THE EVOLVING HUMANIST MANIFESTOS

Despite the growth of many mega churches and the seemingly endless proliferation of parachurch organizations (including numerous new ministries promoting the creationist revival), there also has been significant growth in humanist and other anti-Christian activities. There has also been a great upsurge of Islam and other religions in countries all over the globe, not to mention the growth of cultic and occultic pseudo-Christian organizations in great variety everywhere.

The world religious situation is in sad confusion, despite revivals of sorts in Africa, South America, and elsewhere. From the Biblical perspective, too frequently, "the god of this world [that is, Satan] hath blinded the minds of them which believe not" (II Corinthians 4:4), and "the whole world lieth in wickedness" (I John 5:19).

As far as organized humanism is concerned, it is worth noting that the American Humanist Association (AHA) has led in the development and publication of a new Humanist Manifesto. The AHA has become quite experienced in writing manifestos by now. Humanist Manifesto I was first published in 1933, at the time John Dewey and others organized the AHA.

Then, forty years later (1973), Humanist Manifesto II was published under the leadership of Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson. Now, thirty more years later (2003) comes Humanist Manifesto III, as just announced and published in The Humanist (volume 63, May/June 2003). In between Manifestos II and III, Paul Kurtz and several other leading humanists published what they called a Secular Humanist Declaration (Free Inquiry, October 1980) which they considered as a tentative third manifesto.

Humanism, therefore, is not exactly a static religion, fixed for all time by some primeval revelation. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on historical facts which do not change, and Christians are exhorted to "earnestly contend for the faith which was [once for all] delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).

The tenets of humanism evidently are presumed to evolve with the culture. Humanist Manifesto I had fifteen tenets which focused especially on promoting "social well-being" (Tenet Nine), "joy in living" (Tenet Twelve), and "the enhancement of human life" (Tenet Thirteen) in general. Such delightful results were to be achieved by replacing our present "acquisitive and profit-motivated society" by a "socialized and cooperative economic order" characterized by the "equitable distribution of the means of life" (Tenet Fourteen). In short, capitalism should be replaced by socialism, although the manifesto avoided using the actual word.

No proposals dealing with racism, sexism, minority rights, globalism, environmentalism, or other such modern concerns were mentioned at all, nor anything about sin and righteousness, or war and peace.

In the meantime, Nazism and the brutalities of totalitarianism came on the scene with the Jewish holocaust. Then World War II and its aftermath Communism seemed to conquer half the world; slaughtering and enslaving millions, all supposedly in the cause of the "equitable distribution of the means of life."

So humanism had to evolve to survive. Humanist Manifesto II was then developed by the American Humanist Association and soon signed by 282 leaders in education, science, and government—including such luminaries as Isaac Asimov, Julian Huxley, Francis Crick, Paul Kurtz, Corliss Lamont, Chauncey Leake, Kai Nielsen, Andre Sakharov, B. F. Skinner, Joseph Fletcher, Betty Friedan, Jacques Monod, Herbert Muller, Gunnar Myrdal, and many others of great eminence. Thousands more eventually signed it.

This manifesto had seventeen major tenets, many dealing with topics not mentioned at all in Manifesto I. A salutary allegiance to democracy, civil liberties, and human freedoms in general was first expressed. The separation of church and state was viewed as an imperative, and all discriminations based on race, religion, sex, age, or national origin were to be eliminated.

But sexuality was emphasized, with full right to divorce and abortion. No forms of sexual behavior between consenting adults should be prohibited, short of resulting in harm to others, according to the tenet on sex.

The manifesto deplored "the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds," looking forward to "a world order based upon transnational federal government." It expressed the wishful hope and belief that "war is obsolete," as should be "the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."

Ecology also came in for consideration. The manifesto declared that "ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord." "World poverty must cease," it also declared, and all "travel restrictions must cease." It all sounds very much like an envisioned government of the world by the United Nations Organization.

No doubt many of the emphases in Humanist Manifesto II were worthwhile, and it is true that many of the topics discussed therein are being more widely discussed by many people, many organizations, and many governments than ever before, but there are serious arguments against most of them, and if anything there is therefore more controversy than ever—not to mention little wars everywhere (Rwanda, Bosnia, Colombia, Pan-ama, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.).

In the meantime, interest in humanism has proliferated, and the AHA eventually decided that a new manifesto was needed, emphasizing basic values and ideals rather than all these details of social policy. So now we have Humanist Manifesto III, the drafting of which involved numerous people and organizations over a three-year period, under a committee chaired by Fred Edwords, and signed by a growing list of endorsers. These include, so far, such prominent humanists as Richard Dawkins, Ilya Prigogine, James Randi, Eugenie Scott, Oliver Stone, Gerald Larue, and other notables, as well as all living past presidents of AHA. Lester Mondale, a retired Unitarian minister and brother of former Vice President Walter Mondale, has the distinction of having been a signer of all three Humanist Manifestos!

Humanist Manifesto III is not organized into a list of distinct tenets, as were the first two. Instead it consists of six or seven brief paragraphs of generalities. Many fine phrases are turned, such as the following, with most of which everyone would agree.

"We welcome the challenges of the future, and are . . . undaunted by the yet to be known." "We are committed to . . . freedom consonant with responsibility." ". . . finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, . . ." "Humanists long for . . . a world of mutual care and concern, . . ." "We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, . . . so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life."

These and similar nice sentiments abound in Manifesto III. We Christian creationists also endorse freedom, equality, kindness, peace, and everything good and beautiful, and would certainly agree that most humanists are nice people with noble ideals and goals. We approve the evolution of Manifestos I and II into Manifesto III.

But there is still a problem. Although the three Manifestos differ greatly from each other, in details, they all still try to retain their basic foundation and rationale in an evolutionary atheistic world-view. And this error assures their ultimate failure.

For example the first two tenets of Humanist Manifesto I said that "humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created" and that "man is a part of nature and . . . has emerged as the result of a continuous process." Another tenet (five) claimed that "modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values." Its final paragraph insists that man alone "is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams."

The 1973 Manifesto, forty years later, was even more blatant in its denial of God and Creation. Its first tenet includes the following blasphemy: "As nontheists, we begin with humans, not God, nature not deity." This first 1973 tenet ended with an assertion that will make any Christian cringe: "But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species. . . . humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."

The second tenet began as follows: "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful." So they said!

The new Humanist Manifesto III, thankfully, is at least gentler in its rejection of God and Creation. But the first sentence of its introduction still starts off with: "Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, . . ." Then, later appears the key affirmation: "Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing."

So the nature of humanism has not really changed after all. It is a philosophy of life based on the false premise that there is no God, and therefore it is bound to fail. Speaking of the ancient humanists, Paul said: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, . . . and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator . . ." (Romans 1:22,25).

Then, speaking of the humanists of the last days, Paul said they would be "lovers of their own selves, . . . lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; . . . from such turn away" (II Timothy 3:2,4-5).

Benjamin Wiker, Moral Darwinism (InterVarsity, 2002).

Benjamin Wiker, " Playing Games with Good & Evil: The Failure of Darwinism to Explain Morality ," Crisis, May 2002.

Benjamin Wiker, " Darwin and the Descent of Morality ," First Things, November 2001, 10-13.

"Darwin as Epicurean: An Interview with Benjamin Wiker ," Touchstone, October 2002.

The American nation had been founded by intellectuals who had accepted a world view the that was based upon Biblical authority as well as Newtonian science. They had assumed that God created the earth and all life upon it at the time of creation and had continued without change thereafter. Adam and Eve were God's final creations, and all of mankind had descended from them. Did America's Founders Believe in a Creator God?

In fact, all the signers of the Declaration and the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, as well as the delegates to the various sessions of the Continental Congress-at least so far as known-were men who believed in God and the special creation of the world and mankind. Nearly all were members of Christian churches and believed the Bible to be the inspired Word of God. Did America's Founding Fathers Believe in Creationism?

For three decades, Holmes brought his distinctively Darwinian bias to the Court. He spoke candidly: "I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand." Do Laws and Standards Evolve?

Consequently, during Warren’s sixteen year tenure, the Court became a powerful societal force, striking down numerous long-standing historical practices while acknowledging that it was doing so without any previous precedent. [222] In short, the Court thus publicly affirmed that it had finally arrived at its fully evolutionary aspiration, no longer bound by history or precedent.

Under this current theory, judges are solely responsible for the evolution of the Constitution, and it is living and organic according to their decree. As Justice Cardozo acknowledged, "I take judge-made law as one of the existing realities of life." [223] And Chief-Justice Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) similarly declared, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." [224]

Harvard Professor Steven Wise summarizes this radical revolution in legal theory occasioned by the adoption of Darwin’s principles:

"To understand the strong normative appeal of evolutionary models, one must first appreciate that American law, like biology at the time of Darwin, faces the problem of providing a theory of creation which does not invoke a Supreme Being." E Donald Elliott, "The Evolutionary Tradition in Jurisprudence," 85 Columbia Law Review 38, 91 (1985). Elliott, who believes that the manner in which law is affected by the ideas that it routinely borrows from other disciplines has been largely unexplored, sets sail by chronicling how the Darwinian idea of evolution has affected the jurisprudential work of such legal scholars as Holmes, Wigmore and Corbin. Id. See also Jan Vetter, The Evolution of Holmes, Holmes and Evolution, 72 Cal. L. Rev. 343, 362 (1984) ("Holmes’ The Common Law is first of all an account of legal change, and its object in this respect is to exhibit the workings of Darwinian evolution in law"). Evolutionary jurisprudence was often shunned during the middle half of the twentieth century due to that period’s association of evolution with Spencer’s racist and reactionary Social Darwinism. Elliott, at 59, 76. It is shunned no longer. Id. See Roger D. Masters, Evolutionary Biology, Political Theory and the State, in Law, Biology & Culture—The Evolution of Law 171 (Margaret Gruter & Paul Bohannon eds., 1983). [225] Evolution and the Law:

Pearcey analyzes "the crucial role played by the Darwinian view of origins" in the development of American legal philosophy. "Darwinism is not only a biological theory," she emphasizes; "it is also the basis for a comprehensive world view -- implying a new philosophy of mind, knowledge, morality, and law." Pearcey sees a direct connection between Darwinism and the postmodern view that "the only objective and absolute truth is that there are no objective and absolute truths." She argues that a "thorough-going critique" of judicial activism "must begin with Darwinism as a scientific theory." Pearcey advocates taking "the intellectual battle into science itself. The controversy over Darwin versus design is not a peripheral issue," she insists, "but lies at the heart of the cultural crisis of our day." Darwinian Roots of Judicial Activism

"I've been predicting this for 20 years - that ultimately this theory of the living Constitution will destroy us, it will destroy the federal courts," Scalia said. WorldNetDaily: Scalia: Supreme Court jester

This [theistic evolution] has often been called derisively a 'stop-gap' theory. It is really a child of embarrassment, which calls God in at periodic intervals to help nature over the chasms that yawn at her feet. It is neither the Biblical doctrine of creation, nor a consistent theory of evolution, for evolution is defined as 'a series of gradual progressive changes effected by means of resident forces' (Le Conte). In fact, theistic evolution is a contradiction in terms. It is just as destructive of faith in the Biblical doctrine of creation as naturalistic evolution is; and by calling in the creative activity of God time and again it also nullifies the evolutionary hypothesis.[122] Darwinism and the Law

Our founders also recognized that only a virtuous people would deserve the continued blessings of liberty that had been bestowed upon them. Moreover, virtually all of our nation's founders believed that a virtuous people was a necessary pre-condition for self-government, and that virtue could not be had or sustained without religion. President Washington, for example, noted in his Farewell Address that "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Benjamin Rush was even more blunt: "Where there is no religion, there will be no morals." Morality Without God?

1785, If men are so wicked with religion,what would they be if without it? Franklin's Advice to Thomas Paine Regarding the Age of Reason

I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible" Jewish scholar Edward Simon D arwin at Nuremberg I

Those attacking Christianity sometimes point to the many religious wars and atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christ and the Church. They forget that not everyone self-labelled 'Christian' truly follows Christ. Also, that many times more people have been killed this century, most by their own governments, than in all religious conflicts, ever.¹ And this slaughter happened because of philosophies openly hostile to biblical Christianity, and flowing directly from evolutionary belief. About 130 million (not including the hundreds of millions killed by abortion) were slaughtered this century in the name of atheism, whereas all those killed in 'the name of Christ' in all of recorded history was at most around 17 million. See James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe, What if Jesus had never been born? Thomas Nelson, Nashville, 1994. The blood-stained 'century of evolution'

My basic case is that religion doesn't promote this kind of thing; it's the exception to the rule. The rule actually is that when we remove God from the equation, when we act and live as if we have no one to answer to but ourselves, and if there is no God, then the rule of law is social Darwinism-- the strong rule the weak. We'll find that, quite to the contrary, it is not Christianity and the belief in the God of the Bible that results in carnage and genocide. But it's when people reject the God of the Bible that we are most vulnerable to those kinds of things that we see in history that are the radical and gross destruction of human lives. Stand to Reason Commentary - The Real Murderers: Atheism or ...

On May 2, 2002, Mark Warner of Virginia became the first governor to publicly apologize to the many thousands of people who were sterilized against their will during the eugenics movement in the United States. Through 1979, about 8,000 people in Virginia were prevented from being able to have children because they were considered to be ‘unfit.’

A Yale University study has shed light on the dark side of evolution in the form of social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is the application of evolutionary principles to humans, most notably in the form of eugenics. As a result of the eugenics movement in the United States nearly 100,000 people were sterilized, many against their will. These sterilizations were legal in many states even as recently as 1974. The Dark Side of Evolution

My greatest mistake as a pro-life person was in thinking Roe v. Wade arrived by itself. I didn't want to link abortion to other controversial subjects, which scared or confused me, detracting from the obvious atrocity of butchering a living, unborn child. Because of my narrow focus, I ignored the horrific world-view and the socio-political-financial machinery fueling abortion.

I realized that evolution by natural selection has been the fundamental pro-life issue since Darwin himself. His argument that biologically inferior people threaten to deprive intellectually superior people of food and resources established a scientific-sounding rationale for genocide, which is used today by the abortion-based population control and family planning establishments, as well as others bent to this day on improving the race by laboratory methods.

Darwin argued that charitable acts by civilized men lead to evolutionary degeneration:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment . . . Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.3

Darwin himself evidenced how evolution made bigotry an academic exercise…when he applauded the extermination of "savage races" and "anthropomorphous apes:"

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.7

In his book, Behe shows how, at the one-cell level, life is a self-contained system of indispensable moving, chemical parts, so mutually dependent on each other that absent even one part, the system would not exist. Behe named this observation "irreducible complexity." By physical necessity, all of the molecules of even a one-celled life must have burst forth together as an integrated operating system. Rebecca Messall -- The Evolution of Genocide

Quite aside from Darwinism as science, which it is not, Darwinism itself leads directly and inevitably to Social Darwinism, an extremely destructive philosophy with suitably destructive social impacts -- impacts that have become increasingly apparent in our culture in recent decades with the rising dominance of Darwinism in our public schools.

It is a costly pity that we as a culture have not achieved the clarity of thought and found th courage to say to Darwinism, simply, "Show me", and if it cannot, "Get out of the classroom!" It hasn't (shown us), it won't and it cannot, Folks. When do we give this scientific quackery a decent burial? 1 posted on 11/28/2001 10:21 PM CST by Phaedrus Darwin and the Descent of Morality

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.