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
So based on your academic training, what specific issues do you have with evolution? Your entire posting history is confined to this thread, so it must be a concern to you.
I have to assume that you have technical reasons for being skeptical — something of more substance than just a feeling that the scientists specializing in University Studies are backbiters.
I was obviously not attempting to discredit science - that’s an entirely different thing from injecting a needed cautionary note into a discussion that has several times attempted to invoke science as an unassailable defense against God and His work in creation.
I think I was pretty clear in my post back at 305 about that.
As to your comment that a biologist who is a supporter of creationism/ID just doesn’t compute: Why do you believe the two are incompatible?
If you are in the vicinity one of these days, I have a couple of woody shrubs I have never seen before about two decades ago in my yard and I haven't been able to identify them. Black spruce, aspen, paper birch, four kinds of willow, and alder I have figured out. One of the new ones is possibly dogwood and the other I have no idea.
The Biblical typologists and numerologists have a strong case for metaphorical inference.. Right now I'm thinking of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey.. Jesus was a Spirit, became a Spirit and is now a Spirit..
What I mean is there is a big difference between a biblical literalist and a biblical metaphoricalist.. Amazing that even some of the literal events in the bible are metaphorical in character.. maybe even MOST literal events..
Anyway you seem to have overlooked the metaphoricalists being a type of Creationist.. A NEW classification?.. Maybe..
“the GREAT EXODUS”... LoooL...
I think I was pretty clear in my post back at 305 about that.
As to your comment that a biologist who is a supporter of creationism/ID just doesn’t compute: Why do you believe the two are incompatible?
I don't think you have been clear at all. My defense of science didn't pop out of a blue sky. It was a response to claims like yours (but less politely stated) that science is fraud.
I would say that anyone who claims that fraud is the dominant mode of science has not done any original research. It is, of course, possible to lie about observations and findings, but it's a rubber check, and it will eventually bounce.
You have discussed nothing of substance. Your posts have centered on allegations of personal failings of individuals. You haven't specified any particular incident in which a significant finding was falsified.
Science does not deal with God. It can, however, deal with claims made about the physical world. It can determine, for example, that the earth does move and that the sun does not travel around it. This may or may be contrary to religion, but it is contrary to longstanding teachings of churches.
Science cannot prove that there was never a global flood, but it can determine that the available evidence is inconsistent with anything like that. Science cannot prove common descent, but it can demonstrate that arguments against it, so far, are rubbish.
If you have taken the courses you claim to have taken, you already know these things. If you have something of substance to add to the discussion, feel free.
I did, but it didn't take. The argument is apparently immune to logic, much as the infamous argument over the meaning of "is".
Islamists, being theological conservative monotheists, are clearly "creationists". There's no question on that point. Oh, I suppose you might find the occasional eccentric exception, but quite generally the attribution of the role of Creator to the One God, and attributing to Him the primeval (and possibly continuing) creation of all that is, goes hand in glove with monotheism as such.
Anway I simply did find betty boop's attempted distinction silly, and irrelevant, and gratuitous, and bigoted. I suppose I could pretend I didn't, but it would only be pretense.
bb argued that these creationists aren't creationists essentially because of theological or sociological attributes other than their acceptance of a monotheistic doctrine of creation. As I gave the example before, that's like arguing a tennis player who plays on a grass court qualifies as "a tennis player," but one that plays on a clay court shouldn't rightfully be called "a tennis player". Really it's almost like arguing that a tennis player who drives to the court in a Ford is "a tennis player," but one who drives to court in a Chevy isn't.
If you accept and hold a doctrine of creation, you're a creationist. That's it. What "logic" is there to belaboring the point? Especially when a central point of the argument concerns how some Muslims study the Koran. SO WHAT? BTW, orthodox Jews study Torah the exact same way, down to the rocking back and forth as they recite. Does that make Jews (or the most conservative Jews) inauthentic creationists? OTOH many Islamists, even a seemingly disproportionate number of them, have modern, Western educations in medicine (e.g. al Qaeda #2 Zawahiri) architecture (9-11 plot leader Atta) and the like.
Oh, and it's supposed to make a difference how, as to if a person IS a creationist, they reflected on the matter? That's like if I meet a guy who's a George Bush supporter -- he voted for George Bush twice for Governor and twice for President, he donated to all his campaigns, he energetically answers those he meets who criticize Bush, he wears a "W" button, etc, etc. It's like if I find out (or, more analogous to betty boop, just assume for some cultural reason) that he wasn't, in my opinion, sufficiently reflective or rational in deciding to be a Bush supporter, that I then deny that he's a Bush supporter, or claim he isn't really a real Bush supporter.
On the contrary it's a true and obvious fact that he's a genuine Bush supporter, regardless of how he came to be one.
Brilliant way of putting it.. Lazyness!!.. I have noticed the same in protestant circles.. Lazy and cowardice in action.. John Chapter 10 is all about this type of lazyness, I believe.. Whether RCC, EO, or Reform this is possible..
As I previously posted, many (possibly even a majority) of those you call “Islamists” are in reality secular Communists and socialists masquerading and/or treated by the mainstream media as Muslim fundamentalists. That’s why many of them have no problem murdering innocent people in the name of World Revolution.
You might wrong.. As I can determine Islam is not a religion at all.. its a "GANG".. A tribal government administrated by Shamans(mullahs/Imams) democratically elected by default.. it is Mob Rule like all democracy's..
Sharia Law is very democratic.. and tribal in essence.. the way all democracies are.. Mob Rule by Mobster, a tribal family mimicking a religion(Mafia)..
Thats why the west cannot deal with it.. For most of the west are democracies mimicking a religion(Socialism).. Socialism IS a religion... a secular religion..
The exact reason America is not a democracy.. and the American Constitution does not have the democracy, democratic or democrat in it anywhere.. because of that.. The founders of America knew what MOB RULE was.. The fact remains Islam is very democratic.. and tribal..
So are democracy's(totalitarian).. Democracy is the social disease that causes socialism.. The dictatorship of the proletariat is totalitarian in essence and in reality worked out.. Socialism is NOT DEMOCRATIC...
Again the sociological details (even if we accept your bigoted, blanket version thereof) do nothing to negate the fact that Muslims accept a doctrine of Creation and are therefore creationists.
Typical insecure Church of Darwin fanatics who still don’t realize that they have already been given a life, and who go into absolute conniption fits at the mere hint of living that life more abundantly :o)
Provided you don't distinguish between "here" and "over there".
So then, creationism is the bogyman?.. Whats wrong with God being an artist, say a primitive artist...
Darwin missed the fact that man evolved to believe in God..
Evolved; All the way from a chemical pool, up through iterations of various lifeforms to ultimatly believe in God.. Amazing ain't it?.. Maybe atheists are the very UNevolved..
I guess the test of objectivity is whether you leave the debate wearing spit wads on both sides.
:)
And they are seldom happy when we throw word usage back at them, e.g. randomness v unpredictability, combinatorics v Bayesian probability, and so on.
As long as it remains "us vs them" it's going to be a adversarial proposition.
Sure they do. The same thing scientists use. It's called *science*.
Science is more than sidetracked by fraud and petty tyrants. It's replete with them. Of course, it matters, because it ruins it, wastes time, and casts a pall on the credibility of those who are doing science with integrity.
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.