Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?

In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo- Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).

“Evolution is a religion,” declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. “This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today…One of the most popular books of the era was ‘Religion Without Revelation,’ by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley...As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more.” (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)

“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” (Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II, Introduction)

The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).

All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, “In the beginning God...” Cosmic Humanism begins, “In the beginning Divine Matter.” Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, “In the beginning Matter.” Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:

“...matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic.…the dialectical materialist's attribution of ‘dialectic’ to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones.” (Gustav A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, p. 58)

In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:

“We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth.” (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, p. 28)

Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million ‘subhuman’ men, women, and children.

First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.

Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his Autobiography that one who rejects God,

“...can have for his rule of life...those impulses and instincts which are strongest or…seem to him the best ones.” (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, p.7)

Humanist Max Hocutt realizes that materialist ethics are hugely problematical, but offers no solution. An absolute moral code cannot exist without God, however God does not exist, says Hocutt. Therefore,

“...if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, pp. 138-139)

Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin’s advice. In an interview he said,

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought…I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.” (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)

With clearly religious overtones, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes the amoral materialist ethic:

“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (“Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” p. 115)

Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:

Man is “but fish made over...” declared biologist William Etkin (Greg L. Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, p. 224). And his life is but a “partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states,” explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, p. xv). Furthermore, “The universe cares nothing for us,” trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, “and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” (“Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion Are Incompatible,” The Scientist, Sept. 1988)

Man... “must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself…as capable of ‘spiritual endurance,’ or nobility.” By animalizing man his “state of mind…can be ordered and enslaved.” (“Degradation and Shock,” Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, Chapter viii)

Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is “but fish made over…” there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens - by chance of course - that some lucky “species” and “races” of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are - unluckily for them - less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species - or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism - it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:

“At some future period...the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated.” (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)

In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th century’s two most blood-soaked political movements - pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism.

Hitler’s murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,

“The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice.” (p.230)

It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create - by way of eugenics - a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.

Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million “useless eaters” and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life, reluctantly concurs. Darwin’s theory, he acknowledges,

“...has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis.” (p. 13)

Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his “On the Species,” the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwin’s Origin,

“...is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.” (Conway Zirkle, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene)

Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,

“In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism.” (p. 752)

“Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable.” (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, p. 9)

Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, “the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species.” It was Lenin who “decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history.” From the moment Lenin made the “scientific” decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, “its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)

Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:

“The ‘liquidation’ of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the ‘treatment’ carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought…In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other…was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of “subhumans” and “supermen”…but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered…was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice.” (ibid., p. 751)

Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, “the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage.” (Republican National Convention, Houston, Texas, 8/17/1992)

Even though he was optimistic about America’s future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s insightful analysis of the source of America’s greatness:

“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (Michael Reagan, In the Words of Ronald Reagan)

As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism…the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to America’s youth in our governmentcontrolled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as “vegetable,” “non-persons,” and “uterine content.”

Ominously, Evolutionary Humanism has also outstripped Judeo-Christian precepts in our universities, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, corporations, medicine, law, psychology, sociology, entertainment, news media and halls of Congress. As Biocentrism, it fuels the nonhuman animal rights project, the gay rights movement, radical feminism, and the increasingly powerful and influential green environmentalist program, which demands that America submit to the draconian mandates of the Kyoto Treaty.

America, the “moral force that defeated communism” is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.

Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the “animalization of Other,” in tandem with the elevation of the “superior,” for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct “new morality,” which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.

evolutionist B.F. Skinner said: “A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual...is henceforth to be controlled...in large part by other men.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, p. 232)

"John and Matthew were two of the Apostles. Mark was Peter's amanuensis. Luke was an historian and companion of Paul. He set out to record an accurate history of the remarkable events that had just occurred. He would have interviewed the eleven and any other witnesses he could find. It would be hard to imagine a scenario in which they didn't know each other, and know each other extremely well."

Oh?

The Gospel of Luke is written anonymously, and is at best a secondary source based on earlier accounts of the life of Jesus. It borrowed from the Gospel of Mark for his chronology and some other source document for many of Jesus' teachings that did not survive to modern times.

The Gospel of Mark is also written anonymously, and its attribution to the secretary of Peter is little more than tradition. It certainly contains errors of geography that no real secretary of Peter would have made. It was written about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.

The Gospel of Matthew was also written by a person whose actual name is unknown to us, almost certainly a Jewish Christian near the end of the 1st century. The most "Jewish" of the Gospels, it also is a secondary Gospel that borrowed heavily from Mark and the lost collection of Jesus sayings, and appears to have been originally written in Greek.

And the Gospel of John? Well it's the wild card, the most theologically evolved and least historically reliable of the four canonical Gospels. Also being the last written, it was clearly composed in stages, edited, redacted and re-edited at least three times.

In short... there is no good reason to believe that any of the "evangelists" are more than unreliable tradition,

Who me? I must not be able to work the thing right. I still can't see your conspiracy theory as plausible. But as it is more reliable then written history, I will just accept your pronouncements on faith I suppose.

You are after all one of those infallible naturalists. And don't be too shy to deny it. You are one of the folks who somehow know for certain that the thousands upon thousands of spiritual and super natural experiences throughout man's experience are all simply either mistakes or lies.

If that is not a claim to divine revelation...from oneself as the divine...what is?

"You are one of the folks who somehow know for certain that the thousands upon thousands of spiritual and super natural experiences throughout man's experience are all simply either mistakes or lies."

Once again, Andy, you appear to be arguing with somebody who is not me.

I have never said anything close to that, and I am not even an atheist.

So, perhaps your time would be more gratifyingly spent hunting down whoever it is you really are arguing with, and confronting them. 'Cause i gotta tell you...

Arguing with you is like being stoned to death with popcorn.

There’s something like 26 volumes of the writings of the anteNicene fathers. An example being Polycarp, companion and student of John. Polycarp learned directly from the Apostles. Irenaeus learned from Polycarp and others who had known the Apostles. And so on. There’s a chain of church fathers going all the way back to the Apostles.

Somehow I think that these people had an idea of who wrote the NT documents, and oddly enough they failed to express a lot of doubt about their authorship. In some cases they even knew the reputed authors. Probably they had a better idea of the provenance of the writings than someone 20 centuries later play acting at being a junior David Hume, claiming that you just can’t know much of anything. It’s really just a simple case of the rules of evidence that courts use every day.

Except that EnderWiggins doesn’t consider his points to be spurious nonsense. I’m sure that he thinks that they are wise and weighty arguments.

All that is required is to tell yourself that you are far more discerning than those ancient oafs from 20 centuries ago, the sort of rubes who, you know, fell for any kind of preposterous story. Unlike ourselves, who are modern paragons of intellect and reason. If we were to be confronted by some otherworldly miracle we would have the good sense to refuse to believe our own senses, as miracles are an insult to our world view. By definition neither miracles nor God exist. Nietzsche told me so.

Except that EnderWiggins doesn’t consider his points to be spurious nonsense.

True. Ender Wiggins strikes me as that sort of silly skeptic who seems to think that while he can reject our source of authority, we are duty bound to accept his. I can assure you, I don't feel bound in any way to accept the authority or validity of the fringe "scholars" who peddle the sort of nonsense about the Gospels that he peddles on here. Rule #3 for skeptics who want to be taken seriously - "If you don't accept the validity of my authoritative source, then don't expect me to accept the validity of yours."

Considering that every NT writer except Luke was Jewish, the claim is remarkable for its lack of common sense.

His argument focuses away from the NT itself, and focuses on how the NT was interpreted by "the church fathers", who seemingly to be any proclaimed Christian in church history with an anti-semitic slant. I am not a history buff, so I am unfamiliar with the "church fathers" he speaks of excepting Martin Luther, who became as it turns out, quite anti-semitic later in life. On the other hand, I kind of thought of the writers of the NT and their contemporaries as the "church fathers".

Rather my focus has been on the NT content itself with special emphaisis on the moral teachings of Jesus that seemed relevant (love your enemy, love everyone as yourself et al. pray for those who do wrong to you, return good for evil and such).

My own position has been that following Christ's commands to and ethical example are the epitome of what it means to be Christian, and that we all necessarily fall short of that ideal. And that those who persecute Jews (whether or not they are motivated in part by vengeance for the death of Christ) are being un-Christian to the extent that they do so.

I understand the high regard in which you hold the early church fathers. But do not overstate what can be established as history rather than merely tradition. For example you assert that Polycarp was a "companion and student of John." But you do not ask the obvious question.... which John? John the Presbyter? John the Evangelist? John the Apostle? Or another John of whom we have no surviving knowledge? Polycarp himself certainly did not give us the information to answer that question. In fact, the sole surviving work of his never even mentions John once.

These traditions come down to us through a several hundred year game of "telephone," and there is no real way of discerning what changes were made before they were finally recorded in documents that have survived. This is like the Muslim "science of Hadith." Muslims insist they are reliable because they know the chain of transmission. But heck, if someone can make up a hadith, they can make up a chain of transmission to make it look reliable. The argument for authenticity is completely circular.

So again, we are confronted with the difference between history and tradition. It is Roman tradition that Romulus and Remus were suckled by she wolves. It is Muslim tradition that Muhammad rose to paradise from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. It is Buddhist tradition that the Buddha attained enlightenment sitting under the branches of the Bo-tree. It is Christian tradition that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Traditions can tell us a lot. But they do not bear automatic confidence that they are actually true.

More importantly though, it is only a selective filtering of relevant documents that enables anyone to assemble evidence that the "orthodox" foundation myths of Christianity are true. Certainly, the vast diversity of early Christian thought was almost unknown until the Nag Hammadi find introduced us to texts that had been suppressed and destroyed by the Pauline Christians; victors of the earliest Christian v. Christian conflicts. The Pauline belief in Apostolic Succession gave them something their competing Christian sects lacked; an existing martial hierarchy of command and control. So this version of Christianity (along with its corresponding NT canon) achieved orthodoxy because they were better prepared to fight, not because they were necessarily true.

I have no doubt that, as you wrote, "these people had an idea of who wrote the NT documents." Need I point out, though, that the authorship of the Gospels is hardly among the least likely to be true things that they believed?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.