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 previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-294 next last
To: VadeRetro
That doesn't say if a positon is a lepton. But I'm only to the Bosons, slow reader.
241 posted on 02/24/2004 8:16:17 PM PST by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: BiffWondercat
You would understant all that if you had seen Former President Reagan's move about physics: "Bedtime for Bosons."
242 posted on 02/24/2004 9:21:00 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

.REKRAMECALP
243 posted on 02/24/2004 10:33:55 PM PST by jennyp (http://crevo.bestmessageboard.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
There is no science course in any reputable science department on the planet that I've ever heard of that teaches that there is a single "Theory of Evolution" that encompasses Cosmology, Stellar Evolution, Biological Evolution, and Musical Evolution. Assertions to the contrary are figments of the imaginations of overactive Creationsists who are looking to inflate the boogey-man with which they have chosen to do battle.

You have somehow lurched into the truth. When one imagines that he's engaged in a glorious cosmic struggle against the forces of evil, it's degrading to get stuck with a mere biological theory as the enemy. True spiritual warfare requires that the conflict be waged on a grand, universal scale. Inflate the enemy! The more powerful the foe, the more heroic the warrior who rises to the challenge. The fate of the whole universe must be at stake! Nothing less will do. Thus, the enemy becomes all of science. Indeed, although almost never explicitly acknowledged, the enemy is reason itself.

244 posted on 02/25/2004 2:52:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Restore the night! Smash your light bulbs! Edison is the source of all evil in the modern world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; longshadow
There's also an element of hiding behind definitions. Many creationists will claim "I LOVE science; I just reject evolution."

The listener is invited to believe that the only sticking point is a question in biology, the origin of the diversity of life. Ergo, the speaker is not a kook. In fact, the speaker rejects cosmology, nuclear physics, geology, paleontology, astronomy, and probably geometry.

245 posted on 02/25/2004 5:40:15 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Really. I'm Catholic.

Interesting. I wish I could remember all these things about freepers. The Catholic vs Fundamentalist debate is certainly a different can of worms.

246 posted on 02/25/2004 5:46:22 AM PST by biblewonk (I must try to answer all bible questions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: BiffWondercat
A positron is the antielectron and is thus a lepton. But read on. I'm finding I haven't been paying enough attention to spin. (In fact, up to this point I'd been disciplining myself to recognize and reject spin.)
247 posted on 02/25/2004 5:55:44 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
...and probably geometry.

Not to mention Geometric Probability

248 posted on 02/25/2004 6:32:15 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

Lurking placemarker.

249 posted on 02/25/2004 8:03:27 AM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Pant Hoot!

I've been trying to get it through "Brittney Spears Explains Physics" website, but i keep going back to the homepage...
250 posted on 02/25/2004 4:04:36 PM PST by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
I see you!
251 posted on 02/26/2004 1:33:47 PM PST by Condorman (Changes aren't permanent, but change is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Condorman; balrog666
Oook! Oook!
252 posted on 02/26/2004 5:01:19 PM PST by PatrickHenry (A compassionate evolutionist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Now then, where (other than the internet) is the comparable "creation science" industry?

Your link makes absolutely no mention of the Theory of Evolution as being alone responsible for these biotech advancements. Do you know how many Creationists have assisted in the development of biotechnology? Do you think there are none at all? May I show you one or two?

And I really think it is a shade unfair for you to draft your response from the internet while requesting that mine come from elsewhere.

253 posted on 02/26/2004 7:19:13 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." -- Theodosius Dobzhansky

So, if I quote the Bible will you receive it as equal authority to your buddy, Theo?

254 posted on 02/26/2004 7:20:25 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
No reason one can't believe in evolution and Divine Providence.

. . . and fairy tales, and . . .

255 posted on 02/26/2004 7:21:18 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Dobzhansky explains what he means. (Makes a fine case, even if he's writing in 1973. Evidence that has come along since then only bolsters his case in any event.)
256 posted on 02/26/2004 7:25:41 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
I don't doubt for a moment that Dobzhansky makes a fine case. I can make a fine case for Evolution, too. But is it the ONLY case for understanding life as we know it? My mind is not that closed, and neither are the minds of a good many who believe God is in charge of life as we know it.

At any rate, the gist of this article is that adherents of Evolution Theory have wreaked havoc when their assumptions are applied sociologically. I believe this to be true to a large degree.

257 posted on 02/26/2004 7:36:55 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
So, if I quote the Bible will you receive it as equal authority to your buddy, Theo?

Gee, just what does the Bible say about genetics? Is it better than the Vedas?

258 posted on 02/26/2004 8:06:53 PM PST by balrog666 (Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
. . . and fairy tales, and . . .

Isn't that covered in believing in Divine Providence?

(Sorry, I just can't resist).
259 posted on 02/26/2004 8:39:07 PM PST by Dimensio (I gave you LIFE! I -- AAAAAAAAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Ha! Understood.
260 posted on 02/27/2004 4:17:40 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-294 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