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

When I returned to town yesterday, I had a chance to read this remarkable post of yours. I debated whether a response was warranted, but given posts 151 and 155, where betty says that I am "sneering," "bloviating about irrelevancies," and putting up "a smelly smokescreen," and where you say of my posts -- "Smoke screens and spitwads, if that's the best a correspondent can do, then you have already won the debate" -- I decided a response would be in order. : )

Regarding your post 152, I am as perplexed by your choice of quotations as I am by betty's.

The ham-fisted propositions that you and betty are attempting to support with your selected quotes have been stated by betty as:

"The 'problematic' affinity of Marxian and Darwinian thought;" and
"The pronouncements of the Dawkins and Lewontins etc., etc., of this world [are] an attempt at social renovation quite along Marxian lines. They wish to obliterate Western culture and eradicate historical memory."

As for the second proposition blockquoted above, you expand upon it in your post by saying that it "is in reference to science and Western culture per se - not a particular scientific theory," by which I suppose you mean that not only evolutionary biology but indeed all of science is in Marxist cahoots to obliterate western culture and eradicate historical memory.

Such extraordinary (if exceedingly vague) propositions would normally be supported by extraordinary evidence, but I cannot see any connection at all between the evidence supplied by you and betty and the propositions at hand.

betty chose for support a 1951 Saturday Evening Post essay by Loren Eiseley, an essay that had nothing to do with Marx or any "'problematic' affinity of Marxian and Darwinian thought." (I pointed this out in detail in post 144, but as far as I can tell, betty took umbrage at the first paragraph and read no further.)

You have supplied as evidentiary support a (corrected) quote from a book review by Lewontin, and a pair of letters to the editor by Lewontin and Perutz.

As for the first of your selected quotes (and in response to my admittedly irritable complaint that you selectively edited its content) you say -- "It is hardly "quote-mining" to raise the comments of a self-confessed Marxist on the subject of materialism and science from an article entitled The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism."

It is hardly relevant either. First, that article you refer to (The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism) was authored by Philip Johnson. It is obviously not the source of the quote. The quote itself came from a review by Lewontin of a book by Carl Sagan.

Second, Lewontin was commenting on the often counter-intuitive nature of scientific claims as an impediment to popular acceptance. It is in that context (the very context you excluded in your first iteration of the quote) that he says:

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

While I (and many others, to say the least) disagree with Lewontin's often derogatory dismissal of religious faith, it is nevertheless necessary to scientific inquiry that untestable and non-observable supernaturalism be excluded.

This is a rather unremarkable observation, and I am mystified by your attempts to read into it a Marxist über-conspiracy to obliterate Western culture and eradicate historical memory. Are you contending that materialist methodologies are uniquely Marxist, and but for Marxism, scientists in the west would be using Ouija Boards in the lab? Or perhaps you are contending something so pointlessly reductionist as "all atheists are commies"? Just what particular aspect of western culture and historical memory is under Marxist attack here?

The second set of quotes that you select as alleged evidence supporting the propositions at hand is perhaps more mystifying.

In this exchange of letters by Lewontin and Perutz, the point under discussion is whether Darwin's ideas were a product and reflection of 19th century laissez-faire capitalism.

Lewontin's point is that, while historians who employ a purely Marxist lens have traditionally held that Darwin's ideas have their basis in 19th century capitalism, one need not adhere to Marxist historiography to reach this conclusion.

In response, Perutz argues that Darwin's ideas were independent of capitalist economic theory.

"Darwin's fourth chapter, headed "Natural Selection," is the crucial one that contains the essence of Darwin's theory. Its first section is on "Natural Selection—Its Power Compared with Man's Selection." Again, in a letter to Alfred R. Wallace, written on May 1, 1857, Darwin remarked: "We [he and Wallace] differ only, that I was led to my views from what artificial selection has done for domestic animals." It was the stock breeder rather than the entrepreneur who served Darwin as a model."
(Emphasis original.)

Neither Lewontin nor Perutz even remotely suggest that Darwin and Marx cross-pollinated, or that there exists a "'problematic' affinity of Marxian and Darwinian thought." Indeed, quite the opposite. Theirs is a discussion of the alleged capitalist influence on Darwin's theory.

Perhaps you are contending in some round-about way that, although Marx's ideas pre-dated Darwin's, but for the goad of Darwin's capitalist theory, Marxism would not have subsequently flourished as a reactionary movement, and therefore evolutionary biologists (or perhaps scientists of all stripes) should now just shut up lest reactionary Marxists "obliterate western culture and eradicate historical memory." I don't think this is what you had in mind, but I'm at a loss for any other explanation.

You deployed these quotes for some purpose or another, and betty was positively ecstatic at their content, so perhaps you can provide an atypically clear explanation of their relevance -- other than, of course, their simple deployment as a "smelly smokescreen."

Thank you oh so very much for your crisp and engaging essay-post!

To the contrary, this is very close to what I had in mind – except for the part about evolutionary biologists and the like ought to “shut up.” It is important for everyone to speak up.

It is “received doctrine” (Lewontin’s term, not mine) among the historians of science that Darwin’s theory was primarily fueled by brutal 19^th century capitalism (the point Lewontin, a Marxist, was making.)

The rebuttal by Perutz was that Darwin didn’t have much experience at all with said capitalism and even so, that altruism and cooperation figured in survival as well as brutality. Perutz used a quote right from Darwin to figuratively smack Lewontin across the head and underscore the point I am making here more generally, i.e. that conviction in a doctrine does not truth make:

"Whether true or false others must judge; for the firmest conviction of the truth of a doctrine by its author, seems, alas, not to be the slightest guarantee of truth."

Or to put it in my words, Marxists and other ”dogmatic Cambridge pinkos” (as Lewontin calls them) have seized upon Darwin’s theory as doctrine for legitimacy in several ways.

As you correctly perceived was a main point, the first is that Darwin’s theory is the scientific (read, authoritative to materialists) denigration of capitalism as base or crude animal behavior. Quoting Lewontin:

”After all, Darwin himself started the whole thing by telling us that he got the idea for the universal Struggle for Existence from reading Malthus's famous tract against the old Poor Law.”

Or to put it yet another way, that brutal capitalism is the way of nature unrestrained – leading to the second point, “here comes Socialism to save the day, mighty Marx is on his way...”

The third and most insidious point is that historic materialism (or revising history with a materialist template that throws away all insights not materialistic) - is the root of Socialism, i.e natural philosophy vis-a-vis the evolution of society.

Marx for Beginners [Historic Materialism]

According to Marx, historical materialism is the economic system of any people that determines its social structure, the latter, determining its political and religious structures. The fundamental cause of any social evolution, and consequently of any social advance, being the struggle man wages against Nature for his own existence. Marx’s fundamental idea can be summed up as follows: 1) the production relations determine all other relations existing among people in their social life. 2) The production relations are determined by the state of the productive forces.

The basic principle of the materialist explanation of history is that men’s thinking is conditioned by their being, or that in the historical process, the course of the development of ideas is determined by the course of development of economic relationships. So, historical materialism claims to be a way of explaining history. It deals with the causes of social evolution, stressing that history is governed by necessary laws that are as immutable as laws of nature.

Historical materialism is considered a scientific method by which to comprehend the events of the past and to grasp their true nature...

Of course, Marxists hold their doctrine as superior in every way - but the bottom line is that Darwin made it intellectually acceptable to view all of history strictly from a materialistic point of view. Or as Dawkins is wont to say Darwin made it possible for the atheist to be “intellectual fulfilled.” (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6)

Marxism required that legitimacy. In that respect, Darwin’s theory supported Marxism and thus it was embraced both ways - socialism as an improvement over capitalism - and also elevating historic materialism to "science."

Documents showing the gradual Marxist exploitation of Darwin:

Marx-Engels Correspondence 1862
Marx To Engels In Manchester
Source: MECW Volume 41, p. 380;
First published: in Der Briefwechsel zwischen F. Engels und K. Marx, Stuttgart, 1913.

I'm amused that Darwin, at whom I've been taking another look, should say that he also applies the ‘Malthusian’ theory to plants and animals, as though in Mr Malthus’s case the whole thing didn’t lie in its not being applied to plants and animals, but only — with its geometric progression — to humans as against plants and animals. It is remarkable how Darwin rediscovers, among the beasts and plants, the society of England with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, ‘inventions’ and Malthusian ‘struggle for existence’. It is Hobbes’ bellum omnium contra omnes and is reminiscent of Hegel’s Phenomenology, in which civil society figures as an ‘intellectual animal kingdom’, whereas, in Darwin, the animal kingdom figures as civil society.

Marx-Engels Correspondence 1875
Engels to Pyotr Lavrov In London
Abstract
Written: Nov. 12-17, 1875;
Transcription/Markup: Brian Basgen;
Online Version: Marx/Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000.
London, Nov. 12-17, 1875

1) Of the Darwinian doctrine I accept the theory of evolution, but Darwin’s method of proof (struggle for life, natural selection) I consider only a first, provisional, imperfect expression of a newly discovered fact. Until Darwin’s time the very people who now see everywhere only struggle for existence (Vogt, Búchner, Moleschott, etc.) emphasized precisely cooperation in organic nature, the fact that the vegetable kingdom supplies oxygen and nutriment to the animal kingdom and conversely the animal kingdom supplies plants with carbonic acid and manure, which was particularly stressed by Liebig. Both conceptions are justified within certain limits, but the one is as one-sided and narrowminded as the other. The interaction of bodies in nature – inanimate as well as animate – includes both harmony and collision, struggle and cooperation. When therefore a self-styled natural scientist takes the liberty of reducing the whole of historical development with all its wealth and variety to the one-sided and meager phrase “struggle for existence,” a phrase which even in the sphere of nature can be accepted only cum grano salis, such a procedure really contains its own condemnation. [...]

3) I do not deny the advantages of your method of attack, which I would like to call psychological; but I would have chosen another method. Everyone of us is influenced more or less by the intellectual environment in which he mostly moves. For Russia, where you know your public better than I, and for a propaganda journal that appeals to the “restraining effect", [a quote from Lavrov’s article] the moral sense, your method is probably the better one. For Germany, where false sentimentality has done and still does so much damage, it would not fit; it would be misunderstood, sentimentality perverted. In our country it is hatred rather than love that is needed – at least in the immediate future – and more than anything else a shedding of the last remnants of German idealism, an establishment of the material facts in their historical rights. I should therefore attack – and perhaps will when the time comes – these bourgeois Darwinists in about the following manner:

The whole Darwinists teaching of the struggle for existence is simply a transference from society to living nature of Hobbes’s doctrine of bellum omnium contra omnes [from Hobbes’s De Cive and Leviathan, chapter 13-14] and of the bourgeois-economic doctrine of competition together with Malthus’s theory of population. When this conjurer’s trick has been performed (and I questioned its absolute permissibility, as I have indicated in point 1, particularly as far as the Malthusian theory is concerned), the same theories are transferred back again from organic nature into history and it is now claimed that their validity as eternal laws of human society has been proved. The puerility of this procedure is so obvious that not a word need be said about it. But if I wanted to go into the matter more thoroughly I should do so by depicting them in the first place as bad economists and only in the second place as bad naturalists and philosophers.

4) The essential difference between human and animal society consists in the fact that animals at most collect while men produce. This sole but cardinal difference alone makes it impossible simply to transfer laws of animal societies to human societies. It makes it possible, as you properly remark:

“for man to struggle not only for existence but also for pleasures and for the increase of his pleasures,... To be ready to renounce his lower pleasures for the highest pleasure.” [Engels’ italics – quoted from Lavrov’ Sierra article]

Without disputing your further conclusions from this I would, proceeding from my own premises, make the following inferences: At a certain stage the production of man attains such a high-level that not only necessaries but also luxuries, at first, true enough, only for a minority, are produced. The struggle for existence – if we permit this category for the moment to be valid – is thus transformed into a struggle for pleasures, no longer for mere means of subsistence but for means of development, socially produced means of development, and to this stage the categories derived from the animal kingdom are no longer applicable. But if, as has now happened, production in its capitalist form produces a far greater quantity of means of subsistence and development than capitalist society can consume because it keeps the great mass of real producers artificially away from these means of subsistence and development; if this society is forced by its own law of life constantly to increase this output which is already too big for it and therefore periodically, every 10 years, reaches the point where it destroys not only a mass of products but even productive forces – what sense is their left in all this talk of “struggle for existence”? The struggle for existence can then consist only in this: that the producing class takes over the management of production and distribution from the class that was hitherto entrusted with it but has now become incompetent to handle it, and there you have the socialist revolution.

Apropos. Even the mere contemplation of previous history as a series of class struggles suffices to make clear the utter shallowness of the conception of this history as a feeble variety of the “struggle for existence.” I would therefore never do this favor to these false naturalists.

5) For the same reason I would have changed accordingly the formulation of the following proposition of yours, which is essentially quite correct:

“that to facilitate the struggle the idea of solidarity could finally... grow to a point where it will embrace all mankind and oppose it, as a society of brothers living in solidarity, to the rest of the world – the world of minerals, plants, and animals.”

6) On the other hand I cannot agree with you that the “bellum omnium contra omnes” was the first phase of human development. In my opinion, the social instinct was one of the most essential levers of the evolution of man from the ape. The first man must have lived in bands and as far as we can peer into the past we find that this was the case....

August Bebel 1899
The Darwinian Theory and Socialism
Source: Social Democrat Vol. III No. 4, April 15, 1899, p.118-121, from Die Neue Zeit;

In their ignorance and neglect of the study of social problems, the present day representatives of Darwinism follow, almost without exception, the example of their lord and master. But the colossal work which Darwin accomplished offers an. excuse for him which, however, cannot be extended to his followers. Moreover, the social movement and social problems have, since Darwin’s death, attained an importance and extent which no one in his time could have conceived possible, and, on the part of the Socialists, the question of the significance which Darwinism has for social evolution has been so repeatedly discussed that the exponents of Darwinism have ex cathedra every reason to concern themselves a little with political economy.

The reader is reminded of Darwin’s ignorance of economic phenomena by the reproduction of the letter sent by Darwin to Marx wherein he thanks the latter for the gift of his book, “Das Kapital,” and among other things says: “I heartily wish that I possessed a greater knowledge of the deep and important subject of economic questions which would make me a more worthy recipient of your gift.”

Darwin here admits in plain language his ignorance of economic questions, but he never allowed himself to pass judgment upon Socialism. It is quite otherwise with his successors, especially with Ernst Haeckel, who became enlightened on the antagonism between Darwinism and Socialism before he had ever read a socialistic writing. An amusing instance of this is quoted by Woltmann in a note to the book. He says that when in the spring of 1894 he as a young student visited Haeckel in order to consult him upon some question bearing upon Darwinism and Socialism, he discovered that Haeckel had no real conception of the economic and historic doctrines of Socialism, and up to the summer of 1893 had only read my book, “Die Frau und Der Sozialismus,” and this probably but little, as I had sharply attacked him in it. That he stands no better than other representatives of Darwinism is manifold.

If, as Woltmann says, “Socialism must be brought into closer relationship with the teaching of natural evolution than has hitherto been the case,” the fault of this cannot be laid against the Socialists, who have not failed to understand it, but is due to the exponents of Darwinism, for whom, as the author amply proves, the warning is very necessary.

Woltmann further on says: “In order to comprehend the progress in human culture, considerations, other than economic, must be taken into account, and these can be furnished by physiology and general biology, e.g., the comprehension of the laws of differentiation, adaptation, and transmission, and at least a special study is necessary to find: whether natural selection has exerted its influence in the individual and class struggle, why it has been inoperative, and what may have taken its place. These questions have not been considered by Marx and Engels.” This, however, is not quite so; for in the “Anti-Dühring” Engels has fully discussed the connection between the results of natural philosophy and the laws of the evolution of society, and Woltmann himself devotes a large space in his book to this work which gives an answer to his statement. The position according to Engels is that the sphere of labour becomes within society an arena of combat of ever-increasing dimensions: “It is the Darwinian struggle for individual existence in which nature, with potential wrath, envelopes society. The natural standpoint of the animal appears as the summit of human society.”

In human society the individual holds a dual position which no other creature, ever so highly developed, can possess. Man is, at once an individual and a social being. As the latter, he is again a member of a class with separate and special interests, which are more or less opposed to the interests of other classes, and influence the situation and development of separate persons in a higher degree than their personal nature. This distinguishes man from the other animals and makes it impossible to consider him in his evolution from the same point of view as them.

The work of Woltmann brings out another thought. Independent of Darwinism, one can comprehend the evolutionary laws of society in their various degrees of development, but the Darwinian, as such, can never understand the evolutionary laws of human society, if he does not understand scientific Socialism, and with it its basis – historic materialism. Without this one remains in the rough, purely mechanical conception of Darwinism, which still dominates the majority of the exponents of Darwin’s theories. Woltmann is of opinion that the logical help which modern Socialism has received from Hegelian philosophy is not sufficient, and that Socialism would obtain greater scientific power if it returned, so far as its abstract propositions are concerned, to the philosophy of Kant.

But I have not denied the historicity of Jesus. I said the evidence for anything sufficient to justify the founding of a religion is thin.
***OK, see below for an article I put together several years ago as a start. If that evidence is thin, what is the definition of thin?

Claiming that there is as much evidence for the historical Jesus as there is for John Adams is, in fact, psychotic.
***I do claim it, and this appears to be a clear disembarkation of our two viewpoints. I seem to be in good company with virtually all authoritative historians. I would challenge you to a debate on this topic with a separate thread, but I get the impression that you yourself are less than psychologically healthy, so if you want to pursue this line of inquiry, we would need to agree on some ground rules. There is a ton of evidence, and you won’t have time to get through it all.

“The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories.”~F.F. Bruce.

Historian Durant: “In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies—e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates—would fade into legend.”

Greco-Roman historian Michael Grant, who certainly has no theological axe to grind, indicates that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for a large number of famous pagan personages - yet no one would dare to argue their non-existence. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 23] notes that what we know about Alexander the Great could fit on only a few sheets of paper; yet no one doubts that Alexander existed. Christian authors wrote about Jesus soon after the events. By way of contrast, Plutarch’s biography of Alexander the Great, considered trustworthy by historians, was written more than four centuries after his death. Charlesworth has written that “Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E.” [Chars.JesJud, 168-9] Sanders [Sand.HistF, xiv] echoes Grant, saying that “We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place.” On the Crucifixion, Harvey writes: “It would be no exaggeration to say that this event is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world.” [Harv.JesC, 11]

Some excerpts from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_jesus

[edit] Jesus as myth
Main article: Jesus myth hypothesis
Further information: Jesus Christ and comparative mythology
A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity have been Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. The non-historicity thesis was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century, and has recently been put forward in popular literature by a number of authors. Arguments for non-historicity have been advanced by George Albert Wells in The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth. Popular proponents have included the writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their books The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. Other proponents of non-historicity are Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle ).

The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus’ historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant’s Caesar and Christ; they are based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and some similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology.[71]

Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:

…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[72]
Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians[73],[74] & [75].

[edit] Mainstream scholarly reception
The idea of Jesus as a myth is rejected by the majority of biblical scholars and historians. The classical historian Michael Grant writes:

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has ‘again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.’ In recent years, ‘no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus’ or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. [52]
The points below highlight some of these criticisms.

Some scholars, like Michael Grant, do not see the similarities between Christianity and pagan religions to be significant. Grant states that “Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths, of mythical gods seemed so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit.”[52]
Christianity was actively opposed by both the Roman Empire and the Jewish authorities, and would have been utterly discredited if Jesus had been shown as a non-historical figure. There is good early evidence in Pliny, Josephus and other sources of the Roman and Jewish approaches at the time, and none of them involved this suggestion.[18]
In response to Jesus-myth proponents who argue the lack of early non-Christian sources, or question their authenticity, R. T. France, for example, points out that “even the great histories of Tacitus have survived in only two manuscripts, which together contain scarcely half of what he is believed to have written, the rest is lost” and that the life of Jesus, from a Roman point of view, was not a major event.[18]
Parallels between Christianity and Mystery Religions are not considered compelling evidence by most scholars.[53][54]
Those who do not hold to the Jesus-Myth disagree with the notion that the Apostle Paul did not speak of Jesus as a physical being. They argue that arguments from silence are unreliable and that there are several references to historical facts about Jesus’s life in Paul’s letters,[18] such as that Jesus “who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David” (Romans 1:3, TNIV).

***********************
My article from several years ago
************************

Date: 24-OCT-1994 14:28:12.94
From: “Kevin O’Malley”
Reply-To: k3oma...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us ()
Subj: RE: Evidence that Jesus Claimed to be God Part 1

Since I do not subscribe to this newsletter, please reply/comment by email.

Evidence that Jesus claimed to be God.
*************************************

Three books I would recommend and which I will be quoting/borrowing from:

More than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell Abbrev: MTAC
Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell Abbrev: ETDAV
Jesus: God, Ghost or Guru? by Jon Buell & O.Q. Hyder Abbrev: JGGG

His actions:

He forgave sin that had been committed against others. In Mark 2 a paralytic was lowered through a hole in the
roof and Jesus said, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” The response of the scribes who were present was “He is
blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God alone?”(Mark 2:7)
According to JGGG, “...there isn’t a single verse in the Old Testament (or other Jewish literature) that
clearly designates for the Messiah the power to forgive sins, although the same literature does ascribe this power
to Jehovah!” (JGGG 23)

He accepted worship.

Matthew 21:16. Jesus’ answer to the chief priests and scribes was to quote Psalm 8:2 “out of the mouth of
infants and nursing babes Thou hastprepared praise for Thyself”

When Thomas felt his wounds after the resurrection, he cried out “Behold my Lord and my God!” (John 20:26-29)
Jesus commented on Thomas’s unbelief rather than any misplaced worship — very significant for average 1st century
monotheistic jews.

According to JGGG, other examples include Peter’s acclaim (Matt 16:16) accepting the title Son of the living
God, and the worship of the disciples afloat on the Sea of Galilee (Matt 14:33) and again just prior to being
commissioned in Matt28. According to MTAC Jesus demanded to be worshipped as God in John 5:23, “compare Hebrews
1:6, Revelation 5:8-14”.

Jesus’Words

His use of the hebrew phrase “ani hu” which gets translated into greek variously as “I am He” or “I am”. The
roots of the phrase, according to JGGG and Ethelbert Stauffer in “Jesus and His Story” are from various Old
Testament scriputes such as Psalm 50:7 + 113-118, Isaiah 43, Deut 32 + 39 , 26:8, 5:16, etc. Ani is a self -
disclosure term used by Jehovah. Hu is the emphatic form of the personal pronoun “huah”, which means “he”, and
often used in the 1st century as a substitute for Yahweh.
In Mark 13:6 Jesus warns that counterfeits saying “Ani Hu” would arise impersonating HIM.
In John 13 Jesus says, “From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you
may believe that I am He (Ani Hu).”
Finally, in front of the highest court in his land, Jesus responds
to the question of whether he is the Messiah by saying, “Ani Hu” (Mark 16:61-62).
Furthermore, Jesus follows up this claim by saying, “And you shall see the Son of Man seated at the right hand
of Power coming on the clouds of Heaven.” Here Jesus quotes Daniel 7 and Psalm110:1. Jehovah is the only One in
the Old Testament who comes on the clouds of Heaven, and being seated at the right hand of someone is an expression
meaning to have equivalent status as that person. It’s important to note that Jesus was sentenced to death for who
he claimed to be.
John 10:30 Jesus says “I and the Father are one.” The jews who heard this rightly heard a claim to deity and
tried to stone Jesus.

John 8:58 Jesus says “Before Abraham was, I am”, again followed by an attempted stoning.

John 14:9 Jesus says to Philip “He that has seen me has seen the Father”

Jesus’ response to the scribes John in 5:16-18 when he said “My Father is working until now, and I Myself and
working” when he was accused of breaking the sabbath. According to MTAC, the cultural context is important and he
is effectively saying ‘God is MY Father’ and they sought to kill him.
MTAC: “The reason is that Jesus said ‘my Father,’ not ‘our Father,’ and then added “is working until now.’
Jesus’ use of these two phrases made himself equal with God, on a par with God’s activity. The Jews did not refer
to God as ‘my Father.’ Or if they did, they would qualify the statement with ‘in Heaven.’ However, Jesus did not do
this. He made a claim that the Jews could not misinterpret when he called God ‘my Father.’”

The basic phrases where Jesus claims to be one in essence with God.
John 12:45 — He who beholds me beholds the One who sent me; John 8:19 — If you knew me, you would know my Father
also; John 5:23 — He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him;

Opposing Sources

Per Stauffer: “For if a confrontation of witnesses yields statements that agree on some points, then these points
must represent facts accepted by both sides. This principle certainly holds true if the historical traditions of
the two groups of witnesses are independent of each other. But it holds true almost as completely in cases where
the traditions intersect. For it is highly significant that the witness for the prosecution admits that the witness
for the defense is right on certain points; that he agrees with his opponents about certain common facts.”

Justin Martyr and Eusebius mention a circular letter issued by the Sanhedrin.
Martyr Quotes from it:
“...a certain Jesus of Galilee, an apostate preacher whom we crucified; but his disciples stole him by night
from the cross; they did this in order to persuade men to apostasy by saying that he had awakened from the dead and
ascended into heaven.” Per JGGG jewish tradition for at least a century afterwards independently continued to
reject Jesus on the basis of his claim to deity.

Lucian, Greek satirist in 2nd century commenting on Jesus.
“...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.... Furthermore,
their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for
all
by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.” Per JGGG,
“notice that Lucian specifically pins the blame for the worship of Jesus on ‘their first lawgiver himself.’

Pliny the Younger. (A.D. 61-112) Per JGGG
After killing christians, he sought advice from Trajan, mentioning that christians “affirmed, however that the
whole of their guilt, or their error, was that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it
was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god...”

Jewish Polemic in commentary of Rabbi Eleazar Hakkapar (ca 170 a.d.) per JGGG.
“God saw that a man, son of a woman, would come forth in the future who would endeavor to make himself God and
to lead the whole world astray.... For it is said: ‘A man is not God.... And if he says he is God, he is a liar.
And he will lead men astray and say that he is going and will come back again at the end of days.’ Is it not so
that he spoke thus, but he will not be able to do it. “

Jewish Polemic : Per JGGG, Rabbi Abbahu of Caesarea (ca 270) puts the words of Jesus into Balaam’s mouth:
“If a man says, ‘I am God,’ he is a liar, if he says I am the Son of Man,’ his end will be such that he will
rue it; if he says, ‘I shall ascend to heaven,’ will it not be that he will have spoken and will not be able to
perform it?’”

From JGGG:
“The first independent test of the validity and integrity of of the reports that we have discussed is a
telltale silence in all contemporary literature concerning the claim of Jesus’ deity. There is a complete ABSENCE
OF REBUTTAL. Although much was said to deny his deity, nothing was said to deny that he claimed it. (In fact, the
first real threat to the infant Christain church came from the Gnostics who wanted to deny his HUMANITY!) ....Paul,
writing within thirty years of the events themselves, confidently challenged his readers to check with any
eyewitnesses if they wanted to confirm the truthfulness of his message (1Cor. 15:5). THE FACT THAT JESUS CLAIMED
DEITY IS WITHOUT A CHALLENGER IN THE FIRST-CENTURY HISTORICAL RECORDS.” (emphasis changed from italics to CAPITALS)
This may be an argument from silence, but it is issued as a challenge.

Biblical evidence—Just a touch

Since most of the rest of the Bible was written before A.D. 90, there were many people who witnessed the events who
could have stepped forward if the Gospels, Paul’s epistles, etc. were unfactual. (per JGGG with citation of
demographic study)

Paul’s epistles include the following per JGGG:
1) that Jesus was the preexistent Creator of the universe (Col 1:15-16)
2) that Jesus existed both in the “form of man” and in the “form of God” (Phil.2:5,8)
3) that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead, and thereafter was seen by over five hundred eyewitnesses
(most of whom were alive when Paul wrote) (1Cor 15:4,5)
4) that prayer could be directed either to God the Father or to Jesus (1Cor 1:2)
5) that one day Jesus would return to earth as the divine judge of humanity (2Thess. 1:7-10)
“No first-century Jew — especially one steeped in Jewish orthodoxy as was Paul, trained by the great Rabbi
Gamaliel, fiercely monotheistic, a member of the sect of the Pharisees, and possibly even a member of the Great
Sanhedrin ... would teach these things about anyone but Jehovah Himself.”

Hebrews 1:8
“But unto the son He says,’Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter
of Your kingdom.”

John

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” v.14: “And the Word
became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory...”

Mark
The beginning of the gospel of Mark quotes Malachi 3:1 with a significant alteration: “Behold I will send my
messenger, and he shall prepare the before me.” Mark-—>”The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God. As it is written in the prophets, “Behold I send my messenger before thy face...”

From ETDAV: Indirect claims of deity

of Jehovah Mutual Title or Act Of Jesus

Isa 40:28 Creator John 1:3
Isa 45:22,43:11 Savior John 4:42
1Sam 2:6 Raise Dead John 5:21
Joel 3:12 Judge JJohn 5:27 cf.
cf Matt 25:31 ff

Isa 60:19-20 Light John 8:12
Exodus 3:14 I AM John 8:58, cf 18:5-6
ps.23:1 Shepherd John 10:11
Isa 42:8, cf48:11 Glory of God John 17:1,5
Isa 41:4,44:6 First and Last Rev1:17;2:8
Hosea 13:14 Redeemer Rev 5:9
Isa 62:5 Rev 21:2,
+ Hosea 2:16 Bridegroom cf: Matt 25:1 ff
Ps. 18:2 Rock 1 Cor 10:4
Jer 31:34 Forgiver of Sins Mark 2:7, 10
Ps 148:2 Worshipped by Angels Heb 1:6
Thru out O.T. Addressed in Prayer Acts 7:59
Ps. 148:5 Creator of Angels Col 1:16
Isa 45:23 Confessed as Lord Phil 2:11

Kevin O’Malley k3oma...@sisko.sbcc.cc.ca.us

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.