evolution, capitalism, and communism

One interesting accusation of evolution is that it leads to communism and socialism, (national socialism in particular). It is a common claim by creationists to charge evolution with the foundation of Nazism, communism, socialism, fascism, and many other ideologies which are fundamentally socialistic.

Of course knowing that many claim evolution is the foundation of socialism and communism is rather useless if you don't know what any of those are. Now since it is usually Marxist communism which is usually branded as an "evolutionist ideology" I will look at communism and Nazism.

Communism is essentially the idea of a classless egalitarian society where nothing is owned by a single individual but everything is owned by the society at large, also in communism no one is wealthier then another, everyone is part of the working class. In communism you whether you are a plumber or a rocket scientist you get the same amount in return, because of this, you cannot get ahead of anyone else in a communist society, you will either starve or be in the working class but there is no very rich, just the very poor.

Communism sounds wonderful on paper but it is fundamentally flawed in practice due to the fact that it assumes that human nature is basically good and altruistic; when it is clearly not. Socialism a less extreme form, also envisions a society where there is limited private ownership and almost everything is owned by the state. The difference being that most socialist countries were democracies while most communist nations have been ruled by dictators; plus the fact that in communism the wealthy class is overthrown and replaced by the working class while socialism simply has the government taking over every area of life.

Now Capitalism is the virtual antithesis of communism and socialism; in capitalism private ownership is very important, everyone has to work; the means of production (meaning what you need to do your job and the material you are working on) is owned by private investors, and the economy is built on a free market system. Essentially, how well you work to earn money determines which class you will be in (lower, middle, or upper). What you receive depends on how much and how well you work. Capitalism shows our basic biological and psychological need to get ahead and compete with others. All in all, capitalism is superior to communism in that it is more consistent with human nature then communism.

Now in review, which one better fits the evolutionary theory? the basic mechanism of evolution is natural selection. Those who better adapt to their environment are more likely to live to produce offspring to carry on their lineage. Its all about who is the strongest and most productive. Compared to communism, evolution is actually quite different. If evolution really was the foundation of communism. Nothing would ever go extinct, and all organisms would be get the food they need. And the ones to go extinct would be the most successful, the most productive organisms would be eradicated to make way for the more humble creatures. In actuality it is quite obvious that capitalism reflects evolution much more then communism. capitalism like evolution demands that only the best and the most productive reach the top, private owners competing with one and other, very similar to the biological theory of evolution. It is simply libel to blame evolution for communism and fascism and other beliefs, it is shameful for Christians to resort to such tactics.

politics...and by the way my writer's block is over!

You are probably wondering why why I have not written much on this blog in past few days. It is because I had a serious case of writer's block and was unsure of what to write, sorry for the inconvenience, also I am blogging from a hotel room in Hawaii and have not felt like working. I was perusing through Splendidelles blog and found an interesting article about Obama and McCain. Now in order for you to understand this article you are going to have to watch the videos , so watch them and then we can continue this discussion.

This loosely relates to creation and evolution but more importantly it relates to Christianity and its role in society. McCain apparently thinks it is our duty to uphold Judaeo-Christian values and Obama thinks the opposite; he thinks that we should keep society as pluralistic as possible since not everybody has the same religion.

Many Christians would agree with McCain on saying our nations duty is to uphold Christian values, however I am not sure if it is the government which should be upholding Christian values as much as it should be the church; now I understand that church has done a lousy job at that in recent decades. Many churches are complacent, stuck up, intolerant, or just plain nuts; and have failed to show the Christian love that we Christians ought to show to others. Many Christians myself including have from time to time done a shabby job at upholding Christian values ourselves, but of course the are the churches (such as mine, no arrogance intended) which have done a pretty good job. Now the question is, if the church has such trouble upholding the teachings of Christ then how do you expect the government to do any better? The other problem is pointed out by Obama that the United States is not a Christian nation; most Christians myself including would agree the United States is pretty far from being a Christian nation despite the fact that three fourths of the population claims affiliation with Christianity. The United States is also a nation belonging to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Atheists; so in the public arena you can't just quote bible verses saying abortion or euthanasia is wrong (note: I will be suing abortion as an example of a practice which Christians want to be outlwed but it doesn't quite agree with the general public, go a ahead and insert any roblem you like). You have to give other reasons unrelated to faith to oppose things which your faith rejects as immoral. If you don't give a good reason not to do something outside the bible you might as well be trying to convince someone not to do something because the Harry Potter books say not to; first Christians must convert the population to their point of view, then they can start making laws endorsing the bible.

And one thing must be said about universalization; if a prayer is put into schools it would have to be non-sectarian thus it would really be a prayer to any God let alone the Christian one because it would have to be open for people of all faiths. Now Jesus told us Christians only to pray in his name, so a non-sectarian prayer would be a prayer which a Christian would not be able to take part in, so to Christians; its either a prayer to a deity other then the Christian God or no prayer in school endorsed at all, take your pick. The same thing would go for many other areas; for example having the bible taught in schools, it could be taught in a comparative religion class which would mean other religions would be taught as well. I think that most Christians are comfortable with this idea (I sure am) but some of the most conservative who usually lead the Christian right would probably not like this idea. So its either the bible, the Hindu scriptures, the Qu'ran and all other major religions being taught in schools or none of them at all; take your pick, because that's the only thing the public is going to accept.

To close this discussion I must say that we as Christians must stand up for our beliefs, however before we start making laws endorsing Christianity we must make a successful case for the legitimacy of Christianity. There are many churches that need to wake up and start working for God. Otherwise Christianity is going to go down and out, now the warning I gave in this was that the bible although useful among Christians, might as well be a roll of toilet paper to people who are not Christians. We must first convince them that our view is correct. Before you can outlaw abortion you must give extra biblical reasons not to have an abortion otherwise you are just forcing your own beliefs on people, and that is not acceptable.