Look no further for disproof of Darwinism than the horrid fruits of believing in it.
The God of the Bible told Moses and the prophets that the pagan practice of child sacrifice was so horrible, it never entered his mind (Jeremiah 7:31). It was one of the reasons that Canaan was vomiting out its inhabitants, He said, as he forbade His people to commit such evil (Leviticus 18:24-30, Leviticus 20:1-5). Leave it to evolutionists to say that human sacrifice can be useful! In Nature, a group of evolutionary psychologists thinks “Ritual human sacrifice promoted and sustained the evolution of stratified societies.” They’re not alone in their complicity of rationalizing a universally recognized evil. In the same issue of Nature, Philip Ball justifies this, explaining “How human sacrifice propped up the social order.” Then, Ball compares Mayan priests ripping out live hearts to the American death penalty as a kind of human sacrifice ritual (see Association Fallacy). Would he say that about Hitler or Stalin? On top of all this, the evolutionists blame religion for human sacrifice! “Whilst evolutionary theories of religion have focused on the functionality of prosocial and moral beliefs, our results reveal a darker link between religion and the evolution of modern hierarchical societies.” But wait—if it evolved, why is it dark? Maybe Live Science will bring some sanity to this evolutionary reasoning. Nope; their coverage repeats the same self-contradictory fallacies; it evolved, and it’s religion’s fault.
One might think scientists are above the moral evil of human sacrifice, particularly of child sacrifice. One would be mistaken to think so. The Big Science journals and their secular reporters are “all in” for sacrificing human embryos (which they call fetuses, instead of babies), to their secular god, science. The answers are usually based on pragmatic philosophy. Live Science tells its readers all the good that fetal tissue research does. But in what other context is it justifiable to kill a healthy person to save a sick one? Nature uses the Zika virus crisis to justify “controversial” fetal tissue research, failing to explain why killing babies is the only way to work on the problem. When else was that a justification in the history of medicine going back to Hippocrates and Galen? It’s a new rationale that arose after Darwin changed the world, turning humans into just animals.
Chinese evolutionists are stepping on themselves to be first to use the new CRISPR/Cas9 tool to edit human embryos. Nature, in a rare show of ethical queasiness, warns that this violates an international moratorium on the practice. But they’re complicit with the Chinese, continually supporting embryonic stem cell research like this example in Nature Communications. As for using CRISPR to edit embryos, New Scientist is all in favor of it. Cutting up human embryos for their stem cells is so common, Science Daily treats it as just another humdrum news item where progress is made from time to time. (Note that there is an ethical difference between killing embryos for their stem cells and implanting stem cells into an unborn baby to heal it from genetic disease; Science Daily’s article is about the former.)
We’ve reported before how evolutionists and the Big Science institutions that promote DODO policies are overwhelmingly pro-abortion (9/27/15, 4/14/15). They support Planned Parenthood, the abortion mill founded by the racist, eugenicist and evolutionist Margaret Sanger, even to the point of justifying the sale of baby body parts as exposed by last year’s undercover videos. While abortion is not linked to Darwinism directly, it becomes easier to justify if man is just an animal. Natural selection and survival of the fittest, furthermore, promote individual selfishness, in this case the selfishness of the mother and the “sperm donor” who put their own needs (or wants) over the life of the child inside her. In addition, John West documented, with damning source quotations, how abortion supporters have long appealed to Ernst Haeckel’s phony “recapitulation theory” (which Darwin loved) to argue that the fetus is not really a human being (see Darwin Day in America, ch. 14-15).
What gets interesting is when sex-selective abortions are on the rise. This tends to twitch the consciences of evolutionists, but on what grounds can they oppose it? Secularists already wink at abortions for Down syndrome babies (Science Daily) and those who might get microcephaly from the Zika virus (Science Daily), so why not for the wrong gender? New Scientist reports that this “ethically thorny” situation is on the increase in Canada, of all places, usually among immigrants from cultures that prefer boys to girls. Breitbart News exposed the extent of this problem, claiming that the real “war on women” is sex-selection abortion. Some 200 million girls have been aborted on purpose, a human rights group found, amounting to a literal “gendercide.” Guess who justifies a bill intended to put a stop to gender-specific abortions? “The bill is being opposed by abortion-giant Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other abortion-rights groups.” You can put most evolutionists into the “abortion rights” category. One can almost hear them justifying sex-specific abortions as an evolved behavior for some kind of fitness benefit. And why not, if morality is a phantom, produced by evolutionary pressures on human psychology? New Scientist quotes a Cornell law professor giving the logical response from a Darwinian worldview on the issue of sex-selection abortion: “If you think women should have the right to choose, I wouldn’t get worked up about it.”
“If we’re not careful, epigenetics may bring back eugenic thinking,” Maurizio Meloni (U of Sheffield) worries on The Conversation. In the 1920s, he recounts, “Those seen as unfit to pass on their genes typically included people with mental or physical disabilities” till such practices fell “increasingly out of fashion after World War II” when Hitler’s atrocities came to light. Yet now in our time (as Meloni shows with examples) people in certain racial and economic classes are being judged as having bad genes. The new science of epigenetics gives some who forget history occasion to call for the eradication of “poisoned inheritance.” Meloni completely ignores the Darwinian mindset that was behind the original eugenics, preferring to speak in politically-correct buzzwords like “social justice” and “progressive, liberal and inclusive social policy.” Can this distortion of history prevent a recurrence? Darwin’s own half-cousin, Francis Galton, was the father of eugenics. Meloni gives his readers the false assurance that, “Today, we generally are educated about the dangers of eugenics.” Are we?
To Be Continued