Happy Birthday Chuck and Abe

Happy Birthday Chuck and Abe

Monday, February 16, 2009

Two centuries ago on February 12th, 1809 two very prolific and influential men were born. Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. Yes, interestingly, they both shared the same birthday.
But when it came to worldviews, they couldn't be farther apart.
One believed we came from a Divine creator. The other believed we came from a lower order of animal. Today, these two philosophies carry with them very different implications, very different understandings. Abraham Lincoln believed in a Christian based creationism of compassion and mercy, Divine in origin, understanding that "... all men are created equal." Contrastingly, Charles Darwin believed in the theory of Evolution, bathed in blood, racism, and brutality, free of a Devine moral lawgiver.
Two very different men. Two very different worldviews.
When the Panthera Leo, aka, Lion, tackles a wildebeest and rips its throat out in order to sate its hunger, do we judge such a violent act as immoral? When the Carcaradon Carcarias, Great White shark, rips chunks of flesh from a seal to satisfy its lust for blood and meat do we seek justice for the seal and retribution against the shark? Given the Neo-Darwinian view of the world in which we live, these would of course be stupid questions. Or logically speaking, a non sequitur. For the Evolutionist it's ... just the way it is.
Not so for the Christian.
When asked why this violence plagues our natural world, the Christian has an answer: Sin. Sin gave us such brutality. Original sin. Man's sin.
Now a question for Evolutionist. One of poignant application and weight. A question that when the philosophy of Darwin's idea of 'Natural Selection' is employed, is inevitable and of great import. And that question is this: When Panthera Leo and Carcaradon Carcarias – lions and sharks – are allowed the 'Natural Selection' code of moral vacuity, why is it that suddenly and miraculously, when it comes to Homo Erectus, aka, Man, out of nowhere like the wave of the good fairy's wand, a grave morality of the most powerful vitality suddenly appears?
What's going on here?
On the plains of the Serengeti, when a young lion wanders into a community of fellow Pantheres, he will, if he is stronger, move in, take over the pride, kill all the cubs and rape the lioness. When he does this, he commits no immoral act, he breaks no ethical law of right and wrong. He is simply weeding out the weak, making way for the strong, the more capable, the Naturally Selected higher order of virile males so that the Evolutionary process can achieve its lofty and admirable goal, that of fostering a more supreme group of lions. And we humans, being at the highest level of the animal kingdom, do basically the same thing, do we not? After all, faunal supremacy, according to Darwin, is the mechanism that gave us the world in which we live today. Natural Selection, human supremacy. It's a beautiful thing, say the followers of Darwinian Evolution.
So why not White Supremacy? It worked for the South for many decades.
When the southern states had slavery as a working commerce, it thrived. Those Democrats below the Mason Dixon line practiced that beautiful Evolutionary Natural Selection process that Darwinists are so in awe of here in the new millennium. And it worked! It brought such prosperity as the South has never known before or since. Top of the food chain, survival of the fittest, the white race exploiting the black race. Evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker, speaks of Neo-Darwinism as a beautiful thing. "... the beauty of Darwin's theory of evolution ..." he says, although he may incongruently and irrationally denounce racism. But he shouldn't. He should applaud racism, slavery, savegry, and all other utilitarian uses of people, without regard to some silly adherence to a fictitious moral code. Which brings me to another question: Why did the South stop such practices?
Why, for instance, does one animal's successful participation in the Darwinian fight for survival engender the terms "natural," or "beautiful," yet another animal's very same participation in the very same system garner such terms as "horrific," or "Hitlerian?" Darwinian Evolutionists should admire Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, just as they admire the lion, the crocodile, or the shark. It gets rid of the weak. The species in power gutting a crippled gazelle, good – the race in power gutting a crippled minority ...? According to secular Darwinian Natural Selection that aphorism should be respected and followed, should it not? Why isn't what the Nazi's did in the Holocaust simply a Natural Selective weeding out of the weaker rather than an act of unconscionable evil?
Why did we get angry when we found that Adolf Hitler carried out the extermination of the mentally handicapped, Jews, and Christians in Germany? Under the philosophy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution, we should praise him. We praise as awesome and majestic the Carcaradon Carcarias' – Great White shark's – carnal and predatory actions of preying on the weak, so why not man's carnal and predatory actions in doing the same? The Evolutionist should applaud and admire rape, terrorism, murder, slavery, or any other such opportunistic 'Natural Section' behavior of Homo Erectus that rids us of the burden of the weak.
Let me bottom line it for you: Darwin, with the aid of 'Natural Selection,' led us to Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, abortion, racism, Nazism, Hitler and Genocide. Lincoln, with the aid of Almighty God, led us to the holy land of freedom for all Americans, black or white.
Philosophies bring consequences.
Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day, but each had a philosophy that was an eternity apart. Abraham Lincoln believed that a holy and loving God gave to us the idea that "... all men are created equal ..." with a soul and an obligation to worship his creator and care for the needs of the weak. The Christian believes this to be a true and beautiful thing. The Evolutionist believes it to be a pathetic and delusional crutch.
Charles Darwin, an Evolutionist, believed that a murderous and bloody history of death, destruction, and the killing of the weak for the survival of the strong brought about man, not only un-created, but superior to and advanced in the animal kingdom ... superior, that is – if he is white.
For the Evolutionist, this is an inescapable truth of life.
In stark contrast, Abraham Lincoln, a creationist, believed that God created man in His own image, black or white, and every hue in between, endowed with a soul by his loving and all powerful Creator.
For the Christian this is an inescapable truth of life.
Abraham Lincoln said in his historic document, the Emancipation Proclamation, "And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God." (emphasis mine)
Charles Darwin said in his historic book, The Decent of Man, "Civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate the savage races throughout the world. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (emphasis mine)
Two very different men. Two very different worldviews.
Abraham Lincoln, the Christian, gave us a land where a black man is a man, like all other men regardless of color, created by the providential hand of God, with dignity, with inherent rights, and with a soul. Abraham Lincoln, the Christian, gave us the idea that the black man bears the full and beautiful image of his loving Creator God every bit as much as his white brother. Abraham Lincoln, the Christian, gave us the Emancipation Proclamation.
Charles Darwin, the Evolutionist, gave us "... the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Keck