The True Extent of Evolution's Corruption

Private Archives ^ | Feb. 22, 2004 | Reynaldo Mahatma Smith

[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.

 

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This caught my eye... how can a 19th Century scientist influence 7th Century law??

Whoops! Left off the sarcasm tag.

My thought was that Darwin has about as much to do with the modern practice of law as it does with 7th century Roman law. It has nothing at all to do with it.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Suppose for a second that evolution were true and that there were no God.

This is the Creationist strawman evolutionary theory. Evolutionary biology does not presuppose there is no God.

[Junior]

As a Christian I am to love my neighbor as I love myself.

This is a variation of the "Golden Rule" (Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you).  This is such a no-brainer for peaceful co-existence it has been derived from first principles by numerous philosophies and religions, not just Judeo-Christianity as a prescription for the good of the common weal.  Indeed, Wicca also has a similar guiding philosophy.

The definition of love and what is good for me and my neighbor are also contained in the bible [sic].

The Greeks supplied most of the Bible's definitions of love (ever hear of agape?).  Many religions and philosophies supply definitions of what is good for you and your neighbor.  Ayn Rand was an atheist, but her philosophy of enlightened self-interest would allow people to co-exist peacefully.

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.

Evolution deals with survival of populations, not individuals. Helping your neighbor is a sound survival tactic (because he will probably help you in return, should he desire further assistance from you). Humans are social critters. We have to be. We are not strong enough or fast enough to survive in nature on our own, so we need to work together. Social constructs facilitate this.  What is best for the species is that it survives, and that requires the maximum number of individuals of that species survive to breeding age.

Christians are often hated by evolutionists because we help the weak. This is viewed as contrary to survival of the fittest.

Two things.  First, Christians are not often hated by evolutionists.  Many of the latter are also the former (me included).  Secondly, "survival of the fittest" is an observation, not a commandment.  It deals with populations, not individuals, as I pointed out above.

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.

Evolution does not address the issues in the manner you seem to believe it does.  Evolution is simply a theoretical framework to describe the observation that populations of organisms change over time.  It makes no pronouncements on the right or wrong of any action — that is the job of society.  It may observe that certain factors are more conducive to the survival of a species, but it doesn't draw moral conclusions from that observation because, as a scientific theory it cannot.  Hence, it cannot be a religion, regardless of how often you make that pronouncement.  Indeed, your efforts to tar the Theory of Evolution with the "religion" brush are straight out of the liberal playbook ("repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it"). 

[bondserv]

The religious leaders in the time of Jesus, and the religious leaders during the Dark Ages were more into the "traditions of men" rather than the commandments of God. Christianity is not about traditions set up by men, it is about only following Jesus Christ.

Go see "The Passion of the Christ" to better understand the tradition that Jesus Christ was trying to establish. You will see that the Will of God is far different than what most religious leaders perceive it to be. Following Christ will lead you to where the missionaries in Afghanistan ended up, not to a palace on top of a hill.

Mark 7:7-9
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Gal 1:9-10
9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Col 2:8-10
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

[Junior]

Tibet, I believe. 'Course, the Chinese pretty much stomped them flat. Pacifism does have its limitations...

[biblewonk]

Even if someone believes that Darwinism describes some aspects of social behavior, that would not justify immoral behavior. I believe greed is built in. That does not make greedy behavior moral.

It doesn't describe it, it defines it. As a Christian I should, part of my evangelism is to tell people to repent of their sins. To the evolutionist the wiccan doctrine of "an it harm none do thy own will" makes quite a bit of sense. There is no such thing as sin unless you hurt someone, maybe. Unless that person is a burdon to society. Some evolutionists go the next step and believe that eliminating the weak is a big part of evolving to the next step.

[biblewonk]

Evolutionary biology does not presuppose there is no God.

If God says A and evolution says B, then yes it does. It redefines the God of the bible into someone who doesn't tell the truth or isn't capable of giving us His Word.

[biblewonk]

How pretty. You sure know your html.

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

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.

My lord, could this article be any more anti-Catholic?????

[Junior]

To the evolutionist the wiccan doctrine of "an it harm none do thy own will" makes quite a bit of sense.

It should make sense to you, too. It's a restatement of the "Golden Rule."

[<1/1,000,000th%]

If God says A and evolution says B,...

But it doesn't. This is creationist spin.

[biblewonk]

Still reading.

[biblewonk]

But it doesn't. This is creationist spin.

Genesis says A and evolution says B. Genesis says God made the heavens and the earth in 6 days. The order of the things created does not match the order of evolution at all even for long day theistic evolutionists.

[biblewonk]

Evolution does not address the issues in the manner you seem to believe it does. Evolution is simply a theoretical framework to describe the observation that populations of organisms change over time.

It does this in contradiction to the Bible. If God says He created Adam out of the dust, evolution says "No, Adam is a man and must have come from another man". Evolution says that the supernatural can't happen and that we absolutely must trust only natural observation. By saying this it deletes God. By definition it stands in contradiction to God.

It makes no pronouncements on the right or wrong of any action — that is the job of society.

It sets up a "framework" for society to do this apart from God. It tells society that the bible is wrong therefor God cannot exist as described in the bible.

It may observe that certain factors are more conducive to the survival of a species, but it doesn't draw moral conclusions from that observation because, as a scientific theory it cannot.

It lays the framework for man to do this in a bold new way apart from God.

By the way I believe we are still one for one on the repetition thing.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I didn't realize you were a young earther. You also don't like geology, cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, atomic theory, radiology, etc.

I'm using the wrong arguments, but I hesitate to get into Biblical history because people don't usually like it (especially my wife). My faith is not as dependent on the medium. God can speak as he chooses.

[biblewonk]

I didn't realize you were a young earther. You also don't like geology, cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, atomic theory, radiology, etc.

Yes I am. If God created Adam from the dust into a full grown man, which one of those sciences would you use to prove God to be true? Science is blind deaf and dumb to the supernatural.

I'm using the wrong arguments, but I hesitate to get into Biblical history because people don't usually like it (especially my wife). My faith is not as dependent on the medium. God can speak as he chooses.

What medium, the bible?

[Junior]

If God says A and evolution says B...

Okay. Here's the crux of the issue. The first couple of chapters of Genesis can be read as an allegory that would be in complete keeping with the observed universe. Therefore, God and evolution would not be at odds. This is the tack taken by most Christians, including the Pope. Only a small group of U.S. fundamentalist Christians reads those chapters literally.

Secondly, and this is going to sound like heresy but it's not:  have you ever considered the Bible might not be inerrant?  The only evidence we have that this is the Word of God is its claim to be so.  The Mormons claim The Book of Mormon is also divinely inspired, but you'd be hard pressed for non Latter Day Saints to accept it as Holy Scripture.  The same could be said for the prophesies of Ellen G. White of the Seventh Day Adventists. 

Also, the Bible has been edited considerably over the millennia.  We've had threads here on FR detailing the differences between the Gospels as written by early Christians and the Gospels as we know them now (one thread mentions early versions of the Gospel of Luke — differing from more modern versions — found in an early Christian meeting place).  Even the Old Testament has undergone some revisions, judging from surviving texts throughout the Middle East.  So, we have strong evidence that Scripture has undergone some changes in its passage through time to the present.  Some researchers have gone on to support this evidence by parsing the writing styles found within the Bible and have come to the conclusion that many of the Old Testament books are merged and edited from several sources (this explains, for instance, the two accounts of Creation in Genesis).

The Bible may be inspired, but it has been written and edited by men, each with his own personal axe to grind (Martin Luther wanted to ditch the Epistle of James because he didn't like its implications).

[Junior]

Having an HTML editor like FrontPage helps...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The Bible as it has come into history with all of the surrounding literature and commentary.

[Junior]

Evolution says that the supernatural can't happen and that we absolutely must trust only natural observation.

Evolution makes no pronouncement on the supernatural. Methinks you don't really know what the Theory of Evolution states.