04.20.07

Teaching Evolution Diminishes Respect for Human Life

Posted in Uncategorized at 5:57 am by blog

The theory here is that when kids are taught that they are nothing more than a glorified animal, they lose respect for human life and many tend to act like animals. Makes perfect sense to me. This is why our children need to be taught that they are made by an omnipotent God who loved them so much He gave His one and only Son to die for them.

The president of Creation Worldview Ministries says decades of teaching “evolution only” in public schools and universities is partly responsible for crimes such as the mass shooting earlier this week in Virginia.

Dr. Grady McMurtry is a full-time creation evangelist who travels the world teaching Christian and secular audiences about the scientific evidence supporting the biblical view of creationism. For years, he says, public schools and universities have taught the theory of evolution as fact, with no opposing viewpoints — and the result, he contends, is a lack of respect for human life.

Therefore, he asserts, people should not be surprised when mass shootings occur, such as the one on the Blacksburg university campus on Monday. “And at Virginia Tech, what do we have?” he asks rhetorically. “We have a person who, unfortunately, thought that humans had no more value than cats and dogs — and unfortunately, I think, probably felt the same way about themselves.”

The creationist continues explaining his premise. “And so what happens? If we are nothing but thinking animals, [and] if you have excess people, then you can just put them in a bag, throw them in the river the way you would too many kittens or too many puppies.”

McMurty explains that when the biblical account of creation is taken out of the public arena, human life has no meaning. In contrast, creation teaches that there is a purpose, he says.

Original Link

30 Comments »

  1. Steve said,

    April 20, 2007 at 9:28 am

    I believe this is exactly true.

  2. Edmund Ross said,

    May 26, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    What you are basically saying is that it is better to teach children a falsehood than to expose them to possibly unpleasant truths. Not withstanding the few die hard creationists who try to find evidence in support of their view, the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that humans did evolve over a long process. The only ones who question this are those who are simply ignorant of how evolution explains natural phenomena.

    To link societal problems with the diminishing respect for human life ignores the millions of people killed over time in the name of God. Teaching children that they are superior is just as likely to produce the violent responses as teaching children that they are not superior.

    You might be right that a naturalist perspective reduces or eliminates the meaning of life. I remember how disappointed I felt when I learned that Santa Claus doesn’t really exist.

  3. HackThis said,

    May 26, 2008 at 9:33 pm

    ‘The president of Creation Worldview Ministries says decades of teaching “evolution only” in public schools and universities is partly responsible for crimes such as the mass shooting earlier this week in Virginia.’

    Stop using random unrelated news events to try prove your point. It only ridicules you because people KNOW that these things aren’t related in any way.

  4. Steve said,

    May 27, 2008 at 6:29 am

    HackThis,
    Although I do not completely agree with him, I will give him merit on one point.
    The point is that teaching we are just another “animal” minimizes human life and could be one underlying cause, among many, that could make a person commit these types of brutal acts.

  5. Steve said,

    May 27, 2008 at 6:38 am

    Edmund,
    I blew major holes in the theory of evolution in these posts (read parts 1 through 5 please) and I’m not even a professional.
    You might want to rethink your comment.

  6. HackThis said,

    May 27, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    Exactly, you’re not a professional. You can’t know enough about evolution to blow holes through it.
    Creation however, is so simple that an amateur can blow half of it off easily.

  7. Edmund Ross said,

    May 28, 2008 at 9:43 am

    I guess I missed something in your posts. I saw a list of statements. I didn’t actually see any evidence. I didn’t see you refuting any particular hypothesis or challenging the data and/or methodology used to back up one of the claim you purport to refute. I’m sorry, but what you call “blowing major holes” are just some simple statements. Within the scientific method there are means to deny or refute a hypothesis or theory but you have to actually refute something specific with evidence or, at the very least, show someone else’s evidence to be lacking. Show me a piece of data supporting a hypothesis that is actually wrong. Show me where a researcher took some evidence and drew an inaccurate conclusion based on either the lack of soundness or validity of their argument. This is how the scientific process works. This is why we now know the Earth revolves around the sun. The next time you turn on your television you should marvel at the science behind it. It began with a person staring at a rainbow, something Christians at the time called one of God’s miracles. Turns out there’s a very natural explanation and that explanation eventually lead you to be able to watch American Idol.

    Science builds its knowledge by taking statements such as those you list and explores them and tests them and verifies and confirms them. Your statements are the beginning of the process not the end, or at least they would be if most of the statements were not rather puerile. Take a look at the sun and grasp the idea that the earth is revolving around it. The guy who originally posited this explanation was ridiculed and denouced by Christians. The funny thing is that he was wrong too in his theory but the next guy built on it. Or maybe the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun. Maybe you want to rething your comment.

    Edmund Ross, PhD

  8. Steve said,

    May 28, 2008 at 11:04 am

    Dr. Ross,
    With all due respect, if statistical proof of the impossibility of life starting on accident isn’t “evidence” then nothing is.
    As I understand it, scientific method requires “observation”. Since no one was present at the moment life began, that makes both theories unprovable.
    I would much rather follow a theory that is not statistically impossible verses one that is.
    We are not talking about the earth going around the sun. We are discussing the theory that by using evolution to equate humans and animals, we are minimizing the importance of humanity, thus leaving yet one more excuse in the mind of person prone to act on extreme violence.
    I don’t need to marvel about television, I know how to design one.
    Whereas my credentials are not as high on the academic food chain as yours, they are worthy of mention.
    I think I’ll keep my comments as posted, if you please.
    God Bless!!

    -Steve, BSEE

  9. Starbix said,

    May 28, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    “With all due respect, if statistical proof of the impossibility of life starting on accident isn’t “evidence” then nothing is.”

    I’d substitute “improbability” for “impossibility”. You’re treading on dangerous ground when you posit an omnipotent creator god and then assert that something is an “impossibility”. Aren’t all things possible with God?

    Starbix, AS: CST
    “Don’t Panic.” -Douglas Adams

  10. Edmund Ross said,

    May 28, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    I’ll engage this just a little further. I looked through your postings and didn’t see any “statistical proof.” That actually requires statistics. What I saw was a lot of questions that you are hoping are holes in the theory. A challenging question in no way constitutes “proof.” I suggest you pick up a college level biology book. You’ll find out that you are asking questions that have been answered decades ago. What is useful in your questions, which were the same questions asked in the 19th century, is that they provided motivation for science to develop explanations that could be tested by other practitioners of the science. Science definitely owes a debt to the skeptics.

    Second, no where in any component of evolutionary theory is a claim made that life started by accident. You are misreading what the theory explains then drawing a false conclusion. It’s really hard to refute something that was just pulled out of the air.

    Third, the methodology in no way depends upon first hand observation. I’m actually not sure where you came up with this. The scientific method involves the observation of natural phenomena, the derivation of theories to explain this phenomena, and the development of hypotheses used to test the validity of the theory. Have you ever seen gravity? You’ve seen the effects of gravity. Newton observed some natural effects and developed the theory of gravity to explain what he saw. This is how science works. The observation component provides us with the questions we want to answer (Gee, why is the sky blue?) And more to the point, why do we share 98% of our dna with chimpanzees? Why have we found non-homo sapien skeletons in the Neander valley that are so close to being human but have striking differences? Why have we found fossils that have both human characteristics and simien characteristics? The theory that explains these and a myriad of other observable facts is evolutionary theory and it does such a wonderful job explaining them that biologists accept theory to be accurate. When religion can explain neatherthals better than evolutionary theory let me know.

    Finally, no where in science do we talk about the “provability” of a theory. In science, we do not test theories. We test hypothesis derived from these theories. How accurate these hypotheses are determines whether we should accept the theory as an accurate explanation of the phenomena. No one has “proved” Einstein was right. Einstein himself said this. We’ve simply test what the theory predicts to see how accurate it is. That we exploded an atomic bomb seems to indicate that E=MC2 is a pretty accurate explanation of reality.

    And finally, it is not whether you know how to design a television but whether you could invent one if none existed and you did not have a means for explaining how light particles work. I’m sorry but you are both wrong in your understanding of how science works and wrong in the conclusions you arrived at (at least the science part). The question about children learning evolution and killing people is a separate issue.

  11. Steve said,

    May 29, 2008 at 7:11 am

    Starbix and Dr. Ross,
    “Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics — i.e. a miracle.”
    -Sir Fred Hoyle FRS

    “In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.”
    -Mark Eastman, MD, author Creation by Design

  12. Edmund Ross said,

    May 29, 2008 at 9:22 am

    And what are the statistics that an all powerful being has just always existed, had no beginning, no end and can do anything? I think I’m done with this. What you are talking about has absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of evolutionary biology. ZERO. I’m sorry, but please read a biology book (college level, sorry high school isn’t going to cut it). NO EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS make the claim that things combine by chance. I appreciate this little dialog. I think you should read Professor Hoyle’s book too. He wasn’t talking about evolutionary theory either.

    Good luck to you. I hope your God looks over you well

  13. Steve said,

    May 29, 2008 at 10:26 am

    Dr. Ross,
    I appreciated the dialog as well. I’ll try to pick up the publications you recommended.
    Don’t worry, Sir, my God does look over me very well!!
    Thank you for reading us and commenting. You are welcome here any time.

  14. Gordon said,

    December 18, 2008 at 9:36 am

    Dr Grady McMurtry is not actually a research scientist and has no training in geology or paleontology, so its hard to see why his opinions should be trusted over those of real scientists doing real research. You can read up on him here: Dr Grady McMurtry

  15. Patrick said,

    December 18, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Good point, Gordon.

    I also have two points, one is that in Steve’s post he stated that ““In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.”
    -Mark Eastman, MD, author Creation by Design”

    This does mean that there is a chance. In the history of forever, I would say that it is possible. (however unlikely, but unlikely is just by our human standards where things are not permanent.)

    Also, why cannot evolution and God co-exist. Cannot one say that God is the cause of evolution, etc? The defense to this may be that one must take the Bible literally. In that case… no rich people will be going to heaven because no camels will be fitting through the eyes of any needles.

  16. Steve said,

    December 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Patrick,
    The way I see it, you can choose to believe that we all climbed out of a pool of warm ooze, against all statistical odds, or you can listen to the eye witnesses who actually talked to the guy (God) who spoke us into existence. The choice is yours. I find it more realistic to believe the latter.
    About “evolution”, I’m not so naive to believe that biological creatures don’t adapt to their environments, when I know for a fact that they do. Is this evolution or adaptation? I say it is one of the same.
    I avoid using the term “evolution”, as much as possible, because to use the term would lump me in with the folks who do believe in the “warm ooze” theory.
    Listen, the bottom line is this:
    In regards to the formation of life, the evolutionist are grasping at straws. Anything to keep from admitting that a supreme being made it happen.

  17. Steve said,

    December 18, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Gordon,
    When I was a kid, the second ice age was the “big thing”. We were told how Canada would be completely uninhabitable and the tropics would shrink to a fraction of their current size. Guess what? It didn’t happen.
    People apparently have no concept of “cyclic weather patterns”.
    The man-made global warming crowd lost me when I found out that volcanoes put out more greenhouse gases in one event than man has since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

  18. Patrick said,

    December 18, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    Steve, would you go as far to say that through God all things are possible… and thus evolution (ooze) through God is possible?

  19. Jason said,

    December 18, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Steve, the most immoral thing you can do is teach creationism as equal to the theory of evolution. It undermines the moral core of humanity as a whole, not to mention keeps America as one of the worst in the world in regards to science and math. It’s a shame that you allow dogma to usurp common sense and knowledge.

    We’ve covered all this before, I know, and I’ve always ended up disappointed in how dogmatic you remain in spite of reality. I can only hope that one day you realize that not everything can be answered by “Because I believe it,” especially in regards to the sciences.

    It takes facts, proofs, and a mind much broader and open than I’m afraid yours could ever be. I know that sounds like an insult, but it’s more of an observation. You could be better than all of this, if only you would allow yourself to not fear knowledge…

    With that in mind, I hope you will think about how your position on teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution IS highly immoral and a huge disservice to humanity as a whole…

  20. Steve said,

    December 19, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Patrick,
    Of course through God, all things are possible, including warm ooze. But God didn’t use warm ooze. The Bible tells us exactly how God did it.

  21. Steve said,

    December 19, 2008 at 8:05 am

    Hey Jason, Welcome Back, Buddy.
    I don’t take anything you say as an insult, even the things you mean to be.
    “Reality”…would that be the statistical data that gets ignored because it somehow is non-scientific? Is statistical data only useful if it supports a predisposition? Apparently…
    Merry Christmas, my friend.

  22. Patrick said,

    December 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    It does? Doesn’t it just say that he created them? Thats not very specific. If it says something else, please correct me I do not want to make any false claims.

  23. Beth said,

    December 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    I find it pretty funny that atheists will go to any lengths to disprove the obvious. If I had never been told about God, the Creator, I would still be able to look around the world with all it’s intricate details and wonders and KNOW without a doubt that Someone created it.
    I daresay, if you take worship, obedience, and reverence for a Holy God out of the picture, the atheists would have no problem believing that there is a Creator.
    The problem comes in when people realize that in order to truly believe in God, the Creator they must change their lifestyle and turn from their sins and from their self…….if it were simply a matter of believing in a Creator with no other requirements, the atheists would have no problem with the fact that God is the Creator of the world and everything in it.

  24. Patrick said,

    December 19, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Actually Beth, not so. Maybe you speak for others but not myself. I practiced as a Lutheran unquestioningly for 16 years. It has nothing to do with laziness. (At least for myself.) For me, it just didn’t add up that there is an invisible man in the sky, watching everything I do. I also found that when I prayed, I was talking to myself. However, that is only my experience, and not anyone else’s. Therefore someone else could have a completely different experience that helps them believe in God. I just don’t. For the record, just because I don’t does not mean that I am moral-less. I am 18, have never tasted alcohol outside of when I took communion, never smoked, saving sex for marriage etc. I feel that compared to many people who I know that wear the crosses around their neck’s, I lead a better life. But who is to say that. I don’t say anything because it isn’t my place, religious or not. So perhaps you speak on behalf of others, but not myself. Thanks, Patrick.

  25. Steve said,

    December 19, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Please read Genesis 2.

  26. Beth said,

    December 19, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    Patrick,
    I think that it’s great that you lead such a moral life, but the truth is that even the most moral man will die and go to hell without Jesus. You say you practiced as a Lutheran……practiced? I assume that you practiced being a Lutheran because your parents took you to a Lutheran church.

    The cross around someone’s neck means nothing if their heart is not right and morality means nothing if one’s heart is not right with a Holy God. You say that you felt as though you were praying to yourself…..I would submit that you have never really met Jesus.

    There are many people who go through the proverbial motions and religious practices, but do not really know God. There are people who believe that they can “do” something to earn admittance into heaven, but works will not cut it…..the only way to heaven is through a relationship with Jesus Christ…..a REAL relationship with Him. I promise you that once you meet Jesus for REAL, you will never claim to be an atheist again.

    I pray that you will meet the REAL Jesus and that you will know what it means to have a REAL relationship with Him…..
    Respectfully,
    Beth

  27. Patrick said,

    December 20, 2008 at 1:43 am

    This has gotten widely off topic. That being said, thanks for the general concern, however I just do not feel that I will be going to heaven. Therefore it isn’t high on my list; my goal is to be an open-minded, loving person; while on earth. I’m nowhere near perfect, however, I strive to be – while having the full knowledge that I cannot be. I just wish to respect people. I personally believe in evolution at the same time, it is very apparent to me that many other people will never accept this theory. (I do feel that this is a disservice to science.) However, it is a non essential issue. One can be a good person, (follower of any religion of not.) while believing in evolution, or not believing in evolution.

  28. Greg P said,

    December 20, 2008 at 7:29 am

    “…I just do not feel that I will be going to heaven”.

    Patrick, doesn’t this bother you? What do you think there is after death? There is definitely a heaven and a hell, just as there is definitely a God that can save you from going to hell. God will judge you whether you say you believe in Him or not.

    You said you were raised in the Lutheran church and that you felt nothing when you prayed. Rather than follow the rules and rites of a “religion”, why not just tell God that you have been seeking Him, but, cannot find Him. Ask God to reveal Himself to you, and be sincere in your prayer. Ask Jesus to come into your heart and forgive you of your sins and to work in your life. Jesus would love to do it, all you have to do is come to Him with a contrite heart.

    I hope soon you will do that. Time is short. You are in need of salvation through Jesus Christ.

  29. Patrick said,

    December 20, 2008 at 10:42 am

    Nope, doesn’t bother me at all. Now anyhow, this was about evolution. If there is anything to be said further on this issue; let us please continue it. I know I am partially responsible for letting this conversation vere widely of course, but it would be nice to see it come back to what it was originally intended to be.

  30. Gordon said,

    December 29, 2008 at 8:28 am

    Regarding Dr Grady McMurtry, before you take his opinions too seriously
    you should read this article about his background and academic qualifications:

    Dr Grady McMurtry

Leave a Comment

*