Is It OK to Eat Homeless People (and Anybody Else)?
Two stories got my attention. The first one was about a man who killed and ate a homeless man.
According to an arrest warrant, on Dec. 16  [Tyree Lincoln] Smith was sleeping on the porch of an abandoned Bridgeport [Connecticut] home occupied by [Angel “Tun Tun”] Gonzalez. Gonzalez woke Smith up and told him “you don’t have to sleep here; come inside,” the report states. Smith entered the home and then attacked Gonzalez with a hatchet, police said. According to reports, Smith then removed Gonzalez’ eyeball and a portion of his brain, placed them in a plastic bag, went to a nearby cemetery and ate them.
Did Mr. Smith do anything wrong? What is wrong, given evolutionary assumptions, that the stronger man dominated the weaker man? That’s how we got here. In the distant evolutionary past, our ancestors killed and ate competing organisms to stay alive. The organisms that got eaten did not survive. That’s the nature of evolution. There’s nothing moral or immoral about it. Science can’t make moral judgments. It can only report what takes place.
It happens every day in the wild, as the saying goes, “Nature, red in tooth and claw.” Homo sapiens are the result of long ago superior animal ancestors forcing their will on inferior animals. We got here, say the evolutionists, because of millions of years of bloody struggle.
Michael Dowd, a minister and author of the book Thank God for Evolution!: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, writes the following in his recently published article “Thank God for the New Atheists”:
“Let the story of evolution be told in ways that engender familial love and gratitude, that we are related to everything — not just monkeys, but jellyfish and zucchini, too.”
If we’re related to zucchini, and it’s OK to eat zucchini, then, given evolutionary assumptions, was it OK for Mr. Smith to eat Mr. Gonzalez?
Then there was an article about the high priest of evolution that carried the title “Richard Dawkins: Morals Come From Enlightened Secular Values, Not Religion.” According to Indo-Asian News Service, Dawkins said, “We don’t need to get morals from our religions … We don’t want to find morals from the holy books. We can have our own enlightened secular values.” Tell that to Mr. Smith. Morals can’t be derived from the materialism and bloody history of evolution.
Here’s Mr. Dawkins’ view on morality. The following words are his:
“In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”1
Mr. Smith was acting in accord with these very principles.
- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: HarperCollins/BasicBooks, 1995), 133. [↩]