn’t that a scientific sounding euphemism?] ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.”

These sentiments do not remain carefully contained within academia, but trickle down into popular culture — where they have a much greater impact on the public. In 2002 a play opened on Broadway to rave reviews called The Goat, or, Who Is Sylvia? featuring a successful architect who confesses to his wife that he has fallen in love with someone else. The object of his affection turns out to be a goat, named Sylvia. Apparently, playwrights no longer feel that they can get enough dramatic tension out of an ordinary affair; to really create drama, they must probe the theme of bestiality.

A culture is driven by a kind of logic: It will eventually begin to express the logical consequences of the dominant worldview. If evolution is true — if there really is an unbroken continuity between humans and animals — then Singer is absolutely right about what he calls “sex across the species barrier.” Once again, all the dots connect back to your view of origins.

In another example, a few years ago a song by a group called the Bloodhound Gang soared to number 17 on Billboard’s top 200 chart. It featured a catchy refrain punched out over and over again: “You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals; so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.” The video featured band members dressed up as monkeys in antic sexual poses.

Back in the 1940s, Alfred Kinsey, himself a committed Darwinist, said the only source of sexual norms for humans is what the other mammals do — whatever fits within “the normal mammalian picture.” What Kinsey stated in academic jargon half a century ago is now showing up in punchy rhymes for teenagers.

And not just teenagers. A friend tells me he heard two young boys belting out a song while playing in the park, and as he came closer he could make out the words — “You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals.” The boys were only about eight years old.

Nancy Pearcey is a visiting scholar at Biola University’s Torrey Honors Institute and is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, where the focus of her work is on the cultural and philosophical implications of the evolution controversy. Her book, Total Truth, won the 2005 Gold Medallion Award from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association in the “Christianity and Society” category. Other books she has authored or contributed to include The Soul of Science (Crossway Books) and the bestselling, award-winning How Now Shall We Live? (Tyndale House Publishers).

Adapted from Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, (c) 2004, pps (213-215). Used by permission of Crossway Books, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187,


Christinewjc said...

The pope stands up for morality and righteousness in his Decadent world is in the grip of Satan message.

Christinewjc said...

More evidence of the bizarreness of equating animals on the same par as humans, claiming that they should have the same "rights" as humans.

PETA manages to insult and blaspheme the solemn reality of Christ's death on the cross for our sins (PETA'S members too!) in such a shameful and degrading way in order to use it for their crazy political and social agenda. As the article states, PETA "hijacks religious rituals and institutions in an attempt to impose its stated philosophy of 'total animal liberation.'"

Christinewjc said...

Ha! This article is right on target with what I have been saying for years. I really liked the conclusion:

"The McGill applicant was furious. Evolution, he said, needs no evidence. It's fact. Apparently Harvard University doesn't quite agree with him. The Boston Globe reports that Harvard has begun an expensive project to discover how life emerged from the chemical soup of early earth. In the 150 years since Darwin, says the Globe, "scientists cannot explain how the process began."

The most sensible letter came from a research scientist. "I think that the current paradigm of evolution by natural selection acting on random variation will change," he writes. "I think that evidence will accumulate to suggest that much of the genetic variation leading to the evolution of life on earth was not random, but was generated by biochemical processes that exhibit intelligent behavior."

Then he urges me not to disclose his identity. Saying this publicly would threaten his getting tenure, he fears. Galileo would understand."

Bwaaakkkk! What a chicken!

Christinewjc said...

Another Fishy Missing Link

Just love that title!