CONSEQUENCES OF AN EVOLUTIONARY WORLDVIEW

Posted on by

As much as humanists would like to protest this fact, it was the rise of the evolutionary theory of natural selection, propagated by Charles Darwin and his acolytes, that first began to erode the foundational belief that all human life was inherently valuable. After all, if there is no God, then no one was created in His image. If there is no God, then some people were, by very definition, defective evolutionary accidents. If there is no God, then there is no reason whatsoever to assume that all human beings are valuable and equal. In fact, the very theory of evolutionary natural selection precludes the idea of equality. In the Darwinian view of the human race, equality as anything other than a feeble social construct cannot be possible.

If we’re just “rearranged pond scum,” just animals, just the result of random, chance processes, then why should human life be preserved and protected? Nature certainly wouldn’t protect the weak, vulnerable, and sick, so why should we?

It was exactly that thinking that eugenicists grabbed onto and applied in ways that shock us today. The idea of someone forcibly sterilizing a young couple because someone else decided they were not fit to have children based on their socio-economic status, ethnic background, disability, and so on, does indeed seem shocking. But is our culture today really much different?

We live in a culture saturated with naturalistic, evolutionary thinking—there is no god, we set the rules (determine right from wrong), and we’re just animals. Since this thinking still dominates the West, it’s no surprise that the eugenicist thinking of past generations hasn’t really gone away (even though it became unpopular after Nazi Germany’s atrocities became public)—it’s just morphed into different forms.

Think about it. What is abortion? Well, it’s ascribing less value to a human being based on their level of development and location. It’s applying the idea that we’re just animals and we get to set the rules as there is no ultimate right and wrong. Consider that genetic screening for various chromosomal abnormalities results in the deaths of many children who receive a potential diagnosis (with many doctors pressuring parents in that direction). It’s just eugenics applied to who should be born! Indeed, Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who pushed eugenics based on Darwin’s evolutionary ideas.

Or consider the screenings of babies created in a lab to be implanted in a womb (IVF). These babies in the embryonic stage of development may go through intense screening before a select few are chosen to either be implanted or frozen for potential later use. They can be screened for genetic and chromosomal abnormalities, sex, viability, and more. It’s eugenics applied to reproductive technologies.

Or what about euthanasia? Allowing those who are terminally ill or (in some places) mentally ill, chronically ill, disabled, elderly, etc., to choose to end their own lives is a form of euthanasia—“These people deserve to live; these don’t.” And it doesn’t take long for “can end their own lives” to become “should end their own lives” to become “must end their own lives.”

Apart from God and his Word, there is no foundation for human uniqueness or the sanctity of life. The result of such a low view of human life is always deadly. Worldview matters!

This post was adapted from a blog post, What’s the Connection Between Eugenics and Evolution? on http://www.answersingenesis.org. Ken Ham adapted his post from an article in Life Site News, How atheistic Darwinism Led the West into a Dark Age of Eugenics

DARK ‘SCIENCE’: EXPERIMENTING WITH ‘DISPOSABLE’ UNBORN BABIES

Posted on by

‘eugenics’, meaning ‘well-born’ (from Greek εὖ eu, ‘well’ and γένος genos, ‘offspring’

In the early 20th century, eugenics flourished in the UK, in most European countries, and also in the USA, where over 60,000 citizens were forcibly sterilised.

The Nazis forcibly sterilised some 400,000 mentally and physically handicapped persons, then progressed to the ‘mercy killing’ of almost another 300,000 citizens, and finally proceeded to the genocide of millions of Jews and other non-Aryan ‘unsuitables’.

After World War 2, the term ‘eugenics’ was avoided; however, the concept is still alive and well. In April 2016, the British weekly magazine The Spectator published an article titled: “The return of eugenics: Researchers don’t like the word—but they’re running ahead with the idea, and Britain is at the forefront.”4 In it, author Fraser Nelson points out that in Britain today, using IVF technology, “£12,000 buys you the chance to choose which embryo to implant. And £400 buys sperm-sorting, the better to conceive a boy (or a girl).” And, “Developments in IVF mean that, today, several embryos can be fertilised and screened for disease, with the winner implanted in the uterus.”

Eugenics-is-back

In January 2016, a new biomedical research centre called the Francis Crick Institute was opened in London to begin a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR-Cas9

A group there, led by Dr Kathy Niakan, “was granted consent by the United Kingdom’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to undertake gene editing using human embryos

“Dr Niakan’s team are working with donated embryos left over from IVF treatment, which cannot be used after 14 days and are prohibited from ever being implanted in a woman.” . Proponents glibly claim: “There are no deaths, no sterilisations, no abortions: just a scientifically guided conception.” Incorrect! When a male sex cell successfully unites with a female sex cell, a new single-celled living organism is generated. This immediately starts to multiply and develop until finally a baby is born. It is thus alive from conception, and there is no rational, scientific or biblical reason to conclude other than that it is always a person—a genetically unique unborn person. And therefore it is not to be washed down the drain after 14 days of life in a petri dish any more than a 14-week-old infant or a 90-year-old invalid.

In God’s eyes, the unborn are already unique individuals, as attested by David in Psalm 139, where he writes of how God formed him in the womb, and says (v. 16): “Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.”

Also, societal problems of this gene alteration include that parents may also want taller, smarter, better ‘designer’ babies. But surely if the wealthy are able to specify super-babies in this way, it will only widen the ‘opportunity gap’ between the rich and the poor.

Critics further warn that this manipulation of the genetic code could have unintended consequences that won’t be apparent until after the babies involved are born. And further into the future, the effects of such manipulation on future generations are totally unknown.

Fraser Nelson sums up the current situation well: “So some 130 years after Britain gave the world the idea of perfecting humanity, we are once again at the cutting edge of this troubled science. For good or ill, eugenics is back. Moreover, it is another signal for the Berean Christian that we are in the last days which signals the urgency for completing the Great Commission.