C DeSalvo
Evolutionists
teach that humans are the products of a long series of natural accidents that
first created life and then improved life over and over again until it produced
us, the human race. We are told that this
fantastically creative evolutionary process evidences: "no design, no
purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference." And evolution has
accidentally endowed each of us with a variety of both good and bad instincts,
and good and bad intellects.
So we are
lectured that evolution has produced us by accident, and therefore we are
living robots that owe all our physical and mental capabilities to this
mindless process called evolution. This
means that every mistake, insult, crime and other bad or foolish thing that we
humans do are not our fault - it's all caused by the accidental
"wiring" of our brains by evolutionary accidents. We should not be angry at others for their "bad"
actions against us, after all, they too are only evolutionary accidents. Other people, society and governments have
no right to punish us for the "bad" things we do because evolution's
accidents have made us into living robots preprogrammed by "nature"
to do various things that aren't inherently good or bad. "Good" and "bad" are
simply labels defined by delusional moralists.
Are your swallowing this “science?”
Let me continue with more atheistic idiocy.
Saddam
Hussein, Stalin and Hitler were not evil.
They were the unlucky recipients of brains that were accidentally
created to prefer doing things that others call evil. There is even evidence that the Nazis thought they were helping
evolution by slaughtering "inferior" humans such as the Jews.
Evolutionists
continue pontificating by claiming that what each of us likes, dislikes and
does is the end-result of eons of the blind, mindless evolutionary
process. Yes, evolution has endowed us
with intelligence that sometimes can override accidental built-in emotions and
preferences. But often that accidental
intelligence is too weak or too twisted to overcome our accidental
instincts. Sometimes our intelligence
even is predisposed to support the pleasures and satisfaction that results from
our "bad" natural inclinations to hate, insult, rob, lie, dominate,
torture, rape, seek revenge and murder.
How can we
continue to punish unfortunate individuals who are naively following their
natural instincts when they commit social crimes and moral evil? Aren't the actions of such persons the fault
of their accidental construction?
Infidelity is not your fault.
Evolution forces you to want it.
It is simply one way evolution spreads the best genes more quickly
throughout the human race.
How long
will it be before an adulterer explains to an evolutionist spouse that it was
evolution that made him/her be unfaithful?
How long after that will it be until a crafty lawyer defends his accused
rapist client before a jury of evolutionists with the argument that his client
is only a victim of bad genes; he had no control over his actions -- it's all
evolution's fault; evolution made him do it!
If
evolutionists truly believe that humans are evolutionary organisms that are not
responsible for their actions, that free will does not exist, that humans
should never be blamed nor punished by anyone or any government for their
actions, no matter how reprehensible, then doesn't that situation logically
require that when an evolutionist is personally assaulted, robbed or otherwise
harmed, he will not seek prosecution of the perpetrator? When will such evolutionists begin
practicing what they preach?
If you
think the above sarcastic essay is a false representation of modern
evolutionary theory, read the below note written by the world’s most famous
atheist.
Professor Richard
Dawkins carries evolutionary theory to its logical conclusion in the below
article. He argues that humans are
evolutionary robots, and are not responsible for their actions. Somewhat like a malfunctioning auto is not
at fault for its failures.
Below text
from: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html
RICHARD DAWKINS wrote the following text:
Richard
Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist, Charles Simonyi Professor For The
Understanding Of Science, Oxford University; Author, The Ancestor's Tale
Ask people
why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious
crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence
or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback
for the horrible things he did. Or they
want to give "satisfaction" to the victims of the crime or their
relatives. An especially warped and
disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian
crucifixion as "atonement" for sin.
Retribution
as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human
behaviour. As scientists, we believe
that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made
computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not
punish it. We track down the problem
and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or
software.
Basil
Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John
Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't
start. He gave it fair warning, counted
to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you.
You've had this coming to you!"
He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the
car within an inch of its life. Of
course we laugh at his irrationality.
Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the
carburettor flooded? Are the sparking
plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a
defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist?
Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily
as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King
Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his
bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or
the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing?
Defective education? Defective
genes?
Concepts
like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers
are concerned. When a child robs an old
lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers?
In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is
insanity. Diminished responsibility is
argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame
by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious
genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though
it wouldn't surprise me).
But
doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make
nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle
to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology,
heredity and environment. Don't
judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility
make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
Why is it
that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child
murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty
units that need fixing or replacing?
Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility,
indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian
evolution. Assigning blame and
responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we
construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is
going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all
this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he
beats his car. But I fear it is
unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.