Secular Materialism vs Morality
The secular materialists, including evolutionary psychologists, encourage the abandonment of decency and morality.
Look at some of the perversions of morality that secular scientists are rationalizing these days. It’s reason enough to run these renegades out of town. Usually their bad advice is based on – wait for it – Darwinism.
Study shows women benefit from multiple marriages while men do not (Phys.org). Great; all we need is more broken homes. Imagine women committing adultery in the name of Darwinism, because they heard that it “benefits” their fitness. Well, if a “study” shows it, then who is a preacher to dare speak in the name of the Lord, “Thou shalt not commit adultery”? Notice how the “study” comes from evolutionary “researchers” (presumably more trustworthy than theologians):
A pair of researchers, one with the University of California, the other with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, has found that women in an East African community benefit from multiple marriages while the men seem to suffer.
Even if these “researchers” were somewhat surprised by their “findings” and found them to “challenge evolutionary stereotypes,” the rationalization is all evolutionary. They don’t care. They just want to document what kinds of evolutionary “strategies” work, whether or not adultery has evil consequences for the marriage partners and children. Since they used African villagers as their lab rats for this “study,” where are the progressives decrying this as racist? See also the press release from UC Davis, “In Difficult Times, Having Multiple Husbands Can Be an Advantage.” Advantage to whom? The husband? The children? The moral standing of a population?
Here’s why there should be no gestational limits for abortion (The Conversation). When it comes to worst moral disasters in our time, abortion is certainly among the top contenders. Millions of innocent babies (the majority being girls) have lost their opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Just when pro-lifers are making major gains based on science that pre-born babies are fully human, here comes another secular materialist arguing for abortion all the way up to the day of birth! Erica Millar, a “lecturer” at La Trobe University, gives lame arguments for letting the atrocities continue, such as the notion that ideas of “viability” evolve, and restrictive laws don’t work anyway.
“The Conversation” pretends to a science advocacy site. You can bet that no Christians, pro-lifers or Darwin doubters would be allowed to respond to this horrendous justification for killing human beings. Of the 8 comments after the article, 5 of them say, “This comment has been automatically flagged for inspection by a moderator.” Did the editor censor pro-life comments? You decide; the three published comments all take a pro-abortion position.
Cannibalism is Common in the Animal Kingdom – Here’s Why for Humans it’s the Ultimate Taboo (Newsweek). Many people would consider cannibalism one of the most outrageous evils and degenerate practices possible, the work of primitive headhunters and ignorant savages, or moral perverts like Jeffrey Dahmer (who confessed that because he was taught Darwinism, he felt life had no purpose or rules, so it was OK to kill strangers and eat them). But in Darwinland, no taboos can last long. The belief that humans are mere animals leads evolutionists to think that if caterpillars, spiders and some mammals eat their own kind, it must OK for people to do it, too. Think of the extra protein you could get in cannibalism, following the example of some chimpanzees, who sometimes “cannibalise unlucky rivals, usually infants, seemingly for the mere opportunity of some extra protein.” Why, think of all the money the army could save by not having to stock food supplies on the battlefield! Is that what they are thinking?
But animal behavior makes a poor model for human behavior. Dogs eat their vomit and rabbits eat their dung. Many animals use mimicry to deceive. Dominant males of predators and scavengers often push away the young and the weak so that they can eat first and get the best parts. If these two psychologists want to use animal behavior to justify human behavior, why do they stop at cannibalism? Do they endorse the fittest males stealing food from the poor? People resist other people who act like beasts. It is precisely because they do not stoop to the level of animals that the wise and noble among us are honored.
In their article, Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie, both evolutionary psychologists in the UK, try to clarify that they do not “endorse” cannibalism. They just think there’s no good evolutionary reason for the taboo. And they come awfully close to encouraging it. In a copy of their article on The Conversation, they say:
We suspect that we could adapt to human flesh if need be. Many people develop disgust for all kinds of meat, while morticians and surgeons quickly adapt to the initially difficult experience of handling dead bodies. Our ongoing research with butchers in England suggests that they easily adapt to working with animal parts that the average consumer finds quite disgusting.
They relate instances of historical cannibalism, such as in New Guinea. Completely absent from their rationalization for cannibalism is any mention of God creating humans as exceptional beings to be honored above the animals. Rather, they dispense with such notions as being mere opinions we could get over if we wanted to. See also 18 Dec 2016, where Live Science favorably reviewed a book on cannibalism that rationalized it based on the fact that animals do it.
These three recent news articles illustrate the theme of Jerry Bergman’s book, How Darwinism Corrodes Morality. Accompanying that eye-opening book, The Darwin Effect also shows how Darwinism is far more than a “scientific” theory trying to explain the living world. It is a wholesale ideology and religion—one with very real and pernicious effects for individuals and civilization. Two other books on this subject worth reading are Darwin Day in America by John West, and The Long War Against God by Henry M. Morris, Jr.
The Bible mentions instances of cannibalism in times of great duress, such as in long sieges when people were starving to death (e.g., II Kings 6:24-33), and as one of the terrible curses for disobedience (Deut 28:15 ff). It is always described as an unspeakable horror, never rationalized as an option or a good source of protein, like the evolutionary psychologists describe it. How can anyone even think of turning evil into good? The Jesus Law of Science (Matt 5:17-18) explains what is going on: “every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.” Spiritually speaking, healthy morality begins at the root. Darwinism is an evil root that brings forth a tree with evil fruit. That scientists today can even think of such evils reflects the moral relativism that has justified other evils. We repeat our parable of “Cannibal Rights” below to show how numbed to morality people’s consciences can be come, when ideologues use the media to manipulate a culture.
On a positive note, a wonderful thing is happening in Fiji. This former kingdom of cannibals is turning to Christ via learning about creation, and the people are responding with joy and exuberant fulfillment. Creation speaker and activist Bruce Malone (26 Nov 2017) tells the amazing story of how the creation message is having a profound positive effect in Fijian public schools, with permission from authorities. Not already drunk on Darwine, the school administrators, officials and students are responding enthusiastically to God’s word, rejoicing to have left their dark past far behind. The beneficial effects on their culture are very evident. If you sign up for Malone’s newsletter at Search for the Truth Ministries, you can get more information, and watch videos about the power of God’s word to transform a society for the good.
Now, for a parable on how indoctrination, repetition and euphemism can make evil good, and good evil. It may look similar to other movements going on around us. Prophetic, even.
The Future of Cannibal Rights
A satire on the moral decay of modern society
by David F. Coppedge
First it will be something kinky on Jerry Springer that college students find amusing, then the practitioners will be seen as victims, who cannot help the way they were born. Some scientific journal will report a potential health benefit, and a psychology journal will conclude that it is harmless, and actually has positive social effects in some populations. Someone will find a gene for cannibalistic propensities.
The ACLU will support a test case of cannibalism for medicinal use; defense attorneys will argue that it is no different in principle from using fetal tissues or embryonic stem cells for medical treatment. Cannibal Rights groups will arise, with marches on Washington; these will be reported compassionately by the media, making people sympathetic for this new class of the oppressed; the “religious right, ” by contrast, will be the bad guys. A ranting protestor, who will be labeled a fundamentalist Christian, will be shown delivering hate speech to a mild, nicely-dressed cannibal. Commentators will complain that the members of the religious right always want to shove their values down other people’s throats (but some will try to respond that they want to prevent other material from going down their throats).
The Discovery Channel will sanitize the history of cannibal societies, portraying them as healthier and better adjusted than stressed-out, obese Americans; after all, it was Christian missionaries, whose exaggerated and biased reports gave cannibals an undeserved negative reputation. Celebrities, gradually at first, will become more open about their private cannibalism, from I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it, to I tried it once when I was young, to Only a bigot would try to stop someone from doing what he or she feels is best for their own health. Actors will out each other. Cable companies will offer the Cannibal News Network, late nights at first, then prime time. This will be followed by Cannibal History, Cannibal Gourmet and Cannibal Planet.
Slogans like “Eat the one you love” and “You are what you eat” will be seen on backpacks and locker doors of public school children, who will have attended required presentations by visiting cannibals brought in to describe their lifestyle under the banner of diversity and sensitivity. Nose bones will become chic on campus. Pretending to gnaw on another’s arm will be funny at first, then a sign of affection. Laws will by then have incrementally reduced penalties for cannibalism except in the most violent cases. Readers of best-sellers will be shocked at first, then amused, at great historical figures that were alleged to have had cannibalistic tendencies.
Cannibals will take on a new label, “Sweet,” to overcome any lingering prejudice about cannibalism. Sweet Rock will become the hottest trend in music. Some over-zealous right-winger who can’t take it any more will bomb a Sweet Barbecue, and this will become a cause celebre for the Sweet Rights movement. There will be no end of replays on TV of the shocking incident (the cameras will avoid, however, the looters picking up on all the newly-distributed body parts). In response to this deplorable act, harsh new laws will be enacted against those who protest or obstruct Sweet events. Conservative politicians will get nowhere unless they express moderation on the Sweet Rights controversy and support cannibal privacy laws. It will be considered marginally tolerable for a conservative to say, “Well, though I disapprove of the practice myself, I’m not one to judge what someone does in the privacy of their own home.” Liberal politicians and celebrities, on the other hand, will be grand marshals at the Sweet Pride Parades.
The U.N., with a strong contingent of representatives from cannibal countries, will have been harshly criticizing America for years on this issue. Europeans will wag their heads at how intolerant the Americans are, and some will refuse to do business with the U.S. until it grants full civil rights to the Sweet People. Finally, the Supreme Court will find a right to cannibalism in the Constitution, and it will become a hate crime to speak out against it.
Supermarkets of the future will be amply stocked with “Sweet” products, attractively packaged, USDA-approved, and microwave-ready. Public service announcements will encourage partakers not to use black market products, which might contain disease, but only to purchase through legitimate approved sources, including flesh farms where genetically-modified (GM) brainless bodies are grown under sanitary conditions, and clinics where volunteers can submit their bodies for consumption. The benefits of clean cannibalism will be advertised: recycling, less need for valuable cemetery land, and healthy spare organs for those on waiting lists. Consumers will feel a little better if they see labels certifying that the contents contain no leftovers from Christian executions in totalitarian countries. Though everyone thinks bigoted reactionaries are deplorable and deserve condemnation, capital punishment is still taboo among civilized societies.