first_img“Romance, schmomance,” snarls the title of press release on EurekAlert from the Association for Psychological Science.  “Natural selection continues even after sex.”  Not only is natural selection driving the mating process in humans, in other words, but it continues even down to the level of sperm cells competing to reach the egg.  Instead of love, caring, tenderness, soul bonding, or any kind of spiritual values, this article is all about nit and grit.  Grungy descriptions of body parts and processes present the evolutionary picture as all competition and conflict, a “coevolutionary arms race between the sexes.”  Natural selection is even used to explain lustful feelings, sexual performance, rivalry, jealousy and infidelity: e.g., “the human male may want to copulate as soon as possible as insurance against possible extra-pair copulation.”  Happy Valentine’s Day, sweetheart.    Darwinism’s propensity to destroy traditional views of eros extends to agape as well.  Beginning with Darwin, evolutionists have wondered how unselfish love and self-sacrifice could have come about by natural selection.  Only humans appear moved to compassion and charity with distant people not of their own kin.  Convinced that these behaviors have a material basis, evolutionists propose selection-based explanations in the scientific literature regularly.    One such view was summarized on New Scientist in December by Richard Fisher.  Altruism is costly – sometimes with one’s life, ending all chance of passing on one’s genes.  How, then, could the gene for altruism be passed on?  While recognizing that “The origin of human altruism has puzzled evolutionary biologists for many years,” Fisher suggests that “Humans may have evolved altruistic traits as a result of a ‘cultural tax’ we paid to each other early in our evolution, a new study suggests.”  Maybe that’s like the joke about the lottery being a tax paid by people who are bad at math.  It seems a little stretched to picture Mother Theresa acting out behaviors that early apes developed as pawns of their selfish genes.    The possibility of anything beyond blind forces of natural selection producing the appearance of selfless love never enters the equation in these papers.  Both Nature and Science the week of Dec. 7 included book reviews and articles that dealt specifically with altruism and cooperation – none of them entertaining in the slightest way that real love had anything to do with it.  To these evolutionary biologists, human behavior was just a more difficult problem of the same nature as that of honeybees, and subject to the same equations: for example, Samuel Bowles wrote,1 “This study investigates whether, as an empirical matter, intergroup competition and reproductive leveling might have allowed the proliferation of a genetically transmitted predisposition to behave altruistically.”  Happy Valentine’s Day, world.    Oddly, these same scientists and mainstream journal editors do not hesitate to preach the need for scientific “ethics.”  This is usually after a major scandal, or public distrust of research threatens funding for embryonic stem cells, cloning or human-animal chimeras or whatever.  For instance, the editors of Nature Jan. 18 got downright preachy,2 encouraging scientists to lead by example with high ethical standards.  “Everybody likes a good scandal, and there is nothing like a fresh allegation of research misconduct to set tongues wagging in the scientific community and outside it,” the editorial began.  It ended with the following call to righteousness:A respectable level of ethics training for all postgraduate students is an important element of this.  It needs to be introduced at all research universities – alongside stricter rules on record-keeping, and arrangements for protecting whistleblowers, where this is missing at the national level.    But most important of all, as the first scientific studies of the factors behind good conduct confirm, is the example set by senior researchers themselves.  It is here in the laboratory – not in the law courts or the offices of a university administrator – that the trajectory of research conduct for the twenty-first century is being set.The wording carefully avoids the value-laden word morals, substituting more-nebulous and less-judgmental words ethics and good conduct.  It hints that there are biological studies of “good conduct” that play into society’s support for science.  These editorials, however, usually fail to define what good is, or why an independent researcher should subscribe to a relative ethical standard when the referred-to studies on human cooperation allow for a certain number of non-cooperators to succeed.1Samuel Bowles, “Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism,” Science, 8 December 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5805, pp. 1569 – 1572, DOI: 10.1126/science.1134829.2Editorial, “Leading by example,” Nature 445, 229 (18 January 2007) | doi:10.1038/445229a.So Tinker Bell just shot Cupid.  Folks, this is where the rubber meets the road in the battle between the Darwin-Only-Darwin-Only DODOs and the noble and altruistic Visigoths.  If you are repulsed at the ugliness of the wreckage left in the wake of Darwinian thinking, thank God: you still might have a soul.  We shudder at the criminal mind that will torture a child without any sense of right or wrong, and even get a perverse delight out of it, but how does that differ intellectually from what the Darwinists say about love?  They have done worse than rob it of any meaning, value, purpose and virtue.  They have turned altruism into selfishness, purity into dirt, and tenderness into conflict.  No wonder we are raising a generation of sex-crazed young people looking at a meaningless existence and deciding it’s all about me, me, me and what my selfish genes make me do.  Never before has selfishness been given complete license by a world view as it has by Darwinism.  It has made selfishness the ultimate virtue, justified by science.    There are three things you need to understand about the Darwinian explanations for love and altruism that rob the DODO heads of any credibility, and make them worthy of the utmost scorn and adamant opposition.The evidence is against them.  Here they are, 148 years after Charlie wrote his little black book, still trying to figure out “what is this thing called love?”  How long do you give a scientist time to scratch his head before the head is worn away entirely?  A decade perhaps?  Maybe two?  How many miles on the wrong road do you let a scientist take the wheel before demanding he ask for directions?In their view, nothing is good.  They cannot be allowed to call anything good, ethical, right, correct, moral or worthwhile, because those words are not in the Darwin Dictionary.  Don’t let them plagiarize Christian words; they need to be consistent and use their own.  St. Paul can write a lofty, elegant paean to agape in I Corinthians 13 because within the Christian world view, love is real.  In Darwinland, by contrast, love is an illusion, and with it, all descriptions of it are illusory as well.  They cannot speak of love as if it has some immaterial and immortal existence.  To them, it must be nothing more than a phantom produced by a certain configuration of neurotransmitters undergoing particular rearrangements in response to stimuli.  It is an artifact, an illusion, with no epistemic status.  We must slap their hands when they borrow Christian words.  We must laugh at them when they hug or weep.  We must take disinterested notes in our white lab coats when they are indignant over evil.  Only by forcing them to live in the prisons they have constructed for themselves can we offer them the possibility of repentance for what they have done to the greatest word in any language.Their view is the death of science.  The Darwinist materialists try to exempt themselves from the human race.  From their ivory towers in the air, they pontificate to the rest of us about what makes us tick.  Like gods in their own eyes, they know what is real, what is empirical, and what constitutes knowledge that is universal, necessary, timeless, and certain.  We need to unmask them and let them look in the mirror.  If humans are pawns of natural selection, then nothing is universal, necessary, timeless and certain.  Even if something in the world is universal, there is no way that a material object like a scientist could know that.  Science, therefore, under their own presuppositions, becomes impossible.  Yet, a critic counters, many atheists are doing good science, aren’t they?  Yes; but only by stealing from Christian presuppositions.  Stop the welfare and they will starve.    It is a basic principle of logic (without which all reasoning is impossible) that any self-refuting proposition is necessarily false.  It is also axiomatic that a philosophy cannot be arbitrary or inconsistent, else one could prove anything.  Since Darwinist ontology, epistemology, and moral philosophy is self-refuting, it is necessarily false.  Since it is arbitrary and inconsistent, its postulates are incapable of logical proof, including the postulate that science can provide knowledge about the external world.  A Darwinist cannot reason within his own presuppositions.  He cannot, therefore, be a scientist.  He cannot know anything.  He cannot be sure that his sensory impressions correspond to reality.  His actions must be considered products of blind selective pressures.  As a mere product of selfish genes and memes that are using his body and brain to reproduce, he cannot claim to be interested in Truth, or to know it when he sees it.  Science is impossible in this world view.It is only by forcing these materialists to face the consequences of their presuppositions that we can offer them a life preserver, provided they drop their Darwinian millstone and embrace a Christian world view where love and science are real.  (They can only grab onto it if they have some trace of unseared conscience left.)    Experience shows, unfortunately, that Darwinists are often incorrigible.  Forced into this logical corner, many of them do start acting consistent with Darwinian values: i.e., they go on the attack, resorting to conflict, competition, and survival of the fittest.  If you observe this behavior, you understand now what is happening.  Unable to reason their way out of their dilemma, they snap, snarl, and use all means to seize power and shut up their opponents.  So be prepared for a fight.  There is such a thing as a good fight.  One does not have to descend to the immoral tactics of the enemy, but should work to prevent the enemy from destroying himself and everyone else.  It’s the cop’s struggle against the sniper shooting victims at random.  Sometimes this kind of fight is the most loving act in the world.    So, happy Valentine’s Day.  St. Valentine gave his life as a martyr.  He was an altruist.  He did the most un-Darwinian thing: he valued truth and love over passing on his genes.  He followed in the footsteps of Jesus, who said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”  Undoubtedly this happened to Valentinus because he confronted the dogmatists of his day and refused to bow to their false gods.  What the world needs now is love, tough love.  If you have it, show it.  Don’t allow destructive philosophies to wreak their havoc without a good fight.Recommended Reading:  C. S. Lewis’s novel That Hideous Strength is as timely today as when he wrote it at the end of World War II.  Lewis’s complex story, interweaving numerous themes, cannot be adequately summarized in a few words; we hope this feeble attempt at describing one of the themes will interest those unfamiliar with it to read the novel in its entirety.  A modern, liberal couple begins with a selfish, shallow view of love and sexual relationships.  They find through a horrendous experience with a monstrous scientific institution that its overt materialism is really just a cover for a deeper evil.  When the deeper evil is revealed and overcome, their discovery of true agape love ends with another discovery: that eros, in its soulish context, is also real, rich, and beautiful. (Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img