Friday, March 16, 2012

The psychology of evolution

I've looked at several dozen creation/ist videos posted on YouTube, and have found that almost every one of them has abusive comments posted; often foul, obscene, and vituperous. These are comments filled with rage and hatred. The question is this; what is there about Darwinism that leads people to become so foul mouthed, rude and obscene?

- The psychology seems both simple and clear. I think most of the people who make these comments (and they strike me as quite young, mainly teenagers or people in their early twenties) are kids who grew up in Christian homes. (In many cases these are the kids of pastors and missionaries.) I assume they have parents who are both Christians and creationists. When it comes time to rebel these kids find Darwinism a great tool to use in their rebellion. It gives them an excuse to reject the faith of their parents. i.e. ''since we know Evolution is true, the bible is wrong about creation; and if it's wrong about creation there's no reason to believe it about anything'' (or so they tell their parents).

In their rebellious phase they easily see Evolution as being modern and sophisticated (it's neither) while they see creation and Christianity as being outdated and silly. i.e. non-scientific.

The hatred they spew isn't really against the speakers (most of whom have PHDs, while these kids probably haven't finished high school) but against their parents. They have adopted E. as a way of spiting their parents and as a way of inflicting pain on them. Darwinism becomes the road to separation. Their motivation behind rejecting creation and accepting E. is rebellion.
While they might be hesitant to curse their parents (sadly this isn't always the case) they can mock and ridicule creationists.

Most of these kids know precious little about the E. they celebrate, and seem to imagine someone has made Richard Dawkins the official authority on what E. is or is not. About all they know about E. are sound bites by Dawkins; e.g. ''e. is simply change over time.'' The fact they know so little about the 'theory' of evolution allows them great confidence in its verity. If they studied it (e.) in detail they would see how riddled with problems the story is; and how little it can explain. (A little e. is a dangerous thing; and all most kids get in gov. schools are 'facts' they're told to memorize; i.e. they're being taught Evolution (i.e. M2M) the way kids in the USSR were taught communism.)

They seem blissfully unaware of the atheist source of evolution. They might want to ask themselves why it is Dawkins offers such a dumbed down definition of evolution. e.g. is he trying to formulate a definition so vague and watered down that it's impossible to refute? It's as if a creationist defined creation as 'stasis over time' i.e. if you see stasis you see evidence of creation. Well; since we see stasis therefore we have proof of creation. (Anyone convinced?)

All this is to be expected when christian parents send their children to be educated by atheists, secularists and humanists; in a system dominated by an evolutionary spirit. Evolution isn't science it's a worldview, and represents the spirit of the age (an increasingly pagan age). We see this influence in the way once Christian students reject creation and accept Evolution, and we see it in their foul speech and lack of respect for parents. These kids apparently have no idea how to treat others.

Only the most naive believe this conversion to evolution has much (if anything) to do with science. (In my experience most of these haters of creation aren't even in the sciences.) Adopting Darwinism isn't about biology but it's a circumspect way of adopting atheism.

Since these kids rejected Christianity on the basis of E. they feel the need to 'refute' creation, which atheists who grew up in atheist homes don't feel... and so they haunt any creationist web page and try to refute what creationists have said. i.e. if they can't then their rationale for atheism collapses. Since they have so little ammunition in the form of arguments they depend upon rhetoric, obscenity and name calling, etc.

Summary;
What we see in the great animus toward creation among the youth is really an animus against Christians and Christianity. It's no surprise that the most enthusiastic supporters of the e. story are the fiercest critics and haters of Christianity. The idea of cosmic evolution is an old (old) story and was invented as a way of escape from Godly religion and from the Creator. It gave men a rationale for declaring themselves not responsible to God. It serves the same purpose now. The psychology of evolution is a rejection of the Creator (and the creaturehood this entails) and a declaration of independence and autonomy.

Many young people in the church turn their hostility toward biblical Christianity into hostility against creation and an advocacy of evolution; this allows them to remain in the church on the one hand, but to be separate from it as well. Hand in hand with an adoption of evolution is an adoption of liberal theology, antinomianism, a god of process, and so forth. They remain (marginally) in the church but have an entirely different religion from their grandfathers.

Where does the desire to mock and ridicule and name call come from? Does it stem from the ridicule they themselves suffered from classmates and teachers for a one time belief in creation? Did they adopt e. to escape this critique and ridicule? Have they now externalized this pain by attacking creationists? (Parents are expecting far too much of their children if they expect them to be 'creation evangelists' in secular (government) schools. Children should be students, not teachers. It's not their job or their proper role to instruct their evolutionist teachers.)

In my opinion it's far better for Christian young people to learn evolution theory before they get taught it at school. Too many young Christians are completely bowled over by the presentation and are unable to see the falseness and inadequacy of it. They should learn evolution theory from a critical standpoint, as they will be very unlikely to get a critical presentation in a govrnment school. Christian students who meet evolution for the first time in school haven't been properly prepared.

- Michael Johnson

Notes;
1. I haven't included quotes; the internet is a foul enough place already without giving you examples of this type of comment. They're readily available.
2. It never ceases to amaze me how small and petty anti-creationists are; they sneer and curse, mock and ridicule, slander and name call. Can't they realize how bad they look?
3. I wish someone would collect a book's worth of these comments and publish them so future generations could see what idiocy was extant in our time.
4. These people (ranting and raving like politicians at a convention) remind me of first generation atheists, as they are clearly excited (enthused) about their new faith. Kids growing up in multi-generational atheism have no such fanaticism in attacking creation or creationists. (We'll have to see how excited they still are when they reach their seventies and eighties.)
5. These kids would do well to ask themselves why this subject provokes them into fury, and why they allow themselves to treat others so badly.
6. These kids have abandoned far more than just a belief in creation; they've abandoned civility, manners, a concern for the truth, treating your neighbor as yourself, respect for parents, humility, and a great deal more.
7. What we see in all this is the curse of anonymity. Where man becomes anonymous he becomes barbaric and uncivilized. In the bible we see the antithesis of anonymity; where every man is held accountable and no one is allowed to wear a mask. A civilized society must fight against any and all anonymity. One way to restrain human depravity is to make it essential that all men need to protect their good name. (I suggest people reject the very concept of anonymous comments.) We see to have forgotten that men (starting with Adam) were given names for a purpose, and that purpose is to hold men accountable. We see that people who set aside their names also set aside their decency and morality. Anonymity works like an intoxicant robbing people of their prudence and manners, and is an invitation to profligacy.