Ronnie W. Rogers, “Taking every thought captive…”

Darwin says, “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts…”¹  He further states,“Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”²  Hard reason says that this sympathy is deleterious, because he said regarding natural selection, “And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.”³  Consequently, we can’t stop it even though reason and the path to perfection demands it, and it thwarts the noble work of “natural selection” which produces, “the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals…”⁴

He talks about the surgeon knowing that he is “acting for the good”, but in light of the perfect being reached through natural selection, is it fair to ask, what good, good for whom, temporary or ultimate good….He says that to “intentionally…neglect the weak and helpless” can be only with “contingent benefit” and even that brings “overwhelming present evil.”⁵ What evil?  His conclusion, “We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely, that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is  more to be hoped for than expected.”⁶   Note the he says the weak surviving produces “bad effects”, whereas Christianity would say the opposite.  However, he is heartened that these “hereditarily inferiors” are less likely to marry as the fit, thereby giving the secularist some hope, and hopefully they will refrain all the more, but that is just Darwin’s wishful musings.

1. Charles Darwin, Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (originally published 1871: reprint with introduction published New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 111 [↩]
2. Darwin, Descent, 111. [↩]
3. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, (Originally published by John Murray, London, in 1859:  reprint with introduction by Michael T. Ghiselin, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2006), 307 [↩]
4. Darwin, Origin of Species, 307. [↩]
5. Darwin, Descent, 111. [↩]
6. Darwin, Descent, 111 -112. [↩]

Recently I was asked a series of questions regarding the application of Christian principles in the area of entertainment.  Although these are neither exhaustive nor thorough, I hope you find them helpful.

Q: More and more we see the church looks like the world.  One area is entertainment – the music we listen to, the movies we watch, or the music or movies we allow our children to listen to or watch.  Do you have specific Scripture regarding the criteria for evaluating the movies that we should watch? 

A: Yes, all scriptures that speak of pure thinking, focusing on what edifies….. 1 Corinthians 14:20; Phil 4:8; 2 Peter 1:5-10 relate to this.

Q: I can think of a couple of overarching Scriptures regarding where we allow our minds to dwell, immorality regarding sexual scenes, and our own use of cussing.  Regarding cussing, I know verses regarding us cussing but can’t think of any specifically directed towards “hearing” cussing and avoiding it – i.e. in movies. 

A: Eph 5:4 deals specifically with speech, and as far as hearing…the aforementioned verses apply as well as all verses that speak of what to learn, teach, e.g. Proverbs…and of course we were saved from that kind of thinking, so it is absolutely incongruent to surfeit in that kind of thinking again (Ephesians 4:17ff) and we are told to “renew our mind” (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23).  We are not to be conformed to the world, which is impossible to avoid if we feed on an unfiltered diet of the world’s music, literature, entertainment… 

Q: Can you point me to more specific verses about avoiding hearing cussing?

A: Aforementioned verses and remember that Christianity is more about do than don’t; hence, we are to shed things that retard our growth in godliness (Hebrews 12:1).

Q: For example, if Martin Luther cussed during his lifetime, and it was depicted in a movie about his life, is that acceptable? 

A: At times cursing, murder, stealing may be something that we can see or be exposed to as Jesus was as He lived life and befriended soldiers, etc. who usually do not clean up their language for anyone.  Sometimes, the overall theme or message is much more important than a particular word.  For example, John Wayne saying a curse word in a 4 hour movie about something positive may be okay whereas a movie that depicts Christ disparagingly without a curse word may be absolutely off limits.  Also, is it a documentary or a sensual movie?  Generally documentaries seek to reveal what is necessary to convey reality about the person or…whereas other genres seek to entice, extol the baser elements of man, and make money at any cost or push an agenda.  Gratuitous language is immediately shut down by me. 

Q: At what point does it become unacceptable (quality or quantity of words)? 

A: I simply ask, does the movie, music, art, etc., aid me in my Christian walk, being a pastor, thinking godly, and or loving God more and “letting this mind be in me which was also in Christ Jesus…” (Phil. 2:5). 

Q: Same scenario, but the movie is a slapstick comedy? 

A: Low level of tolerance because one way for Satan to lower morals is to get you to laugh at it first and then accept it; thus, I watch Mayberry, Newhart, etc., which shun billingsgate.  This is not because I do not think some of the moderns are funny, but I refuse to jeopardize my spiritual walk by digesting Augean vulgarities in order to laugh. 

Q: I’m just trying to better prepare a defense of God’s truth.

A: For that I commend you.  I do think that many who seem very serious about Christ are far too lenient about the standards they apply to their personal holiness—intake and behavior.

Darwin is often presented as a simple scientist, with no axe to grind, to wit no preconceived ideas tainting his conclusions, and simply following the facts to wherever they lead.  The following are a few quotes that may call that noble description into question.

Darwin said, concerning man’s origin and descent, “The main conclusion…is that man is descended from some less highly organized form.  The grounds upon which this conclusion rests will never be shaken, for the close similarity between man and the lower animals…are facts which cannot be disputed.”¹  Now whether one believes that is true or not, they must admit that it cannot be proven; however, Darwin’s diaphanous veil of science cannot hide his faith in naturalism, for surely all can see that his absolute surety that his conclusion will never be overturned is anything but science, which by nature is open-ended.

Of man’s creation, Darwin notes,  “He who is not content to look, like a savage, at the phenomena of nature as disconnected, cannot any longer believe that man is the work of a separate act of creation.”²  So all of the intellectuals, the evidence that man was created, is summarily dismissed as “savagery”.  On what does he base this?  Well similarities, the idea of natural selection (NS), and the commitment, which he mentions regularly regarding NS, “if one will accept evolution.”  Of course, if you accept by faith his premises, then some of what he says may follow, but he did not, nor have Darwinists today, proven the premises upon which their naturalistic worldview stands or falls.

He states, “…man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped…”³  Man, advanced from “semi-human condition to that of the modern savage….with savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health.”⁴  Again he says we “will feel no doubt that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock.”⁵

Of course these are ideas that he sought to promulgate in order to prove naturalism.  Darwin’s belief in God, which he briefly mentions as the creator who breathed the first life into…is actually irrelevant.  The reason is that Darwin sought to explain all of life apart from God, other than the absolute beginning, in a way that absolutely excluded God. 

Darwin, as his successors, still confuses philosophical and religious assertions with science, which they disdain unless they are the ones making them.

1. Charles Darwin, Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (originally published 1871. Reprint with introduction published New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 544. [↩]
2. Darwin, Descent, 546. [↩]
3. Darwin, Descent, 548. [↩]
4. Darwin, Descent, 111. [↩]
5. Darwin, Descent, 148. [↩]

Darwin expresses his dismay and discouragement because, in comparison to how very scrupulous a man is about the pedigree of his livestock, when it comes to his own marriage, “…he rarely, or never, takes any such care.  He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice…”¹  Of course, marriage in Jewish and Christian traditions is an exalted spiritual covenant between the two and God.  With regard to how the “inferiors” should approach marriage, he says, “Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian, and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known.  Everyone does good service who aids toward this end.  When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.”² 

Not only is physical or mental deficiency reason to not marry, but he also said, “All ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children, for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage.  On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, while the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society.”³  In absolute contradistinction, the Bible and many other religions, assign no evil to poverty.  Oh well, the Darwinian Decalogue says, Thou shalt not marry if you are physically or mentally weak and/or unable to provide…enough Darwin dollars.

1. Charles Darwin, Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, (originally published 1871: reprint with introduction published New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 556. [↩]
2. Darwin, Descent, 556. [↩]
3. Darwin, Descent, 556,557. [↩]