Welcome to

I feel sorry for the significant other in an evolutionist’s life, but more on that later.

For the next several days, leading up to that gloriously commercialized date on the calendar which is founded in fertility festivals and mythical stories about Catholic saints, that being Valentine’s Day, I will be discussing what else but…LOVE.  This may come as a shock to some who believe I have the heart of the grinch, but hopefully these articles will show that I do have some small grasp on the subject      :-) 

I invite my readers to please leave your comments and added thoughts as we go along, because love is nothing if not subjective, and you as the one being subjected to my thoughts on the subject, may have a totally different view. 

The first ‘love’ topic that I want to address is that of love and the evolutionist, I see no monogomous monkeys and no evolutionary advantage to romantic love and monogamy among humans, yet I wouldn’t have it any other way… would the evolutionist?   Read on –>

One view of love with which I certainly disagree and will now begin to discuss is brought out in the March 12, 2005 issue of New Scientist, where, in his article titled, ‘Charity begins at Homo sapiens’, Mark Buchanon makes some observations about the outpouring of love and charity towards the victims of the horrendous Indian Ocean tsunami that struck the previous year.  He makes the following observation:

Humans are different, for we cooperate with complete genetic strangers—workmates, neighbors, anonymous people in far-off countries. Why on earth do we do that?

What is the problem? You may be asking.  Why is this gentleman baffled by people helping others?  Isn’t that commonplace?  Yes, it is… and that is precisely what baffles many men such as Buchanan, you see, Mr. Buchanan believes evolution to be a scientific fact and therefore, EVERYTHING about the human race, in order to fit the evolutionary model, must have sprouted into being through favorable mutations. 

An evolutionary scientist follows the idea that ALL THINGS must have a natural explanation and anything that exists in the biology of humans is only there due to the natural selection of favorable random mutations over the millenia.  This means that love evolved.  How does evolution explain this?  There is simply no explanation for most types of love shown by humans other than a supernatural one, I love the way this is explained by the folks over at sciencevsevolution.org:

Some people love dogs. That’s understandable. Dogs can guard your house, help you hunt, or pull your sled. It makes sense to feed a dog. You will get something in return. That’s direct reciprocity.

Some people love to feed the birds. This is a little bit harder to understand. Yes, some birds are pretty. Some birds sing pretty songs. But is it really worth the cost of the bird seed to have them in your yard? It’s a close call.

Some people love cats. What’s up with that? Cats have never been good for anything except catching mice and making guitar strings!  Mouse traps are cheaper than cat food, and now that we have nylon we can make musical instruments without cat guts. Cats are selfish and uncooperative. How could a love for cats possibly have evolved? There isn’t even a hint of direct reciprocity. And yet, the existence of cat lovers proves that there really are people who love the unlovable.

The evolutionists don’t like this ‘kitty love’ theory though, because the only choice evolution affords is that love evolved for selfish reasons.  The entire idea behind evolution is that the fittest survive to pass on their best traits to as may offspring as possible, which means procreating with as many of the fittest specimens of the opposite sex as possible.  While many seemingly love this lifestyle today, this in no way could have spun out the altruistic, selfless type of love seen in the genorosity that Mr. Buchanan seeks to explain.  He himself sees the problem and summarizes the explanations of evolutionists like this:

For several decades, researchers have had a possible explanation: apparently selfish acts are nothing of the kind, but are instead a clever way of promoting individual self interest.

Romantic, ain’t it?  So the evolutionist’s valentine ought to read, “Roses are red, violets are blue, You have very good genes and child-bearing hips and that’s why I chose you.”

Honestly folks, when will you just admit that the conscience is not something that could have evolved.  It is 100% counter-intuitive to all that evolution is supposed to be.  How could this strange part of the human psyche known as the “conscience” possibly have evolved?

The conscience is the seat of morality and therefore the source of altruistic thought. This aspect of humanity runs counteractive to evolution because it goes against the mechanism of evolution known as the survival of the fittest.

For example. Among animals, “survival of the fittest” can be seen in a situation like a lion hunting an antelope. The lion will look at the herd of antelope and search for any sick, old, or young animals that are least likely to defend themselves and pick off one of these “least fit” animals.

In humans, however, our conscience doesn’t allow us to let ‘the survival of the fittest’ work. In fact, humans set up massive systems to insure that the weak and sickly, young and old, of our race survive as long as possible. Look at programs like welfare, medicare, social security and others. We pay enormous hospital bills and go throuth extreme changes in lifestyle to make sure we can take care of an elderly parent who is ill, or perhaps a child born with a disability. All of this comes about because humans have a conscience. This can be observed among Christians and Non-Christians alike!

So why in the world would evolution allow any species to evolve to a point where that species counteracts evolution? I think the existence of a conscience in all cultures and belief (or non-belief) systems makes the entire theory of evolution null and void.

An evolutionist can never simply state that this conscience, that altruistic behaviour and romantic love must have come from a supernatural source because they run counter to natural devices.  Instead they turn to a circular argument of the vein that they often accuse creationists of.  We often say, “I guess it will all come clear on judgment day,” while they say, “just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow.” (these are the words of Judge Jones who wrote the decision in the KITZMILLER v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT case)

So why do we love?  I’m glad you asked.  H.L. Mencken, a rather snooty anti-religious pro-Darwin type (with a satirical attitude that I sadly must admit I enjoy) once made this rather beautiful observation about the subject, “Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence,” This man with a disregard for God rivaling that of Nietzsche (who claimed, “God is dead“) still understood that love is utterly unreasonable… and isn’t that why we love it?

We love because we were created by an altruistic creator, who ‘gave his only begotten son’ for you and me (John 3:16).  The ultimate act of love and genorosity.  We have the priveledge of being created in His image and this is why we so profoundly care for the hurt and the downtrodden.  So do something nice for your significant other today and feel good in knowing that in doing so you are expressing your God-given ability to love and care outside of your own selfish motives.  Kinda touches you right there, don’t it?

~JW, for thegospelfortoday.com

Next in series

Popularity: 66% [?]