Evolution Theory and Pointlessness
Posted here for 1-5-09

It occurs to me that the only difference between the theory of evolution and creationism is this: for one, everything is without purpose; for the other, everything is with purpose. Evolutionists believe the origin of life -- and everything else -- is just a matter of random circumstance, while those who reject evolution believe life -- and everything else -- is the result of a design.

So, which explanation makes sense to you? That all living things are merely accidents occurring over a period of eons, or that living things are special, and the most special of all is human beings?

If you side with evolutionists, it's easy for your philosophy to lead you to such a conclusion as this: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." That's the logic evolution theory forces you to embrace. Ingrid Newkirk made the statement in 1986. She's co-founder and national director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Note her philosophy does not elevate the status of animals, it denigrates the status of human beings. Of course: all creatures are nothing more than random happenstance. "I don’t believe human beings have the ‘right to life,'" she said.

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, made this statement: "Very often it’s not wrong to kill a child once it’s left the womb. Simply killing an infant is never equivalent to killing a person." Again, if life and existance are nothing but pointless evolutionary occurrences, then such a statement might make sense. (This is the philosophy Professor Singer is instilling in his students.)

"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be granted equal consideration," said Michael W. Fox, vice president of the Humane Society of the United States. The religion of evolution yields this perspective.

In 1973, James Watson, director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and the man who cracked the genetic code, said this: "I think we must reevaluate our basic assumptions about the meaning of life. Perhaps . . . no one should be thought of as alive until about three days after birth. . . . If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice. . . . [T]he doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose, and save a lot of misery and suffering." Such thinking is unimaginable . . . unless life has no meaning, no significance, no value. And that's the inevitable conclusion of those who subscribe to the theory of evolution.

Then there's Margaret Sanger, founder of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. Said she, "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Why not, if we're just helpless, pointless beings, at the total mercy of random, evolutionary influences?

Evolution was considered by Adolph Hitler as scientific justification for his death camps. After all, he was just helping evolution along in its quest for superior human beings. In Mein Kampf he argued that different races have higher and lower values and that his goal was "to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and to demand the submission of the worse and weaker." He said further, "Jews formed a sub-human counter race, predestined by their biological heritage to evil, just as the Nordic race was destined for nobility."

Evolutionists answer the "why" question about life by surmising there is no "why." Everything just happened by accident. Life therefore has no purpose. It has no meaning. It has no substance.

If you convince yourself you are as worthy of life as a barnyard animal, beetle, or begonia, then you've defined for yourself a meaningless existance.