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
Look, show me where I said anything about them not existing without the philosophy of evolutionism in the first place. You can answer a simple question, right?
lol
Evolutionists put their faith in a book written by a man on a long sea voyage with nothing better to do with his time.
Quote of the week (at least)!
You claim it is their "basis for existence". How would they exist without it? You didn't say so explicitly, but it is a logical consequence of what you did say. If your statements will not bear examination of their logical consequences, what good are they?
Dunno, But it sure sounds impressive.
V..Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms, but the actual origin can only be speculated on.
As the essay reveals, there is NO SOURCE within evolutionism for absolutes. Yet your statement is a ‘declarative’ or absolute in that: Here is how it happened.
By it’s own Laws of Logic-—for which evolution has no source either, since by its nature evolution is anti-intellectual (no mind, no reason, etc)-—theories must be based on something which is testable. Since NO ONE has ever seen bacteria evolve into fish, or fish into proto-apes, the theory of evolution is based on wishful thinking.
Modern studies of DNA have shown that it is entirely consistent with a common descent for almost all life on earth, a prediction of evolutionary theory made before we even knew about genes and DNA. If every major “kind” of animal was a unique creation, why should this be? Why should humans share genetic material with earthworms? Oh, I know, I know, God’s ways are mysterious and beyond our understanding, and He could do things whatever way he desired. But that’s the kind of hand-waving explanation that can be used to explain away anything.
Have you taken a look at Congress and the Courts recently?
Imagine. All those meteorologists with their preconcieved bias towards the water cycle. All those biologists with their preconceived notions about what happens to fish when you pollute all the worlds fresh water with salt. All those geologists with their preconceived notions on what it took to create the Grand Canyon. All living a lie.
Great article, spirited irish! Thank you so much for posting it!
gracesdad: “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. “
And this is bad how?
Irish: Tell me, exactly whose ‘social instincts” (impulses, etc) shall morality be based upon? Already millions of people have suffered and died in regimes where the “social instincts” of Mao, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, etc have served as the ‘standard.” The Marquis de Sade had his own version of ‘social instincts’ as did Jeffrey Dahmer, the Columbine killers, etc.
How about we're all carbon based life forms living in the same environment, breathing the same air, drinking the same water, eating each other?
If DNA controls certain functions and describes certain physical characteristics, then it would make sense to use it in all species, much like certain code is used in computer programming. You don't make up new code for each program, you can use the same basic code and rearrange it to make it do what you wish.
It also makes sense that if organisms devour each other, they need to be similar enough so that the components can be metabolized. What good would it be if everything was so different that nothing could eat each other, but might even be poisonous?
Every kind of creature being a unique creation in that is was created and not evolved does not preclude using the same materials and code (DNA).
YYZ..Note that Darwin’s theory was about “Natural Selection”, and there’s nothing “natural” about what the eugenicists were trying to do. In fact, what they were trying to do was a lot closer to traditional animal husbandry and breeding techniques, concepts which predate the theory of evolution by several thousand years.
Irish...Naturalism, which is what evolutionism is a revamped version of, has ALWAYS been about eugenics, population control, aristocracy, state control of the means of wealth, slavery, etc. Why? Because if mankind is the creature of ‘nature’ (matter) then he must be in submission to his creator: nature (matter). Further, he has no more worth than any other animal, and when man’s worth is measured against other creatures, man comes out the loser.
A quagmire of sophistry.
“Every kind of creature being a unique creation in that is was created and not evolved does not preclude using the same materials and code (DNA).”
No, but to my mind, and those of many people who have studied this subject much more than I have, a common descent is a much simpler explanation. And, as I have said, it is a prediction made by evolutionary theory before we even knew there were such things as genes or DNA, nevermind exactly how much of it was common between organisms.
Also, if God was being a good “coder” and re-used things so dilligently, why would He choose to implement the exact same functions in multiple different ways in different species? No, if God was our “designer”, then he gives every appearance of having been a rather poor and sloppy one.
That presumes on the part of the person sitting in judgment of the designer that they know better and more about how the object should have been designed just by looking at it than the designer did knowing vastly more.
Have we reached the place in knowledge of genetics that we can with certainty that we know all the possible functions of every last bit if genetic material that exists? We may have some grasp of what genes control physical features but what controls emotions, thought, will, decision making?
Defining the physical features and breaking it down to simply the mechanical only tells us about the physical mechanical part of the entity. It doesn't tell us what it really is and there's no way that I know of yet for scientists to say for certain that they plummed the depths of genetics and know all every possible function of eery bit of DNA in every creature.
Tell me then, what's the difference between a living body and a dead one? What makes a body suddenly cease functioning when it's structurally identical to the one minutes before it expired? And I'm not talking about long enough for decay to set in, that argument has been used before. I'm talking about a body that's alive one minute and dead the next.
America has little tradition of Evolutionary Humanism. As such, it is going to continue to be a hard sell, especially while the salesmen of Evolutionary Humansim seem so odd to Americans. If they were more like real people they might make some progress, but that would mean selling out their Evolutionary Humanism program.
Could you explain what you mean by ‘transcendant absolutes’ please. Perhaps an example would help to clarify it for me. Thanx
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!
If you can't be forthright about what you're actual qualm is, why should I take it seriously?
That being said, I would indeed say that, without evolutionary philosophy, much of modern Communism and Nazism wouldn't have been possible, at least not in the forms they took. Marxism relies upon the assumption that "progressive scientism" will bring about the "inevitable" establishment of a classless society, once the dialectical middleman is gotten through. This is viewed as being more or less the natural order of things, hence the aura of inevitability that shrouded foundational Marxist thought. Anything that hinders the establishment of this end result, at least in revolutionary Communism, is fair game for being eliminated as unfit, regressive, and retrograde. The philosophy that begat all this, and the resultant attempts to eliminate millions of kulaks, capitalists, and other reactionaries, is the notion that the world is constantly evolving, progressing upward, that change is inevitable, and that those who are unfit deserve to be removed from the equation by the "New Men" who are better fitted for the glorious classless society of the future. Hence, yes, there is an underlying evolutionary aspect to Marxist thought that in many ways mirrors the evolutionary theory of the natural world which later inspired Darwin to refine the theory in his On the Origin of Species, and it is doubtful that Marxism would have had this aspect in its dialectic had there not been intellectual injection from the evolutionary philosophy sweeping Europe at the time.
Likewise, it is doubtful that Nazism would have gotten the idea of exterminating "inferior" groups as unfit, or the rest of its overall eugenic programme, had not the idea appeared to be completely natural and wholesome per naturalistic evolution.
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.