Evolution Is an Unjustified Foundation

Oliver Kamm has written a Blog post on Sarah Palin and creationism on the TimesOnline you may read here. In one paragraph he writes:

Christianity has proved compatible with literally any ideology, even in recent history: consider the racist justifications for apartheid offered by the Dutch Reformed Church; the Social Gospel preached by the Baptist reformer Walter Rauschenbusch; or the strong Tory pro-appeasement sentiments of Cosmo Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury in 1930s. I'm not concerned in public affairs with people's beliefs about first and last things, but only with whether they accept the implict social contract on which a free society depends. Moderate religion, whether or not you find its doctrines credible, accommodates itself to secular education and secular government, and is thereby a matter of private conscience. [emphasis mine]

The bold sentence is interesting because it is supposedly the morally neutral viewpoint of the author. It seems to be that secularism must be the foundation for a free society. He wrote earlier,

On the contrary, one of the most vital principles of liberalism is the secularist insistence, codified in Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786, that there be no religious test for public office.

For some reason, Thomas Jefferson is some kind of atheist that wants no religious view at all. This myth of secularism is just plain false. I am not trying to make an argument that Jefferson was some kind of Christian, but I think it is absurd that Jefferson was morally neutral in his views or that is was religiously neutral or even held the correct one. Also, Jefferson's view of God and how religion relates to public life is hardly the majority viewpoint. Just so you don't think me anti-Jefferson, as a Baptist, I happen to agree much with Jefferson. The Federal Government should do just a couple of things. Maintain a strong defense and deliver the mail. Nevertheless, to have a government one must have a solid foundation upon which to build and maintain it. A free society may not be morally or philosophically neutral.

After arguing that basically no one held to Young-earth creationism in the past he concludes:

Intelligent Design hasn't arisen because of some crisis in evolutionary biology. It's arisen as a strategy to introduce religious dogma into science education under the dishonest guise of teaching a "controversy" that, as far as science is concerned, does not exist. That's a fundamental assault on liberal values and the constitutional principles of the world's leading democracy. It's completely reasonable to ask where Sarah Palin stands on the issue.

I beg to differ with Mr. Kamm on who believed what prior to the rise of evolution in the scientific realm. The fact is, history gives rise to new movements that define themselves due to the debate of the day. Darwinism did not become the norm until the 1800's. Therefore to find Christian scientists arguing for a young earth may be difficult since it was not an issue just as the forensic language of the Protestant Reformation for the doctrine of Justification waited for 1500 years.

In response to Melanie's claim that there are many scientists who are converting from Evolution Kamm asks,

"If there are, as Melanie tells us, "growing numbers of scientists, some of great distinction" (and I'm suspicious of that obsequious honorific) who accept ID, then why do they not publish their work in the scientific journals?"

But earlier he writes a statement about creationists:

"Its banner reads "Christ Above All", and it has a Center for Origins Research, "the world leader in creationist biology research". It doesn't take much to be world leader in that field.)"

Isn't it obvious as to why they are not publishing in certain circles? To act as if Evolutionists are morally neutral and want their world view challenged is absurd. Ben Stein I think has more than sufficiently demonstrated that.

Evolution is important as a foundation to our government. When Evolution first came became popular, it was noted that the theory would not only affect science but the entire legal system. He actually wrote:

"Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life."

What a crock. It perhaps has single handedly challenged the belief in the existence of God more than any other idea. Without Evolution atheism has nothing.

Evolution is now the foundation for law. Evolution by definition excludes God. We may sit around and try to pretend it doesn't, but we all know it does. The Framers of the Constitution laid a solid foundation that has managed to give us a society that was able to eliminate slavery and defend life. It is only since the erosion of this foundation that abortion and communism and Moral Relativism and other evils have managed to gain legitimacy.

My point is that Creationism is important. It not only affects our legal system, but it affects the way in which we view the world. If we believe that there is no Creator or that He is not necessary for the foundation of Law, then man becomes the measure of all things. That is exactly what we have.

So now we have people like Kamm arguing for a particular belief system that they can't even begin to justify. His position that is argued for doesn't even begin to justify if there were any Evolutionists or old earthers at the founding of our nation. He doesn't tell us why Evolution can't be challenged in academia other than Creationism is religious dogma as if Evolution were pure science. He simply buys the line that Evolution is pure science (as if Creationists never noticed natural selection or even deny it). Yet this assumes a definition of science that he again can't even begin to justify. We must simply accept their views because might makes right. Evolutionist currently have the might, therefore they are right.



Update:

"It's completely reasonable to ask where Sarah Palin stands on the issue."

I agree. It is completely reasonable to ask Sarah Palin this question. I think her holding up her Down's Syndrome baby in light of Natural Selection being controlled artificially by scientists who would use their evolutionary world view to murder the child is her answer. If he doesn't see the plain and simple answer, then he fulfills Romans 1.

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Again, in Kamm's mind there is no controversy in science. In the enlightened mind of Kamm is science settled. The rest of us must follow his understanding. What a fool!