Evolutionism, a Problem of Ethics

It seems like the dispute between creationists and evolutionists lasts forever and is never going to end. There is an important issue they're debating on that has serious implications on humanity in general, and on the present society, in particular. This issue refers to man's origin.

The first category states that man was created by God by His own image, and the second one says that he evolved from inferior species. The matter in question is whether the human rights have any value if humans are like any other animals.

Many people adhere to one of these two perspectives from a theoretically point of view, but they fail to understand its implications and also to live according to it. These questions were raised because many philosophers and men of science began to present theories, which others want to adopt and others are simply horrified of.

Starting from Charles Darwin and continuing with Marx, Lenin, and nowadays, Dawkins, new theories emerged concerning the value of a human being. Because they sustain the idea that a human being is only the result of evolution from inferior forms of life, they also extended its purpose on the society.

This purpose says that organisms exist for perpetuation, and each of them is on their own, living as egoistic and hedonistic one. The implication from here is the fact that the idea of equality between people vanishes and a new principle is born: the stronger survives, while the weaker has no meaning to survive and has no power.

Most people know that this idea is for the wild animal world, but evolutionists believe that it is to be applied to humanity. From here on, they stepped on ethics and imposed their own rule. This is for the fiercest of them.

Communism was born from Marx's idea, which led to a great deal of injustice and criminal action; people's rights were totally abolished, and they were murdered because they were intellectuals or Christians or whatever excuse they invented.

Furthermore, Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche's philosophy; he as well saw people as products of genetic errors and decided that some of them serve the purpose of evolution and others don't. Jewish people were killed in mass for an enigmatic and unreal reason.

Even today, there are a few scientists who think that crippled people are of no use to humanity, as well as others who stand up for the abortion of children who have disabilities from the moment of conception.

What is worst is that this way of thinking ignited wars and terrible cruelty took place. Both World Wars were the result of the nihilistic way of thinking that reduced the value of each human being to zero.

On the other side, there are those who believe that people are created and are made in the image of God. They see every person as being valuable and precious and also believe that every soul matters, in spite of the body's weaknesses.

Every person is regarded as being equal to every human being, and every person has certain human rights, which protect their physical, psychological, moral, and social integrity. According to these human rights, abortion is prohibited in most of the countries and states, and people with disabilities are supported by society.

Many say that there are lots of evolutionists who agree with human rights and who believe in ethics, and it is completely true only because they don't take their belief seriously. If they did, they would have realized that the idea of right and wrong had no meaning because everything is by chance and because there is no higher standard to measure things up.

They would have realized that if human are only genetic accidents, then a healthy dog may be of more use to humanity than a crippled person. But, if instead, one believes that a person is created with passion and love by a Higher Power, then he/she would respect in every sense every person, in spite of the flaws one might have.

To conclude, no matter in what you believe, your perspective has several implications for a series of domains. There are even problems of ethics that are raised because of these two opposite ways of thinking, and one of them implies the rights of every person and their availability.