Can Darwin save me from ME?
Darwin's Dangerous Idea : Critique of the BBC TV series with Andrew Marr

When I had ME/CFS really ME, I was aware of thinking one particlar thought quite often. I believed that God knew the complexities of my damaged DNA and could mend it - because he created it (and me). Darwinians would ridicule that idea : yet it gave me powerful hope in the depth of darkness. With that in mind, I have been watching some of Andrew Marr's analysis of the effect of Darwin's "Dangerous Idea" about Darwin and evolution, on BBC TV.

Marr rightly highlights that Charles Darwin's ideas were behind Nietsche's ideas about getting rid of the sick and weak, behind the philosophies of the First World War and behind "eugenics" and the murder of Jews, gipsies, homosexuals and the disabled under Hitler and Nazism. Marr also rightly admits that Darwin's idea about "survival of the fittest", which in fact means "survival of the most adapted", not the strongest, has had a very dark side indeed in outworking of the 20th century - which we should be very wary of today.

Is this because in fact the whole theory of evolution is just not true? After watching the feeble so called "evidence" produced by the BBC series (plural) on Darwin, I am utterly unconvinced by the whole theory of evolution. There is no fossil record that is convincing (as Darwin knew) showing creatures evolving between species and the examples that scientist use to defend the theory are open toi other interpretations. Science is a very closed way of looking at the world and it is only the over-exaggerated awe of the modern world towards scientists that puts many Christians off exercising faith on this evidence. Yet as other articles on this site state: science is just as often wrong as right. It is all about how scientists want to view things. The same evidence could be viewed by a believing scientist in quite a different way (as in the USA).

Yet it is very hard to get "Darwin's disciples" to listen or to view one with anything less than withering scorn if one states that one does not believe the whole "regime". This Darwinian ideology has taken such root in the UK (under the direction of Richard Attenborough and Prof Dawkins) that it amounts to a heresy to deny it. Even churchmen have signed up to a kind of cross between Christianity and Darwinism. Darwinism is almost a religion here and one wonders what such a idolatry this is the prelude to? Sadly, there are very few people equipped in the UK to contest it, unlike in the USA where accomplished apologists have taken on Professor Dawkins (see You Tube).

Coming out of evolution, there is a theory being debated that altruism (that is familial love) is genetic. The scientists view that survival of the fittest has been enabled by "an altruistic gene". The whole approach discounts God completely and Jesus Christ "through whom all things were made". Another difficulty in interacting with scientists is that they use words differently. They may appear to use a perfect ly useful English word like "altruism" but they have the presumption to give it new meaning (in this case using some definition from a German philosopher). So one cannot have a rational discussion with them if you are not signed up to their world view, because they are using English words differently.

I started to wonder why, if altruism is viewed by scientists as a "genetic" development of natural selection, why is there so little of it around today being demonstrated by this so called "evolved" human species? This evolved human species is fast destroying its habitat and facing that fact with full knowledge and rationality and yet it is not showing any altruism over it, in spite of knowing that members of its own species will suffer and die i.e. those most vulnerable to Climate Change and its own children. Surely this is the ultimate test of whether the "selfish gene" exists, how Man reacts to facing the end of his species/ genes. What really strikes me is how little intelligent people really care about whether Mankind survives. Some even say, "I think the world would be better without us". Others have actually said to me, "I do not care about climate change because it will not much affect me and I have no children. I am simply a selfish person."

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ introduced true altruism. We must distinguish between natural love (which may not be that natural, in hardened man and woman) and altruism. Jesus showed us what altruism is, even if no one living demonstrates it as He lived it (which was pure altruism). True altruism, as opposed to the natural instinct to protect ones children, which seems to be breaking down in some cases these days, is alien to the human species and not genetic. It comes from a regeneration - from outside, from God, since Man is disabled by his own self-centredness.

The Bible says something interesting about our "make up" too: Ecclesiastes says that "God has placed eternity in the hearts of men". What do scientists make of that? It also says that we are haters of God in our natural state - a contradiction indeed.

The Bible suggests that "altruism" can disappear :

"There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Timothy 3)".

The word in Greek for "without love" ("astorge") in this text means "without family love" (e.g. parents for children). This kind of "natural love" is taken for granted by the Bible as being unworthy of the name goodness, since it is demonstrated by unspiritual forms of life. Therefore, its complete breakdown (in the text above) is deemed a sign of complete human decadence and degradation. Some see in this text a good description of life today in the UK.

The BBC also wants us to accept something visually risible : this is that their top political journalist, a clever man called Andrew Marr looks very like a gorilla. It appears absurd visually, even to non believers. For me, Andrew Marr is definitely made in the image of God, not a gorilla. These BBC and Open University views are increasingly irrational. Scientist have lost all sight of Mr Marr's civilised qualities, attributes and reason as being "made in the image of God". Of course, God is Spirit and so without form (invisible). Marr may have two eyes, hands, teeth and similar "genes" to apes (personally, I find cats more intelligent than apes) but does this make him into an advanced type of monkey?

Has anyone thought of this:

If you were creating something, that Creation will reflect your own qualities. We see this in Shakespeare's Sonnets. The poet sees that he always writes "in the same way" and that he cannot change it. He says he writes like this because he is always writing "about love" and love has a clear "signature". Surely what God creates reflects His love and character and how He interacts with the material world. If He solves the problem of sight in his creatures (in the eye) in a similar way, in many forms of life, then it may not mean that the eye is "evolved" throughout species, but just that everything is made by the same Creator and bears His signature, which may be a "genetic" signature. In fact, the Bible states that God created the eye and this fact reflects that God Himself "can see". In the same way, the DNA may reflect something essential in God.

For me, there is simply not enough proof of "in between" species, in the fossil record. Darwinians must also find an answer to why before about 6,000 plus years ago, there is no evidence for "spiritual man". Mankind only started to worship (idols) and to build temples at a certain date. No BBC programme ever tackles this issue and evolution alone does not explain it.

For the moment, I stand with Jesus Christ who said that the Old Testament Scriptures "cannot be broken". I do not know how long God took to create the world, since "day" in Hebrew can mean a long period of time, but I believe, more than ever, following the many current BBC programmes on Darwin (which are propaganda) that there is no convincing evidence that Man has "evolved" from an ancestor of gorillas.

I would also ask "disciples of Darwin" this : when everything in your life fails you as in ME, will following Darwin save you?

For more on this topic see: