Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish
In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory: punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism, a revamped version of the original Darwinism. No matter the variant though, evolution serves as the creation myth for the theological and philosophical worldview of Evolutionary Humanism (Naturalism).
“Evolution is a religion,” declared evolutionary Humanist Michael Ruse. “This was true of evolution in the beginning and it is true still today…One of the most popular books of the era was ‘Religion Without Revelation,’ by Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley…As always evolution was doing everything expected of religion and more.” (National Post, Canadian Edition, 5/13/2000)
“Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.” (Humanist Manifestos I & II, 1980, Introduction, Paul Kurtz)
The primary denominations of Evolutionary Humanism are Cultural Marxism/Communism, Secular Humanism, Postmodernism, and Spiritual Communism. The offshoots of these are among others, New Age/green environmentalism/Gaia, socialism, progressivism, liberalism, multiculturalism, and atheism. Individually and collectively, these are modernized versions of pre-Biblical naturalism (paganism).
All worldviews begin with a religious declaration. The Biblical worldview begins with, “In the beginning God…” Cosmic Humanism begins, “In the beginning Divine Matter.” Communism, Postmodernism, and Secular Humanism begin with, “In the beginning Matter.” Matter is all there is, and it not only thinks, but is Divine:
“…matter itself continually attains to higher perfection under its own power, thanks to indwelling dialectic…the dialectical materialists attribution of ‘dialectic’ to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones.” (Dialectical Materialism, Gustav A. Wetter, 1977, p. 58)
In explicitly religious language, the following religionists offer all praise, honor, and glory to their Creator:
“We may regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, as the cause of all causes, as the creator of heaven and earth.” (Vladimir Lenin quoted in Communism versus Creation, Francis Nigel Lee, 1969, p. 28)
“The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be.” (Carl Sagan, Cosmos, 1980, p. 4)
Evolutionary Humanism has demonstrated itself to be an extremely dangerous worldview. In just the first eighty-seven years of the twentieth century, the evolutionist project of radically transforming the world and mankind through the power of evolutionism has led to the extermination of between 100-170 million ‘subhuman’ men, women, and children.
Deadly Problems
First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. This view demolishes both moral ethics and social taboos, thereby liberating man to do as he pleases. Over time this results in a lawless climate haunted by bullies, predators, despots, psychopaths, and other unsavory elements.
Perhaps Darwin could not envision the evil unleashed by his ideas. Nonetheless, he did have some inkling, for he wrote in his “Autobiography” that one who rejects God,
“…can have for his rule of life…those impulses and instincts which are strongest or…seem to him the best ones.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p.7)
Humanist Max Hocutt realizes that materialist ethics are hugely problematical, but offers no solution. An absolute moral code cannot exist without God, however God does not exist, says Hocutt. Therefore,
“…if there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no reason why we should obey it. Human beings may, and do, make up their own rules.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 138-139)
Jeffrey Dahmer, a psychopath who cannibalized his victims, acted on Darwin’s advice. In an interview he said,
“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then…what is the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought…I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime.” (Dahmer in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 11/29/1994)
With clearly religious overtones, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell summarizes the amoral materialist ethic:
“Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its relentless way.” (Russell, “Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” 1957, p. 115)
Next, materialist epistemology and metaphysics dispossesses man of soul, free will, conscience, mind, and reason, thereby dehumanizing (animalizing) man and totally destroying not only the worth, dignity, and meaning of human life, but the possibility of freedom. The essence of this annihilation is captured in the following quotes:
Man is “but fish made over…” declared biologist William Etkin (Pushing the Antithesis, Greg L. Bahnsen, p. 224). And his life is but a “partial, continuous, progressive, multiform and continually interactive, self-realization of the potentialities of atomic electron states,” explained J.D. Bernal (1901-1971), past Professor of Physics at the University of London (The Origin of Life, Bernal, 1967, xv). Furthermore, “The universe cares nothing for us,” trumpets William Provine, Cornell University Professor of Biology, “and we have no ultimate meaning in life.” (Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist, Sept. 1988)
Man... “must be degraded from a spiritual being to an animalistic pattern. He must think of himself as an animal, capable of only animalistic reactions. He must no longer think of himself…as capable of ‘spiritual endurance,’ or nobility.” By animalizing man his “state of mind…can be ordered and enslaved.” (Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, “Degradation and Shock,” Chapter viii)
Finally, Evolutionary Humanism posits the notion that despite the fact that man is “but fish made over…” there are in fact, some exceptions to this rule. For it happens---by chance of course---that some lucky ‘species’ and ‘races’ of the human animal are more highly evolved (superior) and therefore enlightened than the others, who are---unluckily for them---less evolved and as a consequence, subhuman. Paired to this view is the idea that if a species or race does not continue to evolve (progress up the evolutionary ladder), it will become extinct. Together, these ideas lead logically to the deadly conclusion that in order to preserve the fittest of the species---or the spiritually evolved, as is the case with Spiritual Communism--- it is morally incumbent upon the superior to replace (via the science of eugenics and population control) and/or liquidate the subhumans. In his book, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” (1871) Charles Darwin foresaw this eventuality:
“At some future period…the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated.” (Descent, 2nd ed., p. 183)
In practice, the materialist worldview is a hellish recipe for catastrophe, as was amply demonstrated by the 20th century’s two most blood-soaked political movements--- pagan Nazism and atheist Communism. Both rejected God, and both were animated by Darwinism
Nazi Germany
Hitler’s murderous philosophy was built on Darwinian evolution and preservation of favored species. In his book, “Evolution and Ethics, British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith notes,
“The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice.” (1947, p.230)
It was Darwinism that inspired Hitler to try to create---by way of eugenics--- a superior race, the Aryan Man. In pursuit of his ambition, Hitler eliminated what he considered were inferior human animals, among which were for example, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and Christians.
Evolutionism in Nazi Germany resulted in gas chambers, ovens, and the liquidation of eleven million “useless eaters” and other undesirables. Evolutionist Niles Eldridge, author of “Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life,” reluctantly concurs. Darwin’s theory, he acknowledges,
“has given us the eugenics movement and some of its darker outgrowths, such as the genocidal practices of the Nazis.” (2005, p. 13)
The Soviet Union
Even though Karl Marx wrote his Communist Manifesto before Darwin published his “On the Species,” the roots of Communism are nonetheless found in Darwinism. Karl Marx wrote Fredrich Engels that Darwin’s ‘Origin’,
“is the book which contains the basis in natural science for our view.” (Marxian Biology and the Social Scene, Conway Zirkle, 1959)
Stephane Courtois, one of the authors of The Black Book of Communism, relates that,
“In Communism there exists a sociopolitical eugenics, a form of Social Darwinism.” (p. 752)
Vladimir Lenin exulted that,
“Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another (and) that they were created by God, and hence immutable.” (Fatal Fruit, Tom DeRosa, p. 9)
Lenin exercised godlike power over life and death. He saw himself as, “the master of the knowledge of the evolution of social species.” It was Lenin who “decided who should disappear by virtue of having been condemned to the dustbin of history.” From the moment Lenin made the “scientific” decision that the bourgeoisie represented a stage of humanity that evolution had surpassed, “its liquidation as a class and the liquidation of the individuals who actually or supposedly belonged to it could be justified.” (The Black Book of Communism, p. 752)
Alain Brossat draws the following conclusions about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and the ties that bind them:
“The ‘liquidation’ of the Muscovite executioners, a close relative of the ‘treatment’ carried out by Nazi assassins, is a linguistic microcosm of an irreparable mental and cultural catastrophe that was in full view on the Soviet Stage. The value of human life collapsed, and thinking in categories replaced ethical thought…In the discourse and practice of the Nazi exterminators, the animalization of Other…was closely linked to the ideology of race. It was conceived in the implacably hierarchical racial terms of “subhumans” and “supermen”…but in Moscow in 1937, what mattered…was the total animalization of the Other, so that a policy under which absolutely anything was possible could come into practice.” (ibid, p. 751)
21st Century America
Ronald Reagan loved God and America. America he said is, “the moral force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul into bondage.” (Republican National Convention, Houston TX, 8/17/1992)
Even though he was optimistic about America’s future he nevertheless cautioned that America must maintain her reliance on God and her commitment to righteousness and morality. He liked quoting Alexis de Tocqueville’s insightful analysis of the source of America’s greatness:
“Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret and genius of her power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” (In the Words of Ronald Reagan, by Michael Reagan)
As America moves into the 21st century, we have yet to admit a shameful, dark secret. Evolutionism…the creation myth, that empowered Nazism and Communism, is being taught to America’s youth in our government-controlled schools. The animalization of Americans is well advanced and coupled to a corresponding slow collapse of human worth. Already we hear of human life spoken of in dehumanizing categories such as ‘vegetable,’ “non-persons,” and ‘uterine content.’
Ominously, Evolutionary Humanism has also outstripped Judeo-Christian precepts in our universities, judiciary, federal bureaucracy, corporations, medicine, law, psychology, sociology, entertainment, news media and halls of Congress. As Biocentrism it fuels the nonhuman animal rights project, the gay rights movement, radical feminism, and the increasingly powerful and influential green environmentalist program, which demands that America submit to the draconian mandates of the Kyoto Treaty.
America, the “moral force that defeated communism” is on the verge of completely rejecting God, the natural order, and moral absolutes and instead, embracing the godless religion of evolution, amorality, and the unnatural.
Evolutionary Humanism is the most dangerous delusion thus far in history. It begins with the ‘animalization of Other,’ in tandem with the elevation of the ‘superior,’ for whom this serves as a license to make up their own rules, abuse power, and force their will onto the citizens. This is accompanied by a downward spiraling process that pathologizes the natural order, moral ethics, virtue, and social taboos while simultaneously elevating narcissism, tyranny, cruelty, nihilism, confusion, perversion, sadism, theft, and lying to positions of politically correct “new morality,” which is then enforced through sensitivity training, speech codes, hate crime laws, and other intimidation tactics. If not stopped, as history warns us, this rapidly escalating downward process leads inevitably to totalitarianism, enslavement, and eventually mass murder.
In a portent of things to come, evolutionist B.F. Skinner said:
“A scientific analysis of behavior dispossesses autonomous man and turns the control he has been said to exert over to the environment. The individual…is henceforth to be controlled…in large part by other men.” (Understanding the Times, David Noebel, p. 232)
Copyright Linda Kimball 2007 www.patriotsandliberty.com/
Linda is the author of many published essays on culture, worldview, and politics. Her essays are published both nationally and internationally. She is a member of MoveOff.org
I agree.
Perhaps it’s just that I’ve not had my morning coffee, but even after reviewing previous posts I’m not sure I follow why this is such an important point in the larger context of the thread.
Oh, I never pay attention to that. (:
tacticalogic seems to want to discuss the point within the larger context; I'm willing.
I seem to spend a lot of my time on rabbit trails these days! I did come in on the middle of a discussion between tacticalogic and betty boop; sometimes I just can't help myself.
The disagreement started over whether or not Muslims are creationists. Betty boop argues they are not, and uses arguments that remove religious beliefs from the equation to reach that conclusion.
Tell that to the Catholics and Jews
On the other hand, as betty boop pointed out earlier, one can not judge every creationist to be of a Christian worldview,
True, there's also the fundamentalist Muslims who are hard core creationist
or even to believe in One God (Hindus come to mind, or the ancient Greek myths).
Speaking of the Hindus, they are neither Christian or Secular, So they have no religious agenda as a reason to favor Evolution vs Creationism vs ID. Yet today in India they teach evolution.
Point being, if the science behind Creationism and ID was so solid and evolution all just one big sham to promote Atheism, why is it that when groups (like the Hindus, Japanese Shintos, etc.) who for lack of better words "Don't have a dog in this fight" look at the evidence and always choose Evolution?
From her post #254 -
People whose entire education consists in rote memorization of the Q'uran as the only thing needful in life have never had an opportunity to cultivate reason, or the life of the mind. For this reason, I objected to Stultis declaring Islamists creationists; for the debate between creationists and evolutionists is premised on reason, on rationality; and the typical "graduate" of a Madrassah cannot even get into that game.The deliberate misquoting of another's argument is cheap as well.
It seems the only purpose to declare Islamists as "creationists" is to lump them into the same category as creationists who are well-educated and who have reflected deeply about certain claims of Darwinist theory, and have reasonable objections to them. By tossing both Islamists and creationists (as just defined) into the same basket, some important distinctions are lost. "Creationism" and "creationist" then can become words of opprobrium, and then perhaps people might say there's not a dime's worth of difference between one creationist and another. The deliberate losing of important distinctions is a very cheap strategy.
What do you mean when you say, "Tell that to the Catholics and Jews"?
Indeed. And I think we have to realize that while we can't "jump out of our skin", we have to realize that objectivity requires a certain amount of conscious effort to make allowances for it.
I cannot rely on my on observations an perceptions with regard to anything involving the colors red or green because I am color blind. I know this. If I dogmatically treat reality as being exactly as I perceive it, I'll spend the rest of my life at the next intersection I come to, waiting for the light to change to a color that doesn't exist.
I was merely trying to state that it's generally not useful to compare apples and oranges....
People can use anything as an excuse for their evil behavior, and they do. Evil exists and exists everywhere. It's not hard to see where it comes from.
Better questions that could be asked are: "What good has naturalism been the enabler for?" and "Where does good come from and who do we *blame* for it?"
It seems to me that the question isn't best asked why there's evil in the world or who's responsible for it, but why is there good in the world an who's responsible for THAT? Christianity is one of the few religions in the world, if not the only one, that teaches and insists on loving and forgiving one another, placing another's needs and wants above your own, laying down your life being the ultimate sacrifice and demonstration of love for another.
You can criticize it all you want because some have abused it, but what about those other questions?
I agree. The disagreement started at about 132. At 142, she states that calling Muslims (Isamofascists) creationists is nonsensical. My disagreement with her is based on those arguments.
I'm not so much criticizing Christianity as much as pointing out the fallacy of not wanting to teach evolution in science class because people have used "naturalism" to commit evil.
Love and forgiveness aren't things that I would want a science teacher exploring either.
What does this have to do with the Catholics and Jews? ...?
Also, you imply that the content of school curriculum in places like India and Japan comes from some sort of exercise in which the evidence for various viewpoints is considered and weighed in an objective manner. If there were enough evidence for Creationism/ID, then surely that would be what the Hindus and Shintos are teaching in their schools. But since they’re teaching evolution now (reallly???), that must mean...evolution has more...evidence...for it?
I’m sorry I just can’t follow you... There is so much that is wrong with that, I’m not sure where to start.
.30C: A surprise left hook! Oooh, that's gotta hurt! Quickly followed by the classic right uppercut to the jaw! He's down! He's down! Bravo, betty boop!
And the answer is........?
Or did I miss it? Where's tl's answer to the question?
The original disagreement was over whether Muslims are creationists. If we call Muslims the apples, and Christions the oranges, the it's a queston of are they both fruit? Your argument amounts to an assertion that what constitutes "fruit" is not a matter of whether it grows on trees, but what color it is.
Welcome to FR. You can tell a good post by how quickly the evos descend on it and try to change the subject or discredit you.
So, js1138, how is that rubbish? You mean to say that scientists DON’T engage in that kind of immature, selfish behavior? That they’re pure as the new driven snow?
lifebygrace is right.
Science fraud:
Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts
It May Look Authentic; Here’s How to Tell It Isn’t
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts
If it will make you feel better, the answer to the question is "No, I had absolutely no intention of suggesting that, nor would I have any reason to in the context of this discussion since it's not the issue in question."
Happy now?
Irish observerd that tactical”... cannot respond logically or truthfully to my question for one simple reason: logic, truth, and reality cannot exist on the Evolutionary Escalator.”
tactical responded..Okay. Yell “strawman”, declare victory, and go away
Irish-—Either you have no intellectual ‘leg’ to stand on, or you do. If it’s the latter, then logically refute my claims by disclosing your source for truth, reason, and logic. But keep in mind that in your ‘material’ world there exists no metaphysical (spiritual). This means that
as one of your ‘icons’-—EO Wilson-—emphatically declares, man has no mind, logic, personhood, free will, conscience,reason, etc because (as he’s honest enough to admit) these attributes are ‘immaterial.’ In other words, they’re ‘spiritual.”
Your turn, tactical.
OK. I’ve had my coffee now. I suppose I can see where this got started, but it still seems to be a bit of a rabbit trail.
Anyway, if you’re interested in another person’s viewpoint on the issue:
It is my understanding that Islam is based on the assertion that it follows the monotheistic tradition of the God of Abraham...that the gospel was revealed to Moses but the Jews corrupted it...and that the gospel was later revealed to Jesus but the Apostles corrupted it. So, it is my limited understanding that — huge differences aside — both Christianity and Islam at least take their creation accounts from the same source.
It it also my understanding that there is a debate within Islam today about the proper role of evolution, if there is one, in the creation account. Some Muslim leaders allow for it while others find this completely unacceptable and have unpleasant things to say to those who say otherwise. Something of the same thing is going on in many Christian church congregations today — whether that should be happening is another discussion in and of itself.
So, I suppose some Muslims may fairly be called creationists because — like their Christian counterparts — they believe in the inerrancy of their creation account. However, it is also true that some Muslims — again, like their Christian counterparts — should not be broad-brush stroked as creationists because a closer examination of what they actually believe about God reveals significant questions or a fundamental lack of understanding about the character of God and the inerrancy of His word.
As both bettyboop and .30carbine have variously said, the question of whether someone is a creationist isn’t really answered by knowing how they fill in the blank on the religion line. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is and not every Christian who reflexively claims to be a creationist because they think that’s what they’re supposed to do but really doesn’t believe in the creation account should actually be called a creationist.
In any case, I still think this is a bit of squabbling over the proper application of a label at the expense of the larger questions...
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.