Posted on 04/07/2009 12:17:49 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Judaism in the Year of Darwin
David Klinghoffer BeliefNet April 5, 2009
Link to Original Article
Welcome to the year of Charles Darwin. In coming months, the secular world will be celebrating two anniversaries relating to the originator of evolutionary theory. February 12 marks what would have been his 200th birthday and November 24, the 150th year since the publication of his book On the Origin of Species.
The cultural and political battle over evolution in the United States will intensify. Yet I believe many Orthodox Jews feel that it somehow isn't "our fight." Darwin argued that a purposeless, unguided process--natural selection operating on random genetic variation--explains the whole history of life's development. But frum Jews have no doubt that life was purposefully designed by our Creator.
Though I'm a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the think tank best known for advancing intelligent-design theory, I can appreciate this response. However, permit me to argue that the Darwin wars are very much our fight, as Jews, or should be.
Begin with the fact that Hitlerism was no less than an exercise in applied Darwinism. To whip up his fellow citizens in the service of a race war against the Jews, Hitler relied on the language of Darwinian biology.
In the coming year's celebrations, you can bet that the nastier parts of Darwin's writing will be safely ignored. As a young man, during his adventures as a naturalist aboard the Beagle exploring the coasts of South America, Darwin had his eyes opened to the good points associated, as he came to see it, with genocide.
In 1833 he made the acquaintance of General Juan Manual de Rosas, who was busy liquidating the Indian population of southern Argentina. "This war of extermination," Darwin wrote in a cheerful letter home, "although carried on with the most shocking barbarity, will certainly produce great benefits; it will at once throw open four or 500 miles in length of fine country for the produce of cattle." The "extermination" (a favorite word of Darwin in his writings) of failed races, whether animal or human, is a great theme in his books and a key feature in the advance of the evolutionary process as he conceived it.
In The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin prophesied: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."
Evolutionary theory was embraced and championed in Germany faster even than in England, Darwin's native country. Hitler felt its influence, as the important biographers of him agree. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: "The basis of Hitler's political beliefs was a crude Darwinism." Joachim C. Fest, in Hitler, describes how the Nazi tyrant "extract[ed] the elements of his world view" from various influences including "popular treatments of Darwinism."
The key chapter in Mein Kampf is Chapter 9, "Nation and Race," where he discusses the obligation to defend the Aryan race from the Jewish menace. His argument is couched from the start in Darwinian terms. He writes: "In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right of opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a mean for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of higher development." He praises "the iron logic of Nature" with its "right to victory of the best and stronger in this world."
But what if the strong (Aryans) choose not to dominate and exterminate the weak (Jews)? "Eternal Nature," he writes, "inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands." He means those iron laws of Nature, Darwin's laws.
Hitler calculated that an appeal to the Germans against the Jews would be most likely to succeed if framed in scientific-sounding evolutionary terms. Mein Kampf was hugely popular and influential, selling six million copies by 1940.
Nazi propaganda hardly sought to hide the Darwin connection. In a 1937 German propaganda film, Victims of the Past, the audience is shown a retarded person as the narrator intones, "In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven't just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply." Between 1939 and 1941, German physicians empowered by the state under the Action T4 plan murdered 70,273 children and adults who had been observed to suffer from debilitating mental or physical conditions.
It should not have been surprising that Hitler under Darwin's influence would follow up by seeking to destroy the Jews. Not because Darwin was an anti-Semite (he wasn't), but because his worldview is all about explaining life and its mysteries in purely natural, material terms, leaving no room for God. In Mein Kampf, when his use of Darwinist rhetoric is most pronounced, Hitler decries the Jews for their "effrontery": "Millions thoughtlessly parrot this Jewish nonsense and end up by really imagining that they themselves represent a kind of conqueror of Nature." In Darwinism, Nature sweeps all before her.
Judaism says just the opposite. Torah is marked by the call to defy Nature, to do the hard work of bending our personal natures to God's will. It is almost as if Hitler, following the logic of Darwinism, sensed that Torah and thus the Jews who uphold it must be his ultimate, eternal foes.
Today, the skinhead and Neo-Nazi subculture is full of Darwinian chatter. Whether on aggressively Hitlerian web sites like Stormfront.com or in the writings of the racist and anti-Semitic Louisiana politician David Duke, discussions of evolution as a proof of white supremacy are common.
Darwinian science has otherwise mostly lost its anti-Semitic edge, but its leading contemporary spokesman, Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins, can't be matched for his hatred of the God of Israel and for his attack on the intelligent design of life. His latest bestselling book, The God Delusion, rails blasphemously at the Creator that he denies.
But it's not our fight, as Torah-believing Jews? Historically our rabbis have certainly indicated that it is. Long before Charles Darwin was born in 1809, similar debates were being fought in Europe over scientific challenges to the belief that God created and designed the world. In medieval Spain, the science of the day was carried on by Aristotelian philosophers who denied that the universe had a beginning. So there could be no Creator in any sense recognizable to a Torah Jew.
Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi, among other Jewish philosophers, knew it was necessary to directly address the challenge of this scientific doctrine. In the story he tells in the Kuzari, the religiously searching Khazar king stages a debate between a rabbi and an Aristotelian scientist-philosopher. (A Christian and a Muslim also participate briefly.) The philosopher denies that God intentionally created the world but instead argues that a series of natural causes explains the existence of everything. That is Darwinism in a nutshell. Yehudah HaLevi saw it as totally normal and desirable that a rabbi should engage in an extended and very well informed disputation over such issues.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch lived to see Darwin's influence spread rapidly across Europe after the Origin of Species appeared in 1859. In his Torah commentary, Rav Hirsch was scathing on the morally disastrous effects of Darwinian thought. Ideas, he knew, have consequences for the way we all live. Commenting on the idol Baal Peor, worshipped in the most grotesquely animalistic fashion, Hirsch wrote that it illustrates precisely "the kind of Darwinism that revels in the conception of man sinking to the level of beast and stripping itself of its divine nobility, learning to consider itself just a 'higher' class of animal" (Numbers 25:3).
Western culture has since become widely convinced that human beings, just like animals, lack moral choice and responsibility. Applied Darwinism results in the widespread, easily observable failure to distinguish between people and animals, a moral disease we may call animalism.
Both the elite and mass media are rife with it. So the rights of animals become a sacred cause, justifying even violence in their defense, while ascribing a unique dignity or worth to men and women is increasingly suspect. If human beings lack such a dignity unique to them and transcending whatever condition their body may be in at a given moment--fetus, child, or adult, sick or well, conscious or "vegetative"--then extinguishing a human life when it seems convenient to us becomes very easy to justify.
The social consequences range from animal-liberation terrorism to modern eugenics, right-to-die initiatives, euthanasia, abortion and more. In the state where I live, Washington, voters just this past November overwhelmingly approved an assisted-suicide law, the second in the nation (after Oregon). It permits doctors to help patients identified as "terminally ill" to take their own lives.
And this is not our fight? The Darwin-Hitler connection would be enough reason to acknowledge the evolution debate as one in which religious Jews have a profound stake. The moral and hashkafic aspects of the fight make it, without any doubt at all, ours, perhaps more than it is anyone else's.
==And it was both a secular and a Christian conspiracy of collusion between the clergy and the tyrant, just as James Madison foretold.
The Russian Orthodox Church was COMPLETELY TAKEN OVER BY THE SOVIETS. So again, I ask you, was all the pains the Soviet took to create an imitation ROC a secular or a religious conspiracy?
==And your second example is both a Communist and an Islamist cooperation; it wasn’t much of a “conspiracy” as the entire world knew that while we backed Israel, the Soviets backed the Arabs.
All the governments and organizations involved were secular...although they were often portrayed by the liberal MSM as Islamic radicals (which you have apparently fallen for hook, line and sinker). So again, I ask you, was this a secular or religious conspiracy?
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that Harun Yahya et al are performing a wonderful service re: the War on Terror.When Muslim’s become creationists, they tend to openly and publicly denounce terror carried out in the name of Islam. As such, the more Muslims who become creationists (even if it’s of the Muslim variety) the more that helps the US and its allies in the War on Terror.
GGG added for emphasis in a follow up post:
Actually, the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, and are materialist to the core.
And so GGG doesn't hit the ceiling here, I'll add his clarifying statements from an additional post:
— “the majority of radical Islamist terrorists despise creation, and are materialist to the core”;[GGG] I agree.
— radical Islamic terrorists are actually “hardcore Commie-Materialists who worship at the alter of evolutionary materialism”;
[GGG] Not all, but many...pehaps a majority.
— “the more Muslims who become creationists (even if it’s of the Muslim variety) the more that helps the US and its allies in the War on Terror”;
[GGG] Since Muslim creationists denounce terrorism carried out in the name of Islam, this is a given.
— that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by Darwinist, materialist, atheists who were just disguised as radical Muslims.
[GGG] I don’t think I have ever said that. I have documented that Bin Laden’s #2 man is a known KGB agent. I have also documented that many of the hijackers ate pork, drank alcohol, did not repay debts, and frequented nudie bars. All are a big no-no in Islam. These are not the hallmarks of religiously observant Muslims.
For additional background, Harun Yahya is a pseudonym used by Sheikh Adnan Oktar, who operates the rather murky Turkish Islamic organization "Bilim Araştırma Vakfıand" (or BAV). Among the BAV's activities is the publishing of a vast array of glossy Islamic creationist literature under the name of Harun Yahya, and the utterances of "Sheikh Oktar qua Yahya" have a rather rather familiar overall ring:
One point that should be stressed at the outset is that the identities of the perpetrators of the acts of terrorism which targeted the United States are not yet determined. There is a chance that these horrible attackers are linked to quite different centres. It may well be a communist organization harboring rage and hatred against American values, a fascist organization opposing federal administration or a secret faction in another state. Even though the hijackers have Muslim identities, the questions regarding by whom and for what purposes these people were used will probably remain to be a mystery. . . .[W]hile looking for the perpetrators of a terrorist act, its origins should be sought in disbelief rather than in religion. People with a fascist, communist, racist or materialist outlook on life should be suspected as potential perpetrators. The name or the identity of the triggerman is not important. . . .
Actually, the materialist, irreligious philosophies and ideologies that prevailed in the 19th century are responsible for these dismal acts. . . . At the roots of the greatest brutalities of the 19th century lies the Social Darwinist ideology. . . . As a matter of fact, the main disagreement is not between the West and Islam. Contrary to the general opinion, it is between the religious people of the West and of the Muslim world on the one hand, and the people opposing religion (like materialists and atheists) on the other.
Support should be provided for the spread of "True Islam", which is a religion of love, friendship, peace and brotherhood, and for its true understanding by Islamic societies.
Excerpts from: Harun Yahya web publication "Islam Is Not The Source of Terrorism, But Its Solution".
“But what is even more interesting is that Darwinists have not a single transitional form fossil they can use. They have not a single fossil they can call a transitional form to prove Darwinism. What kind of theory is that? It is total nonsense, a complete lie. Can you have a theory with absolutely zero supporting evidence? You may say that something is a theory if there are two or three bits of evidence for it. But this one has none, no evidence at all. And it is total nonsense.”"All those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks were people who had received a Darwinist, materialist and atheist education, who had been educated in Europe and who held materialist views. Their identity papers may describe them as Muslims, but that is irrelevant...”
Excerpts from: "AN INTERVIEW WITH MR. ADNAN OKTAR BY AZERNEWS (October 23, 2008)", available on the HarunYahya.Tv website.
I don't personally view Mr. Oktar's utterances as particularly credible, to say the least. In addition, I don't think that the rejection of science and the layering of additional fundamentalism in the form of creationism on top of an already existing surfeit of Islamic fundamentalism is a "solution" to radical Islamic terrorism. Call me crazy.
And again, these Islamic terrorist groups like Hezballah “the party of God” are not and never have been “secular” in their composition, their leadership, their ideology, or the goals.
You seem to be under the impression that if any aid was ever accepted by the Soviets by any Islamic group that they are forevermore Marxist Leninist Atheists, despite their going to Mosques, recruiting in Mosques, and using the language of Islam to recruit and justify their actions.
This is pure lunacy all for the expressed purpose of trying to claim that Islamic creationist terrorists are neither Islamic, creationists, or terrorists; but really secular “Temple of Darwin fanatics”. Truly a laughable attempt to deflect the same guilt by association that you engage in almost daily with your Darwin = Hitler garbage.
Quail in fear?...LOL
Like I said, I’m an EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT. I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the one true church. Nor do I believe the Pope is God’s representative on earth. I don’t believe in the infallibility of the Pope, nor do I believe in infant baptism, or praying to Mary...etc, etc, etc. Having said that, yes, allowing a bunch of Evo-atheists to reinterpret God’s Book of Genesis represents a lack of faith in God’s Word on that particular subject, and it is usually an indication that a person is willing to compromise in other areas as well.
So you feel that the Pope lacks faith in God.
You were still too afraid to directly say it, but there it was.
Very interesting.
So when you make the same claim about me for believing the same thing the Pope does, I will know I am in good company, while you are in loon territory.
Think whatever you like, Allmendream, it is your eternal fate on the line, not mine. I don’t care if it’s a Protestant or a Catholic that does it, if they compromise the World of God, it shows a lack of faith in God’s word in that particular area of the Bible, and it usually means they will compromise in other areas as well. Take you for instance. You have never once lifted a finger to oppose the God-hating Evo-ATHEISTS on FR. You spend almost ALL your time bashing Christian creationists instead. Doesn’t that strike you as a little odd? Could it be that your lack of faith in God’s Word has spread to other areas as well?
==How could it be a conspiracy at all if the entire world knew the Soviets were backing the Arabs? What part of it is conspiratorial?
It began as a conspiracy, and then the West slowly became aware of it through intel. and defectors.
So I ask you again, seeing how every country involved was controlled by a secular government, was this a religious or a secular conspiracy Allmendream?
==Call me crazy.
You’re crazy.
If one supposed that the Bible meant the Earth did not move when it says the foundations of the Earth do not move (as was the traditional Christian position), there would be no mechanism to correct this erroneous interpretation if any acknowledgment of reality is “compromising” scripture.
Once again you are trying to set up a dichotomy where either you are a “Evo-ATHEIST” or a “Christian creationist”.
I do not “Bash” people, I point out the errors of logic science and theology of Creationism and Incompetent Design.
All you seem able to do is suggest that if I don't believe in the same idiotic interpretation that you do that I am less of a Christian; a rather despicable tactic. Yep, me and the Pope, both of us just lack faith in God according to GGG.
In what way was it a conspiracy? What was being kept secret?
And even if you wish to describe this cooperation as a conspiracy for some reason, it was between BOTH secular Soviets and Islamic Arabs. So it would be both. Why do you suppose that any conspiracy or cooperation between disparate parties must be united on all points of ideology?
And no, every country involved was not controlled by a secular government; Hezballah and many of these organizations were FOUNDED by Islamists, run by Islamists, and they never renounced Islam even as some of them tentatively accepted socialism.
Saddam Hussein is probably the best example of a “secular” Arab leader who took aid from the Soviets. Yet he never renounced Islam, opened Mosques with his name on them, put a verse from the Quran on the Iraqi flag, supported Islamic terrorist movements including Al Queda, etc, etc.
That’s according to the Bible, not GGG, Allmendream. You know the Bible, don’t you? It’s that book you keep having to tear pages out of in order to keep believing. Too bad Thomas Jefferson isn’t still alive...you guys could have had a competition to see which one of your bibles is thinner.
I was speaking specifically to I posted by Gen. Pecepa in National Review. Every single government and terrorist organization mentioned was secular. So I ask you again:
It is you who must default to tin foil hat territory, because you are not morally or spiritually equipped to deal with the facts. Tell me Allmendream, does the following constitute a secular conspiracy, or an Islamic conspiracy?
“As chief of Romanian foreign intelligence, I worked closely with Libya’s Muammar Khaddafi before I became, in 1978, the highest-ranking spy from the Soviet bloc to defect to America. I was Khaddafi’s handler as he was gearing up these same weapons programs. Moscow had decided in 1972 to use three leftist Arab governments — Libya, Iraq, and Syria — plus Arafat’s PLO, to wreak terror against our prime enemy, “American imperial-Zionism.” Yuri Andropov, then head of the KGB and soon to be the Soviet leader, assigned Libya to Romania because we already had close intelligence connections with Khaddafi, who, along with Kim Il Sung, had long been eager for chemical weapons, and to acquire Romanian technology for “dirty” suitcase-sized radioactive bombs. Moscow kept charge of Iraq for itself. Andropov told me then that Syria would be next, if our Libyan experiment proved successful; President Hafez Assad’s brother was already our well-paid agent.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200312290001.asp
So now neither the Pope or I believe in the Bible GGG?
You don’t own Christianity, neither does the Bible directly say what you seem to think it implies about the age of the Earth.
All you have is an erroneous interpretation, and the zealous belief that anybody who doesn’t share it is somehow less of a Christian than you.
Neither is piety measured on a sliding scale by how out of whack your cosmological model is from reality.
Geocentric Christians are not more pious or devout or better Christians than those who know the Earth circles the Sun.
YEC Creationists are not more pious or devout or better Christians than those who accept the evidence for the age of the Earth.
He called his system of government “Islamic Socialism”.
Notice which came first GGG?
Qaddafi is a Muslim, and leads a Muslim nation utilizing a system of governance he calls “Islamic Socialism”. And you claim that he is somehow an atheist member of the “Temple of Darwin”?
So it seems to be a conspiracy between international socialist communists and Islamic socialists. Why do you insist it had to be either entirely a secular conspiracy a religious conspiracy?
Are you a Christian?
Yes.
Yikes!
Yes, you may indeed be surprised to learn that the majority of scientists in the USA are people of faith.
You might also be surprised to learn that young Earth creationisms is a minority position.
You might find it disturbing to contemplate that most Christian denominations have no problem with acceptance of scientific evidence for evolution and the age of the Earth.
Do you consider the Bible to be the inerrant Word Of God?
Most people think that because the Bible is “inerrant” that no interpretation they have of scripture could be wrong. Just because the Bible has no errors in it, doesn't mean that people cannot and have not made erroneous interpretations concerning it.
Those who quoted the Bible in support of Geocentricism also hung their hat upon the Bible being “inerrant” when they claimed that where the Bible says the foundations of the Earth do not move, that it means the Earth does not move.
Do you feel they “compromised” scripture when they accepted evidence to the contrary? Or were they ridding themselves of erroneous interpretation?
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.