Congressman Henry Waxman
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.
So you say. I guess since you typed it in capital letters you must be right.
Yup. Of course what this author ignores, and what Lysenkoism is only one evidence of, is that the majority of hard leftists never accepted Darwinism. Even among those who claimed to be Darwinists most are found, on examination, to have (vastly over) emphasized the Lamarkian elements that Darwin retained, but which were abandoned with the development of modern genetics.
It's strange, however, that a creationist would think this fact helps their case.
I wonder why. Perhaps we can find a hint somewhere. Ah, here's some truth from a most unlikely source: (Institute for Creation Research):
DARWIN'S INFLUENCE ON RUTHLESS LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM.
That rascal Darwin ... covering all the bases.
This is just utter nonsense. The theory of evolution is not taught in law school nor does it have anything to do with the law.
Furthermore, even before Darwin, the Scriptures were not considered to be the "basic legal foundation" of the law.
Is it just me, or does the evil college professor in that cartoon look like a stereotypical evil Jew from old anti-semitic tracts?
Especially if they think they don't have to pay taxes on the income.....
And government funding of science is bad why? Expecially when it comes to pure scientific research (rather than applied science), many types of scientific research could never end up being profitable, in of themselves, so the private sector would never fund them.
So you are saying that if you were walking down a dark alley at night and were approached by a group of baggily dressed men, that appeared to be carrying bricks, you would not be relieved to find out those bricks were actually Bibles. Heck they might even say, "Friend, this is a rough neighborhood, you shouldn't be out at night alone. Would you like us to walk with you until you reach your destination?"
History has shown us that when a group of people is Biblically literate their lives are different because they intimately know God (Founding Fathers), whereas problems arise when those in power chose to keep the masses Biblically illiterate (Dark Ages). How can someone claim to follow Christ if they don't spend time with who He is (In the Word)? I am not to sure the Crusaders each had a Bible in their pack that they took out to study along their journey.
Truer words were never spoken. I never fail to try and point out that evolution is religion and I'm glad this writer put it so well. Today evolutions will go to their graves swearing evolution is science and not religion.
Pure scientific research deals with the type of research that does not lead to direct real-world applications. There is little or no money that the private sector could make from research on, for example, sub-atomic particles. However, pure research lays down the basis for applied research, which does lead to profitable real-world effects.
Studying evolution, by itself, will not likely lead to profits. However, the applied research that springs from our knowledge of evolution (such as advances in biotechnology) is more than worth the investment.
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.