Since it is cold outside, I thought I would post another essay written by my neighbor, Charlie

"The Unintended Darwin"

Every philosophy, every political stand, and every “ism” out there claims validity by planting itself in either science or religion, or a form of both. For the most part, the Left has based its authority in secular materialism, a philosophy rooted in Darwinism. I am not claiming that all those on the left are atheists, but leftist ideology suggests that God is not necessary nor even wanted in government. To the left, religious conviction should be only in the private sector. They believe that is where “science’ has relegated it. The “real” world needs to be unencumbered by the conflicting dogma of various belief systems. This is actually where it appears the one and only facet of the constitution that the left holds inviolable, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” They have shamelessly misinterpreted this to mean that there can be no mention of God in government, though they have a difficult time explaining our national motto and numerous inscriptions and frescos on government buildings. It seems that they have a better understanding of the founders than the founders.

The difference between the two camps, liberal/statist (left) and conservative (right), is striking and profound at its foundations. We argue policy in the tree limbs among the leaves but understanding one another must be at the root level, it is there that the motivations and inclinations are birthed. Having already touched the left, the right usually agrees with the founders, that individuals have unalienable rights, i.e. God given natural rights. The left denies natural law and sees the state as the purveyor of rights and privileges. I have always marveled at the left’s confidence in the state, as if it was an entity divorced from human interaction. It is as if the left sees the state as a beneficent god, but the right recognizes it for what it is a human invention corruptible by humans. The right champions the individual while the left supports groups; to the left the individual’s function is to provide for the collective. The right sees government as the protector of individual rights, while the left sees the individual as function of the collective.

The contrast is so clear on the latest debate between left and right, Health Care. The left sees individuals objecting to what they consider the collective good. Therefore, they as a collective have no compunction against vilifying the individual, seeing it almost as an obligation to do so. The individual acting as an individual is detrimental to the collective and must quashed quickly. Voltaire’s edict “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it…” has no place in leftist’s discourse with dissenters. However, the right as a whole sees the individual defaming one of the right’s own, recognizes it as his right to do so, at least agrees with Voltaire, and is therefore more tolerant. (Did I just hear the left’s collective, boisterous, and shrill objection to the last two words? Anyone who claims that right is just as intolerant to dissent as the left is just not paying attention.) But the roots are even more fundamental than this, the right is theistic, however the individual himself wants to define it, and the left is humanistic, man centered, rooted in Darwinism, ignoring or denying theism as a viable influence for government.

However, Darwin is not always a friend to the left. Recently, this current Statist President “preached” a teleconference to over one hundred thousand religious leaders about the country and claimed the health care issue as “a core ethical and moral obligation.” On what grounds could he make such a claim? If human existence is of Darwinian origin, what is the anchor used for ethics and morals? Darwinian “science” is simply that, a mechanism that somehow produced life and ultimately man. It can provide no moral guidance other than hypothesized natural selection which peels down to simply “survival of the fittest.” It is for this reason that the left must invoke God into the argument, to provide grounding for whatever it is they support. Indeed, this President did just that in almost the same breath, by invoking Biblical authority. “’I know there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are frankly bearing false witness,’ Obama said, invoking the frightening specter of the Ten Commandments.” Has he ever used such language before, “bearing false witness?” Why would he use it here? He was not only injecting Biblical authority into his speech, but he was also trying to maneuver those to whom he was addressing this manipulative tripe into favoring his position, this moralizing from the man who voted three times for withholding care from abortion survivors! The left sees no inconsistency in such a position because to them there are no absolutes, no clear right or wrong. Darwinism gives them no solid moral ground for anything they wish to pass legislatively. They can never have an answer to the question, “Why should we do this thing you ask?” The invocation of God from the left is never genuine and always manipulative because the root of their ideology is Darwinism and they must seem to have some foundation for their ethics and morals. They were forever incensed over President Bush’s faith and trust in God, yet, “…CBS News recently reported, Obama has thrown around the name of God even more often than George W. Bush. Then again, no group couches policy as a moral obligation more than the left.” I guess now it suits them.

One of the frequently used epithets hurled at individual objectors to leftist proposals is the word “racist.” If you are of a different ethnicity than this president and disagree with his policy, you must be racist, and, to use another frequently employed disparagement, a hate-monger. You must understand that to the left, disagreement always embodies hate, an individual cannot disagree with someone without hating him; it’s axiomatic. It is not so difficult to understand; the left hates the right and projects that hatred unto the right to reflect it back unto themselves, thereby being justified to hate the right and calling them hate-mongers. I hate you, therefore you must hate me. It’s like blaming the mirror for a huge zit on your nose.

I do not approve of the term “racist” being used to describe anyone; it is judgmental, incendiary, and almost always inappropriate. That being said, we should look are the political spectrum and see which ideology has the weightier moral authority to this epithet. Darwinian imperatives not only suggest, but also almost demand the possibility of a “super-race.” Let us suppose that there are only three races of humans, the blues, the purples and the oranges. Evolutionarily speaking, one would have to come from a slightly sub-human ancestor at some point in time. Which one was it, the blues, the purples or the oranges? The odds of all three emerging at the same time would be too high to comprehend, so statistically, only one came forth first. Let’s say it was the blues (everyone knows they’re inferior). Over time, out of the blues came the purples slightly more advanced than the blues, and out of the purples once more over time came the oranges race, once more slightly advanced over either. Now these advances in the evolutionary scheme may be too slight for us to notice, beyond skin color anyway, but clearly since evolution advances a species, the one who emerged last is superior. Evolutionarily speaking, since the oranges are in fact slightly superior to the purples, which are slightly superior to the blues, racism is a fact! For the left then to call someone a racist, therefore, is to acknowledge him as one who recognizes Darwinian truth and it becomes a compliment to his enlightened state! So for the leftist to call anyone a “racist,” he is really displaying his ignorance if he means as a slander.

But conservatives as a whole do not hold to that ideology. Deep down conservatives recognize the folly of Darwinism and adhere at least philosophically to a Creator who addressed the issue in His instruction manual. The Bible tells us that God “…made from one man every nation of mankind…” “See! ‘… from one man!’” shouts the leftist, “That’s evolution!” Two things, one, it was “from one man,” not one slightly sub-human ancestor, and two, the Bible tells us that “one man” was Adam, a special creation of God, formed in His image and likeness. So ask yourself the question, “What color is the image of God?” There is only one race of men, the human race and to deny that is to adhere to the suggested racism of Darwinism.

The left’s support of most things gay is well documented, and the homosexual community reciprocates as a block supporter of the leftist agenda. The animosity between the gay community and admittedly mostly right leaning individuals is unfortunate, regrettable, and unhealthy. I do not approve of the gay lifestyle on moral grounds, but I also recognize that my approval or disapproval means nothing to anyone but me. I would hope that all those engaging in homosexual activities for their own benefit would refrain, but do not wish to interfere in the private lives of anyone. What goes on behind closed doors is not my business. That being said, Darwin is not a friend of the homosexual.

We must follow the logic of Darwinism. Evolution is premised on natural selection and “survival of the fittest.” What is a ramification of “survival of the fittest?” In order for the species (not the individual) to survive they must produce offspring. If homosexuality as some militants proclaim is genetic, then their offspring would carry presumably recessive homosexual gene. But the vast majority of those in the gay community do not produce offspring simply be virtue of that lifestyle; same gender sex cannot produce children. The fact that they are capable does not overshadow the fact that the vast majority doesn’t. If, and must emphasis that, if homosexuality is genetic and no one can change their propensity for same gender sex, is this an advance of human evolution or an aberration? Just how long would the human race last if the entire population was homosexual?

Evolution is a very slow imperceptible process of change. The homosexual gene (if it exists at all) is just now being recognized through the appearance of the thriving gay community, even though there have been gays throughout human history. It does not yet manifest itself as a physical adjustment to the human race; it is now only a preferential expression. It could evolve over time, a long time, and those with the gene could become incapable of having offspring and that means the natural selection has selected the homosexual for extinction. What a horrific contemplation! What a detriment to humanity, the loss of the contributions possible. Disprove the logic, please! And I reject it to its minutia!

Many on the right, on the other hand, recognize the struggle many gays have, not as an irresistible compulsion, but a very strong preference environmentally entrenched in their lives. It is true that most belief-systems reject the lifestyle, but will accept the person who wishes to escape. It is also true that the right, like the left, has its share of intolerance toward anything different, and displays a level of ignorance that hurts not only him, but those with whom he associates. Unlike the left, however, many on the right are embarrassed by them.

That is why Darwinism is really no one’s friend or ally. It is morally bankrupt and ethically and ethnically repugnant. But it is still the root philosophy of leftist ideology. I believe that if most of those leaning left understood this, they would reject it outright. The hard core statist/liberal will never reject Darwinism until a more powerful antidote to theism is created, because theistic logic does not support the leftist agenda. You see, it’s not about misplaced compassion or an artificial sense of justice that drives the statist/liberal. It is control and power. That is why they have no qualms whatever of rejecting Darwinism for theism as it suits them, for the end justifies the means. That is the highest ethic for the left!

After thinking about this for a few weeks, I realize some may not appreciate this logic very much, but if taken to it's logical conclusion, that's where it goes. That is why Darwinian philosophy should be rejected, but to reject Darwin leaves only a form of theism for the left, and I believe they would rather believe in that nefarious thinking and overlook its conclusions. Being a Christian, I reject racism and the gay's dismal long term future. Darwinian philosophy is error! The logic I presented is there for all to see if they have the courage to admit it.