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
Because trashing one's opponent is easier than engaging his arguments. This is the standard Neo-Darwinist M.O. from what I can tell.
Thanks for your kind words, .30carbine!
IMHO, in the context of the discussion at hand, it tells us that belief in creationism, in and of itself, cannot be held to be a moral indicator.
js said..I’m merely curious about the former screen name of lifebygrace. People have posted here for years without figuring out how to address a post to no one.
Irish-—And did it take years for you to “figure out how to address a post to no one?” My oh my! What an achievement! (sarc)
Turn off your ‘suspicion radar’-—paranoia is not a pretty sight.
Wielding the broad brush today?
For goodness sake. Let it go. I have no former screen name, and how I posted without pinging anyone really isn’t that great mystery. Nor is it really that big of an issue.
Metmom: Thanks for your comment on my post regarding science. The point that I was trying to make is that people often set up an offense/defense against God by pointing to science.
People say things like: “Science is a great unifier...science is a revealer of truth...science requires humility and discipline... and so on.” If you read carefully the language that they use in describing the ability of science to reveal truth, it becomes clear that they are really rejecting God by setting up science itself as a sort of...god.
Sometimes people do this knowingly...but more often, people do this without realizing it. Even Christians — and for Christians, that’s a real snake in the grass.
I was merely cautioning people — from the perspective of one who has several years of experience inside of academia, and in particular the fields of biogeography, ecology, and geography — that the real practice of science in the United States and indeed around the world is far more pedestrian and that it really ought not be placed up on a pedestal — and evolution, in particular, doesn’t belong up there either.
God is truly great, you know...He is capable of accounting for every one of the questions “science” (and, let’s be careful about personifying it this way shall we?) might raise. God doesn’t need our help in explaining the creation account through evolution - He exists outside of time, His ways are not our ways, and He is big enough and great enough and complex enough to certainly have created the world and all the amazing diversity of life on it without such a pedestrian explanation as evolution. He doesn’t need our help, but he does need our faith and our trust and our constancy in remembering who He is and what He is capable of.
Sorry. No can do. People who claim to be biologists, or trained in biology, who are demonstrably anti-science, do not compute.
It is equivalent to someone claiming to be a priest or pastor arguing that religion is false because Jim Jones was a pastor, or because priests have been guilty of child molestation.
Neither claim passes the smell test.
Since you took care not to post to me, you are obviously not including me or what I said in your argument.
But it is true that the methods of religion are not reliable in obtaining factual knowledge about the material world. Else juries would not need to be presented with forensic evidence, and they would be instructed to determine guilt or innocence through prayer.
Can we inquire as to what capacity your several years in acamemia was spent?
Looking back on this comment, I find it interesting that the post that led to it was attempting to discredit science as an enterprise because scientists sometimes engage in puerile behavior.
If there is something to be said about evolution, by all means say it.
I'm going to repeat my original claim, since it hasn't actually been addressed. Science studies the same problems with the same methodologies in every country of the world. Scientists have no religion or nationality when using the methods of science. To the extent that individual scientists inject politics into their work, they will have transient success. Perhaps they will maintain employment, but their work will be forgotten.
Muddling words is a favorite spit wad. I'll never forget the lengthy discussion on realism v. realism which took the whole thread away from the point you were making. Jeepers!
The word “Creationism” is another case-in-point in that most on the evolution side of the debate really mean to say “Young Earth Creationism.” And yet there are many different flavors of beliefs within the reach of the term itself depending on how one wishes to wield it in a debate: TalkOrigins.org on ‘what is creationism?’
Panspermia (alien seeding) for instance, is just another creationist belief though it certainly is not Judeo/Christian nor does it have anything to do with Western culture over the millenia. Nor do Islamic views have anything to do with the insights of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome.
And here, there appears to be a desire to paint Christian views of creation with the Islamic brush. LOL! The two concepts of the Creator couldn’t possibly be further apart. One would have you kill and die for Him – the other died for you. And it goes from there.
Moreover, within Judeo/Christian beliefs there are several different views of creation – some in opposition to evolution, some not – but all of them originating from different interpretations of Scriptures – not the record in nature or science.
The main difference among Christians has to do with Romans 5:12–14 and I Corinthians 15:42–48: one side says that Adam was the first mortal man and the other says that Adam was the first ensouled man. Thus, the interpretation among Christians concerning Genesis 1-3 (the origin of man) cuts this way, generally speaking:
Gosse Omphalus Hypothesis which says that Adam was the first mortal man and that God created an old looking universe some 6000 years ago in proper or absolute time.
Old Earth Creationism which says that Adam was the first ensouled man, that the universe is some 15 billion years old in proper or absolute time, that evolution occurred and Adam was ensouled some 6000 years ago in proper or absolute time.
Special Creationism which says that Adam was created some 6000 years ago in some unspecified time and place.
My view – which is akin to Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder's is that we must consider both relativity and inflationary theory – that some 15 billion years from our space/time coordinates is equal to 6 equivalent earth days at the inception space/time coordinates. There is no conflict with Genesis 1.
It's kind of interesting that you associate the practice of "muddling words" as being more or less exclusive to the evolutionists.
Before answering your question, tacticalogic, I thought I'd stroll over to Darwin Central to see what, if anything, they were saying about our recent exchanges -- yours, Stultis', and mine. And they are in full cry, doing just what I suggested Neo-Darwinists routinely do as a matter of M.O.: Trash the opponent rather than engage the argument. But then, that's a whole lot of trouble, because you have to understand the argument first.
They're not only trashing me personally, but also editor-surveyor and metmom; GodGunsGuts; others....
Jeepers, I think these people really need to get a life!
And so I'd have to say: No, I'm not painting with too broad a brush here....
I'm so very tired of it.
Neither side has clean hands, but the evolutionists are like sharks going into a feeding frenzy when they smell "blood in the water" over word usage.
And they are seldom happy when we throw word usage back at them, e.g. randomness v unpredictability, combinatorics v Bayesian probability, and so on.
How does that go about kissing frogs and finding princes...
It's odd, Alamo-Girl, that people seemingly prefer to have a one-size-fits-all definition rather than recognize that it's important to be discriminating WRT "objects" that seem to have something in common but which, if you dig a little deeper, are rather more unlike than alike. But then, maybe this is just intellectual laziness. Doctrinal thinking is "nice" because it means the thinking's already been done for you -- it's "pre-fab." Just invoke and repeat as often as needed. Sigh....
Anyhoot, that's just the way the cookie crumbles, I guess!
Thank you for your uplifting essay/post, my dearest sister in Christ!
Sure. I have an undergraduate bachelors degree in biology, with a minor in interdisciplinary science (where “interdisciplinary” really meant, “lots of geology with a smattering of oceanography, climatology, and other -ology classes mixed in”).
I have a master’s degree in Environmental Science. During my course of study, I was required to take various philosophy and economics courses dealing with worldview, environmental ethics, policy, etc. These were taught from a rather liberal perspective which, frankly, I did agree with at the time.
I began a doctoral program in geography, for which I received a fellowship, but did not complete it — by that time, I had realized that academic research was not really where I wanted to go. My talents were more in the administrative and teaching arena, and that — and my family — were what I decided to focus on instead of slogging through a dissertation.
I supported myself in grad school by working as a field botanist, and by doing habitat, land use, and environmental impact assessment work. Later, I worked professionally for some years at a university-based state research program, and most recently was the director of a federally funded national research organization whose members were universities and whose representatives were college professors representing various disciplines but whose research usually found common ground in the arena’s of geography, ecology, and environmental studies.
These days, though, I’m retired from the lobbying and the grant-writing and grant reviewing and the dealing with academia that came with my position and I am pleased to “just” be a stay at home mom.
Doctrinal thinking is intellectually lazy.
This is so true.... Unfortunately, evo correspondants who fit this description seem to be fairly scarce at FR, since the Great Exodus....
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.