Please expain why you disagree with the following statements you posted. Thank you.
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one up to the last moment. ..”
“Vaccination has preserved thousands who from a weak constitution would formerly have suc-cumbed to smallpox. Thus, the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man....”
“ Excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
“[Yet,] the aid which we feel impelled to give to the help¬less is mainly an incidental result of the [otherwise good] instinct of sympathy...”
“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind...”
“Please expain why you disagree with the following statements you posted. Thank you.”
Thank you for your kind reply.
Because I haven’t resigned myself to believing there is no difference between animal and man. Man has a different and greater worth than animal in God’s creation so, even though what Darwin said may be true of animals it is not relatable to mankind... Why?
Because man has a soul that is worth saving and, as a believer in the God of Creation, I believe life was created as a sacred thing and that the weak are not obstacles to overcome.
Because I believe we are all in a fallen state... that there is no life less worthy than my own... or yours.
Because Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost and to redeem the sins of anyone who believes, to heal the sick and infirmed and make the blind man see.
Jesus didn’t tell the blind or the lame to go away and die because they were a blight on humanity and a stumbling block to the able. He offered hope and healing. It is in no way injurious to the state of man to attend to the weak. With man it seems to make the weak strong and encourage the one who lifts up the other... to make them stronger men themselves. Stephen Hawkings would have been left to die if Darwin’s premise were followed to it’s ultimate conclusion. There are countless others who would have perished; Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder, Franklin Roosevelt, Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox... All of these would be left to die so that the strong might survive.
The conclusion most evolutionists draw when confronted with Darwin’s statements is that he meant them in a different context than how we take them. Darwin, however spent some time lamenting the fact he could not be as harsh as he would have liked because of social dictates, ie. the feelings of his family. He would have, by his own admission attacked religion if he felt unfettered from the chains of society opinion.
I apologize for not taking them one at a time, but it was easier to summarize since each comment, in one way or the other drew the same or similar conclusions.
Thank you.