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.
It appears your fears may be a form of projection -- i.e., if you didn't have the threat of eternal damnation hanging over your head you'd go on a licentious rampage -- so you think everyone would do this.
The prime example would be Darwin himself. He was, of course, the arch-evolutionist. To read what the creationists say about the ghastly effects of belief in evolution, one would expect that he'd have been a raving, blood-soaked maniac. Yet he lived the life of a quiet country squire. (Perhaps a creationist will claim that he was secretly Jack the Ripper.)
That's two separate assumptions to be made. All combinations thereof have been exhibited among varous groups at various times.
Need any help with that book project? Lots of credulous money out there.
Hmmm. . .I wonder what premise in evolutionary theory supports the mass murder of young in the womb.
Hmmm. . .as I recall, the predominant religion in Japan during the WWII period was Buddhism. They were hardly peaceful and gentle.
Yes, but it is totally redefines that responsibility. This is a redefinition of religion.
Care to elucidate on this paradigm?
As a Christian I am to love my neighbor as I love myself. The definition of love and what is good for me and my neighbor are also contained in the bible. In a universe of evolution where there is no God but that we are a product of evolution these questions have different answers for different reasons. If I and my neighbor are products of evolution and he is dragging down the human condition than how am I to react? What is the best for the species. Christians are often hated by evolutionists because we help the weak. This is viewed as contrary to survival of the fittest.
My concern here is not that behavior goes nuts without theism but only to show that non-theistic religions are still religions in that they address all of these issues.
This is a matter of how the evolution interprets his religion. Christians certainly have differences of how to apply their faith and so do evolutionists but the application is still there. The preachers of evolution do make such comments. Even Carl Sagan did in his Cosmos series, which I loved when is was an evolutionist. Carl lamented at how we spent so much time fighting, over religion, rather than advancing man.
How does the evolutionist feel about same sex marriage. Evolution most certainly has an opinion about that. Today the evolutionist sees the world as overpopulated and loves same sex marriage since it doesn't produce kids. There is certainly no moral issue with it in the religion of evolution.
Its amusing in an absurd kinda way trying to place that frail caracature of Darwin committing wanton acts of depravity.
Taiwan, Thailand, other S.E. Asian contries. Ive met quite a few Buddhist people (one is even studying to be a monk). They are generally very peaceful and have high moral standards.
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.