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
That’s pretty good, but it’s an answer focused only small scale processes - that’s only part of the story, so let me clarify a few items. I’m sorry for the long post, but I hope you and others find it helpful.
Evolution is not really just about “change over time”...I have changed over time but that’s not evolution. That’s just aging :-p. Lots of things “change over time”. So, a more precise definition of “evolution” is that it is descent with modification.
This definition allows for the small scale, or “micro-scale”, processes you described as well as the larger or macro-scale processes that deal with the descent of various organisms from a common ancestor. It is the assertion of evolutionary theory that it is the small scale process — the thing that happens at the genetic level — that eventually manifests in changes at the larger scale over time.
OK. So, what causes changes at the small scale? You said “natural selection” or genetic drift. That’s good, that’s part of it, but that’s not all there is.
As you said, evolution is supposed to happen when you have a change in the frequency of an allele in a population — for example, more and more Blue-footed Hairless Dingnuts being born with an allele for hair than the allele that leaves them without hair. Eventually, so the story goes, there will be populations of hairless dingnuts and separate populations of dingnuts with hair. More time will pass, accompanied by more changes in the expression of other alleles, and there will be hairless dingnuts, dingnuts with hair, and dingnuts with hair and red feet and long tails. This latter group will be unable to successfully reproduce with the first two groups — leading to a new species — and we’ll eventually end up with all sorts of terrestrial dingnuts, aquatic dingnuts, perhaps some dingnuts that fly, and new groups of things that aren’t even dingnuts at all anymore.
The idea is that millions of very different organisms were all thusly able to descend from a common ancestor.
Anyway. So, how do these changes happen in the first place? There are 4 posited mechanisms through which such changes could occur:
1. Mutation
2. Migration
3. Genetic drift, which you mentioned
4. Natural selection, which you also mentioned
Of these, mutation is the most fundamental because without it none of the other mechanisms can be set into motion. Mutation is fairly self-explanatory — whoa, hey look Ethel, junior’s got an extra fin and it’s longer than all the others! It’s totally and completely dependent on chance.
Migration sometimes happens by chance, sometimes under the direction of some external event (a drought, say). Genetic drift is also mediated by chance - say that in a bunch of our original mixed group of hairless and newly hairy dingnuts there were a bunch of hairless dingnuts who died without having offspring. Statistically, this means that there are now more hairy dingnuts than there are hairless dingnuts having offspring. Genetic drift...like mutation, happens by chance.
And this — this idea of chance — is an important point. A really, really important point.
Every bit of evolutionary change that is supposed to have ever occurred has started with...an accident (mutation) and been moderated by 3 other mechanisms which are also heavily, heavily skewed toward chance. So, this means...
Somehow, chance — and, really, in its simplest analysis, only chance — must account for all of the life in all its many splendored colors and forms on the planet today.
Not likely. Not at all likely, but let me leave that aside for a moment. Let me make the huge leap of faith that it is possible for chance to accomplish that feat — it’s a bit further for me to go than the leap of faith to believe in God, but I think I can do it.
You asked me what natural processes required for evolution have yet to be observed through scientific methods. The answer is...chance. The most basic, fundamental spark that lights the flame for all the rest of the hypothetical mess that is the idea of evolution.
The very first principle of the scientific method is observation. And chance - the driver for mutation and genetic drive - simply fails the test. Chance is NOT an observable natural process like, say, erosion. No one has ever observed it in the field, and no one has ever been able to collect any data from a “mutation in action”.
Furthermore, we can’t test evolution - we can’t test chance, we can’t repeat it - not in the field, not in the lab. Some have tried to simulate chance - using random number generators and all sorts of other scientific methods to try to show that, yes, it is possible to start with species A and eventually end up at species B...but no one has succeeded.
So we can’t observe evolution in action, we can’t test it, and we can’t replicate it.
All...ALL...that we can do is observe what we THINK are its end products. And that means running a lot of analyses to try and show relationships between current species on the planet — try to construct the family tree — and collecting a lot of fossils to try and fill in the historic links from the past.
Both efforts have failed miserably. Of the millions of species that have lived on the planet you’d think we’d have gotten a more reliable set of phylogenies together by now. But the truth is that they’re all full of holes...big holes...right where you’d least expect them to be. And the fossil record is no help either. All we’ve got to show is a handful of bones - a jawbone here, a nearly intact pre-hominid there, and some DNA tests that don’t actually show what it was hoped they would. I simplify, I know, but providing more detailed examples really doesn’t improve the picture.
Anyway, I’ll end with that for the sake of the length of this post. But “evolution” simply does not offer the set of proofs that you and so many others on this board hope that it does.
It's not hard to figure out
The Indians and Japanese have no religious reasons for either accepting/rejecting either creationism, ID or Evolution.
So when a Japanese or Indian scientist looks at the evidence without a religious or non-religious agenda, if the evidence points to Creationism/ID then why don't they see it?
Likewise, if Evolution is such a sham then why wouldn't they reject it and beat the west in Biotechnology?
Why is it only fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who don't study science the only ones to see that evolution is a fraud?
The same can be said of Pharmaceutical companies, do you really think Merck, Pzier, Wyeth, Bristol Myers, etc care about the Evolution/Creation debate? No they only care about coming up with the best drugs which makes them the most money. So when a pharmaceutical company sets out to make a new drug, who do they hire, a Scientist who believes in evolution or a "Scientist" who believes in creation?
When rights become privileges the deed is done.. like in all the democracy's on this earth.. No rights merely privileges..
With all due respect, that just isn’t how public school curriculum is developed - not here in the United States and not in Japan...where it so happens I lived for 3 years. I’ve never lived in India, but I did do some research after your post into the Indian education system and feel comfortable that that’s not how it’s done there either.
All I can say is, I understand the sentiment on both sides, and this is one conversation I'd rather not get involved in. I think there's enough blood under the rug to humble all parties involved.
Myself though, I don't get offended anymore by such comparisons. I put my faith in God, rather than men...lest I fall prey to my pride.
I'm not sure there even is a standard metaphorical view.. I know of a few that see Genesis 1-3 as metaphorical.. but even then they/we see it differently.. sometimes quite differently..
I personally don't know whether Adam is metaphor or literal with metaphorical content, or some other reality.. Not that it matters greatly to me.. If we were to know exactly what the story Adam is about more info would have been given, I think..
I think being human is a test a spiritual test.. Details about Adam must be minutia to that extent.. so scant detail is good enough.. as are details about other things.. like what was Satan doing in "paradise" with Adam and Eve..
Being human, the human experience, must be a spiritual test.. for some future ugh!.. adventure.. A testing, a qualifying, a proving, for a/some future saga.. The bible seems to hint at that.. The personal/spiritual test then is more important than minute details of earthly history..
The parable of the talents also hints at that.. not to speak of the parable/metaphor of the prodigal son.. Getting caught up in whether Adam and Eve were real persons or metaphorical pointers to make the story make sense is O.K to me either way..
I don't require formulaic accuracy for the bible to be relevant to me.. Condensing several thousand years of all relevant human history in the few pages of the bible would be impossible, I think.. The point being did "we" get the "message" hidden though it is, is the point, I think.. Since most of the message(s) is/are hidden in metaphorical content is part of the test.. So many miss the simple most straight forward metaphors.. as you know..
It all leads me to the comment....
Is GOD cool or WHAT?... What a marvelous plan and testing platform..
It should matter to you if you read the words of Christ, and take them to heart, since he does refer to Adam as being a real person.
One should not be ashamed of the word of our Lord. Remember his admonishment.
A metaphorical person can be a real person.. or a group of real people.. On the otherhand a metaphorical personality can be more than a real person.. or all three.. A metaphor can transcend language and culture.. for just that reason.. Jesus spoke mostly in metaphorical terms.. not completely but mostly.. I know few christians that are conserned with the meaning of Jesus metaphors.. except as a kind of prose, let alone, his compounded metaphors.. which I term megaphors.. composed of microphors and macrophors..
bookmark
I don't disagree that a metaphor can represent a real person, place, or thing. The problem, in this particular case, is that such a person can not be established beyond the parameters of the text of the Bible itself, and the excluded middle must apply, therefore, the text either indicates a real person, or a fictitious one.
At least, that's the way I see it....
"every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers" (Darwin), "each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio" (Darwin), "Every species produces vastly more offspring than can survive from generation to generation." (E. Mayr, 2001) "All the individuals of a population... are exposed to the adversity of the environment, and almost all of them perish or fail to reproduce." (E. Mayr, 2001)
In a sense I think you're right when you make these statements; I would, however, not label various views of origins or theories of life's genesis as all suitable to the adjective "Creationist".
I commend you for stating the real debate question over again, and so simply: How this world and universe originated, and just what was the genesis of all that is, these are the questions of debate. I personally think the thread would prove more useful and stimulating if debaters actually exchanged viewpoints and evidence on this point. Other arguments really are turning out to be waste-of-bandwidth rabbit trails - circular, aimless wanderings, slingshot stones, wounded bunnies...but no meat to chew on come dinner time!
Thanks, hosepipe.
To restate:
How did life/the universe/everything originate?
What evidence do you have to support your position?
In what ways does your position influence your every observation,
and, conversely, in what ways do your observations influence your position?
Bravo.
the text either indicates a real person, or a fictitious one.
I agree with hosepipe on this one. There are countless examples in the Bible of a parable applying simultaneously to real persons in a real time and place that are also very applicable to us here and now, via metaphor. Song of Solomon, which I happened to read this morning, is a fine example. I believe the Songs were written for a real love affair and marriage, yet who could deny their applicability to our loves/marriages both in male-female relations here and now as well as in metaphor to our relationship with God Almighty. The story of the rich man (gone to hell) and Lazarus (comforted at Abraham's bosom) is another example wherein Jesus was most likely describing real persons and events whose lives serve as examples/metaphors for every single one of us. The Exodus of Israel from Egypt is a perfect metaphor for our exodus from slavery to sin and death into the Promised Land of Freedom in Christ (the Passover Lamb, another example), yet that escape was a very real event in time as well as a very poignant metaphor for all of time and for all men.
Either/or rules of logic do not and do not have to apply to the Bible or to God. For instance, by your exclusive rule of logic God must either be One or three, yet I am convinced He is both One God and three members ('persons'), in Trinity.
Eww. Very poor grammar. Sorry everyone.
That was intended as general to the issue, rather than specific to people or personalities.
Sorry, I meant to address that last post to both of you. Need more coffee...........
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.