>Allow me therefore to put the matter a little more
succinctly. Where is the logic in believing that the
opposites, 'survival of the fittest' and 'thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself', are able to live together amicably,
and on equal terms?<
In reality, biological evolution (i.e., the process of change in
organisms) reflects survival of the fit enough, not just the
However, the main problem here is in supposing that
survival of the fit enough should be considered on equal
terms with giving preference to one other (Rom. 9:10, a
more extreme command than "as yourself".) Survival of the
fit enough is a physical description of how organisms act.
Love one another is a moral command. Why should
biological evolution be seen as a source of moral
guidance? No one claims to get moral guidance from the
theory of gravity. Everyone recognizes that the theory of
gravity does not mean that I ought to knock everything
down, drop heavy things off tall buildings and cliffs, etc.
Basing morals on biological evolution is just as foolish.
Furthermore, survival of the fit enough does not require
harming others. Both cooperation and competition may be
succesful strategies for survival in the short or medium
term. In the very long run, cooperation may be the best.
This has received relatively little study. However, intuitively
it seems likely.
>Your average atheist appears to understand the absurdity
of the union quite well - but, strangely, not the Christian
disposed to accept evolution's dubious scientific
Atheists have bad theology. Why would you suppose that
they are more likely to be correct than Christians?
A careful examination of claims to use biological evolution
as a source of moral guidance shows that it used merely
as an invalid excuse for sinful behavior. As is usually the
case for unbiblical moral systems, the purported moral
systems are typically hypocritical, used only when they
promote the advantage of those who developed it.
For example, Marxism purports to be evolutionary.
However, it is based on Marx's ideas about the evolution of
society, not on biological evolution. There is no biological
reason whatsoever why I should care about the good of the
proletariat as a whole, much less put it above my own
interests, unless its interests happen to coincide with
mine. As it is an artificial group, not reflecting biological
kinship, the idea of biological support is particularly silly.
Racism and eugenics run into similar problems if they try
to claim evolutionary support. If I were to kill off everyone
who is racially different from me, this will tend to increase
the proportion of my genes in the gene pool. However, the
other people have just as much reason to try to get rid of
me. Biological evolution does not favor one group of
humans over another.
Another type of attempt at justifying immoral behavior
through evolution is the "animals do this so I should, too"
argument. This is both hypocritical and generally
inaccurate. First, if someone really considers animals as
the proper model for behavior, he should be like
Nebuchadnezzar. Selecting one action that you want to
justify and then trying to find an animal that purportedly
shows that action is an attempt at fabricating an excuse,
not an effort at developing a moral system. It is unlikely that
anyone would approve of my observing howler monkeys
and then claiming that it was morally acceptable for me to
make as much noise as possible every morning at dawn.
Secondly, often the animal does not really show the
behavior in question. For example, purported
homosexuality in animals often really reflects an animal too
stupid to recognize that it has made a mistake. Some
male worms may even try to mate with their own other end.
>Again, speaking of God's 'fingerprints', what is now your
considered opinion regarding the explosive package of
numerics that inhabits the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1? In my
view they have much to tell us about the character of God,
of his _modus operandi_ , and more<
I see how the numerical patterns would be viewed as
supporting the inspiration of Genesis 1:1, but this does not
negate the need to carefully examine the proper
interpretation of the days of Genesis 1-2, etc. Finding
hidden significance would seem to point more towards the
importance of symbolism, including the numeric
symbolism of 7, rather than supporting a calendar day
Dr. David Campbell
46860 Hilton Dr #1113
Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand
Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G.
Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
Sent via the WebMail system at
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 19:45:08 EDT