Evolutionary Humanism: the Antithesis

The worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (or scientific naturalism) has two central components. The first is metaphysical; the second epistemological. Metaphysically, Evolutionary Humanism infers that the natural or material realm either self-created or has existed eternally. This doctrine is known as scientism. In addition, this worldview teaches us to believe that everything---including life and intelligence---came about through unseen (immaterial) processes of motion called evolution. Epistemologically, it demands that sensory knowledge (empiricism) be the only authoritative source of knowledge.

In the words of the Humanist Manifesto II: “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis…science is the best method for determining this knowledge…” This principle is a universal limitation on knowledge requiring that knowledge be restricted to only that which can be empirically determined (sensed). In short, if it can’t be touched, seen under a microscope, measured, counted, weighed, or otherwise sensed, then it doesn’t exist, meaning that the immaterial or metaphysical realm does not exist.

This worldview’s two-part metaphysical creation story revolves around the atomic theory of matter and evolutionary theory. According to the former, all chemical change is the result of the rearrangement of unseen (immaterial) tiny parts---protons, neutrons, and electrons. By authority of the latter (evolutionary theory), we are expected to believe that random mutations or incremental changes (rearrangement of tiny unseen parts) over time are mostly responsible for causing macro-changes. In other words, this unseen process of change miraculously caused bacteria to change into fish which in turn changed into lizards which then changed into proto-apes which then changed into man. Through this same process, dinosaurs changed into hummingbirds, chickadees, flamingos, and such. Because all life forms emerged out of the same primordial bacterial stew, bacteria are the common ancestors of all life forms. By extension, all life forms share the same genetic material; therefore the idea of species distinctions is a fiction. This makes man a Heinz 57 mutt whose material brain possesses genetic material from bacteria, lizards, fish, and apes. In the words of John Darnton in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2005:

“We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass…equally remarkable and equally dispensable.” (Quote from, “Human Beings Deserve the Right to Life Because They Are Human,” Wesley J. Smith, Life News, 8/27/07)

With profound faith in the humanist worldview, evolutionists and fellow travelers view themselves as thoroughly ‘modern’ ‘progressive’ and ‘intellectually enlightened.’ From their lofty perches they look down their noses in utter contempt and disdain upon the unwashed masses (defenders of God and America’s founding Judao-Christian worldview) for continuing to believe the unenlightened view that man is created in God’s image rather than accepting the ‘enlightened’ superstition that mans’ common ancestor is mindless bacteria. Believing they have arisen to spectacular intellectual heights, in reality the so-called ‘enlightened ones’ have fallen into the abyss of the most absurdly stupid and dangerously delusional belief system the world has yet witnessed. How can this be? Briefly, the entirety of their worldview (including its evolutionary creation story) is not itself scientifically testable. By failing to meet its own empirical requirements, it refutes itself. Yes, here we come to now understand why the emperor has no clothes.

This embarrassingly insurmountable intellectual problem occurs precisely because of humanism’s anti-God and metaphysical bias. Rejecting God and metaphysics is destructive of reason and science. In short, it’s not just anti-intellectual it’s also an insanity inducing deception.

The word metaphysics is based on the compound of two Greek words meta (after, beyond) and physika (physics, nature). It literally means beyond the physical or knowledge that exists beyond the physical world of sensory perception. Metaphysics is the study of the ultimate nature of reality, that is to say, it encompasses both natural and supernatural realms in its investigation of the origin, structure, and nature of what is real.

Greg L. Bahnsen tells us that worldviews are networks of metaphysical presuppositions and principles “regarding reality (metaphysics), knowing (epistemology), and conduct (ethics) in terms of which every element of human experience is related and interpreted.”(Pushing the Antithesis, p. 280)

Presuppositions provide both foundation and framework for worldviews. Crucial to the process of reason, presuppositions provide starting points and standards of authority by which truth and error are evaluated, the real and unreal can be identified, and the possible and impossible are determined. For instance, “In the beginning, Nothing---then a spark--- then Matter…” (spontaneous generation or something from nothing) is the foundational metaphysical presupposition by which evolutionary humanists determined through a peculiar reasoning process that only the sensory realm exists.

Universals are truths of an immaterial or non-sensory nature and are crucial to the understanding, organizing, and interpreting of particular truths within the context of the material world. Universals are metaphysical constructs such as concepts (i.e., inalienable rights), standards, principles (i.e., our founding principles), moral values, laws, and categorical statements. The Laws of Logic, so vitally important to the practice of science, reason, and coherent communication, are universals.

Metaphysical presuppositions and universals can’t be seen under a microscope, held in the hand, measured, weighed, or otherwise detected by the five senses yet they do exist. They exist within the supernatural or immaterial realm and are absolutely essential to the process of reason and the practice of science.

Additionally, scientists constantly deal with the unseen or immaterial realm in the form of subatomic particles, gravity, numbers, natural laws, laws of thought, causation, and memory (vital to scientific experimentation).

The whole theory of evolution, which drives and authenticates modern materialist presuppositions and assumptions, is a non-sensory (metaphysical) theoretical projection back into time. Yet despite that no scientist was there to witness it nor has anyone ever observed the creation of other universes or witnessed one kind of life change into a different kind, the theory of evolution is nevertheless proclaimed by many to be an empirically determined fact.

In principle, evolutionary humanists cannot even count, weigh, or measure (all of which are essential to the practice of science) because these acts involve an immaterial concept of law (a universal). Additionally, the postulation of universal order, a view necessary to making counting, weighing, and measuring intelligible, contradicts the materialist (metaphysical) proposition that the universe is a random or chance material realm. Furthermore, counting, weighing, and measuring call for immaterial entities which are uniform, orderly, and predictable. This once again contradicts the materialist proposition of continuous and random change over time.

Within the anti-intellectual straitjacket of the sensory realm, reason and science are destroyed. Empirical learning, reason, and intellectual inquiry are impossible without metaphysical presuppositions, universals, and assumptions.

As it is, evolutionary humanists do in fact reason, theorize, propose, presuppose, assume, hypothesize, count, weigh, measure, and practice science. They simply cannot give a philosophically principled account of how they “know” to do these things. All of which highlights the glaring dialectical tensions (i.e., hypocrisy, revisionism, deceptions, self-delusions, outright lying, mysticism) which of necessity are endemic to the humanist worldview.

Yet despite its colossal intellectual and moral failings, Evolutionary Humanism is now the dominant worldview in our secularized schools, colleges, universities, and government at every level. Additionally, it has made inroads into Christian schools, seminaries, and churches.

Regarding education in America, its’ direction can be seen as a downward spiral from Jonathan Edwards (1750) and the Christian influence, down to Horace Mann (1842) and the Unitarian influence, and yet further down to John Dewey (1933) and the evolutionary humanist take-over of our education institutions.

In the words of Charles F. Potter, signatory of the first Humanist Manifesto, 1933,

“Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday school, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teachings?”

Today, our classrooms are but transmission belts for the weird moral fetishes of humanist indoctrination; a mind-befogging and immorality-inducing process that leads to the adoption of atheism, materialism, politically correct ‘new morality,’ inhumanity, evolutionism, Cultural Marxism, New World Orderism, multiculturalism, sexual egalitarianism (hedonism/androgyny), cruelty, and other destructive anti-traditional views. As a consequence, Americans (and Christians) are walking away from America’s founding worldview---as well as God and their inalienable rights---due to the teaching of Evolutionary Humanism. After being befuddled, filled with unreasoning hatred and paranoid fear of God, Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and traditional-values America, Americans’ become their own worst enemies. For as they mindlessly destroy traditional-values America in pursuit of universal peace, tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, they are unknowingly setting the stage for their own eventual enslavement and perhaps even death, as Evolutionary Humanism has a proven track-record of mass murder (genocide).

A brief comparison of our founding worldview versus Evolutionary Humanism’s three major permutations---Secular Humanism, Leninism-Marxism, and Post Modernism, will show us why this is occurring.

America’s Founding Judao-Christian Worldview 1. Theology: biblical theism 2. Philosophy: God/supernaturalism/metaphysics 3. Ethics: moral absolutes/Ten Commandments/sanctity of life 4. Biology: Creation 5. Psychology: mind/body dualism 6. Sociology: traditional family, church, state 7. Law: Divine/Natural Law 8. Politics: inalienable rights, individual freedom, justice, order 9. Economics: stewardship of property (private property), free markets

Secular Humanism, Marxism-Leninism, Post Modernism 1. Theology: atheism, atheism, atheism 2. Philosophy: naturalism, dialectical materialism, anti-realism 3. Ethics: moral relativism, proletariat morality, moral and cultural relativism 4. Biology: neo-Darwinism, punctuated evolution, punctuated evolution 5. Psychology: monism (self-actualization), monism (behaviorism), monism (socially constructed selves) 6. Sociology: alternative lifestyles and State control of children, classless society and State control of children, sexual egalitarianism and State control of children 7. Law: positive law, proletariat law, critical legal studies 8. Politics: secular world government, communist world government, secular world government 9. Economics: state control of resources, scientific socialism, state control of resources

As can be seen by this brief comparison, Evolutionary Humanism is not just the antithesis of our founding worldview it is completely destructive of it as well.

Observes William F. Buckley on the disintegration of traditional-values America,

“The most influential educators of our time---John Dewey, William Kilpatrick, George Counts, Harold Rugg, and the lot---are out to build a New Social Order. There is not enough room…for…religion (Christianity). It clearly won’t do…to foster within some schools a respect for an absolute, intractable God, a divine intelligence who is utterly unconcerned with other people’s versions of truth…It won’t do to tolerate a competitor for the allegiance of man. The State prefers a secure monopoly for itself…Religion (Christianity), then, must go…The fight is being won. Academic freedom is entrenched. Religion (Christianity) is outlawed in public schools. The New Social Order is larruping along.” (“Let Us Talk of Many Things,” p. 9-10)

Linda is the author of numerous published articles and essays on culture, politics, and worldview. Her writings are published both nationally and internationally. Linda is a member of MoveOff.net/

Sources: Pushing the Antithesis, Greg L. Bahnsen Understanding the Times, David Noebel What is Scientific Naturalism? J.P. Moreland

Are you reverting to the argument that arrows require pushing angels to keep them in motion, because that's what it sounds like.

No. We were discussing the need for a first cause for the entire universe as a whole. The idea is that unless you think it always existed, it needed a first cause. aNYCguy's counter argument was that the same could be applied to any deity that created the universe.

Science makes discoveries when it assumes that the behaviors of time and motion are not twiddled with from "outside." I'm not aware of any exceptions to this. It was Newton's assumpton.

Agreed. But science is not always the best way to attain practical knolledge. If there "appears to be" a tiger leaping at you, I trust you will duck before seeking independent verification of your observation.

Some thoughts on this topic, and on the "problematic" affinity of Marxian and Darwinian thought on certain questions, from Loren Eisley [sic] (at the time of this writing, chairman, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania):

I can't tell if you mean "at the time of your writing" or "at the time of Eiseley's writing," but in any event, Loren Eiseley died in 1977. The article you very selectively edit was published by him in 1959. It can be found in its entirety at positiveatheism.org, and it is titled "An Evolutionist Looks At Modern Man."

Eiseley made no reference to Marx or communism in this rather poetic piece, and how you perceive it to be a commentary "on the 'problematic' affinity of Marxian and Darwinian thought" is perfectly mysterious. Must be the result of some supernatural ability I don't posses.

atlaw, you and js1138 and many others here go bananas when it is suggested that there is a good deal of convergence between Darwin’s theory -- at least as it is popularly imagined today and Marxism – a/k/a “social Darwinism.”

If correcting your misrepresentations constitutes "going bananas," I plead guilty.

As for your new contention that it is Darwin's theory "as it is popularly imagined today" that converges with Marxism (nice double twisting backflip there, by the way), it is the creationist imagination that has concocted this supposed convergence, just as it is the creationist imagination that concocted a convergence between Darwin and ruthless laissez-faire capitalism. Any non-sequitur will do, I suppose.

Also, to the extent that humans can transform their environment, they transcend the environmental context that controls Darwinian evolution theory. In a certain way, there is a resemblance here to Lamarck’s theory of heritable acquired traits – taken to the cosmic level. The acquisition of a radically changed environment is actually “inherited by” our descendants.

Cosmic Lamarckism. Interesting (although a little odd, since it certainly seems from your comments that you would want to avoid at all costs the discredited science that actually enchanted Marx and Engles).

I don’t generally engage in name calling, BB, but I can describe behavior and characterize it. I see no way around the issue of repeatedly ascribing causes to events that have not yet taken place.

I accept your “senior moment” explanation for thinking Lamarck followed Darwin, though I can scarcely fathom such an error from someone who writes books on the history of science. It is equivalent of mistaking the sequence of Galileo, Newton and Einstein. It is almost as unbelievable as not knowing that Darwin was agnostic about Larmarkian evolution, sometimes thinking it might take place, and sometimes not. It was really a detail that makes little difference to the iterative process of variation and selection.

I am less sanguine about the repeated charge that Darwin was responsible for Marxism. That is filth. When repeated after correction, it is inexcusable filth.

If one assumes that prior causes are necessary, it is special pleading to assert that your personal entity is exempt. Since all first cause arguments lead to an infinite regress, it is more rational to assume that the need for a first cause cannot be rationally defended.

There is obviously something that does not need a cause. Thus naturalism fails. A deity constrained in the rules of naturalism also fails. Thus we are left with a supernatural cause, specifically something that transcends nature. Most religions are thus eaten away, and naturalism as well. The monotheistic deity of Jewish and Christan theology survives the requirement, nature-gods, idols, and anything that is not considered transcendent to nature does not.

An immature math student may claim its cheating to define a some value "i" to represent the square root of -1. However this does not bother a competent mathematician.

I didn't coin the term "social Darwinism," and frankly don't know who did. I am not so much denigrating Darwin's theory (other than to say that I think it is incomplete, as noted and for the reasons given in my post). My problem is with its appropriation by people who seek to use it to justify sociocultural transformation. I strongly doubt that Darwin had any interest in doing that. But it is clear to me that some of his modern adherents do. When a respected biologist like Richard Dawkins claims that Darwin's theory has enabled him to become "an intellectually fulfilled atheist," and uses it as a club to attack the traditions, symbols, and institutions of Western culture -- and above all to claim that people who believe in God are morons -- I am not amused.

One thing I noted about Eiseley's article, which was published in the book I cited in 1960, is how much anthropology has changed over the past forty-something years. At that time, one could still speak (poetically as you put it) about the spiritual dimension of man. Today, most of the promoters of Darwin's theory say that spirit is a total fiction. And people who not only believe in spirit, but have had experiences of it, are "Dims," while atheists are "Brights."

This to me is Marx redux: This is akin to dividing the social world of men into the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Marx had an irritating habit of not permitting his "system" to be questioned at all. And the sense I get from some folks around here is that they also refuse to admit any questions at all WRT Darwin's theory: You either accept the doctrine whole cloth, or you are an "enemy." I think this is blatently an anti-scientific attitude. Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it leads, not about censoring points of view that question an existing theory.

Eiseley does not have to cite Marx chapter and verse for me to see how Marx's ideas correspond in so may ways with the "pop" version of evolution theory that is so evident today.

I have a bias: I believe that truth is indivisible. At some ultimate level, the reports we get from science and philosophy are complementary, finally reconciled in universal truth. Both knowledge disciplines are needed, but they need to be distinct. When a scientist is smuggling philosophy in through the back door -- which happens all the time -- this is illegitimate. For instance, materialism is a philosophical doctrine, as such a presupposition. Science itself has not yet gotten to the bottom of matter yet, and it has been observed that the ultimate entity in nature is not the material particle, but the universal field with which it is associated. Darwin's theory, moreoever, implies an ontology, a theory of being. But the theory does not reach to man himself in his radical differentiation from the rest of nature: It has no theory of man. Methodological naturalism -- and its strong form, metaphysical naturalism -- are effectively schools of philosophy when you boil it all down.

I see the pronouncements of the Dawkins and Lewontins etc., etc., of this world as an attempt at social renovation quite along Marxian lines. They wish to obliterate Western culture and eradicate historical memory. Yet as Eiseley says, "in a society without deep historical memory, the future ceases to exist and the present becomes a meaningless cacophany."

But Darwin's theory itself -- which is essentially an historical account -- would be spared from this historical leveling....

If you don't like the way I "cut" Eiseley's article -- which was fairly lengthy -- then I invite you to cut it your way and post your result here. Then we can discuss that. "Equal time"....

I accept your “senior moment” explanation for thinking Lamarck followed Darwin, though I can scarcely fathom such an error from someone who writes books on the history of science.

js1138, the book that Alamo-Girl and I wrote is not a history of science, nor has it been marketed as such. It is a book about the essential and vital complementarity of faith and reason, the synergy of which is the touchstone of the brilliance and success of Western Culture, on which our own American Experiment is founded. In short, it is a book about Western culture. And so, we deal with issues in science, philosophy, and religion -- for each is necessary for a more complete understanding of the Western historical cultural achievement.

As part of this mission, we deal with issues in science. One cannot omit mention of the brilliance and indispensability of science in an account of the achievements of Western culture. But given our own personal predilections, we do this mainly from the physics side. We don't discuss Darwin's theory directly. We do discuss certain Darwinians. But only if we perceived them to be poaching on philosophical turf. So we do have some fun with Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin; and also the "ethicist" Peter Singer. We cite Mayr and Simpson with respect. But on the science side, we mainly deal with physics (classical, relativity, and quantum), not with evolution theory. The book does broach problems in biology, but at the most fundamental level. Issues such as "what is life?" and information theory as it relates to living and non-living systems in nature are the major foci. Beyond that, we explore various physical cosmologies -- but philosophical and religious ones too.

On the philosophical side, we stress the classical Greeks (probably no surprise there). But we also have a whole lot of fun with Hegel.

The only way we could deal with such an amorphous work was to set it up in the form of a Platonic dialogue. Which probably sounds pretty dull. But instead, think of a screenplay, or a teleplay, or a script for a theatrical performance. These allow you to have multiple characters, expressing different points of view, in a conversational form. We have four characters, each with a different perspective or observational point of view. Plus the dialogue form gives license for humor, and dramatic effects.

In short, we found the form congenial to our purpose in writing. One of the characters is a composite of certain personalities/points of view from the evo/methodological naturalism camp at FR. :^)

BTW, I don't blame Darwin for the usages to which his theory has been put in modern times. He may be rolling over in his grave right now, in despair that he had been so co-opted by lesser men with bigger goals. FWIW.

Thanks for writing, js1138.

p.s.: I'm not following your usage of "following" in the opening italics. Do you mean temporal sequence, or like-mindedness?

...the book that Alamo-Girl and I wrote is not a history of science, nor has it been marketed as such. It is a book about the essential and vital complementarity of faith and reason, the synergy of which is the touchstone of the brilliance and success of Western Culture, on which our own American Experiment is founded. In short, it is a book about Western culture. And so, we deal with issues in science, philosophy, and religion -- for each is necessary for a more complete understanding of the Western historical cultural achievement.
As part of this mission, we deal with issues in science. One cannot omit mention of the brilliance and indispensability of science in an account of the achievements of Western culture. But given our own personal predilections, we do this mainly from the physics side. We don't discuss Darwin's theory directly. We do discuss certain Darwinians. But only if we perceived them to be poaching on philosophical turf. So we do have some fun with Dawkins, Pinker, Lewontin; and also the "ethicist" Peter Singer. We cite Mayr and Simpson with respect. But on the science side, we mainly deal with physics (classical, relativity, and quantum), not with evolution theory. The book does broach problems in biology, but at the most fundamental level. Issues such as "what is life?" and information theory as it relates to living and non-living systems in nature are the major foci. Beyond that, we explore various physical cosmologies -- but philosophical and religious ones too.
On the philosophical side, we stress the classical Greeks (probably no surprise there). But we also have a whole lot of fun with Hegel.
The only way we could deal with such an amorphous work was to set it up in the form of a Platonic dialogue. Which probably sounds pretty dull. But instead, think of a screenplay, or a teleplay, or a script for a theatrical performance. These allow you to have multiple characters, expressing different points of view, in a conversational form. We have four characters, each with a different perspective or observational point of view. Plus the dialogue form gives license for humor, and dramatic effects.

In short, we found the form congenial to our purpose in writing. One of the characters is a composite of certain personalities/points of view from the evo/methodological naturalism camp at FR. :^)

Timothy is not currently ranked in sales at Amazon, although there are 21 copies available. This suggests that there have been no sales at all there. (I suspect that those available copies represent drop-ship offers by dealers who do not actually stock the book.)

It is one thing to write a book. It is an entirely different thing to sell what one has written.

A kind of like survival of the fittest, eh?

It seems everything in the natural world must have a cause.

How convenient that you would make this absurdly broad assumption, given that you seem to consider the manner in which energy interacts to be a "thing" in some poorly delineated "natural world."

I've never seen a cause whose effect has been the creation of statistical distributions to which fundamental physical interactions conform, so I guess things just seem different to me than to you.

This is not because I want it that way...

No, you're making this assumption precisely because you really, really want it to be that way. In any case, all I've seen from you so far has been a series of your gut instincts about the universe and beyond.

Thus there appears to be something that caused them from outside the natural world

I see that your line of reasoning reduces quite neatly in its entirely to a series of pronouncements of what you think things seem like. Thats's fine for what it is, I suppose, and must sound quite nice to someone who feels the same way as you do. But theology offers no more than this. You may find that arenas of discourse in which falsification exists are scarier, but also more rewarding.

js...But if you insist on blaming Darwin for behavior that predates Biology by thousands of years (in recorded history alone), then I have to ask you, which class of people has more people jailed for abusing children: clergymen or biology teachers?

Irish...The metaphysical concept of free will is unique to the Biblical worldview, for God who created man in his image, endowed man with free will, thus making man a free moral agent. It’s within the the ancient worldview (and its modernized variants)of naturalism (monism), within which Evolutionary Humanism and its permutations belong, that man is viewed as being helpless before the forces of nature. In other words, man lacks free will and is essentially a hapless puppet whose strings are manipulated by natural forces.

Because you are a monist by virtue of your worldview, you quite naturally believe that Betty is blaming Darwin (Darwin as a force of Nature?) for genocide commited by men of free will, when Betty of course, believes no such thing. Thus it logically follows that you believe that not only are there naturally-occuring ‘classes’ (species) of the human ‘animal,’ but that some of these classes/species are more prone to child molestation. Again the view being that man is not a free moral agent but a species of animal controlled by instincts and impulses whose genesis lies with bacteria, mad-monkey genes, etc.

It is one thing to write a book. It is an entirely different thing to sell what one has written.

Of course Coyoteman! However, the book we wrote was never intended for a mass audience: Timothy is not Harry Potter. We had excellent advice from our literary agent, who was prepared to take Timothy to Thomas Knowlton or Eerdmanns if we would make a few changes. (She thought we had "two books in one.") She assured us she could get us a "nice contract" with one of these publishers. Alamo-Girl and I discussed it, and decided that since we had written the book we wanted to write, we'd let it stand as written. Timothy was never "about the money." But the door is wide open with this agent, so maybe next time we'll produce something a little more "commercial."

But I dunno. How "commercial" does "God and the Observer Problem" (the working title for our next) sound to you? Would you buy a book with a title like that?

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.