![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/80\/2012\/12\/darwin-09-3316-1251991102-131.jpeg\")
<\/a>Darwin. It has\u00a0existed<\/a>\u00a0since the Greeks, and was well phrased by Capital Kant, who stated: \u201can orang-outang or a chimpanzee may develop the organs which serve for walking, grasping objects, and speaking-in short, that lie may evolve the structure of man, with an organ for the use of reason, which shall gradually develop itself by social culture.\u201d<\/p>\nThe Christian who denies the reality of evolution in the biological world for the sake of making his God seem awesome is a fool, and needs to read up on\u00a0efficient\u00a0causes<\/a>. The existence of intelligible, creative processes is no evidence against an Intelligent Creator. The darwinist who pretends there is no massive gap between no-life and the first irreducibly complex single-celled organisms is\u00a0similarly\u00a0foolish. But both of them miss a crucial point. If all life is solely the product of evolution, then man \u2014 his rationality, his capacity for language, and his appreciation of beauty \u2014 is a product of evolution. If man is merely the product of evolution, then we must confront the fact that he \u2014 with every meme prematurely ejaculating that \u201cDarwin is the death of all this Creation nonsense!\u201d \u2014 is judging the system of evolution like a god who has transcended it. In fact, this is precisely what he does.<\/p>\n If every claim of the darwinist is vindicated, and everything about man is reduced to a series of\u00a0successful\u00a0genetic mutations, the truth remains that the darwinist can freely\u00a0choose<\/em>\u00a0evolution, and is thus no more the determined product of evolution than the obese man is a determined product of fast food.<\/p>\n The \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d only works if an animal by its nature wills to survive. Then<\/em> the fitter it is, the more likely its survival. If animal has no will to live, it doesn\u2019t matter if it randomly mutates a longer beak or a tommy-gun for an arm. The \u201cwill to live\u201d is the great\u00a0presupposition of Darwinism, and I think it a good one.\u00a0It is self-evident in all animals \u2014 except the animal man.<\/p>\n Man is an animal who may at any moment give the finger to the \u201cwill to live\u201d and make his exit from the universe. For every other being in the universe we may take for granted a natural will for continued existence, but for man, continued existence is a choice. We certainly\u00a0favor<\/em>\u00a0continued life insofar as we naturally view life as a good and death as bad. But this makes the \u201cwill to live\u201d an influence on us, not a determining factor, an influence that is \u2014 like most influences \u2014 easily overridden: Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US. Man, insofar as he can willfully commit suicide, is not determined by evolution.<\/p>\n The poet Heinrich von Kleist, after studying and believing the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, which claims that\u00a0man cannot ever truly know something, killed himself, writing: \u201cI am going, since there is nothing left for me either to learn or gain in this life.\u201d We are free to decide that life is not worth living.<\/p>\n This implies that man has a certain dominion over creation, for what is determined for all of nature is a choice for man.<\/p>\n Animal suicide does not, in a strict sense, exist. Aphids\u00a0can kill themselves<\/a>\u00a0in response to a threat to their \u201cherd\u201d, \u201cYou begin to challenge the definition of suicide. The body and mind are so damaged by stress and so it leads to self destruction. It\u2019s not necessarily even a choice,\u201d Ramsden told Discovery News.<\/p>\n \u201cIt becomes reversed, in a sense,\u201d said Ramsden. Animal and\u00a0human suicides\u00a0are no longer seen as willful acts but as responses to conditions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The denial that suicide is a choice is absolutely necessary if we are to continue to hold the thesis that man is as he is solely because of a process of random mutation measured against a will to survive.\u00a0Willful\u00a0suicide and man-as-mere-product-of-evolution are incompatible. Thus darwinists go to lengths to make the suicide of man who has said that life is no longer worth living\u00a0anything<\/em>\u00a0but man\u2019s decision that life is not worth living. \u00a0Our article stated:<\/p>\n Pea aphids, for instance, when threatened by a lady bug can explode themselves, scattering and protecting their brethren and sometimes even killing the lady bug. They are literally tiny suicide bombers\u2026<\/p>\n The big difference is that in modern humans that calculation can go wrong. There are some acts of suicide that do save lives. But most of the millions or so human suicides each year worldwide benefit no one\u2026They are acts that perhaps used to serve a purpose in early human societies, he said, but have lost their function in the modern world.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/80\/2012\/12\/ladybug-eating.jpeg\")
<\/a>splattering their guts on a predator. Salmonella perform a\u00a0similar\u00a0activity in response to invading bacteria. Most other accounts of animal \u201csuicide\u201d are anecdotal and highly\u00a0anthropomorphized, as when people argue that beached whales have lost the desire to live and have thus flung themselves upon the shore, or term a herd of sheep running off a cliff as a \u201cmass suicide\u201d. This has not stopped\u00a0enthusiastic\u00a0biologists \u2014 bless their hearts \u2014 from trying to argue that animal \u201csuicide\u201d and human suicide are the same.\u00a0This article<\/a>\u00a0won the Unbelievably Insane Snippet of Scientism award for me, when it claimed:<\/p>\n