October 5, 2007 | David F. Coppedge

Inca Priests Fattened Children for Slaughter

National Geographic News had a disturbing story from archaeological studies of Inca rituals in what is now Peru.  Studies of hair samples and other features in mummies indicate that the Inca warlords fattened up children for up to a year before slaughtering them.  A team that analyzed the mummies believes that captured children were then forced on a grueling pilgrimage, drugged, and sacrificed to their idols.  One of the researchers called it “chilling” that “the children … were not killed on a whim but were part of a complex process for which they were selected some considerable time before.”  In modern law this is called malice aforethought, but would it be malice in Inca culture?

What kind of world do you want to live in?  One that recoils in horror at such brutality and calls it what it is – evil – or one that explains it away as social evolution?
    At the end of the article, a professor surmised that “the treatment of such peasant children may have served to instill fear and exert social control over remote mountain areas newly incorporated into the empire.”  He said this so dispassionately, it almost sounded sensible.
    A Darwinist can only look at this kind of tribal custom without judgmentalism, because in their world view, evolution is what evolution does.  For the Inca tribe, child sacrifice served a social purpose.  Survival being the highest good, child sacrifice worked to enhance the survival of the population.  Such treatment of children was not wrong, therefore; it was just what this particular tribe found workable in their circumstances.  Who are we to judge?
    Presumably, within the purposeless happenings of Darwin’s universe, a culture could develop selection pressure to torture babies and commit genocide.  They become the virtuous ones, in this kind of thinking; the terrorists are those who try to stop them.  It’s all just mathematics and natural law.  In social evolution, you have the cooperators and the defectors.  Virtue is defined in terms of the cooperators.  No moral judgment comes into play at all.  If you don’t believe Darwinists actually think this way, go back and read these entries: 05/22/2007, 05/17/2007, 04/30/2007 and especially David Sloan Wilson’s discussion of “Virtue Island” from 12/21/2005.
    Let’s extend the lessons of the Incas to our modern world.  Right now, in North Korea, there could be a million political prisoners in concentration camps (see World Net Daily).  The communist regime dispassionately conducts medical experiments on prisoners, finding out which chemicals cause the most rapid and violent deaths.  This is the way Kim Jong Il has found practical for the purpose of instilling fear and exerting social control, and could also provide useful information for his next war.  Take notes in your lab book like a good social scientist and write this up for your next paper.  Ho hum, next case.
    If North Korea were to succeed in using nuclear weapons to kill a million people suddenly, would this be any worse than doing it piecemeal?  Keep reasoning.  If his actions led to a global thermonuclear conflict, in which every living thing on Earth died, so what?  “Well, what do you know, the defectors lost out this time.”  An alien Darwinist watching from another world would just take notes in its lab book and write it up for its next paper.
    We hope there are enough righteous people left, whose consciences have not been seared by Darwinism, to recoil at such thoughts.  Western culture’s Darwin-saturated academia has sworn off any moral judgment.  Within most university departments it would be profoundly inconsistent to call what the Incas did, or what the North Koreans are doing, as evil, because evil is an undefined term.  Strange, isn’t it, that their innate sense of morality pops out in other ways, like attacking the US President and accusing his methods of fighting terrorism as immoral, or expecting everyone to fight global warming as the moral thing to do to save the planet.  Why save the planet?  The Darwinists tell us that selfishness is the basis of everything.  So be selfish.  Who cares if the children are left with the consequences of our selfishness?  They’ll just have to find their own selfish ways to deal with it.
    Jews and Christians believe, by contrast, that evil is the result of selfishness, which is sin – an affront to the Creator.  A cursory reading of the Old Testament (and knowledge of history) shows that what the Incas did is nothing new.  The antediluvian world was filled with violence.  Ancient cultures in Old Testament times routinely engaged in child sacrifice.  The prophets of God denounced these practices as vile and detestable, declaring that such things were utterly foreign to the mind and heart of God.  The Bible teaches that God is redeeming individuals from this evil world one by one, and that evil will come to an end at the final judgment.  In the meantime, fighting evil and rescuing its victims is near to the heart of God.  Righteousness has both temporal and eternal consequences.  Righteousness will triumph.
    So choose the kind of world you want to live in.  If you are a Darwinist, don’t think you can borrow Judeo-Christian moral values.  You must live with the ones you have chosen.  There are no human rights.  Frame pictures of Goebbels and Mengele on your wall.  Go live in North Korea or Sudan and experience the actions of natural selection in all their dispassionate expressions.  Take whatever comes, because what you see is what you get; the stars fade out in the end anyway, and nobody boos or cheers at the end of the show.
    Are you having an unpleasant reaction to those thoughts?  Could it be a clue that there is something more than neurobiological reactions going on in your mind?

(Visited 17 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.