Time to cancel Darwin

Christian Post ^ | 07/06/2020 | Michael Brown

[SeekAndFind]

As much as I despise the cancel culture, if there is any cultural icon who deserves to be canceled for racist attitudes, it is Charles Darwin. Or were you not aware of how his ideas helped fuel the fires of eugenics?

I tweeted a poll on June 23, asking, “Who said this? The ‘western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization.’”

Of the four choices offered, 4.2 percent voted for David Duke, 10.5 percent for Robert E. Lee, 29.6 percent for Adolph Hitler, and 55.7 percent for Charles Darwin. The majority got it right!

But is this knowledge widely disseminated? Do the countless millions of fawning Darwinists know about Darwin’s racial theories? And if they do, do they simply turn a blind eye to them?

The same day I did the poll, I sent the link of a disturbing article about Darwin to a friend of mine who is Black and a historian. The article, written by Austin Anderson and posted on the Philosophy for the Many site, was titled, “The Dark Side of Darwinism.”

I asked my friend, “I assume you knew this about Darwin?”

He replied, “What? That he was a racist? Sure. That’s race history 101.”

He added, “Racist philosophy, eugenics and white supremacy are the love-children of Darwin. Survival of the fittest is the core of European philosophy and its approaches to colonization and imperialism.”

Did we learn about this in our schools?

Anderson wrote:

Darwin’s defenders most often cited his abolitionist identity, notes from his diaries, or quotes from people who knew Darwin. His accusers, on the other hand, often directly cited text from The Descent of Man. Conclusions drawn from the authorial approach to the question, in which defenders focused on proving that Darwin himself was not a racist, starkly contradicted conclusions drawn from the approach of consulting Darwin’s text itself. I’m familiar with Darwin’s theories, but I had never actually read his books; I suspect the same is true for most of you. However, I found that to determine whether or not Darwin’s theories are racist, the text of his books is revealing and conclusive. Information outside the text of The Descent of Man can help us understand the man behind the pen, but it does nothing to soften the brutal racism and white supremacism found in the text of his theory.

Which peoples does Darwin describe as “savages”? He is quite generous in his use of the term, including, Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and Eskimos.

Darwin asks, “How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence?”

This was virtually identical to the reasoning used by European and American slave traders, who viewed the Africans as intellectually inferior human beings, therefore deserving of servitude to the white man.

These savages, according to Darwin, also had lower morality, lack of ability to reason, and less self-control. And, quite naturally, given the survival of the fittest and the ruthlessness of the evolutionary process, the superior whites should conquer and colonize the savage’s lands.

As Anderson notes (while quoting Darwin), “As white Europeans ‘exterminate and replace’ the world’s ‘savage races,’ and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man ‘and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla’.”

Yes, the illustrious Darwin wrote those very words.

Of course, Darwin should have been canceled intellectually decades ago due to the abject scientific failure of Darwinian naturalism.

As atheist philosophy professor Thomas Nagel argued in his book Mind and Cosmos, “the modern scientific story of the origin of life through evolution is ‘ripe for displacement’ and it represents ‘a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense,’ which will be seen as ‘laughable’ in a couple of generations.” (The subtitle of Nagel’s book is, “Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.”)

There is no viable, materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of human beings (as distinct from animals, with a conscience and a state of consciousness).

That too, however, is not something you are likely to hear in school.

As Nagel wrote, “I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program [about the origin of life] as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science.”

Can I give an amen to an atheist?

Unfortunately, the intellectual cult of Darwinism does not seem ready to collapse just yet, as it remains thoroughly entrenched in academia to this day. To oppose it is to be a heretic.

But perhaps, given the dark side of some of Darwin’s theories, theories that were intrinsic to his evolutionary views, Darwin can be questioned morally. Starting there, it will be easier to topple his intellectual house of cards.

---

Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test?

[Telepathic Intruder]

Such ‘inferences’, and the actions based on them, are the fault of those that perpetrate them, not the one making the suppositions leading to them, whether or not they are even correct.

[Telepathic Intruder]

"What do you call such beliefs?"

I call them often true. How do you explain the preponderance of black professional athletes as opposed to white ones?

[schaef21]

***If evolution is a house of cards then it should be easy to discredit, Darwin’s personal opinions play no part in the scientific theory of evolution.***

Evolution is most definitely a House of Cards..... and it is philosophy, not actual science. It doesn’t matter how many guys/gals in lab coats believe it, it cannot be proven. To be fair, neither can creation.

The scientific method is designed to take bias (worldview) out of the process. The theory of evolution is not observable, is not testable, it is therefore not repeatable and it is certainly not falsifiable.

It is therefore philosophy.

Here’s what we can do.......

One of these statements has to be true, as they are our only options:

1. Matter/Energy do not exist.
2. Matter/Energy are eternal.
3. Matter/Energy burst into existence from nothing.
4. Matter/Energy were created.

We can use the Laws of Nature to examine these.

#1 is falsified by the scientific method... matter and energy are observed every day.

#2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing, so there had to be a beginning or all of the energy in the universe would have already been converted from usable to unusable and we wouldn’t be here).

#3 is falsified by the Law of the Conservation of Matter (The amount of matter in the universe is constant and cannot by natural processes be created or destroyed.)

It is also falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which says essentially the same thing about energy.

It is falsified as well by the Law of Causality, which says something had to cause matter and energy. In this case we know that the cause would have to have come from outside of the universe since neither matter nor energy can be created by natural processes.

#4 cannot be falsified by natural law. It cannot be proven either, however it is the only option that is left.

The question is not “Is there a Creator”?

The question is “Who is the Creator”?

Natural Law points to a “Prime Mover” outside of the universe.

After years of study, I believe that Prime Mover to be the God of the Bible. Specifically, scripture tells us five times that God the Father created everything through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 1:3,10, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2, 1 Corinthians 8:6).

The question then becomes, did the Creator use evolution. According to scripture, the answer is unequivocally no.

Those willing to really look at the theory and study the evidence without bias will readily understand that the probability that it is true is so infinitesimally small that it should be a non-starter.

[Dave Wright]

Canceling Darwin does not change anything anymore than cancelling Newton or Einstein or any other scientist. His motives, even if racist, do not disprove the theory of natural selection by descent with modification. The way to “cancel” Darwin is to show that there is an aspect of human life that can’t be accounted for by descent with modification.

The naturalist way is to write a scientific paper on the Origin of Souls. The problem with this approach is that, as Karl Popper has pointed out, it can’t be disproved because it must forever be an article of faith.

All religious people must believe in God only as an act of pure faith that transcends logic or science. Pinning one’s belief on the efforts of any naturalist philosophy is futile and not necessary. It exposes the believer’s temptation to succumb to doubt and weakens their faith.

Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd).

[alstewartfan]

Wow. How does a brain (or even a kidney or pancreas) self-organize? I’ll give you TRILLIONS of years, and it will never happen, without pre-existing intelligence.

[Terry L Smith]

It seems to me, that all of this is nothing more than a bad re-run of a re-hashing of the century-past Scopes trial, by those that still repudiate any thing science vs anything bible.

[alstewartfan]

Failure to anticipate logical inferences is inexcusable, IMO.

[alstewartfan]

No Terry, it it is Darwinists who reject science.

[Reily]

I never said there wasn’t a pre-existing intelligence.

You said there was no self-organizing into complex structures. I was answering that statement. There are !

[alstewartfan]

The existence of God is obvious. It is the people who believe in naturalism who accept an absurd theory as an article of pure faith, based upon wishful thinking and little else..

[xp38]

Darwin was an agnostic yet he is buried in Westminster Abbey.
Details can be found here
https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/charles-darwin

[Telepathic Intruder]

Different people can infer different things from the same premise. They can extrapolate, exaggerate, or misinterpret based on their own narrow views or prejudices. They can misunderstand in any way that suits their vanity. It is not the fault of the one being misunderstood.

[Verginius Rufus]

If they are canceling Abraham Lincoln, it makes sense to cancel Charles Darwin too, since they were born on the same day (February 12, 1809).

Does Darwin, Australia, have to be renamed?

[alstewartfan]

My salient point is that you cannot take inanimate matter, create a paramecium from it, and from that single-cell organism evolve a brain EVER. THAT is the rubbish that passes for science today.

[semimojo]

Well, if Darwin is correct ( that is, we all came from a chance process via random mutation and natural selection) , then we have to admit that some races are INHERENTLY more advanced in the natural selection process than others.

That doesn't follow at all. Race is a human construct, not a biological one, and there's nothing in the theory of natural selection to say one is more "advanced" than another.

And if Darwin is correct, there really is nothing morally wrong with being a Nazi or being a supporter of the KKK.

You seem confused about the scope of Darwin's theory. It doesn't address good, evil or morality in any way.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Race is a human construct, not a biological one

You mean there is no difference between groupings of humans based on shared physical qualities?

RE:You seem confused about the scope of Darwin’s theory. It doesn’t address good, evil or morality in any way.

Ahhh but there is — IMPLICITLY. The theory might not address what is right or wrong, but IF TRUE, that is, we all evolved out of accidental and random atoms, then what we call morality is simply a result of “evolution”.

BOTTOM LINE, Does evolution tell us whether a Mother Theresa is “morally superior” to Hitler?

If random mutation plus natural selection is true, It seems that they are simply differently evolved results of a natural process.

[Just mythoughts]

Darwin was a lunatic. He was ‘pissed’ off over the death of his child ... He ‘rebelled’ and decided to theorize God did not exist... Too many bought in to TOE and they own their insane notions. God created the ‘races’ and He said it was GOOD ... only the devil and his handmaidens say otherwise.

[Getready]

Really...fixity of species is a nebulous term....no one actually knows at this time if the variation seen in organism is pre existent (like a jumping gene or transposon)or a novel SNP. What is true is that mutations that go to a point where the organism dies or cannot reproduce are lost to genetic pool variation.
Either way, darwinism or neodarwinism is not a very complete explanation. As such it should be relegated to a theory which tried to encompass the known science of the day.
The language of DNA,RNA, epigenetic controls, restriction enzymes, correction enzymes, intracellular transport architecture, protein synthesis, intercellular communication schemes, etc....make the concept that an organism can cross the large barriers of plant or animal differences highly unlikely. I am overlooking the elephantine problems associated with formation of a cell which has those capabilities. (the “but we are here” argument is circular reasoning)

[SunkenCiv]

As Anderson notes (while quoting Darwin), "As white Europeans 'exterminate and replace' the world's 'savage races,' and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man 'and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla'." ...atheist philosophy professor Thomas Nagel argued in his book Mind and Cosmos, "the modern scientific story of the origin of life through evolution is 'ripe for displacement' and it represents 'a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense,' which will be seen as 'laughable' in a couple of generations." (The subtitle of Nagel's book is, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.") ...As Nagel wrote, "I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program [about the origin of life] as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science.".

I'm not surprised that the CT writer who wrote this would be reading an atheist writer.

• 'The Spiritual Danger of Trump:' New book asks evangelicals to rethink their vote in 2020
• Will the 2020 elections come down to Trump vs. social anarchy? How Will Evangelicals Vote in 2020?
• Joe Biden courts evangelicals as polls show Trump slipping with voting bloc

[schaef21]

To all that are interested in this subject, here is a great discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noj4phMT9OE&t

Three guys who’ve rejected evolution:

An Atheist - David Gelernter
An Agnostic - David Berlinski
An Evangelical - Stephen Meyer

It’s an hour long but fascinating if this is a subject in which you are interested.

Over 1,500,000 views.