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.

 

[biblewonk]

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html

Extremely easy to find.

[biblewonk]

http://www.physics.gmu.edu/classinfo/astr103/CourseNotes/ECText/ch11_txt.htm

solar system

[Dimensio]

Nice links. Show that the term "evolution" as used on those webpages is directly related to the theory of evolution within biology. Show the link that connects the theory of evolution with events that led to the formation of the solar system, such that biological evolution cannot stand without it.

[PatrickHenry]

Every science is evolution. Every idea is religion. So every scientific idea is a religion ... and therefore false.

[Junior]

Your point? It has nothing to do with biological evolution.

[whattajoke]

Oh come on! Evil atheist evolution is everwhere! To wit:

The Evolution of beauty!

The Evolution of Sushi!

The Evolution of Rap Music!

And my favorite, The evolution of Meg Ryan!

[biblewonk]

My point is that evolution is not limited to biological evolution. I'm not counting all the misuse of the term either. You know, like when your boss says that your product has evolved to such and such a point. That implies that it was spontaneous and that you had nothing to do with it.

When I say evolution I'm talking about the overall theory that starts with a big bang and ends with us debating it. It is in no way confined to changes within already living organisms in an already existing universe no matter what Darwin may have had in mind at the time.

[Junior]

My point is that evolution is not limited to biological evolution.

In the context of our arguments on the "Theory of Evolution" it is. The "Theory of Evolution" is understood by everyone but you and possibly one other Freeper to refer specifically to the biological theory. Otherwise, you might as well mention naval evolutions (just about every process in the Navy is referred to as an "evolution"). Concatenating the biological theory with every other meaning of the word "evolution" is indicative of poor logic; when arguing, one should define one's terms as precisely as possible.

[Dimensio]

When I say evolution I'm talking about the overall theory that starts with a big bang and ends with us debating it.

There is no scientific theory that unites the origin of the universe, the origin of the solar system, the origin of life and the origin of species. All are covered under seperate scientific explanations, only some of which can be called "theory".

It is in no way confined to changes within already living organisms in an already existing universe no matter what Darwin may have had in mind at the time.

The theory of evolution is confined to changes within already living organisms (or specifically, populations of said organisms). The formation of the cosmos has no bearing on the mechanics of the theory of evolution, and as such it is an unrelated topic.

You are playing a losing game here, insisting on debating a theory that doesn't exist, or redefining a theory to cover topics that it does not address. You cannot call it our failing when we rightly point out that you're getting the facts wrong simply because we don't accept your arbitrary redefinition of the facts.

[whattajoke]

Thanks for the Word of the Day:

Main Entry: concatenate
Pronunciation: -"nAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
: to link together in a series or chain

[biblewonk]

Oh and another thing just came to mind. Suppose in some tunnel visioned idealistic alternate universe were the theory and concept of evolution really was limited to already living organisms, it still flys in the face of Genesis. God said that all of the creatures that He created produced after their own kind.

[whattajoke]

My point is that evolution is not limited to biological evolution.

But biological evolution is indeed limited to biology. It has been established that the "debate," such as it is, must be limited to biological evolution, which has many more knowns than unknowns, as opposed to the admittedly spotty record of cosmological origins and abiogenesis. The very definition of biological evolution defines it as keeping to biology. The only place where this is twisted and contorted is in creationist tracts, yours, and one other Freeper I can remember.

[biblewonk]

It would be artificial for me to limit my discussion to changes within already living organisms. The term and theory is broader than that. Carl Sagan, high priest of evolution, preached the whole gospel of evolutionin his Cosmos series. He started with the big bang end ended with us. He repeated the them over and over. This is what evolution is.

[Dimensio]

Suppose in some tunnel visioned idealistic alternate universe were the theory and concept of evolution really was limited to already living organisms,

It's already limited to living organisms in this universe. Your refusal to accept this isn't our fault, though it does indicate desperation on your part.

it still flys in the face of Genesis. God said that all of the creatures that He created produced after their own kind.

Ah, when your "theory of evolution covers cosmology" argument is thorougly shredded (not that you'll ever admit that you were wrong here), you resort to distraction.

[biblewonk]

But biological evolution is indeed limited to biology. It has been established that the "debate," such as it is, must be limited to biological evolution, which has many more knowns than unknowns, as opposed to the admittedly spotty record of cosmological origins and abiogenesis. The very definition of biological evolution defines it as keeping to biology. The only place where this is twisted and contorted is in creationist tracts, yours, and one other Freeper I can remember.

OK. Biological evolution is limited to biology and not abiogenesis. Do you suggest that there are no theories about how it started?

[Junior]

All critters do reproduce after their own kinds -- with slight, almost unnoticeable changes from generation to generation. No species springs full blown as Athena from the head of Zeus. Each generation would be identifiable to its parents as members of a particular population. However, those tiny little changes add up over hundreds or thousands of generations, so that, while no extent members of the population would notice anything different with their offspring, if one were to bring to life a member from the population that had existed thousands of generations before he'd probably not recognize his descendents.

So, the Bible didn't lie to you when it said that critters produce after their own kind.

[whattajoke]

Do you suggest that there are no theories about how it started?

Yes. I go on record stating there are no currently accepted scientific THEORIES on abiogenesis. There are a multitude of thoughts on it, but no theories.

I assume you are setting me up and will now send some link that uses the colloquial "theory," but I'm fine with that.

[Dimensio]

It would be artificial for me to limit my discussion to changes within already living organisms.

Of course it would. If you did that, then you would have to stay on topic, and you can't win this debate by staying on topic.

The term and theory is broader than that.

No. It. Is. Not.

The theory of evolution covers changes within populations of organisms as a means to explain the diversity of species. That's it. It does not cover the origin of the first life forms, it does not cover the formation of the solar system and it does not cover the beginnings of the universe. That you insist upon redefining the theory to cover those three irrelevant topics rather than admitting that you were in error regarding the focus of the theory indicates that you're less interested in the truth and more interested in playing word games so that you can argue against your own strawman definitions of science.

Carl Sagan, high priest of evolution,

Carl Sagan was a high priest of evolution? I wasn't aware that he was even a biologist. Could you justify your claim regarding Sagan? You should start with the whole "high priest" thing, since evolution -- not being a religion and all -- doesn't have clergy of any sort.

preached the whole gospel of evolutionin his Cosmos series.

Specific citations, please?

He started with the big bang end ended with us.

Which means that, at the very most, Sagan offered his opinions on how we came about, starting with the Big Bang, and ending with the theory of evolution. So Sagan believes that the theory of evolution, amongst other other scientific theories and hypothesis, is responsible for the existence of the human species. That does not make the theory of evolution inextricably linked with the theory of the origin of the cosmos. Sagan's words do not define the theory of evolution, and he wasn't even trying to claim that all that he stated was part and parcel of the theory of evolution -- that is your bogus strawman assertion. You're really reaching if you think that we're going to be fooled by this rather pathetic attempt at a semantics game.

He repeated the them over and over.

How so?

This is what evolution is.

Once again, your constant assertion does not make it true. Evolution only covers changes within populations of living organisms. That's it. You've yet to show any credible scientific authority directly citing the formation of the cosmos as a part of the theory of evolution.

[biblewonk]

I assume you are setting me up and will now send some link that uses the colloquial "theory," but I'm fine with that.

:-) Not a set up. It just gives me more food for thought as to how much this conversation reminds me of ones I've had with Catholics. I'll state what I believe to be a Catholic doctrine and they will say that it isn't canon. I'll cite entire web pages on the subject and millions of letters petitioning to make it canon and they state that it isn't official yet. I'll state that churches preach it and people believe it and are fully Catholic and they will say it is a shame the church is in such bad shape.

I believe this is a similar thing. I don't know what constitutes cannon/theory to you. To me if it is being taught and believed to be an alternate explanation for our existance to the bible that qualifies for all the discussion and argument I've made so far. You may be right, there may be no published theory at some certain level which constitutes canonized "theory" about abiogenesis. But ask around and see what people "believe".

[Junior]

It just gives me more food for thought as to how much this conversation reminds me of ones I've had with Catholics.

Really. I'm Catholic. I may not know everything about the canon, but I do know that most of what Protestants think is the Catholic canon turns out to be, at best, misconceptions and at worst regurgitated anti-Catholic propaganda that's been floating about since the Thirty Years War.