If you recall from WWII history, the Nazis performed an unparalleled number of experiments on humans in a very short amount of time. They kept meticulous records, as they did in all circumstances, and built entire libraries of scientific information based on their results. Granted, they were aiming at a predetermined conclusion, so it was rigged, but they utilized “science” as their justification for murder and mutilation. That’s just as bad as people doing the same in the name of religion. The Nazi’s scientific conclusion was, for instance, that those with darker skin, with larger noses, from Jewish ancestry, or with darker eyes were predisposed to criminality. Since being a criminal is a bad thing, those who fell into those categories were sequestered and dealt with in ferocious ways.
[By the way, their data collection was that of correlational studies—that there might be a correlation between physical traits and criminality—which is completely different than strict cause-and-effect studies. Correlational studies many times are inconclusive at best because there are not effective ways to account for known and unknown variables. You cannot gather correlational data and say that it shows a definitive cause-and-effect.]
I am concerned whenever science is allowed to place value on certain individuals due to ethnicity or genetic make-up. I do not think assignment is within the domain of science. Yet, it seems we are headed back that way, down the road most traveled.
The catch-22 is that I don’t think science has a real choice in the matter. The advances in genomics leads down the path of investigating genetic predisposition, whether they want it to or not. Find the future alcoholics, flag them and get them in a program at an early age—show the detriments of alcohol and scare them straight. Find the future criminals, flag them and get them in a program at an early age—teach them to empathize by six months old and they will even cry at puppy commercials. Find the future abusers, flag them and get them in a program—empathy training with a heavy dose of familial and societal attachment. These ideas are such a small leap from where we are now.
We already use intelligence testing for placement (SAT or college entrance exam anyone?) and promotion, so why not utilize “the gifts God gave us” and include genetic testing as well. Find the sports star at age six and train them for the Olympics. Find the born leader and groom them to take over your multi–billion-dollar company. On the flip side, if we find the felony-minded, we have the opportunity to make our part of the world that much safer. Who wants to live in a bad neighborhood, anyways?
Problem is, who decides bad and good? Not the scientist; they can only say what is or isn’t. Good and bad are beyond their scope. But so far, they are the only ones speaking up.
This brings us back to the Nazis and evolution. The Nazis pursued justification through scientific means, making them seem like the voice of authority. The evolutionist’s claim of science currently positions them as the authority . . . but they come up empty when confronted with ideas like “all men are created equal”. How could you arrive at equality when evolution clearly states that all are not equal?
And, more poignantly, Martin Luther King, Jr. is hailed as a hero of the entire human race and as one who fought for justice. But if, according to evolution, he was not equal because of his ethnicity, why would evolutionists call him a hero? What do you do with a man who fights for equality when equality, according to evolutionary belief, is a myth? By their standard, he would be considered a subverter who was fighting for something that did not exist and was not his to obtain. This puts evolutionists in a tough spot.
If evolution is true, then we are not all created equal and King is bad. But if we are all created equal, King is a hero and that is good.
I am thankful that scientists cannot dictate what is good or bad, including which people are good or bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment