Apparently
there are officials who deem intellectually inferior the unvaccinated who have
not been deceived by the COVID propaganda, nor have given into the
fearmongering, nor allowed themselves to be manipulated, or coerced into
abiding by oppressive and unnecessary COVID mandates or taking a potentially
hazardous vaccination with side affects worse than the disease it is purported
to cure and which possesses a mortality rate far higher than the virus itself,
while claiming intellectually superior they who place blind trust in the
official narratives, are scared into submitting to mandates and regulations
imposed upon them in the name of health and safety but are unnecessary and have
nothing at all to do with public health and safety, and who stupidly give
themselves over to a vaccination that could potentially cripple or kill them.
Of the
unvaccinated, one such official, Elliot Tommingo, serving as the director of
the Washington D.C. Mayor’s office of veteran’s affairs, in his support for the
D.C. COVID mandates, which have since been lifted, had stated at that time:
If people
stopped listening to celebrities, took the vaccine, didn’t eat horse dewormer
and/or their own piss, we could lift those mandates soon. However, allowing Darwinism to kill off those
too foolish to protect themselves is a necessary evil. [1-2]
Ironically,
it was people listening to celebrities, the mainstream manure pile, and
deceitful government propaganda who put on the masks, locked themselves away,
and took the vaccines which have caused debilitating injuries and health
complications in many and in some cases, have even proved fatal.
If we are
to apply the evolutionary tenet of “survival of the fittest” then it is not
those who question everything, retain a healthy sense of skepticism, seek
verification for claims presented to them, and are willing to at least consider
facts, opinions, and ideas not just from people of authority, influence, and
those credentialed, but also from those who are not regarded as affluent,
authoritative, or credentialed who are the intellectually inferior as Tommingo
assumes. Instead, it would be those who
place full unquestioning trust in the credentialed, the authoritative, the
self-proclaimed expert, and the affluent who ought to be considered
intellectually inferior because they never consider that the so-called
authoritative experts be they in government, media, or academia, could be
poisoning their minds with lies and that college degrees do not make one honest
or credible, but rather instead can sometimes only serve to produce certified
liars and fools and according to Darwinism, if the physically inferior are
destined for extinction and are to be dominated by and even eliminated by that
which is physically superior and more fit, then so the intellectually
inferior---being those who place blind faith in corruptible institutions---are
also destined for extinction whereas the intellectually superior---being they
who do not place full trust in corruptible institutions---are destined to take
their place having recognized that man is an inherently corrupt being and that
no matter what his occupation, place or status in society, and no matter what
his credentials or expertise may be, can never be fully trusted because that
inherent corruption does not all of a sudden just happen but instead comes from
within.
A
political figure does not just suddenly become corrupt before they are elected
into office. They were already that way
before being elected or appointed.
They who
control and operate the information that is reported by our media did not all
of sudden start lying to their viewers.
They were already dishonest before they began reporting the news.
Professors,
seminarians, and teachers did not just suddenly become deceitful when they
attained their professions. They were
already that way before they even finished school themselves.
Even they
of the clergy did not all of a sudden become full of hypocrisy before stepping
up to the pulpit. They were that way
before they even set foot within any place of worship.
The
corporate and business leader did not all of a sudden become corrupt and
dishonest in his or her dealings before reaching the top of the corporate
ladder. They had already brought their
corruption and dishonesty into the internship before being promoted to higher
positions.
Our
entertainment industry did not all of a sudden become morally decadent and
perverse for they were already perverse and morally bankrupt before submitting
their movie script, manuscript, song, storyline, art work, concepts, or passing
their audition.
But in
evolutionary terms, all that is deemed morally corrupt and looked upon with
absolute disgust and contempt, is all attributed to blind basic instinct
because the concepts of morality, right and wrong, good and evil, justice or
injustice, law and order or lawlessness and disorder are rendered meaningless
because the entire philosophy attributes the origins of this universe to time
and random chance and all that has ever happened, is happening, and will
happen, whether good or bad, to happenstance and not to any supernatural or
divine intervention.
As for
the unvaccinated, what if they do not die off from the COVID virus as Tommingo
believes they will and all they who ran to the vaccine thinking that it would
protect them from the virus end up eventually dying off instead?
Would he
and anyone else of like-mind then acknowledge that the unvaccinated turned out
to be superior in their intellect than the vaccinated?
Or would
they refuse to accept the results and feel the need to help the evolutionary
process along in the manner he thinks it should be which in the past has no
doubt result in the elimination of millions by they who thought they had to
help the evolutionary process along in order to preserve that which they
believed to be racially, intellectually, morally, and socially superior which
also included preventing that which they sought to preserve from being
contaminated by that which they believed to be inferior and less fit?
While
Darwin himself may not have necessarily been in favor of an outright
extermination of persons he may have viewed to be of an inferior race or less
physically fit than others, he nevertheless admitted this to be the outcome if
his philosophy were to be carried out and applied to its final conclusion:
At some
future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races
of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the
savage races [3]
Which
Margaret Sanger expressed her desire to do to blacks albeit so subtly in a
correspondence with a Dr. Clarance Gamble:
We do not
want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…[4]
And which
Adolf Hitler would attempt to do in a fashion not so subtle, which he would
justify largely in the name of Darwinism.
In his notorious Mein Kampf, Hitler expressed the need to
preserve what he called the superior races of men which required not only
preventing superior races from interbreeding with inferior races but also for
the eventual extinction of the inferior races which according to evolutionary
teaching requires a violent struggle for existence:
The
stronger has to rule and he is not to amalgamate with the weaker one that he
may not sacrifice his own greatness.
Only the
born weakling can consider this as cruel, but at that he is only a weak and
limited human being; for, if this law were not dominating, all conceivable
development towards a higher level, on the part of all organically living
beings, would be unthinkable for man…
The fight
for daily bread makes all those succumb who are weak, sickly, and less
determined, while the males' fight for the female gives the right of
propagation, or the possibility of it, only to the most healthy. But the fight
is always a means for the promotion of the species health and force of
resistance, and thus a cause for its development towards a higher level…
For,
since according to numbers, the inferior element always outweighs the superior
element, under the
same
preservation of life and under the same propagating possibilities, the inferior
element would increase so much
more
rapidly that finally the best element would be forced to step into the
background, if no correction of this condition were carried out. [Emphasis
added] [5]
Even
Darwin himself believed in the preservation of superior races and condemned as
a disservice to the fittest the preservation of what he called inferiors:
With savages,
the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly
exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised 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 to the last moment. There is
reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak
constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members
of civilised 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. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly
directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the
case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst
animals to breed. [6]
Margaret
Sanger also, in the name of the preservation of the strongest and fittest,
condemned any attempt to care for and improve the quality of life of those she
thought should just be allowed to die and for this reason, making known her
contempt for organized charity:
Organized
charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease.
Those
vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the
spread of
misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this
sinisterly
fertile
soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and is
perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and
dependents. [7]
And going
back even before Darwin, the Reverend Thomas Malthus also thought it to be a
mistake to alleviate suffering, claiming that doing so would be an interference
in the course of nature:
…we
should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the
operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too
frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously
encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.
Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary
habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people
into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should
build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements
in all marshy and unwholesome situations.
But above
all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those
benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service
to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular
disorders. [8]
Darwinism
has also been used to convince countless women with an unplanned or unwanted
pregnancy that the child growing in their wombs is not a human being, but is a
soulless pound of flesh undergoing a series of evolutionary stages before it
becomes fully human; this lie tracings its origins to an Ernst Haeckel, an avid
defender of Darwin, who forged depictions of the alleged developments of
different embryos, including a human embryo, in an attempt to convince everyone
that evolution was not a mere theory but a fact by having them believe that
embryos underwent evolutionary stages throughout their development; that claim
known as the theory of recapitulation:
By a
tenacious heredity these gill-clefts, which have no meaning except for our
fish-like aquatic ancestors, are still preserved in the embryo of man and all
the other vertebrates. They disappear after a time. Even after the five
vesicles of the embryonic brain appear in the head, and the rudiments of the
eyes and ears at the sides, and after the legs sprout out at the base of the
fish-like embryo, in the form of two roundish, flat buds, the fetus is still so
like that of other vertebrates that it is indistinguishable from them
The
substantial similarity in outer form and inner structure which characterizes
the embryo of man and other vertebrates in this early stage of development is
an embryological fact of the first importance ; from it, by the fundamental law
of biogeny, we may draw the most momentous conclusions. There is but one
explanation of it-heredity from a common parent form. When we see that, at a
certain stage, the embryos of man and the ape, the dog and the rabbit, the pig
and the sheep, although recognizable as higher vertebrates, cannot be
distinguished from each other, the fact can only be elucidated by assuming a
common parentage. [9]
The
concept was already a known theory but it was one about which even Darwin had
his doubts:
Agassiz
insists that ancient animals resemble to a certain extent the embryos of recent
animals of the same classes ; or that the geological succession of extinct
forms is in some degree parallel to the embryological development of recent
forms. I must follow Pictet and Huxley in thinking that the truth of this
doctrine is very far from proved…[10]
The
theory of recapitulation has long since been discredited and Haeckel’s drawings
shown to be the fraud that they were, but his infamous drawings are still
widely circulated within scientific textbooks to this day and the consequences
of this deception still continue to persist in the continued slaughter of many
unborn innocents.
If
Darwinism can be used as a justification for racial supremacy, the enslaving
and extermination of those deemed to be of an inferior status, and ending the
lives of those deemed to be an inconvenient burden, then it can also be used to
justify the elimination of those of a particular religion or any given
philosophy, ideology, or opinion but even if one should prevail over the other
and prove themselves the fittest and the strongest, their reign will not last
forever because then another stronger and superior to them shall prevail over
them and even they who were once regarded as inferior may find strength enough
to challenge and overthrow that which regarded themselves as the superior race
and if, as Hitler and Sanger feared, that which is regarded as superior could
be tainted by that which is inferior and even bred out by interbreeding with
the inferior, then was that which was regarded as superior really superior
after all?
For that
which is superior ought to be expected to be capable of preserving itself from
genetic corruption, but if it cannot do so and if it cannot retain supremacy
over that which is inferior, then that which was thought to be superior may not
be so superior after all no matter how pure it may appear or how strong and
adaptable it may seem.
But what
the Darwinian supremacists never take into account is the possibility that the
inter-breeding of two different races could just as likely produce a race that
is superior to the races of both parents in every way for the genetics of the
offspring are a combination of genes passed down to them from both parents and
the chances of an offspring possessing the worst genes of both parents or a
mixture of superior and inferior genes are just as great as they are for an
offspring possessing a genetic combination that makes them superior to both
parents.
Furthermore,
according to evolutionary teaching, it was from simple inferior life forms from
which the more highly advanced and superior life forms descended and therefore,
the superior owes its existence to that which is regarded as inferior;
multi-celled organisms owe their existence to single-celled organism, plants
and trees owe their existence to algae and moss, land dwelling creatures owe
their existence to fish. Reptiles and
mammals owe their existence to amphibians, the flying creatures owe their existence
to non-avian creatures, and man ultimately owes his existence to the primates,
and they to rodents.
It would
then seem irrational and illogical, and unreasonable for the superior to treat
with such distain and contempt that which may seem inferior since it was from
the inferior that the superior descended and owes its existence.
That
being said, it would seem that Elliot Tommingo’s expressed contempt for the
unvaccinated is without a reasonable or rational basis since the “vaccinated”
and those blindly obedient to the COVID mandates, whom he regards as
intellectually superior to the unvaccinated and those who refuse to submit to
the mandates, descended from the unvaccinated and from those upon whom no COVID
mandates were ever imposed until the COVID outbreak.
But then
again, Darwinism is neither logical or rational; the concepts and capacity for
such are foreign to the doctrine of evolution and since evolution relies on
time and random processes, it cannot be expected to impart reason, rationality,
or logic nor can it be expected to follow a path that is reasonable, logical,
or reasonable, nor a path of any guided order and therefore can just as easily
lead to the extinction of one species as it can the development of others and
just it can be expected of the evolutionary processes to produce forms of life
that become progressively more advanced over time, so it should also be
expected that those same processes can also lead to a degeneracy as well.
For
example, it could be said that flowers and worms, which reproduce asexually,
are superior in their reproductive capabilities than those life forms which
rely on the copulation of a male and female for reproduction whereas those
possessing a same-sex attraction are genetic degenerates of either one since
their lack of an attraction to the opposite gender renders them incapable of
reproduction and therefore, an evolutionary dead end for if homosexuality were
to spread throughout most given species, it could lead to the extinction of any
given lifeform, including man, in a single generation; that alone should make
it enough, in the name of the preservation of the species, to discourage
homosexual behavior and possibly eliminate homosexuals and lesbians and
possibly even bi-sexuals from the face of the earth for the sake of preserving
the human race from possible extinction.
Within
both man and animal, there is an innate desire and drive to endure this life
for as long as possible and within both lies an instinctual preservation of
self and when faced with a threat to their existence, they are driven to either
evade the threat or if possible, eliminate it altogether and this
self-preservation which is instilled in all life and within virtually every
individual within any and all given species which then translates into a
collective preservation of the species as a whole and this self-preserving
survival instinct is instilled in not just the stronger and superior species
but also in species viewed to be inferior as well and according to Darwinism,
this drives the ongoing and even violent struggle amongst all living things
including people and according to Darwinism, some species and races are
destined to prevail and others are destined for extinction. It is just a matter of knowing what creatures
and races are destined to prevail, abide, and perhaps to give rise to other
forms of life, and which ones are destined to meet their final end and yet upon
further examination, we find that superiority and inferiority are but a matter
of perspective.
For
example, aquatic and even semi-aquatic creatures, from whom land dwelling
creatures, according to evolutionary teaching, land creatures descended, may be
at a disadvantage on land, but in the water, will prevail over any
land-dwelling creature.
Flying animals
are superior to land and aquatic dwelling creatures in the sense that by flight
they are able to evade land and aquatic predators and are able to travel
greater distances within a shorter amount of time than non-avian creatures but
if unable to fly, they will be easily overtaken by predators and the harsh
elements of nature and most existing fowl have no direct physical advantages
over many land-dwelling creatures except for small animals as they do not
possess as much muscle mass and their bones are more fragile than those of most
non-avian creatures.
There are
advantages that small animals have over large animals as well as disadvantages
and likewise, there are advantages that large animals have over small animals
as well as disadvantages, advantages that water-dwelling creatures have over
land-dwelling creatures as well as disadvantages and likewise advantages that
land-dwelling animals have over water-dwelling animals as well as disadvantages
and so when it comes to inferiority or superiority, we then must ask in what
way is one creature superior to another and in what way is it inferior to
another.
For
example, apes are physically superior to man and possess physical attributes
lacking in man (i.e. apes are able to grasp things with both their hands and
feet, whereas man is only able to grasp things with his hands) but for all the
physical strength and attributes an ape possesses, they, along with all other
animals, still remain intellectually inferior to mankind.
What
gives mankind the ability to dominate the earth is not brute force but his
intelligence, the ability to conceive plans and ideas, his innovative,
imaginative, and creative capabilities which is why he has been able to not
only take dominion over the land, but he has also been able to seemingly
conquer the skies, send people into outer space, and even traverse and dominate
the seas.
There are
a lot of animals that possess a high degree of intelligence, some of which
possess even problem-solving intelligence, but they do not have the ability to
form elaborate complex strategies nor do they possess creative, imaginative, or
innovative attributes, nor can they ever conceive of ideas, or establish any
type of political, philosophical, or religious belief systems and furthermore,
animals, even the most intelligent of them operate on blind instincts without
any comprehension of right or wrong, good or evil. Only man possesses those capabilities,
attributes, and capacities; all of which set him apart from and above any beast
but take these unique attributes away from man, and he would find himself lower
and inferior in many ways to many of the animals. He would be no different from any other
animals but in truth, he would by nature, be far worse and more depraved than
any other creature on the face of the planet.
But if
each life form, no matter how seemingly insignificant, possesses advantages and
attributes unique unto itself, then no life form is entirely inferior or
superior to another but each plant, tree, and animal is designed in accordance
to the purpose and role that it was created to serve.
And just
as each kind of plant, tree, and animal have been created and designed to serve
a certain purpose, so people are also molded and shaped to serve the respective
purpose for which they were meant.
Amongst both genders and amongst every lineage, ethnicity, skin-color,
and nationality, there are both weak and strong, learned and unlearned,
civilized and uncivilized, the quick and sharp minded and the dull witted, the
morally upright and the morally depraved, the law-abiding and the lawless,
those who seek peace, and those who live by the sword, leaders and followers,
the affluent and renown and complete unknowns, the wealthy and the poor, the
free and the oppressed, and those who are advanced and they who are primitive
and within all people are instilled a set of skills, talents, and interests in
accordance to each respective role and purpose for which they were
created. Every person will always have
supremacy over another in one sense and yet be inferior in another and if we
are all superior to one another in one sense and yet inferior to each other in
another sense, then no one is entirely
superior or inferior to anyone else and if none of us are entirely superior or
inferior to one another, then we are made equal and what makes us all equal is
not what sets us apart from one another, but what we all share in common.
We share
a common history and we possess the same basic attributes and capacities that
are not found within any animal and what all people possess in common with one
another, regardless of gender, economic or social status, occupation, age and
stage in life, skin-color, ethnicity, lineage, or nationality are these:
The
ability to reason.
The
ability to conceive and covey thoughts and ideas.
The
ability to plan, strategize, and innovate.
The
capacity for creativity and an imagination.
A desire
to live a life of meaning, purpose, and significance.
A
universal understanding of what is right and wrong, good and evil
The
aforementioned can never be found within any animal but are only found in
mankind.
Men look
back to the past and in some cases are even trapped in it and then there are
those who look to the future and fret over it whereas the animals simply live
day by day.
The
ferret will steal a piece of jewelry, take it back to its den and think nothing
of it. The lion kills for food and after
it has shed blood and eaten its fill, goes about its day as though nothing ever
happen. They feel no guilt or remorse
for their actions for they have no capacity to comprehend good or evil or right
and wrong nor the ability to differentiate between right wrong in the same way
or at the same level people do.
Only
people feel guilt and remorse for wrong actions and bad behavior even if they
manage to escape punishment from those whom they have wronged and victimized. For example, a man might steal a purse from
off a park bench without getting caught and yet later feel remorse for his
wrong actions and try to make right his wrong or if he kills someone without a
justifiable cause he will still wrestle within himself over what he has done,
even if he manages to succeed in eliminating all evidence and traces of his
crime, including the body of his victim because the guilt and remorse he feels
can and will burden him so heavily that he will even lose sleep over it because
there is something within that man through which that guilt and remorse over
his actions are produced and that guilt and remorse continue to scream at him
and cry out against him until he makes right what he has done including facing
the consequences of his crime and that which is within us that cries out
against us for wrong actions, bad behavior, improper conduct, words carelessly
and ill-spoken, or even for wrong motives, sour attitudes, and thoughts dark
and perverse is known as a conscience and a conscience is found only within man
and not known to be found within any animal:
Is the
rabbit that eats your garden going to come back to you and later say to you “I
am very sorry for what I did and I will do whatever I can to restore the damage
that I have done?”
Or is the
cheetah that kills and eats a gazelle going to later throw itself at the mercy
of its prey’s respective gazelle herd and say to them, “I have done a terrible
thing and will accept the consequences of my actions, do to me what you see
fit?”
No, they
won’t because they do not possess a conscience that would otherwise condemn
them for their actions because they operate only on blind instinct. They do whatever it is they must to survive
in this world.
But the
reason why men experience guilt and remorse over certain actions and conduct is
because they were created to operate on more than blind instinct. Mankind was created to operate and function
at a higher level than any other form of life was created to do and is subject
to a standard that has not been imposed on the rest of creation and it is a law
and standard designed to keep in check the inward evil from which come forth
the outward evil witnessed such as promiscuity, sexual perversion, adultery, lying,
greed, fraud, exploitation, rebellion against authority, lawlessness, violence,
chaos, oppression, theft, rape, murder, and war which according to Darwinism
are attributed to innate survival and self-preservation instincts from which
the ongoing struggle between men and between different forms of life arise, but
to which any sense of right and wrong are opposed because man is a being guided
and governed by a moral standard to which the animals are neither subject nor
have any comprehension.
Now, the
evolutionists dismiss the notions of good and evil and right and wrong as
societal constructs but what they cannot explain is how the understanding and
knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, and justice and injustice are
universal concepts and are neither unique to any given culture, civilization,
society, nation, kingdom, empire, or any era in history nor are credited to have
their origins based in any particular people or society at any given time in
history and therefore have no biological explanation which means the concepts
of good and evil and right and wrong have no biological basis but can only find
their explanation in that which is outside of biology and even outside of this
material universe and it is not an explanation that can be found in the
processes of time and chance for since neither time nor randomness can think,
they cannot plan nor imagine, and since they cannot think, plan, nor imagine,
they are unable to create because in order to create, they would have to think,
conceive, and plan and if they could think, conceive, and plan, then those
processes could neither be called time nor chance because it takes an
intelligence to be able to think, conceive, and plan which then makes creation
possible.
If time
and chance cannot think, then those processes are incapable of bringing
anything into existence. Things can only
be brought into existence by an intelligence by way of creation for it is by a
willful and conscious act on the part of this intelligence that makes possible
the existence of anything and if a willful act on the part of this intelligence
is required for the existence and sustaining of this universe, then we can
credit our existence to nothing else except to the God who made the heavens and
the earth and everything in them and it is by His power that all things are
sustained and held in their place and if there is a God by whom all things are
made and sustained, then He has also created all things to serve the designated
purpose for which He made them and just as He has established natural and
physical laws to maintain an orderly operation within nature, then it can only
be reasonably assumed that this same God has also established moral and
spiritual laws for the governance of mankind which He has placed in their
hearts and conscience which they either submit to or rebel against and it is
the laws of this supreme moral lawgiver from which the basis of all structured
and ordered authorities and governments are derived.
And
though the conscience was given to us to distinguish between right and wrong
and even though the law of God by which all men ought to be governed, be
written on the heart, the conscience can be either overly sensitive and demand
that there be more laws than what the law of God requires or it can be seared
and silence so as to render the individual without any regard for right and
wrong or for any moral standards and the heart can be corrupted, soiled,
darkened, and even hardened so as to blind men to the law of God that is spoken
to it and therefore how then are men to know what it is that God requires of
them, expects of them and from them, and what kind of God He is, what His
attributes are, or the nature of His character unless He is actively involved
in the affairs of men and from time to time, even interjects Himself directly
into the course of history and into our lives in some form or fashion.
If He is
a God who is distant and simply leaves all to chance, then, even if we were to
have, by the study of nature itself, come to the conclusion that there is a
Creator, we would have no way of knowing what for sure God requires and expects
of us nor to the nature of His character or the extent of His attributes. We would be left to our own devices and our
own understanding and our concept of God would be whatever it was we best
understood Him to be and not in accordance to who He really is.
But if He
is a God who is actively involved in the affairs of mankind, then it is not
unreasonable to think that what we know for certain about Him is what He has
revealed to us about Himself and that the instruction and doctrine that He
commands us to live by and abide in is what we know He has handed down to
us. The very fact that each known
religion in the world has a sacred text or a series of sacred texts testifies
of a God who is actively involved in the affairs of mankind, that He will
interject Himself into the lives of men and into the course of history as often
as He deems fit and necessary to accomplish a goal or fulfill a certain purpose
that requires personal and direct intervention on His part and except by way of
personal intervention, no sacred text could ever claim for a certainty to be
divinely inspired, but it is only by way of divine revelation and divine
direction can there exist any sacred text that is divinely inspired.
From this
sacred text are we given our history, future, clarity as to the nature and
things of God, and instruction for in what manner He ought to be approached,
reverenced, and worshipped, the truth in which we are to abide, how we are to
live our lives, and what means of redemption is provided for us when we find
ourselves falling short.
Darwinism
does not claim divine inspiration because it denies divine intervention and
because it denies divine intervention, there is simply no way to trust and
verify its claims in regards to history or our origins. It is all based on theory and speculation and
not anything that can be observed, tested, or replicated but then again the
Genesis account of creation cannot be repeated either since it is a one time
event, but the question is, is with which are the present observations the most
consistent as both evolutionists and creationists insist that science testifies
to the validity of what they believe in and though the debate over the origins
of mankind, and all of life for that matter, may be dismissed as a secondary
issue by most, it is the most important debate and discussion anyone can engage
in because what we believe or are led to believe about our origins and can and
does have serious ramifications and consequences for the course of our lives
and society as what we believe affects how we view and treat each other and our
fellow man, including those different from us, how we run our households, raise
our children, how they are educated, the values and moral standards we adopt,
the basis by which we choose our relationships and upon what they are built,
the influences we allow into our lives, who and what we serve and align
ourselves with, the kind of authorities that rule over and govern us, how
business is run and conducted, how governing powers are operated, and how we
view life in general.
And
judging by his statements, Elliot Tommingo’s adherence to Darwinism certainly
has had consequences for the course of his life and how he views and treats his
fellow man and certainly not for the better.
Darwinism
tells us that life arose by unthinking and unplanning random processes over
time.
The Bible
tells us that all things were created by God.
Darwinism
tells us that presently existing plants and animals are descended from life
forms different from themselves (i.e. vertebrae from invertebrates, from fish
to amphibian, from amphibian to reptiles, mammals, and birds, and from animal
to man)
The Bible
tells us that God created all of plant and animal life to reproduce after their
kind (Gen. 1:11-12, 20-28)
(Mushrooms
have always been mushrooms, dogs have always been dogs, monkeys have always been
monkeys and people have always been people)
And if
all things were created to reproduce after their own kind, then that also means
that every lineage, nationality, ethnicity, and every skin color, eye color, and
hair type and color found within man is descended from one man and one woman in
whom the genetic potential for all the outward variation we see within man we
see today resided which also means that there is no one race superior or
inferior in nature to another but we are all of the same nature and of the same
blood (Acts 17:26) while possessing different gifts, talents, and skills in
accordance to each role and respective purpose and therefore all men are
subjected to the same standard (Num. 15:16) and will be judged according to the
same without any respect to age, gender, social or economic status, occupation,
skin-color, lineage, ethnicity, or nationality, for as it is written, God is no
respecter of persons. (Acts 10:34)
Even our
own Declaration of Independence declares that all men are created equal by the
God who made them. [11]
Darwinism
tells us that there has always been a competition for survival and a violent
one at that, and that all creatures, including mankind, operate on nothing more
than blind instinct and that anything mankind does, be it good or bad, is
nothing more than a product of nature itself, but then again, Darwinism denies
the existence of good and evil and attributes every act of man as an act of the
natural instincts within him.
The Bible
gives us no record of any competition for survival amongst the animals or man
when the world was initially created and that death was never intended to be a
part of any natural process but came about by an act of disobedience that led
to an inherent corruption entering into him which has resulted in death being
brought upon man as a consequence for his disobedience.
The Bible
also describes this inherent corruption that resides in mankind as sin which is
not merely defined by bad behavior, evil deeds, or even careless and cruel
words spoken, but from our inward nature which the Bible says is inherently
evil and by which we are already defiled (Mt. 15:11, 18-20)
The scripture
goes on to state that this inherent corruption that resides from within us but
is dismissed by Darwinism as a product of innate natural instincts, was never
intended or desired by God, but entered into man when he ate of a certain fruit
that was forbidden to him which was the fruit from a tree called the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil. The
first man Adam and the first woman, his wife Eve, were warned that in the day
that they ate of that forbidden fruit, they would surely die (Gen. 2:16-17,
3:3) and when they did eat of that forbidden fruit, the sentence of death for
their transgression was placed upon them (Gen. 3:19) for it was in that day that
they ate that forbidden fruit that sin, being that inherent corruption of human
nature, entered into Adam and into his wife Eve, but the consequences of their
actions did not stop with them, for the scripture goes on to say that death was
passed onto the rest of mankind for it is from Adam and Eve that all of mankind
descend and from whom sin is inherited which causes all people to sin (Rom. 5:12)
and therefore brings the sentence of death upon all (Rom. 5:12, 6:23) but not
only that, sin spread from man to all of creation by its curse which is why it
is written that all of creation groans and travails in pain to this day (Rom.
8:19-22) and it is through sin that death reigns for without sin, there would
be no death and it is by sin that the world as we presently know it to be, in
which death reigns, in and in which every kind of misery, evil, suffering,
grief, pain, discord, conflict, cataclysm, disaster, hardship, adversity, and struggle
abound came to be.
So when
the Darwinist, or anyone for that matter asks how a good and loving God could
create or allow into existence a world filled with so much evil and suffering, it
is because they have the wrong history because they believe, or have been led
to believe, that the world has always been as it is today and will continue to
be so because that is what Darwinism teaches, but the Bible tells us that the
world, when it was initially created was different from the world we know today
and far better than the one today. It
was a perfect world designed as God intended to be with everything, including
man, serving and carrying out the very designated and respective purpose He
desired but when sin entered into the world and death by it, that all changed
and the world, and everything in it, began to turn from that which God had
created to be into that which He never desired in the first place and the fact
that our hearts break at an untimely death and when we are outraged by the evil
we witness and are victimized by, and when we experience any degree of pain, be
it of the body, the heart, or even the soul, that in and of itself, should be
telling us that these things were never meant to be and are not meant to be and
if these things were never meant to be, then for what cause did they come
about? If these things were never in the mind of God to begin with and are an
ongoing consequence of the bad actions of our first ancestor, then that has very
serious ramifications for us, our lives, our relationship with our Creator, and
even what happens to us after we depart this world.
For
unlike Darwinism, which claims that the evils that we experience are just a
part of a natural process that has always been and always will be in some form
or fashion, scripture says that these things to which Darwinism attributes to a
design of nature, will not last forever, but will eventually be done away with as
we are promised that the day will come when a new and better creation will be
in place of the old which will pass away along with all the evil that dwells
therein for in this new creation, there will be no sin, no death, no evil of
any sort, and no suffering, misery, pain, grief, sorrow, or hardship of any
kind but only peace, joy, happiness, and harmony before God Almighty as it was
intended to be from the beginning (Rev. 21-22) but that also means that nothing
in which either sin nor evil dwell can ever be a part of this coming world and
will be sent to into a place where all sin and all evil must go and that is a
place that is filled with nothing more than an everlasting judgment filled with
an unrelenting torment such as never experienced by anyone in this present life
because there is coming a day when all sin and evil will face judgment and will
be eliminated from the presence of God Almighty.
The
Darwinist can swear “there aint no heaven” and pray “there aint no hell” all
they like, but it will not stop the Christian from going to heaven and nor will
it stop the Darwinist from going to hell and yet Darwinism denies both heaven
and hell because Darwinism denies the existence of a Creator to whom all men
must give an account but the unbelief of the Darwinist will not prevent them
from one day standing before the Lord God Almighty to answer for their
persistent unbelief and for the things that they have said and done in this
life and it will not stop them from facing judgment and not only are we judged
by our words and deeds, but even the nature of our very thoughts will be called
into account and since no one is innocent from even inward sin, it is
impossible for us, by our own merit, to attain salvation because even our own
goodness is tainted by the sin within us which prevents us from attaining moral
perfection which is why it is written that all have sinned and fallen short of
the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) but because God loves us more than we could ever
know, He is not willing that any should perish in eternal damnation but that
all would come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9) and has done for us what we, because
of sin, cannot do for ourselves in that He has purchased redemption for us on
our behalf through His only begotten Son (Jn. 3:16) who is called Jesus Christ
who was sent into this world to offer Himself up on our behalf for our sins
through the shedding of His blood upon the cross on which He was crucified and
it was in His death that redemption was purchased and after having died, was
raised again from the dead on the third day so that we would be justified in
Him (Rom. 4:25) if we, with sincere belief and in genuine repentance will but
call upon the name of Jesus Christ to forgive us of our sins so that we may be saved
(Rom. 10:13) from what would otherwise be an everlasting torment destined to
come upon all they who have remained persistently unrepentant.
And with
repentance comes a new nature that comes to reside in us (2 Cor. 5:17) and one
that causes us to no longer seek to please ourselves nor take pleasure in the
things of darkness, nor run after the temporal pleasures of this life, but
desiring only to obey Christ in all things, honor Him in all things, to give
glory to Him in all things, to shun all things that are displeasing to Him, to
love what He loves, to abide only in His truth and to be in full agreement with
our Maker in all things out of our love for Christ and out of an appreciation
and gratitude for the forgiveness that we have received in Him and with the
cleansing of our sins are we then reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18) from whom our
sins had once estranged us and just as we are liberated from the eternal
damnation of the soul, which is the spiritual death, so we also look forward to
the day when our bodies also will be liberated from death when they are changed
from corruptible to incorruptible forms in which no sin dwells and where no sin
dwells, there is no death (1 Cor. 15:51-55, 1 Thess. 4:13-18) and finally,
creation itself will be liberated when it is made anew into the perfect world
that God had intended. (Rev. 21-22)
Darwinism
offers no hope, no peace, and no sense of meaning and purpose, but in Christ Jesus,
there is always hope, peace, from Him do we receive meaning and purpose to our
lives and Darwinism has fought and continues to fight against the cross and
where it wages its war against the cross is over the origins of humanity and of
life in general because it is the history of our origins, as written in the
book of Genesis upon which the rest of the Word of God by which the message of
the cross is preached rests.
As atheist
G. Richard Bozarth once stated:
Without
Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is reduced to a man with a mission
on the wrong planet. Death becomes not a divine punishment we require salvation
from, but only a natural occurrence as much a part of the normalcy of life as
birth. Sin becomes not an ugly fate due to one man's disobedience that we need
to be bloodily redeemed of, but only the struggle of instincts learned during
millions of years of savagery, trying to adapt to this 10,000 year old infant
we call civilization…
Destroy Adam
and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains
of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the
redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then
Christianity is nothing.
Christianity,
if it is to survive, must have Adam and the original sin and the fall from
grace, or it cannot have Jesus the redeemer who restores to those who believe
what Adam's disobedience took away.
What this
all means is that Christianity cannot lose the
Genesis
account of creation. [12]
The Darwinists
are quick to ridicule and punish those, even within the scientific and academic
communities, who dare to publicly dissent from the doctrine of Darwinism. Even students risk a failing grade if they even
so much as question evolutionary teaching and there is no telling how much scientific,
historical, anthropological, and archaeological evidence has been suppressed
across the board in order to maintain the public trust in Darwinism but what is
even to a greater advantage to the Darwinist is when the subject of origins is
treated, even within the Church as a secondary or non-essential issue and is
largely dismissed as inconsequential for it is then that the professors of the
Christian faith, even within the leadership, are ill-prepared to defend their
faith against the Darwinian attacks and therefore are found without any answers
to the challenging questions and are unable to counter the cleverly devised
arguments against the faith and as a result, the faith of many are shaken and
even overthrown and what a thrill and satisfying victory it is for them when
they see that the feeble attempts to harmonize Darwinism with the Bible fail to
provide any satisfying or reasonable responses to the Darwinian challenges,
especially for the youth who are brought up in the Church and raised in the
faith and before we can ever have any hope of effectively convincing the lost
of the Gospel and persuading them of repentance, we have to make sure that we
are able, ready, and prepared to give the best answers we can to the challenging
questions and to counter the cleverly devised arguments and undo the lies
within our own ranks that are shaking and overthrowing the faith of many
professed followers of Christ.
If Darwin
is discredited, then so comes toppling down everything founded upon Darwinian
thought (i.e. abortion, LGBT ideology, moral relativism, secular
authoritarianism, racial supremacy, gender supremacy) and with the fall of
Darwin, there will be no choice but to admit, even if ever so grudgingly, the
historicity of the Genesis account of creation which then will lead to a
restored confidence in the rest of the authority of scripture which then will
lead to an unwavering faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of
sins but even if Darwin is destroyed, those who persist in their unrepentant
rebellion against God will always continue to concoct some other deception to
lead men away from faith in Christ and to blind to the truth of the Gospel those
who might otherwise come to repentance.
There is
no love in Darwin, but there is perfect love in Christ.
There is only
selfishness and self-preservation in Darwin, but there is no selfishness in
Christ, but only self-sacrifice and it is by His self-sacrifice, done in love
for us, that we have salvation in Him.
There is
no hope in Darwin, but there is hope in Christ in that an end to all misery,
evil, darkness, wickedness, injustice, adversity, hardship, suffering,
oppression, grief, pain, and sorrow will come when He makes all things new.
There is
no peace in Darwin, but there is peace in Christ in that we are assured eternal
peace when we go to be with Him.
There is
no purpose in Darwin, but there is purpose and meaning in Christ for those who
choose to follow and serve Him.
Who will
you choose to serve?
If you
have not done so already but want to serve Jesus, then it is only a sincere
prayer of repentance away:
"Lord
Jesus I need you.
I realize
that I am a sinner
who has
fallen short of the glory of God
and that
my goodness falls short
of your
standard of Moral perfection.
Please
forgive me of all of my sins.
Come into
my heart and into my life
to be the
Savior and Lord of my life.
Make me
into the servant and follower
that you
want me to be.
In your
name Lord Jesus, I pray.
Amen."
Know that
God is not concerned with the words that you use to call upon Him forgiveness,
but with the attitude of your heart and if you have, with all sincerity, have
asked Christ to forgive you of your sins, placing your trust in Him only for
your salvation and in nothing else, then your sins are forgiven and your place
in Heaven is certain.
End
notes:
1. Hannah Bleau Knudsen, “Official in D.C.
Mayor’s Office: It’s a ‘Necessary Evil’ to Allow ‘Darwinism to Kill off’ the
‘Foolish’ Unvaccinated,”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/02/04/official-dc-mayors-office-its-necessary-evil-allow-darwinism-kill-foolish-unvaccinated/
2. Ibid.
screen shot
https://media.breitbart.com/media/2022/02/screenshot-2.jpg
3. Charles Darwin,
“The Descent Of Man And Selection In Relation To Sex; 2nd edition revised and
augmented,” pp. 133-134, London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1874
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1874_Descent_F944.pdf
4. Margaret Sanger, “Letter from Margaret Sanger
to Dr. C.J. Gamble,” December 10, 1939
[The
source from which this letter was accessed, just as many others in support of
Sanger have done, attempts to argue that Sanger had no desire to exterminate
the black community, but the context of the letter should be plain as to her
intent behind the formation of the American Birth Control League which was to
exterminate anyone she saw as an inferior which also included those she viewed
to be racially inferior.
If
Sanger did not intend to see the African American population die off, then she
should have said to Dr. Gamble, “We do not want anyone to think that we want to
exterminate the Negro population” instead of “We do not want the word to get
out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” Sanger’s tactics in
eliminating those she deemed inferior were far more subtle than those of Adolf
Hitler which were not so subtle.]
https://genius.com/Margaret-sanger-letter-from-margaret-sanger-to-dr-cj-gamble-annotated
5. Adolf Hitler, “Mein Kampf,” pp. 390-391,
Reynal & Hitchcock, New York; arranged with the Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston Massachusetts, 1941; originally published in 1925, by Verlag Frz. Eher
NACHF. G.m.D.H
[Was
written by Adolf Hitler while he was in prison in 1924. The earliest translated versions from German
to English were abridged. The 1941
version is fully annotated, complete, unabridged, and with commentary and it is
because it is an unedited and unabridged version that I chose this source
deeming it to be the most reliable and trustworthy version in revealing to us
what was in the mind of Hitler and the foundational ideology and philosophy
that drove his policies and actions.]
https://ia804702.us.archive.org/3/items/HitlerAdolfMeinKampfVolumeIAndIIEN19411043P.Scan/Hitler%2C%20Adolf%20-%20Mein%20Kampf%20-%20Volume%20I%20and%20II%20%28EN%2C%201941%2C%201043%20p.%2C%20Scan%29.pdf
6. Darwin, Descent of Man 2nd edition
pp. 133-134
7. Margaret Sanger, “The Pivot Of Civilization,”
pg. 108, New York Brentano’s Publishers, 1922
https://ia800607.us.archive.org/7/items/pivotofcivilizat00sang/pivotofcivilizat00sang.pdf
8. Thomas
Malthus, “An Essay On the Principle of Population Vol. 2: Sixth edition,” pg.
300,
London: John Murray, Albemarle Street,
1890; Originally written in 1826.
https://ia802809.us.archive.org/18/items/anessayonprinci12maltgoog/anessayonprinci12maltgoog.pdf
9. Ernst
Haeckel, “The Riddle of the Universe At The Close Of The Nineteenth Century,”
pp. 65-66, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York and London, 1905;
translated by Joseph McCabe
https://ia803104.us.archive.org/1/items/theriddleoftheun42968gut/42968-h/42968-h.htm
10.
Charles Darwin, “On The Origin Of The Species by Means of Natural
Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” pp.
338, London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859
https://books.google.nl/books?id=cAtfAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:cTzITBGxXssC&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
11.
The Declaration Of Independence
12.
G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” pg. 30, American Atheist
Magazine, February, 1978
[Bozarth’s column begins on pg. 19 of the
issue, stops, and then concludes on page 30]
https://www.scribd.com/document/252622816/American-Atheist-Magazine-Feb-1978#
Scripture references:
1.
Genesis 1:11-12, 20-28
2.
Acts 17:26
3. Num.
15:16
4. Acts
10:34
5.
Matthew 15:11, 18-20
6.
Genesis 2:16-17
7.
Genesis 3:3
8.
Genesis 3:19
9.
Romans 5:12
10.
Romans 6:23
11.
Romans 8:19-22
12.
Revelation 21-22
13.
Romans 3:23
14.
2 Peter 3:9
15.
Romans 4:25
16.
Romans 10:13
17.
2 Corinthians 5:17
18.
2 Corinthians 5:18
19.
1 Corinthians 15:51-55
20.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
No comments:
Post a Comment