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.

What an excellent essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

Truly, it is irrational to think of the psyche as an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, a secondary phenomenon which cannot cause anything to happen.

And what a penetrating insight to the presupposition of cause/effect, that it is based on experience and not reason.

For myself, I think it more reasonable to entertain the hypothesis that the brain is the “tool” or instrument that the mind (or consciousness) uses.

I agree.

The usual arguments given are that physical brain injury affects the mind and that responses can be physically provoked.

The latter is puppetry and actually makes the point that the brain is the tool the mind uses.

And the former is no more remarkable than the kind of changes one would expect in the performance of his television or computer if he took a hammer to it.

The term “divine intervention” is not a slight. There should be no problem with people believing in it, only with calling it evidence based.

Thank you, elfman2, for the thought and care you've put into this discussion. When I was much younger, I would have agreed with your premise that "divine intervention" was not evidence-based. Based upon experience and learning, I realize that I was wrong.
When I was a child, I was more or less taught that placing one's faith in God was an irrational move. Faith was stepping off a plank and hoping that there was something below to catch you. Reason could only take you so far and there was a final, irrational step of faith that you had to take in order to believe in God.
When I began college, I decided that faith had to be something more than blind faith. I never left Christianity, but I searched to find for myself whether it was true. I still believe that is good to continually examine one's faith. Am I placing my faith in God or am I placing my faith in what I think God ought to do?
I researched over a period of several years all of the major religions, philosophies, and even atheism in hopes of finding something of substance to latch onto. I found some good things in many religions and philosophies. For example, I liked the meditational aspects of Buddhism. However, I could not rationally accept the Four Noble Truths and how they speak of the cause of and remedy for suffering (disquietude).
The concept of Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism
As I continued my research, I ultimately came down to two religions that satisfied my yearning for something that accurately described reality: Judasim and Christianity. Both evidence-based beliefs.
I have been blessed most of my life to have been close friends with observant Jews. I love them and admire them. But the decision between Judaism and Christainity boiled down to the question of Jesus. Who was he? Is the information we have about him reliable? Did he really satisfy the prophecies and was he really the son of God?
As a result of much reading, thought, and prayer, I decided that Jesus was a historical figure, that the records we have of his life were accurate, and that he really is the incarnate son of God the father.
If you want to read the account of a hardcore atheist who set out to disprove Christianity and found God, I highly recommend Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ.
I have two degrees in the hard sciences -- chemistry and chemical engineering -- and am by nature a highly rational person. When I see something that I don't understand, I always seek out a rational, natural explanation. That's the proper place to begin. It is not incompatible with Christianity either. God created the natural laws and almost always chooses to perform his work according to these laws. There is no need for God to continually tweak his creation to make certain that the earth rotates every 24 hours. When I take a Zyrtec for allergies, it works because it affects my body chemistry, not because it causes some miracle to take place.
As I have grown in my faith, I have come to learn that divine intervention is not only real, but happens often. I have become a soft charimatic Christian and have many stories to tell you about prayer being answered, often immediately. God answers every prayer: He says yes, he says no, or he says later. When he says yes and right now, the results are startling, even frightening.
The Apostle Paul wrote:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Hebrews 11:1-3)

When I was a less mature Christian, the key words in the passage for me were not seen. Now, the key words are assurance and conviction of things not seen. Even though something is not seen does mean it is not real. I cannot see the air I breathe but I am convicted that it is real because I can see its effects. Similarly, I believe that God is real because I see how we works in my life and the lives of others.

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.