Divorce wrecks lives down through the years
A study by a London School of Economics academic reveals that the children of divorced parents do less well in their lives regardless of whether their parents are rich or poor. These children were more likely to bear or to father a child as teenagers, their marriages were more liable to end in divorce, or their other relationships were more likely to collapse.
“Parental divorce may be directly implicated, in that children of these unions carry a legacy of doubt and vulnerability about forming and maintaining long term relationships,” says the report.
Those liberal commentators who say that easier divorce is a good thing and that social and economic circumstances have more effect than divorce on how children grow up have their views flatly contradicted by the report.
The report concludes that “undoubtedly, children benefit from being raised in an emotionally and economically secure two-parent family.”
Yet again, God’s creation appointment is shown to be best and for the best. “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled,” Heb. 13:4. J. R. T.
Consequences of Darwinism
SWEDEN’S reputation for tolerant liberalism has recently been dented by the revelation of an officially authorized programme, begun in 1935, of sterilization for “social undesirables”. During a period of 41 years, 60,000 Swedes were sterilized on such grounds as being “racially mixed” or of “low social standing”. One lady, now 72, fell victim to this policy as a teenager because she had learning difficulties: it turned out later that her problem was nothing worse than shortsightedness – she needed glasses!
It was the same philosophy which was pursued in Nazi Germany with such fearful consequences in an effort to produce a pure master race. Even a secular organ like Time magazine can see that it is a philosophy which has its roots in the theory of evolution: “Such attitudes derived from social theorists who distorted the implications of natural selection discovered by Charles Darwin.” Granted that Darwin was not guilty of developing his theories to the extent that others did in the earlier part of this century, the fact remains that he provided the perfect foundation for doing so. No distortion of Darwin’s principles was necessary: it was an altogether reasonable deduction from his ideas. If the forces of evolution had brought the human race into existence and had taken it to the present stage of development then surely, the argument went, evolution could be helped along so that mankind could reach even higher levels of progress. The authorities in the state would then be allowed to determine who would be allowed to bear children and who must not.
A similar policy was pursued in other countries, including the USA. The magazine Creation ex Nihilo has pointed out (in its September-November, 1997 issue) that the presiding judge in the American Supreme Court, which heard a case on the subject of compulsory sterilization in 1924, was Oliver Wendell Holmes, “an influential Darwinist who laid the legislative foundation for many of the advances of secular humanism in the United States”. Because of his Darwinism, he has been described as finding “it difficult to take morality seriously”. Not surprisingly then, the court held that it was acceptable for the state to compel the sterilization of those who were “socially inadequate”. But in practice this definition has included the
blind, the deaf, sufferers from TB, epileptics, the poor and the homeless.
Evolution is false. God has revealed to us in the Scriptures that He created the world in six days. It is clear also that evolution is dangerous. Not only were thousands of women sterilized unnecessarily in an unacceptable policy of interference with natural (that is, God-created) reproduction, but it has deceived multitudes into believing that there is no God. It is surely part of God’s judgment on this generation that the vast majority today believe a theory which should come across as an obvious lie. Even when its consequences are exploded, especially because of the clearly racist overtones of compulsory sterilization policies, everyone seems prepared to continue with the theory that led to those policies in the first place. Truly, “the carnal mind is enmity against God”! K. D. M.