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.
About as much as the article we're discussing here.
When will the sheeple wake up! Thomas Edison was evil incarnate! Lucifer, thy name is Edison!
Why do the creationists persist in their use of inflammatory language when they already know everyone is onto them for why they do it? A brief synopsis from the article includes use of the words insidious, Communists, anarchists, and other social revolutionaries..., godless materialism, administered via the knuckles of Sister Theresa and other holy hags..., , references to Roe v Wade and The Origin of The Species, more Communists and also Bolsheviks, etc., ad nauseum.
If creationists had a sound theory it would have stood up to the test of good scientific analysis. That has obviously failed to happen, and the creationist theory fails on its own merits or lack thereof.
So since creationists fail to understand, or more likely, fail to want to understand why no one in the real scientific community accepts their "theory" they then resort to emotional appeals via inflammatory language in order to get attention. But for these inflammatory appeals, creation theory would have died a dignified death rather than the ignominious torture it is requred to sustain before more reasoned minds finally prevail.
Whether you think of them or not, there are benefits pouring out of the biotech industry on almost a daily basis, and the researchers in that huge and growing field aren't creationists:
US biotech industry upbeat about 2004 with new approvals.
Like you know, right? It may interest you to learn that no one "refers to Darwin" when doing practical biological research, any more than professional astronomers refer to Galileo. But the work of scientific pioneers is the essential background for current scientific activities. (Perhaps you could help us out and give us some insight into how often biotech researchers refer to the account of Noah's Ark.)
By the way, if there were any advances of any nature brought about by creation "science," I'm sure we'd hear of it. The creationist websites would be trumpeting this as justification for their "theory." But there is nothing. Nothing at all. Strange, for something that's supposed to be "science." Where are the practical benefits from creation "science"?
Also, back in post 265 you said: "Evolution has brought about no advances I can think of, unlike Einstein's theories and quantum physics." I'm sure you weren't just name-dropping, and you must be familiar with Einstein's work. So tell me, what has relativity done to improve your life?
That being said, I refer them to www.creationscience.com where they can download bits or whole section of a book by a man named Walt Brown. Dr. Brown has challenged evolutionists to a scientific debate (strictly scientific), but so far has had no takers. He has no reward, as far as I can tell. I'd be curious as to what Mr.'s Retro and Henry would think.
Theological reasons aside, I think that there are enough holes in any kind of "this all took place over millions of years" theory because of all the discrepencies that have appeared over the years. For one, how can you have mammoth fossils and mammoth soft bodies that are identical? For another, where did the universal concept of a dragon come up if dinos died "millions of years" before humans came on the scene? For a third, why do fully formed human skeletons appear in places and in strata where they shouldn't be, since that layer of strata has fossils of some alleged ancestor? Fourth, and finally, how do people get off saying that such and such a rock is millions of years old, when the rocks that came out of Mt. St. Helens were also dated at "millions of years" old, when scientists knew bloody well when and where they were made?
Too many holes for this "millions of years" crap to be considered seriously. Other holes exist, but unfortunately they won't ever be probed by the likes of Retro, Henry, & Co. And they accuse creationists of being closed minded!!
That is an assertion I would like to see documented.
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.