Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?

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.

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

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)

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)

“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)

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.

“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)

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

Joseph Story on religious tests (Article 6, Clause 3):

"- § 1841. The remaining part of the clause declares, that "no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States."

This clause is not introduced merely for the purpose of satisfying the scruples of many respectable persons, who feel an invincible repugnance to any religious test, or affirmation. It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own.

Congress and the Courts are "blatantly disregarding" our Constitution.... The fact that they are also ignoring who created what, - while an interesting religious question, - will never affect our survival as a Republic, because they are duty bound by the Law of the Land to ignore such divisive religious issues.

The survival of our Republic, my dear friend, will depend on people recognizing that our very Constitution is ordered on a particular view of man, and hence the resulting political order must support this view -- which is thoroughgoingly classical and Judeo-Christian at its root.

The intent of the Framers cannot be understood without recognizing that their intellectual and spiritual roots were in Athen, Jerusalem, and Rome. FWIW.

If we value our Constitution for the wisdom of its Framers, then we need to honor the very sources that they relied on. Once we start spitting at that, the ignominious end of the American polity is already in view.... FWIW

I'm hunkering down right now, because I know how much you love to disagree with me! But the fact is: It's lovely to see you again, tpaine!

I hope we can agree that while Congress and the Courts are "blatantly disregarding" our Constitution....
The fact that they are also ignoring who created what, [- while an interesting religious question] - will never affect our survival as a Republic, because they are duty bound by the Law of the Land to ignore such divisive religious issues.

The survival of our Republic, my dear friend, will depend on people recognizing that our very Constitution is ordered on a particular view of man,

Indeed it is. And our specific individual views - on who created what, are not [or should not be] the issue.

and hence the resulting political order must support this view -- which is thoroughgoingly classical and Judeo-Christian at its root.

You are simply ignoring the fact that much of the 'classical' foundations of our Constitution are based on pagan [greek/roman/nordic] common/natural law.

The intent of the Framers cannot be understood without recognizing that their intellectual and spiritual roots were in Athen, Jerusalem, and Rome. FWIW.

And in Danelaw; - hell, - even Iroquois Federation law was cited by some of the Framers .

If we value our Constitution for the wisdom of its Framers, then we need to honor the very sources that they relied on.

Do you doubt that any here do not?

Once we start spitting at that,

Who here is spitting?

the ignominious end of the American polity is already in view.... FWIW
I'm hunkering down right now, because I know how much you love to disagree with me! But the fact is: It's lovely to see you again, tpaine!

Indeed, I love to turn the issue back to constitutional basics, a subject many here have problems facing, because our constitution is a very sectarian document.

Please, - read the Story quote I just posted, - I'd appreciate your comments on that.

Maybe all Islamists are creationists, but so what? Are all creationists Islamists?

metmom, you say it better than I did (at #151 below).

Perhaps Stultis does not see the distinction being raised....

A trivial fallacy (not even a modal fallacy) of formal logic (I guess this would be a form of converting or reversing conditionals) that most college students learn in their freshman year is some great, subtle "distinction"? Puh-leeeeze.

I think my previous response on this to metmom...

Well, DUH!

...stands.

our constitution is a very sectarian document.

I must differ with your conclusion here, dear tpaine. The Constitution is not "a sectarian document," nor it is an explicitly "religious document" -- in any sectarian sense. But it is clearly informed by the wisdom of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. That is to say, it is informed by the moral law of Judeo-Christianity; the rationality of Greek philosophy; and Roman concepts of political order.

But that will have to wait 'til tomorrow, for I'm pooped, and it's time for sleep....

But will be speaking with you again soon, dear tpaine!

Justice Story:
".. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. .."

The framers never considered that the Supremes would/could generate a climate where whatever THEY said was law..

Most rational people realize that USSC decisions are NOT the law. - Congress, States, and ultimately the people decide what the law is, [ as per the 18th Amendment] not the Court.

Our authors premise is flawed. Our Repubilc is not in danger from "Evolutionary Humanism", imho. I see the bigger danger much as Arthur Koestler:

"- The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
The historical record confronts us with the paradox that the tragedy of man originates not in an excess of individual self-assertiveness," - but in a malfunction of the affiliative, group tendencies of our species; - "an excess capacity for fanatical devotion. --"

Currently whatever 5 of the Supremes say is law, is the law.. A Coup D'ambulance chaser.. or Coup D'Shyster...

The real shysters, in my view, are those among us who insist that majority opinion rules, that it [or Courts] can trump the Constitution.

I think my previous response on this to metmom... Well, DUH....stands.

Well that sheds a lot of light. Thanks so much. It's so nice to know that you regard our contributions to the matters under debate as founded on only "trivial," and not "modal" fallacies.

So show the freaking fallacy already, okay??? Then we can decide whether it's trivial or modal -- or nonexistent as the case may be. Do not forget: You are not the only judge here, let alone the final judge here. First, there are your debate partners, your "opponents"; and then there are the Lurkers. We basically trust to the good faith and rationality of both.

Let me wish you good night and pleasant dreams, Stultis. Hope to see you tomorrow, God willing.

If your point wasn't to paint creationists as irrational, murdering, Islamic terrorists, then why constantly use them as an example of what a creationist is? Why harp on that?

What harping? All along -- until now anway, when you will finally get some more out of me -- I've only been responding, in ever growing amazement, to one very simple issue: The refusal or reluctance by some here to admit that, yes, Islamists are creationists.

This is VERY odd. You don't find evolutionists here denying that Francis Galton was a eugenicist, or that Ernt Haeckel was a racist, or that scientific racism (as well, btw, as political and religious racism) were rampant in the early decades of the 20th Century, or that Nazis sometimes appealed to evolution (as well as, btw, to religion and creation).

We admit the obvious, accept the facts, and confine our points to what conclusions are validly, or invalidly, drawn from them.

It was argued, in response to the article at the top of the thread, that it is NOT valid to conclude -- as the article effectively does -- that evolutionists in general are suspect, and that evolution in general is bad, because some evolutionists were bad people or held bad ideas.

THIS WAS THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE ISSUE OF ISLAMISTS BEING CREATIONISTS WAS RAISED. Noting the some creationists are Islamists was cited as a similarly INVALID basis for concluding that creationism was bad or creationists were bad.

GET IT. YET?

So what happens? Granted you didn't respond directly to the lead article. But betty boop did. Guess what? She praised the article in #70:

Great article, spirited irish! Thank you so much for posting it!

Irony of ironies. She thought this article of guilt by association, saddling "evolution," and by implication evolutionists generally, with the most spectacular villains and atrocities of the 20th Century, from Nazis to Communists, was just terrific.

But then somebody, -YYZ-, says (in effect), "Wait, this is just as wrong as it would be to claim creationism is bad because Islamists are creationists." And betty boop goes off the deep end twice. First she questions calling Islamists creationists; which, get real, they are. Then she ignores (or more probably is too myopic to notice) the fact that the negative inference regarding creationists was explicitly cited as INvalid; as an example of faulty reasoning.

Then she (and later hosepipe, and later you, and probably several others) get all bent out of shape about creationism (supposedly) being unfairly maligned STILL IGNORING THE MALIGNANT ARTICLE AT THE TOP OF THE THREAD THAT DOES EXACTLY THAT TO EVOLUTION.

I mean this is rich, really rich.

Betty, you are simply ignoring the fact that much of the 'classical' foundations of our Constitution are based on pagan [greek/roman/nordic] common/natural law. And in Danelaw; - hell, - even Iroquois Federation law was cited by some of the Framers .

-- it is clearly informed by the wisdom of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. That is to say, it is informed by the moral law of Judeo-Christianity; the rationality of Greek philosophy; and Roman concepts of political order.

Are you just denying that pagan natural/common law was a big influence on the writing of our Constitution?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Indeed, I love to turn the issue back to constitutional basics, a subject many here have problems facing, because our constitution is a very [non] sectarian document.
Please, - read the Story quote I just posted, - I'd appreciate your comments on that.

I must differ with your conclusion here, dear tpaine. The Constitution is not "a sectarian document," nor it is an explicitly "religious document" -- in any sectarian sense.

Sorry, I forgot the 'non'. I find it curious that you chose to make that an issue.

If your link was to Joseph Story, I'm glad to give it a look. I've encountered him before. I consider him a very sound souce for the understanding of the American rule of law from the jurisprudential point of view. But that will have to wait 'til tomorrow, for I'm pooped, and it's time for sleep....
But will be speaking with you again soon, dear tpaine!

Thanks Betty.

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.