I need to “get out” more on the internet, as I hadn’t seen this until today. Nice little article. It’s funny how some defenders of humanism, in the comments, complain that he didn’t mention the guys on their side. Why should he, specifically? He did mention them in passing, as having weak arguments. It can be viewed as being more polite and academic to not attack everyone, but to primarily present one’s argument instead. And the high rhetoric of some of humanism’s defenders is very funny too – it’s exactly the point. Without a basis for claiming their moral authority, they end up looking like self-promoters of humanity, which often leads to despotism. And around the web, there are no shortage of little bully despots running around daily, blindly insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with him. What a wonderful, happy, and moral world the humanists are creating!
Here is an example from the academic realm of how humanists or naturalists (I can’t say for sure based on the info provided) equate belief in God with stupidity, and that somehow their views are superior. They can’t even see how their opinions show that they think their views are obviously superior, instead of letting people have faith, and, actually talking about their differing views as equals. They said that the man in question, Ben Carson, claimed that evolutionists could not have the same level of ethics as theists (basically). This is a philosophical argument, if it’s true what they said, and they need to address it seriously instead of whining about it.
In church last weekend the thought came to me that the beauty of human singing is an example of a God given gift or virtue. How can singing, beautiful singing, be considered a trait that evolved? Our voices are so varied to begin with that it’s hard to think that somehow that variety evolved, but then there is also singing. Can you imagine a chimp or ape singing? The thought is laughable.
The theory of evolution is based on the survival of the fittest. Surely that works at a basic level in any environment with any species. But there are many problems with the time frame for species to actually diverge and develop (despite what basic level text books say . . . they make it sound like all is fact when it is not); and it can easily be shown that there has not been enough time for humans to have developed to their present state from their nearest assumed ancestor (for more on this, see “Science and Human Origins” Informational Review).
So besides all the other differences between us and the very small and very ape-like ancestor of ours, singing had to develop somehow, right? As already mentioned, environment plays a factor in who lives and who does not. But a biggy that evolutionists use is sexual selection. I’m not writing a scientific discourse here, but am going by my past studies (I have a degree in anthropology with an emphasis on human evolution and archaeology).
Here’s an example. Why are human female breasts so big (usually, and compared to other primates)? Well, you can imagine the answer: males had more sex with females with bigger breasts, producing more big-breasted females. And you might reflect on how that answer just doesn’t seem valid based on human sexuality, that while many men find large breasts attractive, most men wouldn’t care about that when it came to the chance for sex. And if you imagine it from a purely scientific, non-Christian viewpoint, “evolving” men probably cared even less and raped more. At any rate, scientists may try to argue that human singing is a result of not survival of the fittest in the environment, but survival of the most reproduced based on attraction, just like the breast example.
Do you think that could be so, really? A good singer (or any other charismatic person, for that matter), may have more sex partners – which in the past would result in more offspring. But, considering how beautiful good singing is, wouldn’t we all be great singers by now? Or, wouldn’t some populations have a very high per cent of great singers by now, and some have mostly lousy singers? And, of course, this type of argument can’t account for the amazing nuances/differences of the human voice itself.
No, we were created with these traits. Singing is often, if not always, associated with the spiritual. I don’t mean that singing is always spiritual, but that is has always been used in spiritual contexts as far as I’m aware. Singing is emotional, it’s often spiritual, it can induce or promote thoughts of love. We as humans think musically and mathematically, with thoughts of the music of the spheres and the singing of angels. This all coming from the survival of the fittest? I don’t think so. When we see human aggression and greed, the survival of the fittest makes sense, but when it comes to beauty like human singing, it does not.