Evolution and Eugenics

Natural selection is a corner stone in the theory of evolution. It tells us that some characteristics are chosen over others for the survival and benefit of a reproducing organism during its development. However we still see increases in the percentage of infant mortality rates due to birth defects, and a rise in disorders such as those who are bipolar(1 in 4 people suffer from depression). Natural selection doesn't seem to be doing what it's supposed to. And please don't tell me it's the organism that reproduces the most that determines the dominant charateristics. This goes against the basic principle of natural selection, survival.

So now we come to eugenics. An idea that no longer should nature select, but man should select(or at least nudge in the right direction) which characteristics will determine the development of the human race. Much like dog breeding, where certain dogs are chosen to reproduce due to physical attributes. Though this idea is somewhat controversial among evolutionists, it's really no different then what they all hope to have happen through natural selection.

Now I'm not talking about Nazi style eugenics yet, but the whole concept lacks compassion, and natural selection lacks compassion. Evolution lacks compassion. However the vast majority of mankind is born with the feeling of compassion. There is no satisfactory answer from evolutionists, that does not contradict the principle of natural selection, as to why we feel compassion.

Religion is condemned for its instigation of wars and hatred throughout the millenia, and rightly so. However, what type of attitude has evolution promoted in people? In "Mein Kampf" we see that Hitler was inspired by Darwin's theory of evolution in developing his own ideas of survival of the fittest. Was Hitler catholic? Yes, by birth not choice. Did he believe in evolution? Yes, which he chose and obviously had the greater impact on his belief system.

Evolution is no moral plateau. Nor does it claim to be. However it's theories can lead to just as much suffering and bloodshed as any other out there.

Suspension of Disbelief

"The suspension of disbelief is the temporary acceptance as believable of events or characters that would ordinarily be seen as incredible. This is usually to allow an audience to appreciate works of literature or drama that are exploring unusual ideas.

The state is arguably an essential element when experiencing any drama or work of fiction. We may know very well that we are watching an actor or looking at marks on paper, but we wilfully accept them as real in order to fully experience what the artist is attempting to convey."

This is how one reference work describes suspension of disbelief. How would you describe disbelief becoming belief though? Pretend becoming reality?

Many have taken this approach with regards to reading the Bible, and some have become believers of some sort. For others this approach is not possible. Why? When does the mind put up blocks to certain ways of digesting information? Some can go to the movies and be entertained by the impossible idea that there's a guy flying around in a red cape who can shoot heat rays out of his eyes and lift moutains to save people, and then reject the much more plausible reality that there is an almighty God who plans on solving all the problems of mankind including death and injustice, not even entertaining the idea. This seems like poor objectivity.

Which brings us to suspension of judgment. Suspension of judgment is a cornerstone of good research methodology. So does the lack of suspensions really just boil down to people asking questions for the sake of asking questioins, not really persuing an end? Or picking and choosing the way in which they will assimilate information so it fits in with their preconceived ideas?

The Streets Of The Future

This was the title of a project for 2nd graders, in which they were to write a story about what the streets of the future would look like. While the vast majority of the children described the future in bleak terms highlighting theft war and poverty, one student stood out. She was a young Jehovah's Witness who described the future in peaceful utopia-like conditions where everyone was friendly and the world was unified. A positive outlook for someone so young. Why was she able to look optimisticly to the future while the others did not? Because of the hope found in the Bible.

Now regardless of whether you are religious or not, isn't it valuable for children to be raised with hope and positivity? Not that children who are raised non-religious or do not believe in the Bible are hopeless. But doesn't the idea of everlasting life in a paradise sort of blow everything else out of the water?

Manifest Destiny

Apparently this saying was coined by a journalist in 1845 in an essay claiming that it was the United States right to colonize the continent of North America. This concept had been around before the saying arose, and still continues to manifest itself in modern times.

Of this philosophy William E. Channing wrote in 1837:
"Did this county know itself, or were it disposed to profit by self-knowledge, it would feel the necessity of laying an immediate curb on its passion for extended territory.... We are a restless people, prone to encroachment, impatient of the ordinary laws of progress... We boast of our rapid growth, forgetting that, throughout nature, noble growths are slow..... It is full time that we should lay on ourselves serious, resolute restraint."

Though this was a comment in opposition to the ideas of manifest destiny in the 19th century, they reflect in principle attitudes so common in our world today. Our society believes more then ever in the profit of self-knowledge, and the idea that self governance on an individual basis is a right. Is this the way to a better world? One free of the victims of our lack of self control?

If noble growths are slow, then ignoble ones should be faster. And in a short time we as humans have been able to do much harm to this world because of our selfishness. Many still fail to see the overall folly of our self-knowledge. Forget manifest destiny, we can barely manifest reality.