Your session will end in  seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using this web page.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010 | Comments (6)

The naturalist, if he is true to his principles, must ultimately conclude that humanity is a freak accident without any purpose or real importance. Naturalism is therefore a formula for futility and meaninglessness, erasing the image of God from our race's collective self-image, depreciating the value of human life, undermining human dignity, and subverting morality.

The drift of modern society proves the point. We are witnessing the abandonment of moral standards and the loss of humanity's sense of destiny. Rampant crime, drug abuse, sexual perversion, rising suicide rates, and the abortion epidemic are all symptoms that human life is being systematically devalued and an utter sense of futility is sweeping over society. These trends are directly traceable to the ascent of evolutionary theory.

And why not? If evolution is true, humans are just one of many species that evolved from common ancestors. We're no better than animals, and we ought not to think that we are. If we evolved from sheer matter, why should we esteem what is spiritual? In fact, if everything evolved from matter, nothing "spiritual" is real. We ourselves are ultimately no better than or different from any other living species. We are nothing more than protoplasm waiting to become manure.

As a matter of fact, that is precisely the rationale behind the modern animal-rights movement, a movement whose raison d'être is the utter degradation of the human race. Naturally, all radical animal-rights advocates are evolutionists. Their belief system is an inevitable byproduct of evolutionary theory.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is well known for its stance that animal rights are equal to (or more important than) human rights. They maintain that killing any animal for food is the moral equivalent of murder; eating meat is virtually cannibalism; and man is a tyrant species, detrimental to his environment.

PETA opposes the keeping of pets and "companion animals"—including guide dogs for the blind. A 1988 statement distributed by the organization includes this: "As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, [companion animals] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves."

Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's controversial founder, says, "There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. . . . A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (Cited in Katie McCabe, "Who Will Live and Who Will Die?" The Washingtonian, August, 1986, p. 114). Newkirk told a Washington Post reporter that the atrocities of Nazi Germany pale by comparison to the killing animals for food: "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses" (Cited in Chip Brown, "She's a Portrait of Zealotry in Plastic Shoes," Washington Post, 13 November 1983, B-10).

Clearly, Ms. Newkirk is more outraged by the killing of chickens for food than she is by the wholesale slaughter of human beings. One gets the impression she would not necessarily consider the extinction of humanity an undesirable thing. In fact, she and other animal-rights advocates often sound downright misanthropic. She told a reporter, "I don't have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn't be harming anything" (Ibid.).

And the summer issue of Wild Earth magazine, a journal promoting radical environmentalism, included a manifesto for the extinction of the human race, written under the pseudonym "Les U. Knight." The article said, "If you haven't given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. . . . Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental" ("Voluntary Human Extinction," Wild Earth, Vol. 1, No. 2, 72).

That is worse than merely stupid, irrational, immoral, or humiliating; it is deadly.

But there's even an organization called The Church of Euthanasia. Their Web page advocates suicide, abortion, cannibalism, and sodomy as the main ways to decrease the human population. Although the Web page contains elements of parody deliberately designed for shock value (for example, they "advocate" cannibalism with the slogan "Eat people, not animals"—to make the point that in their view the act of eating any animal is the moral equivalent of cannibalism),the people behind it are deadly serious in their opposition to the continuance of the human race. They include detailed instructions for committing suicide.

The one commandment church members are required to obey is "Thou shalt not procreate." By deliberately making their views sound as outrageous as possible, they have received widespread coverage on talk shows and tabloid-style news programs. They take advantage of such publicity to recruit members for their cause. Despite their shocking message, they have evidently been able to persuade numerous people that the one species on earth that ought to be made extinct is humanity. Their Web site boasts that people in the thousands have paid the $10 membership fee to become "church members."

That sort of lunacy is rooted in the belief that humanity is simply the product of evolution—a mere animal with no purpose, no destiny, and no likeness to the Creator. After all, if we got where we are by a natural evolutionary process, there can be no validity whatsoever to the notion that our race bears the image of God. We ultimately have no more dignity than an amoeba. And we certainly have no mandate from the Almighty to subdue the rest of creation.

And if a human being is nothing more than an animal in the process of evolving, who can argue against the animal-rights movement? Even the most radical animal-rights position is justified in a naturalistic and evolutionary world-view. If we really evolved from animals, we are in fact just animals ourselves. And if evolution is correct, it is a sheer accident that man evolved a superior intellect. If random mutations had occurred differently, apes might be running the planet and humanoids would be in the zoo. What right do we have to exercise dominion over other species that have not yet had the opportunity to evolve to a more advanced state?

Indeed, if man is merely a product of natural evolutionary processes, then he is ultimately nothing more than the accidental byproduct of thousands of haphazard genetic mutations. He is just one more animal that evolved from amoeba, and he is probably not even the highest life-form that will eventually evolve. So what is special about him? Where is his meaning? Where is his dignity? Where is his value? What is his purpose? Obviously he has none.

It is only a matter of time before a society steeped in naturalistic belief fully embraces such thinking and casts off all moral and spiritual restraint. In fact, that process has begun already. If you doubt that, consider some of the televised debauchery aimed at the MTV/Jerry Springer generation.


Make a Comment

Click here to subscribe to comments without commenting.

You have 3000 characters remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.

Submit

#1  Posted by Carol Gayheart  |  Tuesday, April 20, 2010at 5:28 AM

“Fascinating, Captain!”

“The naturalist, if he is true to his principles, must ultimately conclude that humanity is a freak accident without any purpose or real importance.”

But, IF the naturalist was really true to his principles, WHY doesn’t he accept that man may dominate simply because man is able? ‘SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST?’ (I guess that’s where the criminal element comes in.) And have those who suggested that “Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental” really followed that thinking to its rightful end? There ARE carnivores among the animal kingdom! They would just eat each other after man was out of the picture! Which animal race would replace man in dominating the earth? “That is ILLOGICAL, Captain!”


The woman who said, “I would rather see a blank space where I am.” Why then does she remain? Why is she so active? Is it not to give a reason/purpose for her being? Does not all of mankind ask, “Why am I here?” Each person is looking for that PURPOSE of existence! So they must find some cause to pursue.


I really struggle to understand all of these “self-haters.” That is what they are. But perhaps that too stems from believing they only evolved from slim rather than having the high view of themselves having been created in the image of God! Why don’t they just “give it all some more time?” After all, if it really took millions of years to get to this point, just give it some more time & things will evolve into something better, right? Perhaps another animal race will evolve past man & wipe us out! Or some space aliens will do so. NO, MORE LIKELY, THE GOD OF HEAVEN, CREATOR OF ALL THAT IS WILL STEP IN TO PUT A STOP TO SUCH PERVERTED THINKING. REMEMBER THE EVIL THAT BROUGHT THE FLOOD OF NOAH’S TIME? REMEMBER SODOM & GOMMORAH? God did intervene to prevent men from further progression in such evil times. And thank God that He does intervene for His children, (namely Christ’s sacrifice on the cross to redeem us from our sins,) but woe to those on whom His wrath will fall!

#2  Posted by Shauna Bryant  |  Tuesday, April 20, 2010at 6:21 PM

*Shauna Bryant*

I watched a show once with my sister (I think on the Discovery Channel) about Life on earth if humans were wiped out. It was a glowing review about how 'nature' would flourish and be renewed. They actually made it sound desirable. I was disgusted, and yet my sister thought it would 'be nice' for the animals and the earth. She thought I was making too much out of the 'importance of humans'. Sometimes I think the hospital gave my mom the wrong baby. But we look too much alike for that to be the case. People like Peter Singer, the 'sick' Philosopher, believes and advocates for Apes, Gorillas, Monkeys and Chimpanzees to have equal rights with humans and to be granted all rights available to humans. Just what some politicians need, the dead vote, felons vote and you can bet they'd have animals vote too (with their 'advocates' voting for them). Peter Singer is the sick fellow who wrote that animals and people should be allowed to engage in consensual uh, er 'relationships' and that parents should have 28 days (which he now admits is an arbitrary number...gee thanks) to murder their baby. This man is totally evil to me and seems outrageous to others yet many, and unfortuantely too many, think him very logical. But he is actually a perfect example of exactly where the ideas in thinking shown in the article above lead people. Make no mistake, these people desire to 'exercise' their co-equal rights (as they see them) with animals. They are blood thristy beasts, as their own words show.

And it will culminate in Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

For as God's Word tells us Eccleisates 1:9-10 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

God Created. God Created man in His image. God IS the Lawgiver and dispenser of Grace. Those following another master hate that and their voices are getting louder. Today's 'extreme' views often become tomorrows reality.

#3  Posted by Shauna Bryant  |  Tuesday, April 20, 2010at 6:33 PM

*Shauna Bryant*

Quoting Dawkins, Peter Singer notes: Although 'We are built as gene machines,' he tells us, 'we have the power to turn against our creators'.

Interesting choice of words for evolutionists......but look at the truth of what they are really about!

It is no surprise, that Peter Singer, an evolutionist, blames Christianity either.

2002:Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer told a national meeting of animal rights activists that "mainstream Christianity is a problem for the animal movement." Singer, who has won notoriety for his belief that homo sapiens (mankind) has no right to claim superiority over other animals, singled out "more conservative mainstream fundamentalist views" that "want to make a huge gulf between humans and animals" -- a form of discrimination he calls "speciesism."

The problem these people have is always with the God of the Bible.

#4  Posted by Rick White  |  Wednesday, April 21, 2010at 2:46 AM

Romans 1:18-32 keeps coming to mind. Especially Romans 1:22. I am convinced that once the human mind has rejected his Creator he is capable of believing anything. These people are living proof of that. What is really sad is the media attention these people get and the invitations they receive to speak at institutions of "higher" learning. God help us to counter this nonsense with the word of God to our families and friends.

#5  Posted by Carol Gayheart  |  Wednesday, April 21, 2010at 2:31 PM

Amen, Rick! That's why it is so critical to "preach the word" & arm the saints with the Holy Scripture! Eph. 6:11 "Put on the whole armor of God..." Eph 6:13 "Take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all , to stand firm. (14) Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, (15) and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. (16) In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extiguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; (17) and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God..." We know where the truth lies: God's Holy Word! What a privilege & blessing that we live in a time to have such access to His word! Praise our Heavenly Father & Creator!

#6  Posted by Elaine Bittencourt  |  Thursday, April 22, 2010at 8:26 PM

Very interesting article. Thank you!

God bless,

E.