Posted on 09/18/2007 10:23:38 AM PDT by spirited irish
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.
Metaphysics
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)
Copyright Linda Kimball 2007 PatriotsandLiberty http://patriotsandliberty.com/
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
Related Articles Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism? Cultural Marxism
The reason I said that is it appears GR consults his own experience. People who do that generally haven’t been totally “brainwashed.” Just my two cents worth....
Back to my original point.
Both Marx and Lenin were inspired by Saint Sir Thomas More.
That’s just a simple fact. To claim that only Darwin influenced Communist theory is not a fact.
You are living in denial of the obvious, <1/1. Where do you think they got their theory of man from (such as it is)?
It wasn't from Thomas More or Plato, I can assure you.
I understand Behe’s new book, “Edge of Evolution:...” doesn’t mention eyeballs.
Lamarck.
It probably ignores the question most pertinent to Intelligent Design: "What good is half an ass?"
There is no possible doubt that Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, was directly inspired by Darwin, who published in 1859.
Thank you for reminding us of this, time after time.
In what way, atlaw? By my understanding, Lamarke's science was intended as an "improvement" on Darwin's theory, not a replacement for it in all details.
To get back to Darwin, and my assertion that he had no theory of man: Darwin's theory does not deal with human beings as individuals, but as members of a collective that is logically indistinguishable from the term "species." Hitler and Lenin evidently found such an "explanation" of humans congenial to their political projects.
Lenin did not recognize humans as individuals, but as members of a common mass -- read: species -- which, historically, "evolved" into "subspecies" based on ineluctible historical forces (i.e., social environmental forces), into contending groupings that he called the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. These evolved entities were seen to be engaged in a class struggle for dominance, a "survival of the fittest" contest that would determine future history.
As I said, I don't think Lenin got any of his ideas from Plato or Thomas More. Or Lamarck, who eventually fell out of favor with Soviet science (who came along after Lenin's rise to power anyway, if memory serves). It is manifestly evident that Hitler didn't spend much time meditating on human individuals either; rather he saw humans in the mass as well.
As Lenin observed, "ideas have consequences."
And when Darwin's theory came to their notice, both he and Engels were quick to claim it as justification for their theories. Effusively.
Hitler and Lenin took their page from that.
That must be why Hitler put crosses and religious slogans on Nazi paraphernalia, and posed in public with priests rather than with biology teachers, and why Germany has, as a form of national entertainment, a play that blames Jews for the crucifixion.
It must also by why biology in the Soviet Union came to a complete halt under Communism.
But I do thank you for continuing to claim, thread after thread, without letup, that a book written in 1848 was inspired by one written in 1859.
“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.”
Huh? Rubbish
Hitler was a total sociopathic charlatan of the style recently adopted by Hillery Clinton (BTW). He was just as eager to traduce and co-opt traditions, symbols, and institutions in any way that would serve his purpose. Kiddo, it's called propaganda.
It must also by why biology in the Soviet Union came to a complete halt under Communism.
It wouldn't have, had Stalin not murdered the most gifted theoretical biologist of Soviet science at that time, Ervin Bauer (who was not a Darwinist in the sense that he did not engage "evolutionary problems," but the specific behavior of biological organisms).
But I do thank you for continuing to claim, thread after thread, without letup, that a book written in 1848 was inspired by one written in 1859.
Jeepers, js1138, you are a stubborn man! Do not forget that the very strange brew that Marx and Engels was selling they called "scientific socialism." On what scientific basis could such a claim rest, if not Darwin's theory? Could you suggest any other basis? If so, I'm all ears!
I have a little research project for you: Find out when that dynamic duo really started keening in on the "scientific" aspect of their social theory. I'll bet you a nickel the "noise" about this claim did not become deafening until after 1860.
To say a good word about Darwin here: At least he was an honest man. He was the first to tell us that, if the fossil record did not bear him out, then his theory would have problems. Recently we have learned that homo habilis and homo erectus were actually contemporaries. Thus the first is unlikely to have been the "ancestor" of the latter.
Plus Darwin himself was troubled about the problem of man: There was something "different" about man as compared with the rest of the evolving species. For one thing, his theory holds that the natural environment is the major element guiding biological evolution. But Darwin was well aware that man is not completely determined by the physical environment -- because man could transform it. And more, that man develops highly complex social organizations of which he is a part, which influences the way the human race develops in the course of time.
But he had no answers for such concerns. Which is why I say that Darwin does not have a "theory of man."
FWIW.
If you study a bit of paleontology you will find that the first Neanderthal skeleton was excavated in Germany in 1856, and announced in 1857 (although two earlier skulls had been found, they were not recognized as such until after the 1856 find).
Darwin may not even have been aware of these finds when he published in 1859. With no human fossils to work with, of course he was cautious in his claims, and stated that if the fossils were not found there would be problems for his theory.
Since then, the fossils have been found -- by the thousands and tens of thousands. And they confirm Darwin's theories, while adding tremendous detail that Darwin couldn't have dreamed of.
And, the modern science of genetics has been discovered, and it too confirms Darwin's theories, while adding even more details.
I don't know why you are claiming:
Recently we have learned that homo habilis and homo erectus were actually contemporaries. Thus the first is unlikely to have been the "ancestor" of the latter.Americans and Europeans are contemporaries, yet Europeans are largely ancestral to Americans!
It is so funny to watch -- the anti-evolutionists grasp at any imagined straws (and strawmen) in their efforts to discredit the theory of evolution. The one thing they fail to do is actually study the details of evolution, and so they make some of the silliest mistakes you can imagine.
I guess there is no point in studying a field you plan on destroying, eh? Wasted effort and all? I guess that's all a part of reversing
...the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. Source
In other words, it is not science at all. It is apologetics.
And Jim Jones sold his stuff as Christianity. What's your point.
I do want to thank you, however for continuing to defend the claim that a book published in 1848 was inspired by one printed in 1859.
Recently we have learned that homo habilis and homo erectus were actually contemporaries. Thus the first is unlikely to have been the "ancestor" of the latter.Americans and Europeans are contemporaries, yet Europeans are largely ancestral to Americans!
It is so funny to watch -- the anti-evolutionists grasp at any imagined straws (and strawmen) in their efforts to discredit the theory of evolution. The one thing they fail to do is actually study the details of evolution, and so they make some of the silliest mistakes you can imagine.
I guess there is no point in studying a field you plan on destroying, eh? Wasted effort and all?
Thank you for pointing that out.
The poster to whom you are responding demonstrates the folly of attempting to critique science without first actually bothering to learn even the basics of science.
The passage of hers you quote is a shining example:
Recently we have learned that homo habilis and homo erectus were actually contemporaries. Thus the first is unlikely to have been the "ancestor" of the latter.This comment is just... mindbogglingly ignorant to anyone who knows the first thing about paleontology or biological succession. Or even the first thing about "common sense".
It's as goofy as the following statement, and for exactly the same reasons:
Recently we have learned that actors Kirk Douglas and Michael Douglas were actually contemporaries. Thus the first is unlikely to have been the "ancestor" of the latter.Excuse me while I laugh my butt off.
Kirk Douglas and Michael Douglas actually are father and son, even though for many years they were both alive at the same time (and even acted in a few movies together, 1, 2). Gosh, how can this be??? Is time travel involved???
Um, no. Instead, it turns out that after siring Michael Douglas, amazingly enough Kirk Douglas continued to live and exist for many decades during the same time as his son. Wow!!!
In exactly the same way, one species can spin off another species and then both continue to exist contemporaneously for a while. There's certainly no "rule" that the ancestral species suddenly dies off instantly, and indeed anyone who has actually read Origin of Species couldn't possibly have missed the fact that this is covered in detail -- that one species doesn't necessarily "become" a descendant species in toto, nor instantly go extinct, instead the far more common scenario is that the ancestral species "forks", spinnning off a new species from a *subpopulation* of the ancestral species, in exactly the same way that dachshunds arose from a subpopulation of ancestral dogs which were not dachshunds, and yet (gasp!) other kinds of dogs still exist -- they're not all dachshunds now. (No, I'm not claiming that dachshunds are a new species -- nor is Michael Douglas -- try to keep up.)
All of this is both ordinary common sense, *and* was covered quite clearly in Origin of Species, which is why evolutionary biologists (and Darwin) talk of a "tree of life" instead of a "beanpole of life" -- species FORK and fork again, like the branches and sub-branches of a tree, ending in vast numbers of "twigs" (species) from a single "trunk" (the distant common ancestor).
"The celebrated palaeontologist, Bronn, at the close of his German translation of this work, asks how, on the principle of natural selection, can a variety live side by side with the parent species? If both have become fitted for slightly different habits of life or conditions, they might live together"It's nice to see that the anti-evolution folks are still about 150 years behind on their reading, but hey, that doesn't stop them from trying to "educate" those silly scientists, eh?
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition
Bottom line: The fact that Homo habilis and Homo erectus were at one point in time contemporaries is no problem at all for the scenario that one was ancestral to the other. Anyone who thinks that it is must be the kind of person who gets confused about Happy Days and Joni Loves Chachi having both aired during 1982-1983, because one was a spinoff of the other.
Hint: It's perfectly plausible -- and perfectly consistent with evolutionary biology -- that H. habilis came first, then at some point a subpopulation of H. habilis evolved into H. erectus while another subpopulation of H. habilis continued to exist relatively unchanged at the same time.
H. habilis fossils have been found with ages of 2.6-1.4 million years, and H. erectus fossils have ages of 1.8-1.0 million years. Anyone who has problems with the following scenario isn't real clear on the basics of biology: H. habilis arose 2.6 million years ago, was around for 0.8 million years before a subpopulation spun off as H. erectus, then both were contemporaries for another 0.4 million years at which time H. habilis went extinct while H. erectus continued to thrive for another 0.4 million years (and at some point likely spun off another species, H. sapiens before themselves going extinct). This is *really* basic stuff.
Noticeably different species can arise over a period on the order of 10-100 thousands of years, whereas any given species can last many millions of years. Thus it's hardly surprising that one would be able to occasionally catch an ancestral species continuing to exist long enough to be contemporaneous for a significant period of time with its descendant species.
This is basic Biology 101. It's too bad that so many people feel "qualified" to critique science (and ludicrously, even attempt to write vanity-press books about it) without even knowing *that* much... The rest of her post is equally fallacious, based on the same lack of knowledge as to what Darwin actually wrote, and what evolutionary biology actually does and does not say. She appears to not even be aware of the existence of Darwin's The Descent of Man, much less its contents.
This article reminds me of the passage by Samuel Foote:
So she went into the garden to cut a cabbage-leaf to make an apple-pie; and at the same time a great she-bear, coming up the street, pops its head into the shop. “What! No soap?” So he died, and she very imprudently married the barber: and there were present the Picninnies, and the Joblillies, and the Garyulies, and the grand Panjandrum himself, with the little round button at top, and they all fell to playing the game of catch-as-catch-can till the gunpowder ran out at the heels of their boots.
I'm very sorry, I was assuming you had a better familiarity with theological concepts. Taking my words outside of such familiarity I can understand your confusion. Briefly, I was referring to the monotheistic God as envisioned by Jewish and Christian theology since ancient times. As this is a FR post rather then a theological essay, I will kindly ask your indulgence in not giving an exhaustive explanation of such.
In either case, I've never found "Everything which exists must have a creator, except for that which I want to not have a creator" to be a very satisfying argument.
I grant that reality isn't about what we want. It seems everything in the natural world must have a cause. This is not because I want it that way, it is simply how it appears to be. Thus there appears to be something that caused them from outside the natural world, whether we want this to be the case or not.
And don’t forget Marx’s, “Critique of Political Economy”, published in Januray 1859.
Again prior to “Origin”.
Are you reverting to the argument that arrows require pushing angels to keep them in motion, because that's what it sounds like. Your phrase "appears to be" is a reflection of wishful thinking, rather than what is observed.
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.
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.