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.
Let's make it simple. If you can find one useful development (in medicine, biotechnology, forestry, agriculture, or some similar field) specifically arising from the doctrine of "creation science" please let us know. Just one will do. Consult the usual creationist websites. They wouldn't miss the opportunity to tell you about it. Now let's be careful here. I'm not asking for a list of religious people who work in such fields. I assume there are many, perhaps a big majority. I am looking for something -- anything! -- that has been derived from the teachings of creation "science." Go for it.
Thank you.
As far as I know, scientists who believe an Almighty Creator is at work behind the scenes tend to leave Him there as they carry on, using their God-given brains. They do not go about their work as if they must prove the existence of God. His existence is a given. And they produce as much in the way of useful scientific knowledge as any evolutionist out there.
As I have said, one could cut all the Evolutionists out of the picture of history and lose very little in the way of scientific knowledge. We would probably lose some nefariouis episodes of unnecessary suffering as well. At the same time, I doubt those scientists who subscribe to the Theory of Evolution go about their work just to prove the theory. I'm happy to see them do their thing, because I could very well benefit from their knowledge.
I like how you put it, though: "Specifically arising from the doctrine of . . . ." That puts a finger on things. We need to get a grip as to whether either viewpoint should be foisted upon the classroom. One does not need either theory to apply the facts.
I will keep an eye out for some examples as you requested, but I think it will be difficult to find any per my comments above.
[*Sigh'] Without a theory, all one has is a list of creatures. Nothing more. In that case, how would you select an animal upon which to test a drug for humans? Why not use toads? Their plentiful and cheap. Why do we use monkeys? They're so much more expensive to obtain and house. We use them because they're so closely related to us. We get more useful results that way. See what I mean? Doing medical research absolutely demands that evolution be a part of the background -- even if no one specifically thinks about Mr. Darwin.
I don't think so. Intelligent choices in this field can be made without the Theory of Evolution. Without a creationist viewpoint, too, for that matter.
Well said.
One could make his choice using the "eeny, meeny, miney, moe" technique, but it wouldn't be an intelligent choice. From a creationist viewpoint, because all creatures were created at once, one could select anything at all. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be too happy about taking a new "toad-tested" medicine, even if the creationist researcher assured me that all creatures are equally unrelated to us, so a toad is as good a test subject as an ape.
To make a truly intelligent choice, one would need to find a very closely related test subject. But once we talk about "closely related" we're in dangerous territory, aren't we? Be glad the researchers are evolutionists. You may one day have your life saved by the products of their research.
No. Not at all. I don't understand why you see it that way. Relationships between living creatures are how the world was established. It is quite natural to seek them, observe them, and make use of them.
M'God! That's something Darwin could have said.
Please. I don't deserve to be placed anywhere near his level of intelligence.
What is anti-Catholic about that?
Gee, not much other than everything.
Have you ever been to catechism?
Yep. Raised Catholic and went to catholic school. Still remember the nuns teaching two grades to a room.
The nuns used to knock us up side the head if we didn't pay attention. Was one of the reasons I quit going to church as a young man.
Very sorry to hear that you had a bad experience. While I don't disagree that Catholic schools are not hesitant to enforce discipline in the classroom, I never witnessed anything I would consider abusive. Given the discipline problems in many of our public schools, I think a "knock us up side the head" might not be a bad thing.
That's about as anti-Catholic as saying that a few priests molest children. These are true statements.
But you didn't say "a few" nuns. You broadly painted a all Catholic nuns as being "holy hags". If it was only a "few" nuns, then it is unfortunate that you left the faith based on the actions of the few and not on the actions of the majority.
If the truth is anti-something, then I guess the author is anti-Catholic in your view of reality.
The best lies are based on small truths. It is undeniable that the Catholic church has a problem in the priesthood that has not been correctly addressed.
To suggest that this means all priests are bad, or that Catholicism is a false religion is letting your emotions overcome your logic.
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.