Caring for the infirm: stupid!

Editor’s note: before reading this article, it must be made clear this this writer does not believe that the human race arrived at its present state through the process of evolution.  He firmly believes that Yahweh has created the human race, given the law through His prophets, and that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.  As such, caring for those in need is important, and he regards all humans as his equals.  It must also be mentioned that by “Darwinism” and “Evolution,” he is not speaking about natural selection and adaption, which all people agree about, but rather the changing of species and the idea that the human race evolved from goo.

Supposing one were to abandon God altogether, deciding that He had no impact upon the universe and that the human race arrived at our present point through naturalistic, evolutionary, and directionless processes, that person could get a pretty firm idea about the universe.  For instance:

1) There is one goal for all organisms, and it is to survive

2) All organisms must die at some point

3) Evolution is the sole universal morality, and that which provides us with success/environmental domination, and even emotions

4) Any other morality exists because humans exist, and are thus abstract inventions which we accept or deny at whim depending on how we feel

And this is what’s so puzzling about modern evolutionists: they pretend that yes, evolution is responsible for our present luxurious and safe state, but that human beings have obligations to certain groups which–according to the evolutionary theory they claim to espouse– shouldn’t be publicly supported.  And if that weren’t bizarre enough, they also expect you to follow along with their “philanthropic gesturing” on the grounds their implicitly subjective morality is universal (the reason for the quotation marks back there is because state-backed philanthropy involves money involuntarily taken from those under threat of violence).  And if you refuse to comply, well, let’s just say they refuse to acknowledge your moral stance as equally valid, even though they already agreed that no such standard exists by which to judge it.

Let us take homosexuals for an example.   According to the theory of evolution, the most evolved members of our ancestry bred and eventually produced us, giving us the capability to increase both carrying capacity and our standard of living simultaneously.  So what of a person whom “evolution” has determined unfit to breed?  According to those most defensive of the theory, homosexuals should be granted the ability to sue those who won’t provide jobs for them, create children through artificial insemination, receive special protection from the state, and adopt children whom they will unavoidably teach.  Few things are as logically inconsistent as this. Even in the case of job discrimination, why would anyone ensure homosexuals more prominent places in industry when the resources could go to someone whom nature saw fit to breed?

The infirm also fall into this category.  There simply isn’t an evolutionary reason to propagate people who not only pass their genetic diseases on to others, but aren’t capable of contributing much to industry.  Yet those most in favor of teaching evolution in schools also widely support “philanthropy” toward the infirm, even though our long-term survival as a race depends upon our select breeding and natural allocation of resources to those who will carry us into the future (or at the very least keep us in the present state). This policy of defending the weak only serves to handicap the race as a whole, something which is arguably unfavorable to all, instead of unfavorable to few.

Racial equality, though emotionally appealing to most, is also something which doesn’t comfortably fit into the modern theory of evolution.  This is because the process of evolution is the only process separating us from the animals, and any portion of any species must at some point have a comparative biological advantage over their other members, making some superior through intelligence, resistance to disease, and social structure.  Americans are allowed to recognize this with finches, but banned from applying the same universally applicable idea to humans. 

As such, the idea that all races are functionally equal in an evolutionary universe is ridiculous, and as no spiritual value exists for the honest Darwinist, it must be argued that some races should dominate the others.  Yet for some strange reason our society mandates social justice, forcefully transferring jobs, educations, and limited resources solely based on the contradictory idea of racial equality.  Adding more curious behavior into the mix, those who adopt such a logical conclusion of Darwinism are quickly excommunicated from the realm of “scientific legitimacy.”

In light of Darwinism, philanthropy through the state is the most clear and present danger the modern person could face, as it forcefully allocates resources from the strong to the weak, and propagates childbirth from those incapable of contributing.  If the evolutionary process is the most powerful and rewarding force the natural universe has to offer, bringing us to our current state of leisurely existence, it would seem that a radically libertarian ethos would be most useful in a evolutionary sense.  Anything other than that may have the appearance of egalitarianism, but would ultimately serve to eventually harm the human race as a whole.  Once again, who should suffer?  Some, or all?

Displaying Darwinian ideals most clearly and consistently, the renowned scientist James Watson stated that we were about to enter an age in which a parent would be able to genetically remove defects from their children, one defect he recognized as homosexuality (even though the American Psychological Association has now reversed its stance regarding the “gay gene,” admitting its nonexistence).  As most remember, the uproar among liberal scientists was so loud that Watson was forced to publicly apologize for his logical consistency, even though most evolutionary scientists have no reason to support the existence of homosexuality, and abortion is already legal for any reason whatsoever. What sense is this, to be aroused to anger only when the babies involved are homosexual?

So where does this inconsistency come from?  The truth is that human beings were created in the image of God, and given the knowledge of good and evil.  As such, we know that helping those in need and loving our neighbor is the right thing to do, though our makeshift philosophies demand otherwise.  As such, the only real purpose that Darwinism has served is to sever the moral ties between the human race and its Creator.  This is no positive quality, however much Darwin’s fans may suggest it is.  After all, one can easily conclude that defending the truly right decisions in such a world is only based upon emotional diktat, and there is no evil deed committed in the entire universe without having some sort of tangible good in mind. In short, without a solid basis on which to stand, our emotions can take us in any possible direction.

Rest assured that when society has taken a turn for the worst, choosing emotional whim and pleasure over God, natural law, and philosophical consistency, there’s only one direction it’s headed: right back toward ethical primordial soup.  You cannot support a populace with this ethos for long, and one can be guaranteed that if this continues, we will either be conquered or implode.  As such, the decision we as a people must make today is what our foundation for moral behavior will be.  The only problem, as shown above, is that it cannot be Darwinism.

So what shall it then be?

If you abhor the logical conclusions of evolution, but are convinced of its scientific validity, please contact me for information.  I have plenty of legitimate and easily digestible resources available to share, and am willing to point anyone in the right direction.  Also worth noting: they’re free!

This entry was posted on 24. September 2009 at 17:16 and is filed under philosophy, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print