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.

Thank you, Dear sister!

I found a definite resonance between Cardinal Ratzinger's

"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."

passage -- and what I try to convey with my "How many galaxies could Moses see?" exercise...

~~~~~~~~~~~

And your

"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."

Is something I, as a scientist who believes strongly in our Creator and His described creation, might well have written -- except I would have ended it with

"I don't see how science can attack the problem[s] of origin and development of the universe without it."

~~~~~~~~~~~

Notice that I said, "development" (rather than "evolution") -- which reprises what I wrote in my first comment here, #21:

No condemnation of scientific study is needed...

Nor is denial of the fact that our Creator -- in His own good time -- caused all to things to be, and to develop according to His plan, and under His control.

~~~~~~~~~~~

That distinction ("development" vs "evolution") brings me right back to the subject of this thread, and deserves a separate comment, rather than just an "appendage" to this one...

"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."

When deciduous leaves drop from the tree in autumn, fall to the ground, and decay -- to fertilize and nurture future growth -- is "death" involved?

When you pull a carrot from the ground and eat it, is death involved?

~~~~~~~~~~~

Without physical death, there could be no continuity of life on this planet.

Your argument fails to distinguish between physical death and spiritual death. And you use original sin (the cause of spiritual death) to argue against the reality of physical death.

Our Lord and Creator designed His life systems on this planet to operate in an endless "recycling loop" -- which requires physical death. Otherwise, his command to "Be fruitful and multiply" would have soon resulted in an absurdity: a planet packed solid with living creatures -- and with no sustenance.

Perhaps you should remove your nose from your Bible for a spell -- and take a good look around at God's creation -- in which you live (and eat dead things...).

You know, I debated just leaving your response hanging. There is just so much supposition there, just so much accomodation to current opinion in the world ... it felt pointless to attempt a response. But, you've tossed out too many canards that are so easily refuted, so here goes:

When deciduous leaves drop from the tree in autumn, fall to the ground, and decay -- to fertilize and nurture future growth -- is "death" involved?

I'm tempted to suggest you deign to crack a Bible rather than gawking at the world and accomodating it, to tell you to look at the Book of Genesis and that the answer is right there, in very plain language: that herbs, plants, fruit bearing trees and seeds were given to both man and beast for food.

But, there again, we're dealing with an apparent supposition of seasons on your part in the Biblical Garden, in order for there to be deciduous trees. Sheer silliness, that. They were running around naked. It's a moot point and does not further your argument.

When you pull a carrot from the ground and eat it, is death involved?

No mention of carrots Biblically, so I can't quite say with any degree of specificity, but I suspect not, seeing as how herbs, plants, fruit bearing trees and their seeds were given to both man and beast by God for sustenance. If it seemed to me that you actually were interested in learning about the matter, I'd perhaps spend a little time on nefesh chayyah. the Biblical breath of life, and the significance thereof. But, it seems you are not, so I won't waste my time.

Without physical death, there could be no continuity of life on this planet.

Without physical death, there would be nothing but continuity of life on this planet. Would you care to rephrase?

Your argument fails to distinguish between physical death and spiritual death. And you use original sin (the cause of spiritual death) to argue against the reality of physical death.

Well, isn't this the novel attempt at splitting the two. The physical and the spiritual were and are intimately connected. There is a physical body and a spiritual body. There is either God in your life and < i>life, or no God with darkness and death. What do you suppose was cursed at the fall, why the physical changes in human beings and animals as well? Do you discard this because it doesn't fit with the current mode of scientific opinion? What else do you reject?

Our Lord and Creator designed His life systems on this planet to operate in an endless "recycling loop" -- which requires physical death.

No doubt a fascinating conjecture in certain circles, but you're just winging it here. You can't seriously believe this planet is a closed loop, can you?

Hold your nose and crack that Bible again, this time the book of Romans rather than Genesis. Tell me, then, why all of Creation suffers and groans, what is the futility to which all Creatures were subjected not of their own will? Spiritual death? Do you believe that wild animals died a spiritual death at the fall? You're right if you do, but only partially so.

Otherwise, his command to "Be fruitful and multiply" would have soon resulted in an absurdity: a planet packed solid with living creatures -- and with no sustenance.

A perfect Creation, prior to the fall of man, is not something to which any comparison can be made to current conditions on this planet. Whether or not you accept or reject the literal reality of this, you have to admit that the world described in Genesis and elsewhere, is not the world we live in today. It's quite different, in fact. Plants watered by mist rising up from the ground and no rain, for one. Refute it as an absurdity all you want, but there it is, plain as day. You certainly seem to reject it; I don't. That's the difference between you and me.

Perhaps you should remove your nose from your Bible for a spell -- and take a good look around at God's creation -- in which you live (and eat dead things...).

I've been worldly for most of my life and still am far too much so, I'm sad to say. I'm fallen and sinful and imperfect, as are you. I profess my sins pardoned by faith in Him. Do you? From our unfortunately pointed exchange thus far (which is all the more amazing since I'm not even sure who you are), I'd say your cracking a Bible and not just reading but actually pondering the meaning outside your modern, scientific bias, might be much more revealing for you, than yet another bout of worldly excess would be for me. So, I'll just take your advice with a grain of salt.

As far as eating dead things, well, back we go to Genesis and just what was given for sustenance to both man and beast prior to the fall. No breath of life, no nefesh chayyah, and therefore no death as physical death is meant and understood Biblically. Plants are described as withering.

This leads to another Biblical occurrence that perhaps strikes you as an absurdity, and that would be the flood. Eating really dead things, things that had the breath of life to lose and die, is intimately associated with this, after the deluge receded. We were given permission to eat animals at that point out of necessity.

So, what exactly was it, that you were advising me to do? A little clarity might be helpful.

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.