Darwin’s Trail of Tears

CGP Grey / Foter / CC BY

Avid evolutionists recently celebrated the 200th birthday of their hero, Charles Darwin, in a manner that promoted his theory as true science. Major museums assisted in this propaganda by displaying Darwinian exhibits that presented evolution as proven fact and praised Darwin for opening the minds of many. Regretfully, they were right in one of these two areas; Darwin did open the minds of many, but what they failed to mention is the trail of tears this legacy left.

Darwin was born into a religious family in the year 1809, yet he was never a true believer. His family attended the Unitarian Church of England, a church whose beliefs had long rejected the authority of God’s Word and essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the fall of man.

This was the false religion Darwin grew up in, and with a lack of genuine faith in his Creator he had no foundation upon which to stand when his young daughter succumbed to the terrible disease of tuberculosis (supposed diagnosis). Having no true relationship with God, and in bitterness of heart, he replaced his Creator and false religion with a new religion, natural selection, thus devising a theory that would become a magnet for those who wished to abandon belief in God. Although Darwin’s abandonment of the Creator doesn’t appear to have been with the desire of “now I can do what I want without consequence,” many have latched on to his theory for that precise reason. After all, natural selection did away with the need for God, and without a God to answer to for your actions, you can do anything you desire; without a God to set the criteria of right and wrong, you can create your own.

That’s what is so dangerous about the theory of “man being a byproduct of random chance.” It does away with God. Thus, it gives a justified foundation for men to create their own standards, and if their newly-devised standards include the murder of 13 or the murder of millions, who are we—a mere product of random chance—to declare them wrong? Thus the dilemma: without an Ultimate Authority (God) who sets the criteria, what makes one man’s ideas superior or more acceptable than another’s?

Yes, beliefs do matter. If a person believes he is nothing more than the byproduct of chance events brought about by random mutations in a pool of primordial slime, he will pattern his life accordingly. His decisions and actions will stem from that belief. A perfect example of this is the Columbine killers. Not many people know that on April 20th, chosen in honor of Hitler’s birthday, one of the two men responsible for this murderous rampage chose to wear a T-shirt that read “Natural Selection”. Authorities later discovered these two young men had created their own website greatly dedicated to evolution. They believed that killing people was nothing more than “scattering molecules” and practicing “survival of the fittest”. Their minds were open to Darwin’s teachings.

Darwin’s “Trail of Tears” Continues

ニコール / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

When you read Darwin’s autobiography, it is easy to see that he would never have supported men like the Columbine kill­ers; nor would he have given his stamp of approval to murderous tyrants like Hitler. He seems an everyday, loving husband and father. So where did he go wrong? How did this everyday man devise a theory that would influence two young men to go on a shooting rampage and godless world leaders to slaughter millions? The answer to this question stems directly from Darwin’s blatant denial of the existence of a Supreme Being, which then caused a dilemma. If “in the beginning” God didn’t create, then where did life come from? Darwin knew the only way to justify his atheism was to devise another means by which life came into existence—a means that left God out. Natural selection was the answer to both dilemmas; it allowed the abandonment of God and gave an alternative means for the creation of life. Once developed, his theory not only helped to settle his own atheistic mindset, it gave those who wished to denounce a divine Creator the intellec­tual means to justify their unbelief, and it provided the foundation for tyrants like Hitler to slaughter millions—thus Darwin’s Trail of Tears.

Yes, beliefs do have consequences! Regretfully, Hitler was a prime example of the consequences of Darwin’s teaching. He was totally indoctrinated in evolution, even to the point of providing his troops with books by Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche in hopes of influencing them toward his belief of inferior races. But why? Why would he care what his troops believed? Well, how else do you brainwash hundreds and thousands of soldiers, many husbands and fathers themselves, into believing the mass murder of millions—women, children and babies included—is moral? It is impor­tant to note here that Hitler’s extreme prejudice toward certain races wasn’t merely an innocent byproduct of Darwin’s theory that others pinned to Darwin’s name; it originated with Darwin himself when he drew his tree of life and theorized that good would come from death by way of natural selection, it was promoted by Darwin when he classified black Africans, Australian Aborigines, and Tasmanians on the lower limbs of his evo­lutionary tree, and it was practiced by Darwin when he referred to those with dark skin as “degraded,” saying he would rather have descended from a monkey than such a “savage.” Darwin even pre­dicted that one day the “civilized” races would rise up and exterminate the “sav­age” races. Sound familiar?

Darwin’s assumption that men evolved by random chance also led Josef Stalin, the mass murderer of multitudes, to become an atheist as a young man while reading his works in seminary. It inspired Karl Marx, who offered to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin, to state that Darwin’s theory “contains the basis in natural history for our view . . .” These Darwinian enthusiasts, some of the world’s most notorious and depraved leaders, along with Mao, Pol Pot and other communist leaders, have murdered close to 100 million people, and all compliments of a theory which lessened the value of human life to an accident of random chance, thus no greater than that of any animal (Tom DeRose, Evolution’s Fatal Fruit, 2006).

For more information on Creation Versus Evolution visit www.rocklanpublications.com.

Darwin’s Trail of Tears

CGP Grey / Foter / CC BY

Avid evolutionists recently celebrated the 200th birthday of their hero, Charles Darwin, in a manner that promoted his theory as true science. Major museums assisted in this propaganda by displaying Darwinian exhibits that presented evolution as proven fact and praised Darwin for opening the minds of many. Regretfully, they were right in one of these two areas; Darwin did open the minds of many, but what they failed to mention is the trail of tears this legacy left.

Darwin was born into a religious family in the year 1809, yet he was never a true believer. His family attended the Unitarian Church of England, a church whose beliefs had long rejected the authority of God’s Word and essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the fall of man.
This was the false religion Darwin grew up in, and with a lack of genuine faith in his Creator he had no foundation upon which to stand when his young daughter succumbed to the terrible disease of tuberculosis (supposed diagnosis). Having no true relationship with God, and in bitterness of heart, he replaced his Creator and false religion with a new religion, natural selection, thus devising a theory that would become a magnet for those who wished to abandon belief in God. Although Darwin’s abandonment of the Creator doesn’t appear to have been with the desire of “now I can do what I want without consequence,” many have latched on to his theory for that precise reason. After all, natural selection did away with the need for God, and without a God to answer to for your actions, you can do anything you desire; without a God to set the criteria of right and wrong, you can create your own.

That’s what is so dangerous about the theory of “man being a byproduct of random chance.” It does away with God. Thus, it gives a justified foundation for men to create their own standards, and if their newly-devised standards include the murder of 13 or the murder of millions, who are we—a mere product of random chance—to declare them wrong? Thus the dilemma: without an Ultimate Authority (God) who sets the criteria, what makes one man’s ideas superior or more acceptable than another’s?

Yes, beliefs do matter. If a person believes he is nothing more than the byproduct of chance events brought about by random mutations in a pool of primordial slime, he will pattern his life accordingly. His decisions and actions will stem from that belief. A perfect example of this is the Columbine killers. Not many people know that on April 20th, chosen in honor of Hitler’s birthday, one of the two men responsible for this murderous rampage chose to wear a T-shirt that read “Natural Selection”. Authorities later discovered these two young men had created their own website greatly dedicated to evolution. They believed that killing people was nothing more than “scattering molecules” and practicing “survival of the fittest”. Their minds were open to Darwin’s teachings.