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

Prove it.

Without using some reliance on both reason and metaphysical presuppositions, nothing at all can be proved.

Science is only valid is so far as it makes sense. It is based on human reasoning. Thus all of which it determines is not based solely on evidence, but on human reasoning.

But let us suppose that Irish is not correct here, then why would we trust human reasoning at all? Are not all "thoughts" just something that appear to happen to the "brain" by mundane physical processes? Who are we to trust such a process? What in the world do such processes have to do with being "true" or being "false"? You see, without some presuppositions, there is no logical reason to proceed further and justify any form of human reasoning, including that which justifies science.

Sorry GunRunner, but the standard of evidence you demand of Irish, can not be met by any belief system of man--at least without divine interference.

Keep your religious beliefs out of science class!

If unprovable reasoning about metaphysics is what constitutes "religion" in this sense, we must then teach nothing in science class at all. For myself, I would prefer to see the government out of the school business and let the demand drive the nature of the product. Until then, seems an examination of the philosophy and justification of science and a consideration of its limitations is quite a reasonable part of science curriculum.

Sorry GunRunner, but the standard of evidence you demand of Irish, can not be met by any belief system of man--at least without divine interference.

Its very simple; show some evidence other than you saying so.

Are not all "thoughts" just something that appear to happen to the "brain" by mundane physical processes? Who are we to trust such a process? What in the world do such processes have to do with being "true" or being "false"?

Speaking in broad philosophical terms and spouting ambiguous gobbledygook is neither proof nor evidence of the supernatural. This is not the Matrix and you are not Morpheus.

Its very simple; show some evidence other than you saying so.

Very well then. You may consider my reasoning valid only if what it predicts is actually true. It predicts people will either have hands, or will not have hands, or possibly something sort of like hands but not what everyone would consider to be hands, or that they may have hands some of the time and not at others.

I ask all who read this post to please observe the evidence for yourself, and answer if one of these alternatives is indeed consistent with the observations. Pass it around the scientific community and see if it holds up. If it does, then let us all admit my hypothesis must be respected as a scientific theory, because it was able to predict something that was true..</sarcasm>

Sorry GunRunner, but the validity of science is entirely derived from human reason. Also as I demonstrated with the silliness above, every application of science is dependent on it. Thus if you do not trust human reasoning, then you ought not trust science.

Speaking in broad philosophical terms and spouting ambiguous gobbledygook is neither proof nor evidence of the supernatural. This is not the Matrix and you are not Morpheus.

I was not attempting to prove the supernatural to you. I was attempting to demonstrate that your demand for proof on the terms you ask are unreasonable.

Now there are some good arguments for the supernatural, but they are not based on any particular measurement of any particular natural phenomena. Your apparent expectation that they must be is simply silly.

Sorry GunRunner, but the validity of science is entirely derived from human reason.

And the alternative is....? Who is arguing this? Religion is derived from human reason also, but the difference is that faith is defined as belief that is not based on proof.

Now there are some good arguments for the supernatural, but they are not based on any particular measurement of any particular natural phenomena.

Exactly, anything claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That's what I'm dismissing; proof of the supernatural. We can argue all we like, but this debate is for a philosophy class, not in the science lab.

Andy,

Of course the base foundation of science requires some beliefs that are beyond the scope of science itself.
Namely that we have some capacity to observe some portion of reality accurately (i.e. the old prove you aren’t just a brain in a jar somewhere proposition).... and that reality is at least somewhat logicaly consistant in how it works (i.e. do the same thing under the same conditions and get the same results 1000 times and you can resonably extrapolate that the results will be consistant the 1001st time). That proposition neither invalidates science in general nor evolutionary theory in particular.

We trust in the process of science, for the same reason we trust that we are not just brains in a jar somewhere, because it provides a practical advantage for us to do so.
Science allows us to discover new things on our own initiative.... it allows us to find out we are actualy wrong about certain beliefs we currently hold... it allows us to advance our level of knowledge about the physical workings of the universe.

In simple terms... science allows us to use things like gunpowder and electricity.

Religion, by comparison, tells us that we don’t need gunpowder or electricity... we can rely on “Alah” to swat F-16’s out of the sky for us instead.

Not really working out so we for the folks not putting thier faith in electricty and gunpowder is it? And history is replete with similar examples.

If the above sounds like I’m hostile to religion...I’m not.... and neither is science... not even evolutionary theory.

Science reckognizes that there are things we can study...and things we can’t. The things that we can study we should try to do in an organized and testable fashion and be willing to revise our presuppositions as the results of those tests indicate. It says we should try to look for explanations that we can test to explain the things we observe.... because looking for untestable explanations is futile. We can never prove those explanations right or wrong.... We can never learn anything from them that we don’t already believe.... therefore devoting time in an attempt to study them serves no practical utility. It doesn’t say that things beyond the realm of what we can observe/test don’t exist.... it just says that it is unable to address them.

Likewise, Evolution doesn’t specify that no such thing as God exists. It simply specifies that there is a natural mechanism by which ancient life forms became modern life forms. It is completely silent about what might have created such a mechanism or set the rules (i.e. physical laws) under which that mechanism operates.... or even if some force occasionaly gives that mechanism a little push in ways which we can’t readly detect.

We trust in the process of science, for the same reason we trust that we are not just brains in a jar somewhere, because it provides a practical advantage for us to do so.

On the evidence history has many examples of "belief systems" in science that go way beyond the practical. Some very evil and destructive world views claimed to be scientifically based, just as many claimed religious origin.

If the above sounds like I’m hostile to religion...I’m not.... and neither is science... not even evolutionary theory.

We are not that far apart in this respect. I appreciate science. And per the current controversy, am not particularly hostile to common descent. My best guess is that its true. But I'm not a "believer" in it it, and would not care a wit if it were somehow proved false. I do however consider it on the fringes of what ought be considered proper science (because of lack of falsification and such). Though certainly common descent aside, micro evolution is a solid scientific theory.

On the other hand I have what I consider a solid well founded faith in Jesus as the Son of God, and am a "believer" in the sense as I would care a great deal if His claims were somehow proved false. But by "faith" I certainly do not mean "blind" faith. I was agnostic for many years, and remain a fairly skeptical person -- unlike many of the so-called skeptical naturalists, I was very slow to be convinced.

I certainly don't think religion and science are necessarily at odds -- except in the minds of people that make them that way (which sadly, there are many examples of).

Why? Do you want to put the theory to a test?[The "theory" being: anything claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence]

A literal interpretation of this proposition is certainly testable, and obviously quite true. But under such a reading the statement is useless and not nearly as strong as it could be. Heck any proposition could be dismissed for any reason whatsoever. Thus the "can be dismissed" must be interpreted to mean "can reasonably be dismissed" for the proposition to have any practical meaning.

But I'm not sure if what we are left with is even testable. However, I thought it only fair to give you a shot at pointing to some evidence. After all, without any the proposition actually invites us to dismiss it.

It just seems like the same old naturalist saw: My belief system is "science" and your belief system is "philosophy". My belief system does not rely on anything subjective and yours does. My belief system does not require faith and yours does . My belief system is not a belief system and yours is. My belief system is objective and yours is subjective. And on it goes. My belief system is based on facts, yours is based on myth....appeal after appeal after appeal to a tired old logical association fallacy. I shudder to think how this crap is being shoved down the throats of our children. And then when a reasonable objection to this nonsense is raised, we learn that the naturalist is "above" philosophy. Why they are only concerned about science. Why they have nothing against philosophy or religion as long as absolutely none of it is brought up in science class...although there doesn't ever seem to be any particular reason why. Are we not to bring up history in science class either? Alas, the real reason is obvious: they don't want a competing philosophy in the only philosophy curriculum that is required!

Alas, we are all in the business of philosophy. Nobody is "above" it except the people who suck at it.

On another thread, I was told by a believer in Intelligent Design that there is no physical evidence for the Earth revolving around the sun, and that I was so brainwashed by "naturalism" that I only accepted that view because of my own ignorance. (I am not joking)

Then it seems to me that this "believer" is living in an alternate reality. On the other hand, I don't think that sort of response is typical of people who are working under the "umbrella" of so-called Intelligent Design.

It is exceedingly unfortunate, in my view, that "intelligent design" has become the moniker of a certain type of scientific investigation. The very name "intelligent design" shifts the debate to "who is the designer?" when that is not even a concern for a type of research that is being done these days, amazingly (and mainly) by a bunch of physicists and mathematicians, not a few of them of Eastern European origin, who do not even identify themselves with the Intelligent Design "school" or Movement.

But nonetheless they are doing the work of elucidating the possibility that, given living organisms increasingly are understood to depend on information and its successful communication, which demonstrate clear features of not having been produced in an accidental process, science needs to clarify "the whence and the wherefores" of an accumulating pile of data that needs to be explained. This line of research is looking to the quantum level of reality for possible explanations.

If you're interested in seeing an example of this line of development, Google the physicist Henry Stapp. He may spit on ID, but he's doing ID work. IMHO, FWIW.

Thanks for writing, Gunrunner!

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.