Creation vs Darwinism: God and Liberty vs Man and Tyranny

"At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited: either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having concrete evidence to support that belief." (Robert Jastrow, Ph.D Theoretical Physics, "Until the Sun Dies," pp. 62-63, 1977)

"...the biological theorists don't know that Kant has analyzed why one cannot have an immanentist theory of evolution. One can have empirical observation but no general theory of evolution because the sequence of forms is a mystery; it just is there and you cannot explain it by any theory. The world cannot be explained. It is a mythical problem, so you have a strong element of myth in the theory of evolution." (Eric Voegelin, CW Vol. 33, The Drama of Humanity Conversations, III, Myth as Environment, p. 307)

Out of one side of their mouths, Progressive Darwinists tell us to believe that 'God is dead,' and with His death, immutable truth, universal morality, original sin, and Nature's Law are dead as well, for these point to eternal verities: "It is a proposition of eternal verity that none can govern while He is despised." (American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828). Yet out of the other side of their mouths, it's common for them to brazenly proclaim that in reality, the evidence supporting Darwinism is overwhelming. Some go so far as to claim that evolution is an established fact.

Their claims however, are self-refuting, irrational, and based on a massive edifice of falsehood. Here's why:

Both fact and evidence point back to unchanging truth and reality. Truth is exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be. History, as it unfolds, is a record of truth and reality; of what works and what does not work; of what is right and true and of what is not. The long-term collective memory of this unfolding historic knowledge is common sense.

Truth, as recorded over and over by history shows that the seed of wheat has never brought forth anything but wheat. We all know this is true; it is common knowledge. Never once in our long history has the seed of wheat brought forth tomatoes, or something never before seen. Yet these miraculous events ought to have happened at least once if evolution is true.

History records the cyclical repetition of the four seasons, year after year, down through the long history of mankind. History likewise records that the return of Spring is always, without fail, accompanied by the return of birds. Each kind pairs off, builds nests peculiar to its own kind, and procreates. Not one time has history recorded the absence of Spring nor a robin mating with a bluebird or a frog. Nor has history ever reported a nest adorned with a porch, TV antenna, or swimming pool. Why not? Because just as the seasons must repeat cyclically, birds must likewise do what birds do. They possess no free will, hence must do as instinct dictates. Yet if evolution is true, one might reasonably expect to hear of extraordinary displacements upsetting the rhythm and pattern of the four seasons as well as to see evolved bird/frogs (brogs?) nesting in terraced penthouse nests.

Refusal to anchor the order in the Creator declares Stanly L. Jaki, cannot "but leave one with the fearful prospect of a radically random state of affairs. There stones would not regularly fall, but just as likely hang in mid-air or take off unexpectedly in any direction. There it would be most unlikely that the hatching of a chicken egg would yield a chick. There a flower would perpetuate its own kind only as an exceptional case. In other words, in a world severed from its Creator, lawfulness would be the miracle, that is, a most unexpected event." (Miracles and Physics, p. 29-30)

Truth is clearly on display when mating season arrives and each kind procreates, as they must. Anyone who spends time around animals, such as farmers , ranchers, and hunters knows this to be true. Never once has history recorded lions, cattle, deer, or horses, for example, refusing to procreate. Just as with birds, these animals lack free will and have no choice but to reproduce as instinct dictates. No, it's only mankind who can freely choose to either procreate or not; to nurture and love babies or to sacrificially kill them on behalf of the great god Hedon (sexual liberation), Mammon, 'saving Gaia', or some such pretext.

Truth says that over the long course of history, not once have stallions deserted their mares in order to 'go gay.' Nor has history ever witnessed even once, a titmouse dying its crest orange or purple nor a monkey putting rings through its nose, tongue, or naval. Truth reveals that only man possesses the free will to choose to pierce his body and do things contrary to nature, like 'coming out gay.'

Despite that truth can be clearly known by reason, Progressive evolutionists willfully disbelieve what they cannot help but know is true--- that mankind is only of two sexes and has free will, for instance.

"The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will..." Bertrand Russell, 1872-1970

"Everything, including that which happens in our brains, depends on these and only these: A set of fixed, deterministic laws. A purely random set of accidents." Marvin Minsky, artificial intelligence guru

"We are descended from robots; and composed of robots, and all the intentionality we enjoy is derived from the more fundamental intentionality of these billions of crude intentional systems." Daniel C. Dennett, Kinds of Minds

The Darwinian mythos, observed C.S. Lewis, is devised not to seek truth but to keep God out:

"More disquieting still is Professor D.M.S. Watson's defense. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or...can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?" (CS Lewis, The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944)

Described by Alexis de Tocqueville as the freest most enlightened civilization in history, America was firmly founded on Judeo-Christian principles. John Adams (1735-1862), signer of the Declaration of Independence, main author of the Constitution of Massachusetts in 1780, Vice-President under George Washington, and 2nd President of the United States, concurs:

"The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were...the general Principles of Christianity...(1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson) Religion and Virtue are the only foundations...of republicanism and of all free government..." (http://summit.org/)

As early as 1896 however, Progressive intellectuals had begun the work of demolishing America's founding worldview. Liberal theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, leader of the Social Gospel movement, used the pulpit to preach a pantheistic, anti-individual liberty, anti-truth message. "Individualism means tyranny," sermonized Rauschenbusch, by which he meant that 'oneness' with nature (pantheism) brings salvation through a divinized God-State controlled by Progressive 'god men.' In this morally inverted view, moral good is submission to Progressive dictates while moral evil is dissent against it.

This morally-demented nonsense, writes Jonah Goldberg in his book "Liberal Fascism", laid the groundwork for the equally morally insane preachments proclaimed decades later by Marxist Frankfurt School intellectuals such as Herbert Marcuse in the 1960s---'oppressive freedom,' 'repressive tolerance,' 'defensive violence.' (Liberal Fascism, p. 86-87)

By the time of Pres. Woodrow Wilson's regime, Progressive intellectuals had speculatively replaced the living Creator with a pantheistic 'ineffable force' that works its black-magic 'inversion of morality and reality' through Darwinian evolution-magic. By waving the wizard's wand of evolution-magic over our Constitution---presto!---it 'came to life,' and now 'lives, breathes, and evolves.' Having unshackled themselves from universal moral law Progressives saw themselves as possessing a divine writ from their divinized ineffable force of nature (spoken of in public as God) for organized cruelty, immorality, lying, power-grabbing, and for furthering their work of destroying America's worldview foundations. Those who stood in the way of 'progress,' that is, the defenders of America's founding worldview and Constitutional Republic, were demonized as the 'other,' because says Goldberg, "they were by their very existence blocking the will to power that gave the mob and the avante garde...their reason for existence." (p. 85)

The world's first totalitarian regime was not Soviet Russia nor Italy under Mussolini. Neither was it Hitler's Nazi Germany. No, it was Progressive Fascist America under the Wilson regime, reveals Goldberg. Like Mussolini and Hitler who had jack-booted activist-enforcers at their beck and call, so too did Wilson. In Italy they were called Fascists. In Germany they were called National Socialists. In America, Wilson's badge-carrying goons were called progressives. Nothing has changed, for today, Obama's jack-booted goon squad activists are called progressives.

Viewing themselves as enlightened, scientific, and elite, the West's Progressives, noted Whittaker Chambers, had "rejected the religious roots" of its own civilization for a "new order of beliefs" of which Communism was "one logical expression." (George H. Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America, p. 253)

Though differing in degree, Progressive Liberalism nevertheless infects both right (RINOS, for example) and left and is merely the continuation of the 20th century's genocidal totalitarian irreligion. Their common foundation: some form of the Darwinian mythos disguised as science.

Darwinism denies the existence of the transcendent Permanent Things that, grounded in unchanging truth and reality, comprise this nation's founding worldview and give rise to our inalienable individual rights and enduring principles of liberty: our living Creator, Nature's Law, immutable truth, universal moral law, virtue, the individual thinker and 'choice-maker' made in the spiritual image of God, and even the two sexes, male and female. Progressive evolutionism tells us to believe that everything came into being by chance---accidentally, without meaning, purpose, or design-- from nonliving matter. Hence, since man is an accidental emergence from 'nothing', then he is in the image of 'nothing'. 'Nothing' has no free will, nor should man. 'Nothing' owns nothing, nor should man. And since 'nothing' is neither male nor female, then neither should man be, rather man ought to be 'gay,' another word for polymorphously perverse androgyny.

When all men have finally submitted to being ruthlessly pounded down into nothingness, egalitarianism (sameness), social justice and fairness will have been achieved and the immoralists Eden (sinners paradise)---hell on earth--has arrived.

Additionally, we are conditioned to believe that everything remains in continuous movement as it readies itself for the next quantum leap in evolution. By extension of this superstitious illogic, evidence is merely an illusion, for not only is continuous motion anathema to truth, fact, and reality, but these verities along with all activity of the mind (thought, imagination, memory, dreams) are of the immaterial (metaphysical) realm, which Darwinism claims does not exist. Hence the monstrously imbecilic claims made by willfully ignorant Darwinists regarding evidence, fact, and reality in support of evolution refutes evolution's main claim, that truth and reality cannot and do not exist. The foolish King not only has no clothes, but he has no mind!

Massively egoistic Progressive irreligionists immediately respond, "Sinless man is the measure of all things. Put your faith in him!"

But what does history record? It relates that in addition to seeing man choose to do things contrary to nature, it says that since the dawn of history, it has heard man tell lies over and over and over. Man, records history, lies to himself, and he lies to others.

"I do not want to believe in God," confessed Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. "Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution" Wald admitted to Scientific American magazine.

"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores," confessed Sir Julian Huxley, former president of UNESCO and grandson of Darwin's colleague Thomas Huxley.

"We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom," concurred his brother, the late Aldous Huxley.

Writing to his friend and colleague Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin baldly confessed, "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have devoted myself to a phantasy."

In a letter to a friend, C.S. Lewis writes that he is right in "regarding (evolution) as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives..." However, Lewis astutely observes, "it is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders." (Letter to Bernard Acworth, Spt. 13, 1951)

"We have to use any ruse, dodge, trick, cunning, unlawful method, concealment, and veiling of the truth." V.I. Lenin, progressive anti-hero

Today our Constitutional Republic, called the 'shining city on a hill' by Ronald Reagan, is on a dangerous fast-track to totalitarian socialism. What yet remains of our founding worldview and Constitutional Republic is rapidly suffocating and dying under an ever-expanding interlocking matrix of lies, from small lies to Big Lies, all of which are defended by the 'fanatical and twisted' tellers of them---immoralist Progressive power-grabbers at every level of government and society who willfully disbelieve what they cannot help but know to be true. As frightful and evil as this prospect is, there is more. The Progressive dream of utopia is fueled by Gnostic Manichaeism. In this demonically-occluded view, Progressive believers are 'sinless and good' while the 'others' (Conservatives, the Right, all defenders of American tradition) are automatically evil. Ridding the world of evil becomes a matter of purging it of both the evil others and utterly destroying Western civilization. Toward this goal, Progressives have forged an unholy alliance with Islam. Jamie Glazov writes, "Upon the foundation of their hatred for the United States, its members have forged their alliance with radical Islam, whose wellspring of anti-American hatred runs just as deep. In word and deed, both of these allies make it plain that they consider everything about Western civilization to be evil and unworthy of preservation; that they wish to see freedom and individual rights crushed by any means necessary, including violent revolution." (United in Hate, pp. xx-xxi)

What sort of people are immoralists? In the words of Alexis de' Tocqueville they are "they who obey the dictates of their passion..." In other words, they obey everything from virulently inflated narcissism (god man megalomania, psychopathology) and lust for power to sexually perverted lusts, covetousness, gluttony, hatred, resentment, and envy---all fueled by will to power. In this light, political correctness, multiculturalism, hate crime laws and speech codes are seen for what they are: anti-social pathologies translated into politics and perverted law.

" We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (1798)"

C.E.M. Joad, a 20th century progressive philosopher, spent most of his life proclaiming his distaste for the great I AM, the doctrine of Original Sin, and the transcendent Permanent Things. As a Progressive he wholeheartedly embraced revolutionary doctrine and the necessity for socialism. It was the genocide, catastrophic destruction, and massive suffering unleashed by application of Progressive ideas under direction of sinless men unshackled from God and moral law that led to Joad's eventual rejection of Progressivism. In a book entitled The Recovery of Belief, Joad documented his transfer of allegiance from Progressivism and evolution back to Christianity, special creation and the Permanent Things that made this nation the freest most enlightened nation in the history of the world.

Joad wisely repented of the dark "dream of destroying the world...and building a utopia on its ashes---that has shaped and represented the modern progressive movement." (Jamie Glazov, United in Hate, p. 2)

Not so Lenin. Only after Russia flowed with the blood of millions of people and his hands were darkly red with their blood would he finally admit:

"I committed a great error. My nightmare is to have the feeling that I'm lost in an ocean of blood from the innumerable victims. It is too late to return. To save our country, Russia, we would have needed men like Francis of Assisi..." (Richard Wurmbrand, Marx and Satan, p. 50)

Linda is the author of numerous published articles and essays on culture, politics, and worldview. Her writings are published both nationally and internationally. Linda is a team member of Grassfire, New Media Alliance, and MoveOff.

The materialist Darwinist worldview has catastrophic implications, not only for morality and ethics; but also for epistemology, the domain of cognition, rationality, and knowledge.

The article quotes Bertrand Russell: “The first dogma which I came to disbelieve was that of free will.…” If there’s no free will, then no one can be held accountable for anything. Of course, it is absurd to believe that a mere concatenation of atoms assembled deterministically through blind natural processes can evolve itself into an existential state of freedom, and therefore become morally culpable. Therefore, it is unreasonable to hold a human being (who supposedly evolved in this way) responsible for his acts, even those acts which cause injury to others, because in a deterministic universe the human being simply couldn’t have done anything different. Man’s morality is qualitatively no different than the “morality” of the beasts of the field (i.e., instinctual nature). So man is “free” to be bestial. Ironically, Lord Russell’s nugatory freedom ends up being smuggled in, willy-nilly through the backdoor, as the real thing with no rational basis whatsoever.

One imagines that Bertrand Russell did not really live in a way that was thoroughly consistent with his worldview. Certainly his sexual promiscuity was well enough explained or “justified” by it: He just couldn’t help himself, and anyway, there was no reason to. But how does Russell’s vision of human (non)freedom square with the Principia Mathematica? Is this magisterial work the result of a random natural process, or was human freedom — specifically, creative freedom — somehow involved in its production?

Russell has elaborated his worldview as it specifically pertains to man. He says

That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his hopes, his fears, his loves and beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins … only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built. — Why I Am Not a Christian, 1957

Again, one wonders: If Russell really believed this, how would he explain himself? He acknowledges the existence of “truths.” That is to say, of absolutes; but his worldview would appear to preclude such. Ditto for soul, which he also mentions. There is nothing in this belief that can account for the fact that Lord Russell was a world-class mathematician, logician, analytic philosopher, and historian. None of these fields can be reduced to the materialist/naturalist explanation his stated worldview would seem to demand. Yet instead of dismissing them as irrelevant as his theory would seem to demand, he chose to trouble himself over them. And was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature (1950) “in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.” In short, instead of living consistently with his stated beliefs, his life work testifies that he consistently did exactly otherwise. I have a suspicion that Lord Russell was completely aware of all this, and was just “funning us,” or “pulling our leg,” with such histrionics as showcased above.

Whatever the case, it’s here that the problem of “second realities” — of which Russell’s stated worldview is a prime example — becomes evident: They cannot be consistently lived even by their own articulators. That is, they are ultimately self-contradictory.

The materialist worldview at the heart of Darwinism claims that the physical universe is causally closed, that life emerged spontaneously from “dumb matter” in a purely naturalistic process, then further speciated by means of a process of pure, blind chance (“random variation”) plus natural selection that has no particular end or purpose in view beyond the pragmatic issue of species fitness for self-replication and thus survival. Individuals mean nothing; and it seems especially human individuals mean nothing: there is no way Darwinism can shed any light whatsoever on the issue of personality. And, notwithstanding Russell alluded to the “soul” in the above quote, such things are ruled out in principle by the relentless presupposition of materialism/naturalism.

In short, on this theory we have a perfectly “depersonalized” universe. And the theory seems well calculated to obviate any idea of a personal beginning of the universe — for this would not be a “natural” phenomenon. Indeed, this seems to be the main charm of the theory for many people nowadays. And yet, with an impersonal beginning, we have no way of accounting for the universal facts of human experience and existence.

In an ultimately impersonal universe, there is no such thing as true morality, yet humans cannot rid themselves of the nagging notion that some things are truly right and others are truly wrong. In other words, this position reduces humanity to a freak of nature. Personality in general and moral sensibilities in particular have been coughed up by chance, kicking us “out of line” with an intrinsically impersonal, amoral world. In such a context, moral motions are entirely abnormal, thoroughly absurd and finally futile. … this is the “ultimate cosmic alienation, the dilemma of our generation.” …
What we find … are two basic options for the person who embraces impersonal presuppositions. Either one can rationally follow the inescapable logic of an all-inclusive determinism to a position of “unyielding despair,” or one can ignore the logical implications of this position and opt for an irrational, optimistic leap into the realm of mystical meaning. The former option preserves intellectual integrity but leads to physical suicide, while the latter preserves physical integrity but leads to intellectual suicide. Neither option, however, can offer a fully integrated, holistic solution. Physical death or intellectual death: these are the only two options available to our woefully divided world. (Burson & Walls, C. S. Lewis & Francis Schaeffer, 1998)

These passages address something this author often writes about — the various species of “gnostic revolts,” a/k/a “second realities” that have cropped up in human history, and in particularly severe form in the twentieth century forward. Their common factor seems to be the inordinate desire to abolish all absolutes moral and rational so to enable the construction of a field for magical operations that will abolish reality as we know it and transform it into something more compatible with our human wishes and desires. Without absolutes, reality can be only chaotic and relativistic, an ataxia, an utter formlessness, just begging for an ordering principle that the magician du jour tells us he will impose, thereby to recreate reality in more pleasing form.

As if this were remotely possible. It should be clear to any reasonable person that it is not. And reasonable people know that absent an absolute standard, reason itself would be powerless.

Ms. Kimball in other writings has pointed out that all such systems take the form of doctrinal “monism.” I think she is right about this; for such “gnostic revolts” ultimately are projections of a distinct, monadic Ego — “monadic” in that it has chosen to act “autonomously” by separating itself from the constraints of human reason and experience in order to generate a new and better creation than the one humans beings have been living in for countless millennia. And if history tells us anything, it is that typically such an Ego does so for self-serving purposes.

Plato understood the basic problem as follows: In the area of knowledge, as in the area of morals, there must be more than particulars if there is to be meaning. “Knowledge” without meaning is simply undigested data and, therefore, not true knowledge. In short, “we need universal categories and standards to make sense of and give meaning to all the diverse particulars in our world…. Such classification increases our comprehension, unifies our knowledge and sets the necessary epistemological parameters to make sense of the world.” [ibid.]

But of course, "universal categories and standards" are not "natural objects." And therein lies the rub for materialists and naturalists....

I’ve run on so long, I’m obliged to close here before getting into any speculation as to why human beings construct systems that deny the reason, experience, and common sense of universal humanity. To me, this is a deeply mysterious phenomenon and seemingly widespread today. Henri Bergson suggested a fertile way to engage this problem: his concepts of l’ame overt and l’ame close — the “open soul” and the “closed soul” — which might lead in turn to the consideration of a “disease” widely recognized in former times, but which present-day humanity seems to have forgotten all about. Maybe we could revisit this issue some time later on.

Thank you ever so much, spirited irish, for posting this outstanding article, “Creation vs Darwinism: God and Liberty vs Man and Tyranny.”

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.