Lehigh Valley Conservative

Darwin’s theory of evolution and its evolutionary process is based on the survival of the fittest why should we attempt to save the lesser species from extinction?  Is it not right to allow them to die off?  And, because change teaches us nothing about morality, we need not worry if we change for better of for worse, if the survival of the fittest is to be the law let us bring on change and see what is to happen to us.  Darwinism consistently applies change to survival with no mention of goodness or evilness, and if change is what is to determine goodness even when Darwin wanted no part of God and His Holy Bible/Law how is that to be?  And don’t tell me the fittest ones are going to be the righteous ones.  This flaw was noticed right from the get-go.

Adam Sedgwick geologist wrote to Charles Darwin after reading his book pointing out the danger of breaking the link between man’s understanding of the material world and human morality.  He felt that Darwin had provided criminals with justification for their behavior. Sedgwick’s words have proved prophetic.  The Twentieth Century has shown Sedgwick to be right, there is any number of criminals from political to thugs all the while Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory is the believed thinking within our society and taught in all the schools.

Surprisingly Darwin’s suppositions can be applied in different ways in justifying one’s position.  We have Sedgwick worried with regards to crime and the criminal being justified for what he has done, only because the criminal is at liberty to say he has evolved into this and he is not responsible and if given time he will change.

 “In 1981 the Chairman of Britain’s Police Federation admitted,  “Long ago people in power stopped talking about the punishment of crime and began to talking about treatment, as if every thug was sick and need of a prescription from the chemist.”  Daily Telegraph July 14,1981.

Leniency in punishment and the idea that human beings are the product of becoming through evolution is not to far fetched.  Change for change sake is a must within Darwin’s System, evolution of man cannot take place without this process of change and we need only wait for time to pass and things will do just that change.

Keith Ward an Oxford University professor puts it this way.
“Of course one cannot reject Darwinism just because of its unpleasant social consequence. But if one can see that it under mines some of the most important and strongly held human values, one will enquire very carefully into its credentials.  Are we not more certain of some fundamental values of the importance of morality than we are of the meta-physically inflated world-view of social Darwinism.”

Why would Professor Ward even suggest an absolute in the form of a value?  There is no God in Darwin’s system he has replaced Him with nature and the absolutes with the rule of change.  Darwin Theory evolves around change and it has been the central meta-physical system that has been used to destroy Western Civilization and especially Christianity here in America.

I find it interesting that our president elect O’bama developed and ran a very successful campaign hinging on the word change and through out his campaign no one challenged that word and what he was trying to change and/or how he was using the word.

Edgar Andrews in his book “From Nothing to Nature” says this speaking of Darwin’s theory. 
 “The theory of evolution allows people to forget God.”

The question becomes will the president elect O’bama’s theory of change (evolution) allow the citizens to forget the “Constitution” the “Country” and like Darwin’s theory of evolution (Change) will O’bama change exclude God.  What is to be left after all this “Change”, would anyone like to venture a guess?