A tale of two fish
What happens when society teaches its young people that atheism is ‘science’?
Published: 26 September 2013 (GMT+10)
What in the world is going on?
When travelling and presenting at churches, CMI speakers explain why the creation issue is so important for Christians. They often present information about the loss of young people from churches and their belief in moral relativism. Many times, older congregants seem dumbfounded by the loss of morality and Christian ethics in western society. Confronted with statistics such as two thirds (more in many cases) of our ‘churched’ young people falling away, many seem flabbergasted at the extent and rapidity of our cultures abandonment of Christianity.
Some of the older people know this only too well, as their own children are examples. Some entered University and returned home to their parents as atheists, bitter and hostile to their once-professed faith. Speakers often see parents ‘tearing up’ as they recount their own stories of experiencing first hand the reality of what was explained in the talk. It is as if some unseen yet unimaginably powerful force has turned the table on the church and its influence.
Many of these parents want to do something, at least for the next generation, and equip themselves of our resources, a vital part of our ministry (see Linking and feeding). Sadly, there are others who refuse to admit their own shortcomings, and claim it was not lack of biblical equipping but ‘sin’. Frankly, this is like saying that a plane crashed not because of pilot error or mechanical failure, but because of gravity. While this is technically true, it’s also a cop-out. Gravity is universal, yet most planes don’t crash, so we look for reasons why the particular plane crashed. Sin is likewise universal.
How did we get here?
Societies do not move in certain directions uninfluenced by ideas. Thoughts have consequences and the grander the idea the more powerful the result.
Generally speaking the Bible’s history was at one time the ‘meta-narrative’ that the west rallied around. The idea of a perfect world that had fallen because of man’s sin that would one day be restored by the loving creator who sent His Son to die for the sins of the world was the framework of western culture.
Law, morality, ethics, science, and history etc were influenced by the Bible’s overarching storyline to understand the past, live in the present, and await the future of human existence. Within the last one hundred years, a radical shift has taken place in all of these areas. What could have accomplished such a profound change?
A new view
Years ago a new grand explanation was introduced under the guise of ‘science’ that changed everything. The concept was that matter (given enough time) contained within it the inherent ability to transform into everything that is and has ever been. Thus all the biodiversity of life on the planet came into being through evolution, without reference to a creator. This explanation for everything became part of the lesson plan in schools.
As more and more children were exposed, many of them accepting it as truth, the culture began to change. As unobserved events like ‘millions of years’ and Darwinian evolution were taught as the true history of our planet, people began to see the Bible in a new light. It was no longer seen as real history and therefore authoritative and grew less influential while the concept of naturalism—nature is all that is—became increasingly more dominant. That concept has now permeated into almost every aspect of western world consciousness, including much of the church.
Although many Christians simply don’t ‘get it’, an obvious clue to what has happened is literally under their very nose most times they are out for a drive in their car. Often they will see the emblem of either a ‘Christian fish’ or the ‘Darwin fish’ stuck to the back of the vehicle in front of them, and many miss the significance of the contrast in worldviews between the two. What are the people that put the Christian/Darwin fish on their cars saying about what they believe?
Christian fish—I came from an all loving God.
Darwin fish—I came from pond scum!
One might be tempted to simply leave it at that. But thinking a little deeper we could also conclude;
Christian fish—I was created, someone owns me and I am responsible to this
Darwin fish—No one owns me and I am responsible to no one!
As atheist Jeremy Rifkin said:
We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever.1
The natural consequence of the teaching of evolution is atheism, as it fulfils the requirements of what all atheists believe (there is no creator, everything made itself over millions of years). So although atheists claim they removed ‘religion’ from the government schools, they removed only Christianity and replaced it with the religion of evolutionary humanism. However, if that is true then the idea of absolute morality is destroyed and a society based on that principle will reflect such thinking. Examples?
Sanctity of life?
Nazi Germany has stood for some seventy years now as a symbol of utter barbarism in a supposedly civilized nation. The death camp ideology boiled down to a simple concept; survival of the fittest. If one individual/group is stronger than another then the weaker are at their (so-called) mercy. It stands in stark contrast to Jesus’ teaching about loving your neighbour, praying for your enemies and caring for the needy.
But which ideology (Darwinism or Christianity) is reflected in the laws and actions of our modern so called civilized society? For example, induced abortion has killed millions of unborn babies. Its advocates are often dishonest about what they are doing, and claim that it’s just a ‘clump of cells, or infamously claim that the question of when human life begins is “above my pay grade”. However, abortion lover Mary Williams calls them out on their dishonesty:
When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” 2
However she doesn’t care. She continues:
So what if abortion ends a life? … a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.
If that were not clear enough, the following should show her disregard for what she admits is human life:
I believe that life starts at conception … I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.
All life is not equal … If by some random fluke I learned today I was pregnant, you bet your ___ I’d have an abortion. I’d have the World’s Greatest Abortion … I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time—even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.
There you have it. All human life is not ‘equal’ and those in power can exercise their ‘right’ to kill those they see fit. It’s certainly notable that all pro-abortionists have already been born. Some may say this is just one persons opinion and does not reflect society in general but the cold hard facts are that it does! Mary has the law on her side in most western world societies! There is a holocaust going on all around us—a silent holocaust and it is sanctioned by the ‘laws of the land’ all over the world.
So where are we headed?
A good indicator of where a society will be 20 years from now is to take a look at what its educators are teaching today. As students absorb the information and adopt it into their worldview, then start living their lives accordingly, society will reflect the beliefs of its citizens more profoundly. And what have top level, ‘ethicists’ been teaching this next generation?
Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.3
This from the professor of bio-ethics at Princeton University. This man has advocated a 28-day time period for parents to decide whether they kill their child. And he is not alone in his thinking about killing children after as well as before birth. Another bio-ethicist put it this way:
I don’t think infanticide is always unjustifiable. I don’t think it is plausible to think that there is any moral change that occurs during the journey down the birth canal.4
And last year the Journal of Medical Ethics had an article titled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” which stated:
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.5
Just so we haven’t missed it, what is the atheistic message here? Life is not sacred and those in power (the stronger) get to decide what lives are unworthy (the weaker). Whether in the womb, out of the womb, disabled or not, babies should be able to be disposed of legally.
But where will it stop? Where is the line in the sand? Is it twenty eight days, three months, two years? The chilling reality is that once you accept a non-absolute moral system there is no line. Of course the discerning person can quickly see that if all it takes to determine a life is unworthy is to re-classify them (a life worth sacrificing) then virtually anyone could be deemed disposable.
Back to the future
Does this sound familiar? What is the difference between these ideas and the barbaric laws of ancient Rome where infanticide was rampant or the brutality of Nazi Germany where the ruling class decided who lived and died?
With no moral law except the state’s to appeal to, if you can convince enough people to think the same way as you then they can enforce laws that will support anything! And what about those who object? Perhaps Hitler said it best:
When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side’, I calmly say, ‘your child belongs to us already … What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community.6
A brave new world
So the key in winning the battle of the mind is the ability to control the conduit of information that is fed into the next generation. Here in my home country of Canada, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has implemented a mandatory pro gay and transgender curriculum in its schools. Under the guise as an ‘anti-homophobia’ and ‘equal rights’ campaign, it forces all children under its jurisdiction into a propaganda and indoctrination system unlike any yet seen in the western world.
And what rights do parents and teachers have? None! Teachers must teach the program, no matter what their personal beliefs are. And parents are not able to opt their kids out of the program—not even their kindergarteners–for fear of retaliation from the government. In the TDSB ‘Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum Resource Guide’ we read:
Should Schools Send Notes Or Permission Slips Home Before Starting any Classroom Work On LGBTQ Issues?
No. If a school treats the topic of sexual orientation or anti-homophobia work differently from the range of other curriculum topics, this could be construed as discriminatory practice.
Can A Parent Have Their Child Accommodated Out Of Human Rights Education Based On Religious Grounds?
No. ‘Religious accommodation’ in the TDSB is carried out in the larger context of the secular education system.
Can Teachers Seek Accommodation From Teaching Materials That May Contradict Their Religious Beliefs?
No. The TDSB is part of the secular public education system.7
An example of the shocking material contained in the curriculum is where the grade three curriculum teachers are told to “Encourage girls and boys to role-play opposite roles, or to role-play animals or objects, or even parts of nature. … At times boys may play girls and rely on sexist stereotypical behaviour with which they are familiar.”8
What is the message? Any kind of sexual activity is fine. It’s ‘normal’ because that is just the way you were born (evolved). No one should judge anyone’s behavior, which means there is no absolute right and wrong (except evidently that judging is absolutely wrong; logical inconsistencies don’t bother atheopaths).
The brakes are off
It is time for believers to understand that the religion of humanism is firmly established in our society, and that it is founded on a bedrock of evolutionary teaching that is force-fed to our young people. The majority of those young people convert to the ‘other team’, therefore influencing more people with humanistic beliefs. Many of them are more than happy to peel off their Christian fish and slap a Darwin fish onto the back of their car to announce their apostasy.
What to do
Scripture says “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). To help turn the tide around in our churches and communities, one of the things people need is the right information. That is why CMI exists, and produces faith building and God affirming information for the body of Christ to take advantage of. As believers understand and utilize the information themselves and then use it to share the Gospel with others we trust the Lord will use it mightily for His kingdom.
References and notes
- Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, (New York: Viking Press 1983) p 244. Return to text.
- So what if abortion ends a life?, Mary Elizabeth Williams, www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life. Return to text.
- Singer, P., Taking life: humans, excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd ed., Cambridge, pp. 175–217, 1993. Singer is Ira. W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Centre for Human Values, Princeton University. Return to text.
- John Harris, bioethicist, Manchester University. Sunday Telegraph, London, 25 January, 2004 Return to text.
- Giubilini, A. and Minerva, F., After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Journal of Medical Ethics, published online 23 February 2012 | doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100411. See refutation by Sarfati, J., Abortion ‘after birth’? Medical ‘ethicists’ promote infanticide, creation.com/abortion-after-birth, 8 March 2012. Return to text.
- Adolph Hitler, Speech Nov.6 1933. Cited in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. Return to text.
- Toronto District School Board, Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum Resource Guide, 2011, page 10, www.canadianvalues.ca/SCC/TDSB_Equity%20_%20InclusiveCurriculum_Seepage%2010%20_.pdf. Return to text.
- Reference 7, page 37. Return to text.