Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?

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.” (Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I & II, Introduction)

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 materialist's attribution of ‘dialectic’ to matter confers on it, not mental attributes only, but even divine ones.” (Gustav A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, 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, p. 28)

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.

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.” (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, 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.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, pp. 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.” (“Why I am not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects,” 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 (Greg L. Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis, 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, p. 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.” (“Degradation and Shock,” Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, 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, 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.

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.” (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.” (p. 13)

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.” (Conway Zirkle, Marxian Biology and the Social Scene)

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)

“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.” (Tom DeRosa, Fatal Fruit, 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)

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, Texas, 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.” (Michael Reagan, In the Words of Ronald 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 governmentcontrolled 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.

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.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times, p. 232)

You accepted that slur with complete matter-of-factness, offering no demurral or dissent. You did not frame it as if it were a controversial portrayal, but offered it as factual evidence for an argument you were making.

The paragraph in question was:

Let us grant your contention that "Christianity" waw responsible for the brutality of the Nazis against Jews for a minute. If so the obvious reason was being mad over the Jews turning Jesus over to the Romans for crucification right? Please note, this has nothing to do with "revealed truth", but the regular secular reasons that people get riled up about things. Something like "Hey they got one of ours, we can't let them get away with that! Lets get the bastards!".

Note the words: "Let us grant your contention that "Christianity" waw responsible for the brutality of the Nazis against Jews for a minute."

Note the words: "Brutality of Nazis against the Jews".

Note that the hypothetical justification was a hypothetical Nazi position, not a position of my own.

Note that I have repeatedly denounced such a position in other posts, and as is universal in FR culture view it as one of the clear epitomes of what is atrocious and evil.

There is no way I can see any thinking person seriously thinking I was offering justification for what I just called a "brutality".

And so I must conclude you are willful and malicious when you make your false accusations about me supporting this infamous and vile atrocity.

"Do you seriously think I am an anti-Semite?"

I cannot know with certainty, but it does not matter one whit to the substance of this discussion if you are or you are not. What is relevant is the extreme efforts you are making to avoid answering the question that is actually at issue here.

Whether you embrace it as true or not, you are the one that offered the portrayal of the Jews as "Christ Killers."

You must have had a source of origin for that portrayal... certainly it did not arrive in your consciousness ex nihilo.

And my question remains... what is your source for that portrayal if it is not the Gospels?

I know that you are trying very, very, very hard to find some convoluted excuse for this particular facet of Christianity's less than excellent moral example. You have tried to dismiss the entire New Testament other than two sayings of Jesus as being relevant to the Christian moral system. You have dismissed off-hand the greatest theologians of Christian history and pretended their testimony, reasoning and writing do not matter. You have done everything you possibly could to assert that anti-Semitism has no source within the "revealed truth" of the Christian New Testament.

So... if this is true, then what is the alternative source of your portrayal of the Jews as "Christ Killers?"

I know that you are trying very, very, very hard to find some convoluted excuse for this particular facet of Christianity's less than excellent moral example. You have tried to dismiss the entire New Testament other than two sayings of Jesus as being relevant to the Christian moral system.

I am? Heck everyone of us Christians is a sinner and deserves to go to hell. Since this is a central Christian doctrine, why would I wish to dismiss evidence for it?

I think Christianity is full of sinners doing sin. I do reject the notion that the Christian faith is responsible. People sin with and without this faith.

Certainly people know about the crucification of Christ primarily from the New Testament, this is a premise that you should feel free to claim without acting like you need me to sign off on it.

My objection is not to such a premise, but that you seem to be assuming the implied cause effect relationship establishes moral culpability. Do you really think this? It seems to be a ridiculous standard of ethics when you think of all the different implications.

As to your repeated accusations that I am focusing on only selected parts of the New Testemant in establishing the ethical position of Christianity, this is true. I am only concerned with relevant details. And all of the relevant details I find support me. Not just the ones I mentioned before. For example, Jesus commands us to love everyone. Very relevant. Jesus commands us to turn the other cheek. Very relevant. Jesus asks his Father in heaven to forgive the one's who were responsible for crucifying him...Did you forget this one? Jesus is very harsh on religious hypocrites, and lambastes the religious leaders who are only in it for fun and profit as broods of vipers. I shudder to think of what he would call the various medevil church leaders (actually He does seem to address them in Revelation according to some scholars).

Also there was the parable of the man forgiven huge debt by a King who turned around and demanded payment from a fellow servant for a minor debt. Remember how that one ended? Did you get the moral of it?

You have no where to turn for moral teachings in the New Testament, so now you turn to biases that certain events in the New Testament might cause in the hearts of fallible man.

Well, of coarse humans are all fallible...as Christ taught we are (please tell me you get that).

Rather you would rather focus away from what Jesus taught we ought do, and focus on the failings of Christians in history to do so.

This all proves my point, and demolishes yours.

I am focusing on the moral teachings of Jesus Christ rather than the latter moral teachings of Martin Luther after he started hating the Jews as a basis for the moral position of the Christian faith.

Martin Luther's opinions on morality mean nothing to any true form of Christianity, excepting that they coincide with the opinions of Christ. His earlier positions concerning the Jews were kindly and seemed in step with Jesus. However you chose to focus on the opinions he held in the latter part of his life as being the epitome of Christian ethics. Well apparently something had happened to change his opinion of Jews profoundly and I'm not a historian and not sure what turned his heart to such an evil position, but I'm very dubious that it was because he finally got around to reading the gospel of John.

Yes Martin Luther used information gleaned in the New Testament to justify his latter evil opinion. But his opinions directly contradicted the ethical standard set up by Jesus. His opinion therefore became less like those of Jesus, meaning less Christ-like, meaning less Christian.

The conclusion of all our examples is that the problem is not listening and obeying the moral teachings of Jesus Christ. Whether we claim to be Christians or not.

I cannot know with certainty, but it does not matter one whit to the substance of this discussion if you are or you are not.

It seemed to be a specific issue that you insisting on addressing. And now you say it doesn't matter? Kind of like publicly suggesting somebody is child molester, and then expressing uncertainty and dismissing it as irrelevant. While I know this is a semi-anonymous philosophy discussion, and I freely admit to having some moral flaws. Something like that I take very personally. I am perhaps not as good at turning the other cheek as I should be.

But I do appreciate that you have given up leveling the charge against me at the least.

And perhaps I was guilty of something like this to in my attitude towards you in various posts. I did accuse you of anti-Christian bigotry, and that was not a necessary thing for me to bring up or speculate on either.

I’m sorry.... I seem to have missed your answer.

Well certainly you have missed an answer you wanted.

What, again, was your source for the portrayal of the Jews as “Christ Killers” if not the Gospels?

Your question is loaded with a false counter-distinction. I did answer it in post 50, but I unloaded it first. Please let me try to clarify further:

The primary source of information about the Crucification comes from the New Testament (not just the gospels, its mentioned elsewhere). According to this account Jesus, Jesus's friends, and those that wished him crucified were pretty much all Jews. Makes sense, because it happened in Jerusalem around the passover. However, the term "Christ Killers" in the context of a justification for the Holocaust certainly did not come from the New Testament. Rather, an atitude very alien to that view is taught.

The attitude you associated with this information came from the normal fallible nature of those that chose to adopt that attitude.

Thus, you seem to be trying to assign moral culpability to information rather than human intent. Do you feel other kinds of information that might make one group of people angry if they found out should be suppressed? Certainly any kind of negative report might serve as part of a chain of causes that result in some evil retaliation.

"The primary source of information about the Crucification comes from the New Testament (not just the gospels, its mentioned elsewhere). According to this account Jesus, Jesus's friends, and those that wished him crucified were pretty much all Jews. Makes sense, because it happened in Jerusalem around the passover. However, the term "Christ Killers" in the context of a justification for the Holocaust certainly did not come from the New Testament. Rather, an atitude very alien to that view is taught."

First, a comment. This is not meant to be snarky but I notice it is something you have done repeatedly and I'm just trying to be helpful. There is no such word as "crucification." The word is "crucifixion."

Second, I note that you object to the language, but not to the actual portrayal as found in the New testament. As a matter of fact it appears that you fully concede here that the source of your portrayal is the New Testament.

It is simple historical fact, testified to in the writings of the Church fathers themselves, that this portrayal is both the proximate and ultimate cause of their own anti-Semitism, as well as 2000 years of general anti-Semitism in Christian Europe. There is no need to even explore the inconsistency of that portrayal with the historical facts of Roman history and law. The dots have been neatly and solidly connected.

Matthew 7:16

Let me try to communicate what you are missing another way. Imainge I used the word "information" instead of potrayal in your argument. Then it would read as so:

It is simple historical fact, testified to in the writings of the Church fathers themselves, that this information is both the proximate and ultimate cause of their own anti-Semitism, as well as 2000 years of general anti-Semitism in Christian Europe. There is no need to even explore the inconsistency of that information with the historical facts of Roman history and law. The dots have been neatly and solidly connected.

Doesn't pan out does it? It sounds like you are trying to blame information morally. Sounds pretty stupid really.

So lets try the other meaning of portrayl you had in your conter-distinction, which is "attitude":

It is simple historical fact, testified to in the writings of the Church fathers themselves, that this attitude is both the proximate and ultimate cause of their own anti-Semitism, as well as 2000 years of general anti-Semitism in Christian Europe. There is no need to even explore the inconsistency of that attitude with the historical facts of Roman history and law. The dots have been neatly and solidly connected.

Well that sounds better as a source of moral cupability...but sadly for your argument, it is hard to argue that the attitude came from the New Testament with the "father Forgive them" plea from Jesus, et al.

So you, unconsciously I suppose, commit a logical fallacy and fail to distinquish between the two meanings. You use the meaning "knolledge" to establish the veracity of your premise, but then use the meaning "atitutde" in order to assign moral cupability.

A very common logical error. Don't feel too bad, I think you are smart enough to see them if you try, its just you apparently have bad attitude on this particular subject.

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.