Creationist Wisdom — Example 87

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Darwinism leads to the devaluing of human life, which appears in the Springfield News-Leader of Springfield, Missouri, nicknamed “The Queen City of the Ozarks.”

We’ll copy most of today’s letter, omitting the writer’s name and city, and adding our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs.

The letter-writer begins by announcing that he’s responding to this earlier letter by Charles W. Hedrick, a professor at Missouri State University: God isn’t revealing public miracles. Then he says:

If you continue down the road with Dr. Charles Hedrick, here’s where you’ll go:

Scientific materialism and Darwinism (Charles Darwin, theory of evolution proponent) have negatively impacted theology and biblical studies by fostering a sense that the Bible is unreliable and that miracles are impossible (thus Dr. Hedrick’s view).

Surely that’s enough reason to reject “Darwinism.” But our letter-writer has only begun. Let’s read on:

Charles Darwin’s ideas devalue human life. For Darwin, the theory of evolution had a host of negative implications for mankind and for society: First, Darwin denied any concept of free will. Second, he believed that morality was “ultimately determined by reproductive success” and that morality could thus change in any way that ensures survival. Third, Darwin understood that his theory degraded human dignity.

As Captain Marvel used to say: Holy Moly! We continue:

A large part of the “Descent of Man” was made to argue that humans are not unique nor special. Darwin claimed that “there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.” Further, Darwin argued that his theory explained why men of different races showed a disparity in mental abilities. Also, he wrote that human society was doing itself a disfavor by saving the weak members of society and letting them breed.

Multiple problems here — far more than we have time to chase down — including out-of context quotes, misunderstandings, and pure distortions. For example, how could Darwin simultaneously say that human races are mentally different, if he’s also saying our minds are the same as those of the higher mammals?

If you search for that quote, you can find it here, in Chapter 2 of Descent of Man. It’s where Darwin famously says that there’s virtually no difference between the minds of savages and civilized people. He then spends a lot of time discussing brains, a poorly understood subject at that time, and he said that all mammalian brains have more or less the same functions — sensory perception, maternal instincts, etc. Our letter-writer finds this offensive.

Here’s more:

Darwinian denial of free will led courts to treat criminal behavior as a disease because people cannot help doing what they are programmed by evolution to do.

Criminals are running loose because of Darwin! Moving along:

Concerning family life and human sexuality, Darwin argued that monogamy was useful for survival in 19th century Britain, but he admitted that marriage customs could change if necessary for survival. More recently, some Darwinists have even approved child molestations based on this principle.

Aaaargh!! Darwin and child molestation! That’s a new one. Another excerpt:

Darwin’s concerns about allowing the weak people in human society to breed led to the development of eugenics, a term coined by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton. This man also developed this practice of improving the human population by controlled breeding. Darwin’s reasoning has also been used to justify abortion.

Darwin the abortionist — what a letter! As for eugenics, we’ve previously debunked that here: Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin.

And now we come to the end:

It is very evident that many of these secularist/materialistic ideas are contained in the health care reform proposed by Congress. But, how many of these ideas are held by most Americans? Not by many of my friends and neighbors!

[Writer’s name and city can be seen in the original.]

Wow! Our letter-writer concludes by blaming Darwin for the health care legislation now in Congress.

That guy Darwin — he sure did cause a lot of trouble.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

8 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 87

  1. From the letter: “Darwin denied any concept of free will. ”

    You owe me a new irony meter. If anything it’s those clowns who say that “Darwinism” devalues life who deny free will.

  2. This whole ridiculous bs about evolution leading to eugenics seems rather silly when people at AiG state that lying to Nazis to save Jews is unbiblical:

    http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/creationist-murdering-jews-may-be-preferable-to-lying-to-prevent-the-murder/

    Such hypocrisy!

  3. Sigh. These would be more fun if they weren’t the exact same schpiel every single time. We get that you think Darwin and everything with him is evil. Now why don’t you guys try to explain what was motivating the evil BEFORE Darwin and you might actually have to think about something.

  4. LRA says: “Such hypocrisy!”

    You think that bothers creationists?

  5. Albanaeon says: “These would be more fun if they weren’t the exact same schpiel every single time.”

    In general, yes. But they’re all slightly different. I’m always finding new versions of their lunacy.

  6. Yes, the “child molestation” gig seems to be a new one. In November, Jonathan West of the DI was quoted by the Baptist Press as saying “Concerning family life and human sexuality, Darwin argued that monogamy was useful for survival in 19th-century Britain, but he admitted that marriage customs could change if necessary for survival. More recently, some Darwinists have approved of child molestation based on this principle, West said.”

    West uttered these completely unreferenced and unsubstantiated remarks at a recent creationism (DI-sponsored) conference at the SW Baptist Theological Seminary, which included such nottables as Stephen Meyer.

  7. Cheryl Shepherd-Adams says:

    Yes, the “child molestation” gig seems to be a new one.

    Notwithstanding that the characteristics of known molesters doesn’t suggest a connection to evolutionary biology.

  8. And of course, the columnist seems to have plagiarized the report from the Baptist Press.

    One might be surprised that the Springfield, MO paper didn’t check for this blatant copying.