Satan And Evolution

According to Sun Myung Moon "The theory of evolution is a satanic theory".

Here is more from Sun Myung Moon:

The theory of evolution is declining and Father absolutely rejects it. Because in order to advance, there must be give and take between plus and minus. There is no way a lower creation, like an amoeba can advance to a higher level.

There are two types of bird which seem exactly the same. They are the same size and have the same bone structure, only their color is a little different. Lets say these two birds get married. Can they lay eggs? It is not possible. Even though they look so similar, they are different types. God made a division of the seed between species. He protects each one with absolute clarity. The theory of evolution is a satanic theory. Father emphasizes that love proceeds multiplication in heading toward the destiny of the love of God. Without the love of God no creature could exist on the face of the earth.

Father already said evolution was wrong. Another argument going on these days is also wrong. People are asking the question, which came first-concept or reality? This is another thing Father is teaching the Korean audiences. For example, when the eye was created, did it know that sunlight would exist? No, it was made by some Will to see the sunlight. Who had that knowledge? The eye itself? No. This same "somebody" knew an eyelash would be needed to keep dust out of the eye and also that tears would be necessary to keep the eyes from drying out. The creator had the concept of how all parts would fit together in the whole. This shows that concept was first. Father's conclusion is that God exists.

I have no idea what he means when he talks about the "give and take between plus and minus". I didn't know that birds got married. Perhaps if the two birds had sex one of them might lay an egg. Because "Father" knows absolutely nothing about evolution he concludes that God exists.

TalkOrigins has a response to Sun Myung Moon:

1. Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral.
2. Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.
3. Some bad morals, such as eugenics and social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings.
4. Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral.
5. Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public.
6. Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics (Rotblat 1999). Creationists have nothing similar.
7. Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin by looking for immorality within themselves, not others.

I agree with TalkOrigins. I also think that Jerry Coyne and Greg Graffin think the same way. Morals come from people because of evolutionary biology, not gods or the Bible. It is in our own self-interest to survive. If everyone was totally "evil" we would wipe out the human race, or so much of it that the only humans left would always be trying to kill one another. This is not a very useful model for existence. Having sex and babies and caring for and cooperating with one another is what keeps the human race from going extinct. In other words moral behaviour benefits the continuation of the species.

"Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral." I think this is worth repeating. Religions foment bigotry. Many religious people do not want to contemplate this.

"Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others" is a wonderful expression. It so perfectly describes the religious, especially how the religious feel and think about atheists. I realize that this how the religious view atheists, especially the atheists that they label as militant. I do not believe that this view is correct. Atheists simply don't believe in any gods. Nothing more and nothing less. Some may be immoral, some may have differing political views and so on. But there are other labels for those things. Some atheists argue very vigorously about their lack of belief. I don't know of any who believe that someone who believes in a god is evil and immoral and should and will be condemned to eternal hellfire. The same cannot be said of theists.