Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The True Extent of Evolution's Corruption
Private Archives ^ | Feb. 22, 2004 | Reynaldo Mahatma Smith

Posted on 02/22/2004 2:32:07 PM PST by attiladhun2

 

Whether a new trend or mode of thought has a generally beneficial or corrupting effect is not usually apparent for some decades or even centuries from the time it first becomes widely accepted. However, in the case of Darwin's hypothesis, the insidious nature of his doctrine was revealed within a very short span of time.

Communists, anarchists, and other social revolutionaries of the nineteenth century were already confirmed materialists before Darwin began to espouse his ideas. What the Origin of Species did, however, was endow their atheism with something of a scientific aura. It turned an emotional attachment to godless materialism into an intellectual one. Bomb-slinging radicals needed not any longer blame their renunciation of the Church and her dogmas on abuse at the hands of some wicked old nun while attending catechism. The lumps on the tops of the heads of budding young radicals as they fidgeted in their chairs administered via the knuckles of Sister Theresa and other holy hags could now be considered only secondary evidence for atheistic materialism.

The old Menshevik revolutionaries were content to let the evolutionary process play itself out. They were still committed to Marx's dialectical process and believed that the Capitalist Stage of human development would eventually advance into the Socialist Stage. Some saw this as the Final Stage, while others foresaw a Communist Stage beyond that of universal socialism where crime and warfare would finally come to an end and the institution of the state itself would become obsolete. The, on the other hand, Bolsheviks believed they could bypass the slow process of social evolution altogether and usher in the Communist Stage outright. In this respect they could be called believers in social-punctuated equilibrium. In a way, they were right, because they did create a Monster, though not the Hopeful one envisioned by some of Darwin's recapitulationist expositors. In this case the lizard did not lay the egg which became a bird, but the lizard laid an egg and a sociopathic-mass murderer was hatched complete with all the accouterments of slaughter.

The notion of progress is an ancient one. A cursory reading of Greco-Roman literature will establish that. It was obvious to a philosopher like Aristotle that human society moved from less to more advanced states largely through the invention of new ideas and products. This was considered quite natural. However, until relatively recent times it was concomitantly believed that some things remained largely fixed. This was considered part of the nature of things as well. Some fixed things included the role of the male as father and provider and the role of the female as mother and nurturer. The institution of marriage between these two was considered as much a part of the natural order as the change of seasons. The law was another one of those things considered fixed. These concepts were like immovable boulders in a phenomenological river.

Darwin's hypothesis has radically changed all of that. Beginning in the late 19th Century, law schools began to replace the Scriptures as the basic legal foundation with the Darwinian hypothesis. Rather than a permanent reference point, the law began to be seen as an evolving concept. With a concept of law now more analogous to a glob of puddy than a slab of stone, the letter of the law and original intent were not as important to jurists trained under the new paradigm. Activist judges could now find ideas like "the separation of church and state" in the First Amendment when such a phrase does not exist there. They then could use this invented phrase to seriously compromise the Free Exercise clause of the Bill of Rights or even to ignore it almost completely.

Although Justice Black and the other members of the Supreme Court who gave us Roe vs. Wade did not dare cite The Origin of Species as evidence in their infamous 1973 ruling, who can doubt that evolution did not influence their thinking? Did they not study the same “monkey to modern man” charts we all did in high school and college? Did they not also hear (erroneously) the same lectures describing gill slits at certain stages of pre-natal mammalian development? This would indicate, one would suppose, a rather fishy ancestry for all us fur-bearing critters!

We are now beginning to see the final outworking of this legal Darwinism. Radical homosexual activists and their allies knew they were making little headway in shoving their lifestyle down our throats in the people's legislative chambers. So what more logical place to turn to have the legal imprimatur stamped upon their particular perversion than a gaggle of judges who see the law as so much silly puddy! The institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman is now in grave danger of being overthrown by activist judges who see such a definition as outmoded. In their minds if the law is an evolving thing then every other social institution that has a legal basis must be likewise evolving and cannot be considered permanent. Marriage was in a tenuous state to begin with in our modern world, and will not likely survive this latest onslaught.

In the last generation social activists and their friends in the legislative branch gave us the welfare state. This helped to virtually destroy the nuclear family in some minority communities. As a consequence, a horde of fatherless young men was turned loose upon society. Gang violence, drug addiction, and a second and even third generation of fatherless young people are even now spreading their misery far beyond the boundaries of "the hood." Many of these same social activists are now sitting on the judicial bench ready to rule traditional marriage out of existence by fiat. Who can doubt what the whole country will eventually look like after the final nail is hammered into the coffin of traditional marriage by these activist judges. Just drive around any big-city ghetto and view the garbage-strewn streets and the graffiti covering practically every wall. Observe the barred windows and doors. Look at the crowds of aimless young men hanging around the street corners shooting dice and drinking cheap wine. You are looking at the future of your own and nearly every other neighborhood. This is evolution, all right, but not quite what Darwin and his disciples had in mind.

 


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; darwin; evolution; socialdecay; society
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-294 next last

1 posted on 02/22/2004 2:32:08 PM PST by attiladhun2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2

You talkin' to me?


2 posted on 02/22/2004 2:37:47 PM PST by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
See www.drdino.com for reasons to believe we did not evolve from soup to apes.
3 posted on 02/22/2004 2:40:55 PM PST by Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2
One can also argue that the belief in Christianity led to the fall of the Roman Empire and the Dark Ages. Neither argument addresses the real question whether the belief is true or not.
4 posted on 02/22/2004 2:49:18 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2
Whew! At least Lysenkoism is spared an inglorious history.
5 posted on 02/22/2004 2:50:43 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2
This sentence evoluted.
6 posted on 02/22/2004 2:58:06 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2
It's a real stretch to blame Darwin for our current sad judicial state. Darwin was a scientist who advanced a theory, based on his observations, that may, or may not be correct.

If you're looking for the roots of the legal system's decay, you'd be smarter to check out the philosophers. Read Kant (who pre-dates Darwin by the better part of a century).

And, the word is spelled p-u-t-t-y. Not "puddy".

7 posted on 02/22/2004 3:00:45 PM PST by BfloGuy (The past is like a different country, they do things different there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2
bump
8 posted on 02/22/2004 3:24:33 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2
I just can't take someone named "Reynaldo Mahatma Smith" seriously
9 posted on 02/22/2004 3:39:40 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (It is always tempting to impute unlikely virtues to the cute)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: attiladhun2
...who can doubt that evolution did not influence their thinking?

Don't think that's what the author intends. Come on people, gotta say clearly what we mean if we want to change opinions.

10 posted on 02/22/2004 4:02:58 PM PST by Moosilauke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BfloGuy
Darwin wrote extensively about his own concerns regarding the world-shaking ramifications of his theory. He thought through the implications and chose to publish despite having had extensive discussions with his contemporaries.

1. He knew his theory supported the idea that nature can explain away God. (The serpent's lie in the Garden).

2. He knew at the time Karl Marx was pushing an Anti-God form of government.

3. He knew that his theory would be used to support "favored races".

As you say the culmination of ideas by men like Kant, Marx, Darwin have left black marks on humanity called Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...
11 posted on 02/22/2004 4:34:23 PM PST by bondserv (Alignment is critical!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah!
12 posted on 02/22/2004 4:37:04 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
13 posted on 02/22/2004 5:08:53 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Theory: a comprehensible, falsifiable, cause-and-effect explanation of verifiable facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
FUBAR
14 posted on 02/22/2004 5:10:27 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: js1138
As I've been saying all along, but you FOOLISH SIMPLETONS won't listen, the arch-fiend who was responsible for all the horrors of the 20th century wasn't Darwin, it was that evil, demented, science-minded, satanic monster, Thomas Edison! Think about it. Edison altered the divinely-ordained darkness. He diabolically illuminated the night. Since then, we've had coarse music, vulgar dancing, teen pregnancy, atom bombs, falling church attendence, homosexual rights, drug usage, and ever-higher crime rates. Hitler used electric lights! Stalin used electric lights. Mao used electric lights! Castro uses electric lights. Isn't the pattern obvious?

Wake up, before it's too late!!

15 posted on 02/22/2004 5:16:59 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
To say nothing of the impoverished candle makers.
16 posted on 02/22/2004 5:22:12 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Electricity is only a theory. Nobody really knows what an electron is.
17 posted on 02/22/2004 5:28:14 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
Electric lighting must be purged from the public schools!
18 posted on 02/22/2004 5:28:49 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The truth of the illuminated Timecube cannot be denied.

Heed the illuminated Timecube, lest your precious bodily fluids become unsanctified.

19 posted on 02/22/2004 5:34:11 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Look what that monster Edison destroyed:
Genesis
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Edison has blasphemed against the night! He has waged war on creation!! Edison is Satan!!!
20 posted on 02/22/2004 5:34:33 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-294 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson