Darwinism: Devilish Gnostic Myth Dressed Up As Science

Today all people whose faith in God the Father is genuine face a seemingly insurmountable problem with what seems like an overwhelming weight of evidence that evolutionism is true and the Genesis account of creation is false. Mockers and scoffers abound, scornfully accusing the faithful of believing in “an invisible being in the sky and that a dead guy from 2000 years ago is coming back soon…instead of believing in reality,” as one scofflaw said recently.

However, the real issue here is not “superstitious, backward Christianity” vs. “enlightened reason and science” but about one creation account (Genesis) vs. another creation account (Darwinian evolution). The truth of this claim can be seen in the following quotes:

“…one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched… The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories. (One Long Argument ,1991, p.99, Ernst Mayr (1904 – 2005) Professor of Zoology at Harvard University)

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” (“Billions and Billions of Demons” Richard Lewontin (b. 1929) PhD Zoology, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University)

In other words, terrible-willed evolutionists have a Cosmic Authority problem, and this is why they rally around Darwinism and force its absurd, counterintuitive teachings upon gullible, misinformed Americans while simultaneously ridiculing and otherwise psychologically terrorizing creationists, among whose numbers are many of the defenders of America's founding traditions. Commenting on the Cosmic Authority problem of many atheists, Thomas Nagel, professor of philosophy and law at New York University confesses:

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind." (The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me To Faith, Peter Hitchens, pp. 149-150)

At bottom, Darwinism is a Gnostic myth notes Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematics professor at Oregon State University:

“…As a scientific theory, Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living things created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim….Thus…evolutionism is a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb….it is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic, because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being; for indeed, only after the living creature has been speculatively reduced to an aggregate of particles does Darwinist transformism become conceivable. Darwinism, therefore, continues the ancient Gnostic practice of deprecating “God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.” It perpetuates…the venerable Gnostic tradition of “Jehovah bashing.” (From Old Gnosticism to New Age I, Alan Morrison, SCP Journal Vol. 28:4-29:1, 2005, pp. 30-31)

Historically, Gnostics have always been notorious God-haters to the extent of consigning Him to hell. The early Church Fathers called them the "lawless ones," as they were idolizers of their own minds, rebels against all authority, immoralists, hedonists, and builders of alternative realities (utopian fantasies) requiring the death of God, for the heart of Gnosticism is "man is god."

While the infamous Tower of Babel was history's first Gnostic project, the Soviet Union and Socialist Germany are modern versions. In his book, "Science, Politics, & Gnosticism," esteemed political philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901-85) identifies progressivism, positivism, Hegelianism, Marxism, and the "God is dead" school as modern Gnostic movements. All of these movements are firmly grounded on the Gnostic myth of Darwinism.

In their rage against God the Father, modern Gnostics refuse to be created in His spiritual image, thus they conceptually 'uncreate' themselves through reductionism, which in the words of Wolfgang Smith, means that they speculatively reduce themselves to “aggregates of particles". Reductionism is a tenet of the philosophy of materialism.

Materialist philosophy is neither new nor scientific, but one of the most ancient superstitious beliefs in the world. The ancient version held that matter has always existed and everything that exists consists of matter. According to the modern version, invisible dead-matter spontaneously generated itself from nothing, and then by way of evolution magically produced everything else. To believe this is to believe that the nothingness within the magician’s hat spontaneously generated the bunny.

If evolutionism was a gas-powered generator, then spontaneous generation would be its indispensable fuel, admits Ernst Haeckel, pantheist mystic and ardent defender of Darwinism. In the following quote, observe that Haeckel confesses that spontaneous generation is not scientific but rather metaphysical. Furthermore, this metaphysical doctrine is the essential replacement for creation Ex Nihilo—-the miracle of creation in other words:

“…spontaneous generation appears to us as a simple and necessary event in the process of the development of the earth. We admit that this process, as long as it is not directly observed or repeated by experiment, remains a pure hypothesis. But I must again say that this hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation, that it has absolutely nothing forced or miraculous about it, and that certainly it can never be positively refuted. It must also be taken into consideration that the process of spontaneous generation, even if it still took place daily and hourly, would in any case be exceedingly difficult to observe and establish with absolute certainty as such. This is also the opinion of Naegeli, the ingenious investigator, and he, in his admirable chapter on Spontaneous Generation, maintains that “to deny spontaneous generation is to proclaim miracles.” (The History of Creation v.1, 1892, p.422)

Ray Comfort quotes evolutionist Stephen Hawking who in essence affirms that "the nothingness within the magician’s hat spontaneously generated the bunny:"

“According to professor Stephen Hawking, God didn’t create the universe. Instead, nothing created everything. However, Hawking has violated the basic laws of science. In an extract of his latest book, The Grand Design...published in Eureka magazine in The Times, the professor said: 'Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.'”

“It is embarrassingly unscientific to speak of anything creating itself from nothing,” remarked Comfort. “Common sense says that if something possessed the ability to create itself from nothing, then that something wasn’t nothing, it was something–a very intelligent creative power of some sort. ”

“Hawking has violated the unspoken rules of atheism. He isn’t supposed to use words like 'create' or even 'made.' They necessitate a Creator and a Maker. Neither are you supposed to let out that the essence of atheism is to believe that nothing created everything, because it’s unthinking.” (Hawking Breaks Atheists Rules, Comfort, www.worldviewweekend.com)

So as it turns out, spontaneous generation is yet another “just-so” story. However, the importance of this particular fairytale is that it is the irreplaceable metaphysical foundation of the larger Gnostic myth of Darwinism. Without spontaneous generation, Darwinism...indeed all evolutionism…falls apart, leaving only the miraculous creation Ex Nihilo.

Furthermore, the respected scientist Louis Pasteur definitively disproved spontaneous generation just three years after Darwin published his book, “On the Origin of Species:”

“… Darwin’s celebrated tome On the Origin of Species, which had been published just three years before Pasteur’s experiments, sought to discredit the need for God to create the species by showing how one species can transmute into another. But Darwin’s account left open the problem of how the first living thing came to exist. Unless life had always existed, at least one species — the first — cannot have come to exist by transmutation from another species, only by transmutation from nonliving matter. Darwin himself wrote, some years later: “I have met with no evidence that seems in the least trustworthy, in favour of so-called Spontaneous Generation.” Yet, in the absence of a miracle, life could have originated only by some sort of spontaneous generation. Darwin's theory of evolution and Pasteur’s theory that only life begets life cannot both have been completely right. (The Fifth Miracle,1999, p.83, Paul Davies (b. 1946) Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science)

Colin Patterson writes that after studying evolutionary theory for many years, he finally “woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way.” Patterson goes on to say:

“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non- evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people….Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.” “Evolutionism and Creationism” November 5, 1981 p.2 Colin Patterson (1933 – 1998) Senior Paleontologist at British Museum of Natural History

When C.S. Lewis pointedly observed that the entire edifice of the so-called 'science' of Darwinian naturalism has but one purpose, to keep the supernatural Creator out, he was merely confirming admissions made by Lewontin and many other Darwinists. In sum, Darwinism is a deception perpetrated by self-worshipping swindlers who have been 'pulling the wool' over the eyes of the uninitiated masses, to use Lewontins' own words. (The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944)

Long before Darwinian Gnostics systematically liquidated in excess of 200,000,000 men, women, and children on behalf of communist and socialist utopian fantasies, George Romanes sought to warn the world of the coming catastrophe:

“Never in the history of man has so terrific a calamity befallen the race as that which all who look may now behold advancing as a deluge, black with destruction, resistless in might, uprooting our most cherished hopes, engulfing our most precious creed, and burying our highest life in mindless desolation . . The flood-gates of infidelity are open, and Atheism overwhelming is upon us.” (George Romanes, A Candid Examination of Theism ,1878)

“No wonder that Brig. General F.D. Frost stated in the Fundamentalist, January, 1950, p. 21: ‘There is no doubt about it that the doctrine of evolution is the greatest curse in our educational system.’ Whether we read Ward’s Dynamic Sociology, or Russell’s Code of Morals, or Briffalt’s Immoralism or some other book written by the Behaviorist School,—they all seem to endeavour to justify and base their conclusions on the bestial nature of man. This philosophy seeks to.... reduce man to the level of animal nature. The surging unrest, the broken homes, the frustrated lives, the increasing divorce cases, the multiplied number of criminals are but the inevitable outcome of the acceptance and practice of this evolutionary doctrine." (H. Enock, Evolution or Creation ,1966, pp. 1146-1147)

Evolutionism “should not be taught in high school.” Indeed. Gnosticism is the spiritual disorder of our age and Darwinism and spontaneous generation are its toxic roots. Conceptual murderer of God the Father, inverter of reality, hater of humanity, uplifter of Satan as the first 'free thinker,' destroyer of truth and all that is good, normal, and decent; bringer of chaos, blasphemy, hedonism, pathological lying, genocide and other evils too many to be listed, Gnosticism has all but destroyed America and the West.

In his book, "The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me To Faith," Peter Hitchens, brother of the infamous atheist Christopher writes:

"...the Bible angers and frustrates those who believe that the pursuit of a perfect society justifies the quest for absolute power. The concepts of sin, of conscience, of eternal life, and of divine justice under an unalterable law are the ultimate defense against the utopian's belief that ends justify means and that morality is relative. These concepts are safeguards against the worship of human power." (Rage Against God, p. 135)

The Western civilized nations rose to greatness on the wings of just one spiritual faith ...Christianity. Unalienable rights come from the transcendent Creator and not from weak, easily corrupted men. Through abandonment of its’ spiritual roots, the West---which today is a Gnostic-West---is moving inexorably toward its death.

America is the West's last best hope, observed Mark Steyn. Yet America is itself pathologically infected by Gnosticism and near death. Gnosticism must be destroyed. To do this we must tear it out by the roots. This means Darwinism must be uprooted and exposed for what it really is: a Gnostic myth.

Mockers and scoffers abound, scornfully accusing the faithful of believing in “an invisible being in the sky and that a dead guy from 2000 years ago is coming back soon…instead of believing in reality,” as one scofflaw said recently.

Note to Linda: Your writing would be much improved if you didn't misuse words such as "scofflaw." "Scofflaw" isn't a synonym of "scoffer." And, geez, turn down the purple prose. It doesn't advance your spin on someone else's thesis.

That is what bugs me. Even when one reads Genesis 1 and believes that it is God's idea of a day at work (i.e. not 24 hours) there is nothing in the Bible that states that evolution could not have happened.

I'd suggest spending a little more time with your Bible, pnh102.

Evolution, at it's core, depends utterly upon death as an objective good, a literal requirement for improvement of basic life forms and every successive and more putatively advanced life form thereafter.

The Bible states that death was not part of God's Creation. The disobedience of man, the original sin of man, brought death into this world, not just for mankind, but all of Creation.

This is inescapable, and it's not something that can be easily and simply segregated to just Genesis and blithely discarded. It's present throughout the Old and the New Testaments. Jesus Christ himself spoke upon it and validated it. He was, after all, the Second Adam, brought into the world to undo the damage done by the first Adam.

"but generally the current proponents of evolution are certainly atheists."

There is no dispute that there are atheists among the supporters of evolution, but there are many devout Catholics and followers of other religions who have accepted the Theistic Evolution as a compatible with the Bible.

"The world is not, as people used to think then, a chaos of mutually opposed forces; nor is it the dwelling of demonic powers from which human beings must protect themselves. The sun and the moon are not deities that rule over them, and the sky that stretches over their heads is not full of mysterious and adversary divinities. Rather, all of this comes from one power, from God's eternal Reason, which became -- in the Word -- the power of creation."

"One answer was already worked out some time ago, as the scientific view of the world was gradually crystallizing; many of you probably came across it in your religious instruction. It says that the Bible is not a natural science textbook, nor does it intend to be such. It is a religious book, and consequently one cannot obtain information about the natural sciences from it. One cannot get from it a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings. One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time -- from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring. Thus Scripture would not wish to inform us about how the different species of plant life gradually appeared or how the sun and the moon and the stars were established. Its purpose ultimately would be to say one thing: God created the world."

- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

I’m increasingly of the opinion that Vedic “gods” were some of the Biblical great men of old, men of renown, and all the extra-Biblical, Enochian implications that come with it.

Their knowledge was and is very impressive, and if you’re familiar with the subject, you know that part of the problem was the forbidden knowledge introduced into Creation via teaching mankind.

Vimanas, which sound for all the world like advanced spacecraft. Plausible descriptions of atomic warfare. Makes sense to me. Some find the notion bizarre, that I do acknowledge. It’s not at all bizarre to Biblical literalists who have familiarized themselves.

... final cause (temporal non-locality) is a poison pill to anyone relying on happenstance to deny God.

Absolutely! Final cause is a rebuke to those who hold the opinion that evolution is essentially a random development. Therefore, it must be denied — the only Aristotelian causal category denied/rejected by mainstream contemporary science.

"Temporal non-locality" does not fit into the Newtonian paradigm. In that framework, changes of state of a system in nature can be entailed (caused) only by a preceding local state. What Alex Williams has called "inversely-causal metainformation" is regarded as patently impossible, dismissed out of hand. In effect, his idea was that biological functions are in a certain way "pulled from the future," not produced in the past by means of random development, putting it very crudely. That is to say, biological function depends on the three causal categories of formal, material, and efficient causes, all of which are themselves entailed by the fourth category, final cause.

It was Francis Bacon who kicked final cause out of science. Today, an increasing number of serious thinkers are beginning to recognize that biology cannot be addressed without it. The mathematician/theoretical biologist Robert Rosen is one such.

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your outstanding essay/post!

I am fascinated by these discussions and not a little intimidated by my poor grounding in scientific literature.
Darwinian science is an expression of sin. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, a black science born of the perversion of God consciousness into human consciousness. As such it is an appropriate belief system for lost souls.
God Consciousness occurs at salvation. When we accept Christ as our savior we receive a new mind and a new body. Until then we were surely lost in death. Now we are reborn into life.
The immeasurable brightness of God illuminates our life and sparks a flame in our soul that can never be extinguished.
My admonition for the Gnostics, the Goths, the progressives, the materialists is simple:
Come out from under the rock that blackens your soul and sufffocates your mind. Come into the light of God’s Truth. He will make all things clear to you.

So very true.

As you pointed out awhile back, it is humorous when biologists evade final cause by saying apparent function.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

Thank you so much for the heads up!

bb & A-G: what is your "take" on the Ratzinger statement in #64, please?

As you say, it is evidently the result of a lot of prayer and meditation.

Creation week is described in Genesis 1 in less than 40 sentences. Yet the books written about physical cosmology fill rooms in libraries.

The relationship between them is like the relationship between the U.S. Constitution and the myriad IRS publications explaining the U.S. Tax Code (26 U.S.C.) - the former speaks in broad concepts and the latter, while being derived from it, is expressed in exacting detail with a different purpose in mind - in the case of the IRS, not to leave any money on the table.

I would however quibble over his (or the translator's) use of the term "religious book" because Scriptures contain the words of God which are spirit and life. They are not in the same category with any old religious book, e.g. the Koran, commentaries, hymnals, ancient manuscripts.

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

"I never cease to be amazed at how many otherwise faithful folks insist on "downsizing" the full majesty of our God and His Creation in order to cram them into their miniscule mindspace"

Chesterton once said that "the cosmos is about the smallest hole a man can hide his head in."

A cosmos that was created in under 10,000 years is even smaller. So it will fit nicely between the ears of a five-basics-of-faith fundamentalist.

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers."

Thomas Nagel is a great philosopher, and this quote from him, shows how good he is. He basically is admitting his bias ahead of time and alerting his readers to watch for any errors that might have crept in because of it.

This statement is akin to someone who has just experienced a soul-shattering experience such as the death of a child and says something to the effect "I want Christianity to be true, but how could a loving God allow an innocent child to die so young?" It shows that Nagel is still open to both sides of the argument, which is something that very few on the FR boards are on any issue.

I do not agree with your interpretation but you are certainly free to have it! ;-)

The Vedas pre-date any Biblical time frame and this has been shown to be factual in various ways, including references in the Puranas to astronomical phenoma (witnessed) that happened, for instance, 26,000 years ago. Now if my computer was not being extremely bad and I had my files on it I maybe could find some sources but alas this is not the case.

I accept the Vedic timeline for creation which is explains the universe as immeasurably more ancient than young earth creationists (IIRC 2 billion years is a round age).

But that said, the number of years is to me less important that the understanding that God is the creator, and there is transcendent purpose and meaning to life, order founded on Divine Intelligence of God, and matter came from life, not life from matter.

And AFAIK, not all Christian creationists are young earth, but I don’t know enough their ideas to know.

" From what I’ve read, the TOE has so many holes, mistakes, and outright fudging of truth in it that even an intelligent and non-fanatic atheist, if not already wedded to it emotionally, would find it hard to believe."

When one attempts to answer questions not posed by Darwin it does fall short, however when the problem statement is limited to explaining variation change over time it makes perfect sense. If evolution exists it is because God created it. What other process would God utilize when creating life to remain viable in a dynamic environment.

One must distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed. The form would have been chosen from what was understandable at the time — from the images which surrounded the people who lived then, which they used in speaking and in thinking, and thanks to which they were able to understand the greater realities. And only the reality that shines through these images would be what was intended and what was truly enduring.

Dear TXnMA, you asked for my "take" on Pope Benedict's statement (#64).

It takes a penetrating mind (IMHO) to perceive the critical distinction between form (the symbols used) and content (the bolded part of the Holy Father's comment).

It seems important to note that the symbols used, though expressed in a manner that would be understandable to the people of the time, convey universal human experiences that people of our own time share with them. That is, they refer to problems of the universal human condition, in particular problems of the spiritual kind. They are eternally relevant.

I particularly admired this statement:

One cannot get from [the Holy Scriptures] a scientific explanation of how the world arose; one can only glean religious experience from it. Anything else is an image and a way of describing things whose aim is to make profound realities graspable to human beings.

The only thing I'd add to that is I think it is possible for scientific explanation to benefit from the "big picture" outline of creation given in the Bible. I don't see how science can attack the problem of origin of the universe without it.

Which is perhaps why so many scientists nowadays prefer to ignore that problem, or simply wish it away (like Stephen Hawking, for instance).

Well FWIW dear brother in Christ!

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.