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
It was old school lawyers’ advice: when you make this point, raise your voice, pound your fist on the table, blow spittle, and show yourself angry. Why? It’s your weakest point.
You mean beyond your(and others) observation of the bibles text..
What if I see some things spoken of in the bible deeper than you do?..
or even not deeper but differently than you..
What I see of the bibles message(s) NOW is quite different than what I saw when I was first "born again".. My vision GREW.. Hey, it could happen.. NO, it DOES happen..
LoL.......
Actually, that's not true at all. Directed evolution is explored all the time in the laboratory, and animal breeding produces changes in body form that are greater than the differences between many natural species.
What mechanism prevents (in the words of Wallace) varieties from departing indefinitely from the original type?
Your objection to chance assumes that evolution has a goal, or in the words of Dembski, a specified outcome that it is required to reach. But this is not the case. Evolution is a drunkard's walk, constrained only by the fact that some steps terminate the walk for a particular individual.
In order to argue that a random walk will not produce a branching tree, you have to ignore several things that are observed to happen.
First, genetic change does occur and is passed down to offspring. Second, the process of reproduction creates far more offspring than survive to reproduce. Third, the selection of which offspring survive is not completely random; it is biased. Some traits are statistically better than others at surviving and reproducing. Fourth, populations are occasionally divided by barriers the result in two non-interbreeding populations.
The sequence of change, followed by differential reproductive success, constitutes an algorithm, which combined with barriers that divide populations, produces a branching tree.
You asked me what natural processes required for evolution have yet to be observed through scientific methods. The answer is...chance.
This statement is so silly that I have to assume it is a typo. First of all, chance is not a requirement for evolution. Evolution could occur if genetic change followed a sequence rather than occurring randomly. It is not the source or cause of change that shapes populations; it is the outcome of change that shapes populations. This has, in fact, been demonstrated in the laboratory.
But you know all this, because you have a degree in biology.
When you join a thread.. WABBIT SEASON, IS OPEN...
"I HATES that rabbit"- Yosemite Sam...
These are all true statements. Do you have a point in posting them?
True especially since "What is life?.." has not been determined yet, BY ANYBODY I know of..
What IS life?.. of a microbe?, carrot?, a dog?, an Ape, a man?
Is LIFE spiritual? Are there various qualitys/levels/kinds of spirit?..
If humans evolved from animals, then they evolved to mostly believe/search for/seek/or pine for some kind of "GOD"(history tells us).. That is if there is even a thing called evolution in the broader sense.. Could also be that animals evolve but humans do not.. But that would make humans "special".. a special case.. separate from "nature"..
Witness(Evos tearing their clothing and throwing dust in the air)
Jeese, I didn't mean to cause all that uproar.. (shineing fingernails)
Evolution is change that survives. It doesn’t occur “in order to...”
Human populations change, Some known adaptations include degree of skin melanin, tolerance for lactose, blood types, sickle cell trait.
"- § 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.
Good morning tpaine!
The way I interpret these lines from Justice Story: The “no religious test” underpins the idea that there is to be no “alliance” between any particular religious sect and the federal government. This is not to say that the federal government is hostile to religion; just that the duties and powers of the federal government are not those of a religious authority. The idea here is “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” That is a clear separation. The authority backing up the federal government is the “We the People” – whom the Framers hoped would be moral, virtuous, even godly people. Recall what George Washington had to say on these matters….
Interestingly, though there is to be no religious test, there sort of is one anyway: All senior officers of the federal government swear an Oath of Office, and it is customary that such oaths are sworn on the Bible. This shows that the federal government is not “hostile” to that book, nor to JudeoChristian theology.
Don’t forget that the Declaration of Independence presents the idea of the Creator, from whom all men derive their unalienable rights equally. This is so important, tpaine: For if we ever began to believe we obtain our rights, not from God, but from the State, the State would be effectively unrestrained in what it can do. If we understand that God is superior to the State, and is the source of the moral authority of the sovereign people of which the State is the agent, then this means that the State has limited, not plenipotential powers (such as tyrants forever lust after).
The traditional hierarchy of authority implicit in our federal Constitution is God – Man – State (in descending order). Compare this with a totalitarian State: Tyrant – State – Man (also in descending order). You need God in there, to keep the totalitarians at bay. :^)
Please share your thoughts with me?
I see.. You mean like domestic dogs.. Whether its a Toy Poodle or a Great Dane a dog is a dog.. or a Wolf, Coyote or Fox.. but NOT a Cat..
Humans could be special.. a special case.. separate from nature..
One of intelligent design.. guided and molded into those that seek God and those that rebel and are abnormal.. flawed and dysfunctional.. basically spiritual duds..
“survives” is also an “in order to”
"-- 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.
If we understand that God is superior to the State, and is the source of the moral authority of the sovereign people of which the State is the agent, then this means that the State has limited, not plenipotential powers (such as tyrants forever lust after).
The traditional hierarchy of authority implicit in our federal Constitution is God – Man – State (in descending order).
Typically Betty, you are simply ignoring the gist of what Story says.
There is no understanding of "any alliance between church and state" in our Constitution; - no "traditional hierarchy of authority implicit in our federal Constitution" of "God – Man – State".
- As Story points out, "The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers" of such authority.
Please share your thoughts with me?
I think the question posed; - "Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?" is divisive, and that the real issue we should all address is how to get government to obey our Constitution.
Saying that ' evolutionary humanists' are causing gov't socialism is a ludicrous nonproductive generalization.
Weak how? Go ahead and read it for yourself. I'll post it again, from -YYZ-'s #17 (emphasis added):
We’ve heard all this before and it’s still a load. A belief in evolution is not inconsistent with a belief in God, nor does it inevitably lead to a belief in humanism, communism, or whatever. The Islamist terrorists that we are fighting today are creationists - does that mean creationism is responsible for their murderous creed?
Obviously -YYZ-'s, "does that mean creationism is responsible," is rhetorical/sarcastic. Obviously -YYZ- was affirming that creationism is NOT responsible for "their murderous creed". Obviously -YYZ- was affirming that such an argument is completely invalid.
That was my point: That several creationists became outrageously upset with this comment, even though the comment was saying it would be WRONG to impute to creationism generally the bad creed of SOME who happened to be creationists.
I think I have a very strong point in that not a single creationist here picked up on what was actually said, instead took great umbrage, played the victim, while never denouncing, and in many cases approving, an actual and affirmative guilt-by-association smear against evolution comprised by the article at the top of the thread.
By airily dismissing this point, instead of engaging it, you tacitly endorse this hypocritical double standard yourself. That only further strengthens my point.
I thought philosophical subtlety was your specialty.
The difference lies in whether it is possible to know the future in detail, and make advantageous changes in advance.
Sometimes it is. You can lead a moving target with a shotgun, so the swing of the gun would be and example of change "in order to" hit a target.
But ecosystems are not a smoothly moving target. Nor is climate. These factors are complex and chaotic. There is no strategy that can always successfully anticipate need. The strategy that living things have devised is to make small changes in many offspring, anticipating that most will die before reproducing.
This is, in fact, what happens. Even in humans. Most sperm are defective, and the majority of fertilized zygotes are spontaneously aborted. There are species in which the percentage of individuals born alive, but which die before reproducing, is close to one hundred percent. (The word "anticipating" is, of course, a figure of speech. It makes no difference whether the change is directed or whether it is stochastic. The outcome is not affected by the cause of the change.)
Yes. I did in fact consider it. That's why I went back through the thread to discover and/or remind myself how this whole Islamists/creationists thing began. In my post just before this one (#434) and in #393, and I think also maybe in one other post, I give my reason for believing that the problem IS with the three of you.
What you interpreted as an attack on creationism wasn't (and isn't) and yet you have no apparent problem when actual attacks, of the exact type you erroneously thought were being made against creationism, are made instead against evolution.
As casuistry is all yours!
Very good. Then rest your case.
I am not surprised there is faulty reasoning with both parties. You are welcome to agree with me on this, too.
“....Actually, that’s not true at all. Directed evolution is explored all the time in the laboratory, and animal breeding produces changes in body form that are greater than the differences between many natural species....”
I never said that there wasn’t an active effort underway to explore evolution in the lab. I know that. What I said was that we’ve tried to reproduce certain aspects of evolution — in the lab — and have not succeeded.
“Evolution” must account for common descent of all life across all time. Considering the complexity of just one single organism, never mind the complexity of the natural — and purposeful — systems in which living thing reside, that’s a pretty tall order for something as small as chance to explain.
Animal breeding is hardly a worthy bit of evidence to throw up to support an endeavor of that magnitude. Now...interestingly...while the ability of intelligent human beings to deliberately breed a cow with sturdier conformity is unworthy to support the “evolution by chance and totally without purpose” argument, it does show that with purpose and design in mind a knowledgeable designer can successfully create variation that serves a goal.
“...Your objection to chance assumes that evolution has a goal, [...] Evolution is a drunkard’s walk, ....”
No, I object to evolution because it is a notion that necessarily assumes no goal, when I believe creation clearly speaks to “goals”. Despite the fact that all of the earth’s living and nonliving systems (including the organisms that live in them) have been clearly organized to function in complex (not chaotic) systems and cycles, evolutionary theorists continue to stubbornly assert that “chance” is responsible for everything and that the way things are today is really...nothing more than a happy set of accidents.
Or, I suppose, to extend your own analogy...The drunkard, despite not being in possession of his faculties and unable to avoid falling off the sidewalk and be hit by a car at any given moment, has still somehow managed to paint a set of beautiful masterpieces, build an amazing series of complex architectural features that are uniquely well-suited in both form and function, and design a vast array of complementary and supplementary systems and networks...all while wearing a blindfold.
It’s the blind watchmaker explanation, recast with a bottle of Thunderbolt. It just doesn’t work.
“First of all, chance is not a requirement for evolution. Evolution could occur if genetic change followed a sequence rather than occurring randomly. ...”
But we’re NOT talking about genetic change following a sequence - that diverts the discussion down a philosophical rabbit trail. Despite your restatement of the 4 mechanisms of change using more technical jargon, you didn’t say anything I hadn’t already covered. Nor does anything there really diminish the role of mutation as the implicit or explicit starting point for evolutionary change.
Mutation remains the first mechanism of evolution - followed by some combination of genetic drift, migration, and natural selection. Mutation, as I have already said...rather patiently...is about chance. Evolution is premised upon chance.
“...But you know all this, because you have a degree in biology. ...”
Oh. Look. A potshot. Again.
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.