Skip to main content

Darwinism’s True Colours?

It turns out that a teenager who killed seven students and one adult at a school in Finland claimed his inspiration came from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Describing himself as "a cynical existentialist, anti-human humanist, anti-social social-Darwinist”, Pekka Eric Auvinen declared, "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection."

A pretty shocking interpretation, but it’s by no means the first time Darwin’s theory has been taken to that kind of extreme. It was Darwin's cousin Francis Dalton who developed the idea of eugenics – the genetic improvement of the human race by selective breeding. This led directly to the Nazi doctrine of Aryan supremacy and all its offshoots; their attempts to breed a 'super-race' of people in human stud farms, the forced sterilization of at least two million people, and ultimately, the holocaust.

The fact is that if you accept Darwin’s principle of ‘the survival of the fittest’, you can't argue with either Auvinen or the Nazis. Anyone can to do whatever they like to better themselves and strengthen their position. If they are smart enough to get away with it, the god of evolution smiles on them.

Evolutionary ideas are good news for the rich and powerful. They are bad news for the poor – in fact, for anyone lacking jungle survival skills! If your interests and gifts lie in art, music, dance or drama, for example, you had better mind your back – there is ultimately no place for you in the world. In fact, there is no place for culture, civilization, morality or the rule of law; far less for honour, compassion, kindness or selflessness.

It’s dog eat dog and every man for himself.

If Darwin was right, most of us are in big trouble…

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Robbing The Poor To Feed The Rich?

Now that cuts in spending seem to be on the agenda of all the main political parties, the big questions still to be answered are: how much? And where will the axe fall? According to a recent poll by Ipsos MORI, published by the BBC ( http://bit.ly/d168R ), the most popular candidate with most people is overseas aid. That’s not really surprising. It’s understandable that during severe financial crisis most people want our government to look after our own affairs first. Charity, as the saying goes, begins at home. But is it really right for the poorest nations of the world to be penalised for a crisis that was brought on by the rich? The developing world already spends $1.3 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants (Source: World Centric, http://bit.ly/b5C7f ). Every day at least $100 million flows from the poor of the world into the pockets of the rich. Existing problems like drought and famine will not go away just because there is a worldwide recession, and the poor are mo...
2 comments
Read more

A God Who Reaches Out

Years ago I was guest speaker at a conference of a group of churches in a remote part of SW Uganda. One of the delegates I met there had walked for a couple of days to attend, sleeping out in the bush under the stars, and drinking water from whatever muddy pool he came across. I've been back several times since, but I've never forgotten the remarkable dedication of that one individual. It's been widely acknowledged, and I've written here previously, that the universe seems to speak to us of an architect - a creator of everything we see around us. If that's true, it would require similar dedication on their part for us to have any chance of knowing and understanding them. The innumerable religions and concepts of God that we find around the world today, not to mention throughout history, and the many other theories of origins, are testimony to this. Left to ourselves we are incapable of figuring out definitively, to everyone's agreement and satisfaction, who or w...
Post a Comment
Read more

God the Omnipotent and Stupid?

One of the questions you will often hear raised about God goes along the lines, "If there is an omnipotent God why doesn't he do X?", where X may be anything from stopping wars or preventing earthquakes to curing cancer. Often there is a deeply personal reason behind the question, which makes a purely rational answer wholly unsatisfying. All the same, it's a rational question and some kind of rational answer is deserved. But two things make it a complex question to which no simple answer is possible. One is the extraordinary diversity of the things that 'X' may represent, all of them having different causes with different and completely unrelated solutions. The other is the sole focus on God's omnipotence. Because God, if he exists, must be so much more than just that. There is an old philosophical conundrum on the same subject, of the kind that philosphers love to pose and to ponder. If God is omnipotent, can he create an object so massive that he himself...
Post a Comment
Read more