Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).
“Evolution is a religion,” declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. “This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today…One of the most popular books of the era was ‘Religion Without Revelation,’ by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley…As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more.” (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)
“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” (Humanist Manifestos I & II, 1980, Introduction, Paul Kurtz)
The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).
All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, “In the beginning God…” Cosmic Humanism begins, “In the beginning Divine Matter.” Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, “In the beginning Matter.” Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:
“…matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic…the dialectical materialists attribution of ‘dialectic’ to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones.” (Dialectical Materialism, Gustav A. Wetter, 1977, p. 58)
In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:
“We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth.” (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, 1969, p. 28)
“The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be.” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 4)
Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million ‘subhuman’ men, women, and children.
Deadly Problems
First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.
Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his “Autobiography” that one who rejects God,
“…can have for his rule of life…those impulses and instincts which are strongest or…seem to him the best ones.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p.7)
Humanist Max Hocutt realizes that materialist ethics are hugely problematical, but offers no solution. An absolute moral code cannot exist without God, however God does not exist, says Hocutt. Therefore,
“…if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 138-139)
Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin’s advice. In an interview he said,
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought…I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.” (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)
With clearly religious overtones, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes the amoral materialist ethic:
“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (Russell, “Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” 1957, p. 115)
Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:
Man is “but fish made over…” declared biologist William Etkin (Pushing the Antithesis, Greg L. Bahnsen, p. 224). And his life is but a “partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states,” explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, Bernal, 1967, xv). Furthermore, “The universe cares nothing for us,” trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, “and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” (Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist, Sept. 1988)
Man... “must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself…as capable of ‘spiritual endurance,’ or nobility.” By animalizing man his “state of mind…can be ordered and enslaved.” (Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, “Degradation and Shock,” Chapter viii)
Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is “but fish made over…” there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens---by chance of course---that some lucky ‘species’ and ‘races’ of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are---unluckily for them---less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species---or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism--- it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” (1871) Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:
“At some future period…the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated.” (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)
In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th century’s two most blood-soaked political movements--- pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism
Nazi Germany
Hitler’s murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book, “Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,
“The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice.” (1947, p.230)
It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create---by way of eugenics--- a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.
Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million “useless eaters” and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of “Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life,” reluctantly concurs. Darwin’s theory, he acknowledges,
“has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis.” (2005, p. 13)
The Soviet Union
Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his “On the Species,” the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwin’s ‘Origin’,
“is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.” (Marxian Biology and the Social Scene, Conway Zirkle, 1959)
Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,
“In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism.” (p. 752)
Vladimir Lenin exulted that,
“Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p. 9)
Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, “the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species.” It was Lenin who “decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history.” From the moment Lenin made the “scientific” decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, “its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)
Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:
“The ‘liquidation’ of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the ‘treatment’ carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought…In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other…was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of “subhumans” and “supermen”…but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered…was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice.” (ibid, p. 751)
21st Century America
Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, “the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage.” (Republican National Convention, Houston TX, 8/17/1992)
Even though he was optimistic about America’s future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s insightful analysis of the source of America’s greatness:
“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (In the Words of Ronald Reagan, by Michael Reagan)
As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism…the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to America’s youth in our government-controlled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as ‘vegetable,’ “non-persons,” and ‘uterine content.’
Ominously, Evolutionary Humanism has also outstripped Judeo-Christian precepts in our universities, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, corporations, medicine, law, psychology, sociology, entertainment, news media and halls of Congress. As Biocentrism it fuels the nonhuman animal rights project, the gay rights movement, radical feminism, and the increasingly powerful and influential green environmentalist program, which demands that America submit to the draconian mandates of the Kyoto Treaty.
America, the “moral force that defeated communism” is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.
Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the ‘animalization of Other,’ in tandem with the elevation of the ‘superior,’ for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct “new morality,” which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.
In a portent of things to come, evolutionist B.F. Skinner said:
“A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual…is henceforth to be controlled…in large part by other men.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 232)
Copyright Linda Kimball 2007 www.patriotsandliberty.com/
Linda is the author of many published essays on culture, worldview, and politics. Her essays are published both nationally and internationally. She is a member of MoveOff.org
You haven't been reading your Bertrand Russell enough. There is no goodness to thank or evil to condemn at all in a universe that is nothing but an accidental by-product of impersonal chance or necessity. Ascribing to concatenations of atoms the attributes of good or evil makes about as much sense as praising or condemning the orbit of the moon around the earth.
“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (Russell, “Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” 1957, p. 115)
Cordially,
"The game board is set up and the game is played by the rules." Agreed. But who set up the game board, and according to what rules? I'd say: God created the natural world, which is the game board. And His Logos established the rules that give order to the natural universe.
You may say: "These are not scientific questions." But that doesn't make the questions illegitimate. Especially in light of the fact that these are precisely the questions that man has been asking since time immemorial. Are we to think human beings are stupid because universally, they ask such questions?
As far as miracles are concerned, especially in light of discoveries of quantum physics, perhaps miracles are simply events the causes of which we do not grasp from our perspective in space and time. For all we know, they may be perfectly "natural" -- as you define it (i.e., game board plus rules) -- but we don't know how they occur.
Common descent contradicts Genesis, which says that each creature reproduces "after its own kind," and only its own kind. That doesn't necessarily mean that each species had to be specially created by God. And it doesn't rule out evolution. It just rules out common descent.
Of course, if you are of a mind to say that Genesis is a myth and nothing more, well of course you're entitled to your opinion, js1138. I am not required to share it.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
Generic creationism is pretty well spelled out in Genesis. And it seems to me God is extraordinarily forthcoming in the description of the early universe in Genesis 1. You do have to realize, however, that the time questions involved in these texts are not asked according to the "normal" time of human experience. Indeed, the early verses describe things that are not "in time" at all. In reading Genesis, I see nothing at all incompatible with state-of-the-art physics. I see the singularity, I see the big bang, I see the inflationary universe; I see the universal vacuum field; I see the emergence of the primordial light out of which all matter was made; I see the inception of Life, and the constitution of a hierarchy of living beings with man at its summit. Etc.
Am I being "subjective" here?
Translate your supposition into a form that can be researched. What would you expect to find that will not be found by mainstream research? How is the supposition that God set up the game board different from the supposition that the game board is what we see and study?
Common descent contradicts Genesis, which says that each creature reproduces "after its own kind," and only its own kind. That doesn't necessarily mean that each species had to be specially created by God. And it doesn't rule out evolution. It just rules out common descent.
Any reading of Genesis that rules out common descent is simply wrong. Either Genesis is wrong, or the reading is wrong. This is no different than asserting that a literal reading of the Bible is wrong if it concludes that the sun rises in the east and the earth does not move. If facts are incompatible with the literal interpretation, it is time to reconsider how the text should be read.
Amen indeed, dear brother Quix! All glory be to God.
If you feel free to fiddle with the interpretation of time in Genesis (which many do not) you may as well take note of the fact that there is no literal discussion of method. Genesis says that life came from non-life. The process is not described in scientific terms, so any interpretation is simply personal opinion.
I find it the height of vanity that some people will promote their personal opinion over the evidence found in existence itself. If creation is the word of God, then it is available to all men at all times; no translation required. You do not need to be born in a priveleged time or place, or have parents who inculcate you with the correct theology.
Science speaks the same language to all people in all times and places, without regard to religion, race, nationality, gender. there are thousands of religions at war with each other. Scientists, regardless of religion or politics, reason together.
Not "subjective", but seemingly ambibuous. When you say "generic creationism is pretty well spelled out in Genesis", does that mean that other religions (not just specifically Islam) that believe in the creation of the universe by a supernatural diety don't really believe in "creationism" if that account doesn't agree with Genesis?
The word "creationism" appears in virtally any standard reference dictionary you can find. Why is it necessary to dance around simply settling on the commonly used and understood meaning of the word based on those references? It seems a reasonable proposition that in any debate that there needs to be mutual agreement by all parties on a common, objective, and equally accessible source of the definitions of the principle terms involved. Somehow that seems to be too much to ask for.
Scientists are avid to discover the causes of things -- except for the cause of the entire "ball of wax," the universe ("the game board"). Then suddenly it becomes a matter of, "That's not a scientific question."
Huh??? Are scientists saying that every natural thing has a cause, but the sum total of all natural things -- the universe -- does not? That the universe has no beginning (no cause) and no end but is simply a random, material process running on forever?
Then where did the matter come from, and where did "the guide to the system," the natural laws, come from? You did declare to believe in natural laws ("the rules of the game"). But if you do, how do you square this with the supposition that the universe and the life in it is a random process?
You wrote: "If facts are incompatible with the literal interpretation, it is time to reconsider how the text should be read." I'd suggest that a literal reading of Genesis is the wrong way to approach the text. Genesis is not an instruction manual or a user's guide, to be read literally strictly for information purposes. Better to engage these texts with the aid of the Holy Spirit, which anyone can humbly invoke ("seek and ye shall find; ask, and it shall be given unto you"). Then we might really get somewhere.
Funny thing is, cross-references to modern physics has, if anything, made me appreciate the genuine authority of Genesis all the more.
Genesis says that life came from God speaking His holy Word, the Logos, for whom and by whom all things were made, in the beginning -- a real beginning of space and time -- ex nihilo. Then the photons showed up. :^) ("Let there be Light!") That's not exactly the same thing as "life came from non-life." The latter is so dry and doctrinaire, plus a heck of a lot less informative than the Genesis text itself.
You wrote: "I find it the height of vanity that some people will promote their personal opinion over the evidence found in existence itself." My "personal opinion" happens to be informed by the evidence of my own existence, experience, and observation.
You also wrote, "Science speaks the same language to all people in all times and places...." So does God. The problem is not everyone has the ears to hear Him. Maybe people don't try to listen hard enough. :^)
Then again, there are a lot of people who believe there's nothing "there" to "listen to." And that, of course, is another personal opinion -- presumably based on evidence, experience, observation???
Or does this merely signify a closure of the mind, a sealing of the Spirit, to God?
Some are interested in the question, and some work on answers. Science works with phenomena that are accessible to the methodologies of the day. That requires humility and discipline.
You are correct. the passage I have in mind speaks of dust. Figuratively speaking, both Genesis and science agree that living things are made of "dust."
Some people are arrogant enough to imagine they know the method and the process by which this happens. Science is humble enough to admit that it does not, but curious enough to read the book in which life is written. I guess curiosity is what you have in mind when you speak of sealing oneself off from the spirit of God.
It is too much to ask for. Reliance on dictionary terminology can be a substitute for thought. We need to agree on the meaning of words. Then we'd need to ask, which dictionary? For different dictionaries may give differently nuanced definitions. It's better to "reason together" and see if we can stand together on the same page thataway. If not, then not. Besides, the point you were raising went to "subjectivity." And so I gave my subjective opinion that "generic creationism is pretty well spelled out in Genesis."
Whereupon you inquired: "does that mean that other religions (not just specifically Islam) that believe in the creation of the universe by a supernatural diety don't really believe in "creationism" if that account doesn't agree with Genesis?"
I don't think I have suggested that. What I did suggest: I regard Genesis as a truthful account of creation regardless of what other accounts other religions or cultures might come up with, even scientific accounts (such as orthodox darwinist theory).
Indeed. Still, the mind of man outraces his tools and methodologies nonetheless. We have seen magnificent scientific speculations that have had to wait for the technology to catch up with them, so that they might be tested.
That's hardly what I have in mind!!! Curiosity is God drawing us to explore His magnificent revelation, the creation itself! I consider curiosity a divine gift. It's an openness to God, not a sealing of one's self from divine influence.
Indeed, they do. The physical basis of life is matter -- whatever that is! LOL! We'll just agree to call it: "dust." :^)
I believe you also maintain that your definition of cretion is completely objective and free of personal bias.
It is too much to ask for.
I've already had one discussion on this thread with another poster in the same vein on the meaning of the word "evolutionism" and "evolutionary philosophy". When the answsers didn't seem to correspond to what I understood the word "evolution" and it's derivatives to mean, I asked what definition he was using and where I might find it. I was informed that his definition was an "original work" that couldn't be found in any standard reference, and that it was "dishonest" of me to attribute commonly accepted and understood meanings to the words he was using.
The whole arrangement seems calculated to make sure nobody can really know what's been said, so that you can always claim to be "right" and the other guy can always be "wrong".
Where did I maintain that?
You cannot hide behind an argument of "moral equivalency," or of groundless personal bias here; i.e., my supposed lack of "objectivity." The distinctions I draw are perfectly "objective."
137 posted on 06/22/2007 9:41:47 AM PDT by betty boop
That appears to be a claim of perfect objectivity and absence of personal bias in the matter of what is and isn't "creationism".
Fine. And I agree. That just means ALL Muslims are "creationists," including the liberal ones that accept evolution.
The objection, if there be any, is to the idea that life and biology are the result of a purely materially based, more or less accidental development.
And indeed this is the principal Muslim objection to evolution.
I continue to be mystified as to why, or on what basis, you insist that Muslims (or "Islamofascists") aren't "creationists".
How is the notion of Muslims (or "Islamofascists") being creationists "completely nonsensical" to you? Don't all serious monotheists accept some theological doctrine of creation? Aren't all monotheists then creationists?
In earlier messages, the best I could gather was that you think Islamists are not creationists because of theological doctrines they hold or sociological tendencies they exhibit apart from the doctrine of creation they hold. That's kind of like claiming that while people who play on grass courts qualify as being "tennis players," those who play on clay courts somehow don't qualify as "tennis players". IOW it's a completely arbitrary violation of the normal meanings of words.
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.