Posted on 02/04/2010 2:42:12 PM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo- Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).
Evolution is a religion, declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today One of the most popular books of the era was Religion Without Revelation, by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley...As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more. (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)
Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view. (Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II, Introduction)
The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).
All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, In the beginning God... Cosmic Humanism begins, In the beginning Divine Matter. Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, In the beginning Matter. Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:
...matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic. the dialectical materialist's attribution of dialectic to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones. (Gustav A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, p. 58)
In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:
We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth. (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, p. 28)
The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be. (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, p. 4)
Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million subhuman men, women, and children.
Deadly Problems
First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.
Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his Autobiography that one who rejects God,
...can have for his rule of life...those impulses and instincts which are strongest or seem to him the best ones. (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, p.7)
Humanist Max Hocutt realizes that materialist ethics are hugely problematical, but offers no solution. An absolute moral code cannot exist without God, however God does not exist, says Hocutt. Therefore,
...if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules. (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, pp. 138-139)
Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwins advice. In an interview he said,
If a person doesnt think there is a God to be accountable to, then what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? Thats how I thought I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)
With clearly religious overtones, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes the amoral materialist ethic:
Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way. (Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, p. 115)
Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:
Man is but fish made over... declared biologist William Etkin (Greg L. Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, p. 224). And his life is but a partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states, explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, p. xv). Furthermore, The universe cares nothing for us, trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, and we have no ultimate meaning in life. (Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion Are Incompatible, The Scientist, Sept. 1988)
Man... must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself as capable of spiritual endurance, or nobility. By animalizing man his state of mind can be ordered and enslaved. (Degradation and Shock, Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, Chapter viii)
Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is but fish made over there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens - by chance of course - that some lucky species and races of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are - unluckily for them - less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species - or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism - it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:
At some future period...the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)
In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th centurys two most blood-soaked political movements - pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism.
Nazi Germany
Hitlers murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. (p.230)
It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create - by way of eugenics - a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.
Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million useless eaters and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life, reluctantly concurs. Darwins theory, he acknowledges,
...has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis. (p. 13)
The Soviet Union
Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his On the Species, the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwins Origin,
...is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view. (Conway Zirkle, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene)
Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,
In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism. (p. 752)
Vladimir Lenin exulted that,
Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable. (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, p. 9)
Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species. It was Lenin who decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history. From the moment Lenin made the scientific decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified. (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)
Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:
The liquidation of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the treatment carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of subhumans and supermen but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice. (ibid., p. 751)
21st Century America
Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage. (Republican National Convention, Houston, Texas, 8/17/1992)
Even though he was optimistic about Americas future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocquevilles insightful analysis of the source of Americas greatness:
Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. (Michael Reagan, In the Words of Ronald Reagan)
As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to Americas youth in our governmentcontrolled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as vegetable, non-persons, and uterine content.
Ominously, Evolutionary Humanism has also outstripped Judeo-Christian precepts in our universities, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, corporations, medicine, law, psychology, sociology, entertainment, news media and halls of Congress. As Biocentrism, it fuels the nonhuman animal rights project, the gay rights movement, radical feminism, and the increasingly powerful and influential green environmentalist program, which demands that America submit to the draconian mandates of the Kyoto Treaty.
America, the moral force that defeated communism is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.
Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the animalization of Other, in tandem with the elevation of the superior, for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct new morality, which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.
In a portent of things to come,
evolutionist B.F. Skinner said: A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual...is henceforth to be controlled...in large part by other men. (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, p. 232)
Also, please visit Linda Kimball's website, Patriots and Liberty to see more of her writings!
Ping!
Who knew that there was no such thing as despotism, genocide tyranny and warfare until Darwin invented them in 1859?
Why be offended? Are those things bad? How do you know?
Where do you detect offense?
Infer that was the reason you put words in his mouth. His point was that Darwinism gave rise to evil. You asserted that his point was that Darwinism was the only thing to ever give rise to evil.
Meant “Infered that...”. Sorry about any confusion my typo caused.
You’re over thinking. I wasn’t offended. I was amused.
Whatever emotion you call it, it is obvious you disagreed, and tried humor to mock his view while mis-characterizing it. While I wasn't going to rake you over the coals for your misstatement, you just invited it. So you should say ouch a few times and perhaps we could move on.
On a naturalist view, how should nazism et al actually offend us?
My contention is that naturalism gives no support of the notion of "should" in that sentence.
I would say naturalism is a religion, but not evolution. Although certainly evolution is a doctrine of modern naturalism, there was naturalism long before the notion of evolution.
Bookmark
Brava!!! Linda Kimball! What a wonderful article!
RE: the above italics: If America ever ceases to be good (i.e., if she were ever to lose her link to divine law so evident in the Declaration of Independence), she would also cease to be America.
Thank you ever so much, Linda Kimball, for this outstanding article and to you, TQC, for posting it at FR!
God Bless CU!
Thanks for the ping!
...
And even then it was the religiously motivated Islamic invasion of the Indian Subcontinent that still stands as the greatest mass genocide in all of history.
Both you and I are able to look back at these social trends and declare them evil. But there is a problem with your theory of why:
It should offend us because we possess empathy and understand that what we do not want to happen to us is thereby wrong. I think most people start figuring that out by about age 5.
The social evils that offended us, were not offensive to all the people involved. Certainly not all of the nazis who thought it was right to exterminate jews were younger than 5. So how is it that they thought they were doing right? So your answer to this implied question seems to be:
The problem comes when people start proposing moral systems based not on empathy but on "revealed truth."
But certainly we both can see that "revealed truth" is not always a common factor in all the goings on we object to. And on the other hand the holding of some "revealed truth" is not always a cause for what we consider evil, but sometimes a cause for what we would call good. I find three of four cases easy to think of examples for:
1) Stalin: Evil with no "revealed truth".
2) Mohammed: Evil with "revealed truth".
3) Mother Teresa: Good with "revealed truth"
While I'm pretty sure there are examples of relative good without "revealed truth", most of the people who epitomize good in my mind seemingly believed in "revealed truth". Perhaps you know of some examples off the top of your head?
But honestly, can we not both admit "revealed truth" as the commonality of evil doesn't pan out?
But I suspect what you were really driving at was being "wrong" about the truth? That the problem comes when people have false notions about what moral truth is? And presumably you think of "revealed truth" as being perilously arbitrary in that regard, and empathy should be our guide.
If so, naturalism still has a problem. Why "should" empathy be our guide? What standard tells us so? And how is such a standard not ultimately just as arbitrary as some false revelation by a religious nut?
Perhaps survival and happiness are what is ultimately good? But then who told us that. Why is it better for life to continue at all? On the naturalist view, the only reason we think so is that such a disposition made us more likely to survive and reproduce et al.
A consistent and thoughtful naturalist is forced to believe all moral systems are products of natural processes, and have no more validity than the result of a coin toss. Even if its a "good" natural cause like a warm fuzzy "empathy"...and if you think it through, you can find times where empathy sometimes leads to bad moral decisions.
Alternatively, if you accept that some things really are good and some things really evil, logic insists you accept it as a transcendent truth that was somehow revealed to us. Otherwise, we are just making arbitrary judgments as the biochemistry in our brains directs us.
It is your imagination rather than logic that has constructed this fantasy: Who knew that there was no such thing as despotism, genocide tyranny and warfare until Darwin invented them in 1859?
Evil runs right through the heart of every man. Darwin did not ‘invent it.’ No, he helped unleash that protean force upon the world.
Only the terrible-willed and a lesser subset of that sort deny their own evil, and it is no accident that evolutionary humanism serves as a beacon to them for it was the satanically proud who created it for the express purpose of escaping their own unhappy consciences.
Wiggins observed: It is difficult to be offended by absurdity, and the post is patently absurd. Attempting to draw connections between the age old and unchanged behavior of humans on one instance of scientific discovery is... well... silly.
Spirited: In just two sentences you’ve managed quite nicely to make clear the inner contradictions of evolutionary humanism. Either primordial slime magically changed into dinosaurs, then into tumble bugs, fish, humming birds, apes, and then finally man, or it did not. If it did, then your claim of ‘unchanged behavior’ is sheer nonsense. Unchanged? From what?! From that of slime? Seaweed? Lizards?
The claim of ‘unchanged behavior’ has no place within a metaphysical system based on continuous change. It’s place, rather, is found in the Christian worldview.
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.