Darwinism and the Religion of Scientific Materialism

The Post Chronicle ^ | Feb. 10, 2006 | Linda Kimball

[Lindykim]

Enrico Ferri (1856-1926), a prominent socialist of his day, was an Italian criminologist who for many years was the editor of Avanti, a socialist daily.  Writing in "Socialism and Religious Beliefs," he spoke of the all-important connection between Darwin's theory and socialism:  "I add that not only is Darwinism not contrary to socialism, but that it forms one of its fundamental scientific premises.  As Virchow justly remarked, socialism is nothing else than the logical and vital outcome partly of Darwinism and partly of Spencerian evolution."  (www.marxists.org/...)

Enrico frankly discussed how and why Darwinian socialism serves as an alternate religion:  "socialism is joined to religious evolution and tends to substitute itself for religion because it desires precisely that humanity should have…its own 'terrestrial paradise' without having to wait for it in a 'something beyond'…the socialist movement has numerous characteristics common…to primitive Christianity, notably its ardent faith in the ideal."  (ibid)

To wit:  Darwinian socialism (Marx's dialectical scientific materialism) is a secularized and distorted mirror image of the Christian teaching of divine providence.  In as the Biblical model teaches that man and history are moving towards the Kingdom of God, scientific  materialism preaches that man and history are evolving toward a terrestrial paradise created by Promethean humanists.  The notion that both history and man are evolving upward through successive stages is what British philosopher Mary Midgley termed the "Escalator Myth." When speaking of scientific materialism's creation account, Ferri candidly admitted:  "modern positive science…has substituted the conception of natural causality for the conception of miracles and divinity."  (ibid)  In other words, scientific materialists have reduced the personal Creator of the universe to the level of an impersonal animating force.  It's this 'force' into which Promethean materialists tap, thus using it as the source of both their power and authority.

David Horowitz had this to say about scientific materialism's theology and creation account:  "The victorious radicals had proclaimed a theology of Reason in which equality of condition was the natural and true order of creation.  In their Genesis, the loss of equality was the ultimate source of mankind's' suffering and evil…The ownership of private property became a secular version of original sin.  Redemption…was possible only through the Revolution that would abolish property and open the gates to the Socialist Eden---to paradise regained."  ("The Politics of Bad Faith" www.discoverthenetwork.com)

In the Promethean project, everything from the cosmos to all living things, culture, customs, etc. are subject to evolution.  The cosmos, or 'supreme being' is alive and in a constant state of transformative change.  In speaking of the cosmos, Lenin used explicitly religious terminology:  "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 as quoted in Francis Nigel Lee "Communism versus Creation," pg. 28)

Even the convoluted double-speak so peculiar to the Left is itself founded upon the notion of evolution, which no doubt explains why truth is a stranger to them.  Dialectics (or more correctly: speaking in tongues) is what they call their snake-oil rhetoric. In Trotsky's words:  "Vulgar thought operates with such concepts as capitalism, morals, freedom…etc.  Dialectic thinking analyses all things and phenomena in their continuous change.  Dialectics…teaches us to combine syllogisms in such a way as to bring our understanding closer to eternally changing reality."  (The ABC of Dialectics, Leon Trotsky, http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky)

As double-speak indicates a need for secrecy, it comes as no surprise that dialectical materialism is likewise a hotbed of Gnosticism.  Christian Gnostics were people who, when they read Scripture, claimed an ability to receive 'secret' knowledge from it, knowable only to them.  Hence, they were practitioners of 'divination.'  Modern Gnostics on our USSC have claimed to receive secret knowledge through 'auras, penumbras, and emanations" during their readings of our Constitution.  Gnosticism, for obvious reasons, has a history of attracting megalomaniacs in search of secret knowledge to use as power over others.  Frederick Engel's reveals that dialectical materialism is rooted in Gnosticism when he says:  "An exact representation of the universe, of its evolution, of the development of mankind, and of the reflection of this evolution in the minds of men, can…only be obtained by the methods of dialectics."  (The Making of Utopian Socialism," Frederick Engel's, www.marxists.org)

In the theology of scientific materialism, Judgment Day is the Day of Revolution.  This is the day of redemption when, in the name of 'Absolute Science! Amen!" the evil bourgeoisie (Conservatives, Christians, white males, all heterosexuals, George Bush, Rumsfeld, etc) will be damned.  Likewise, all evil social institutions such as private property, traditional family, absolute moral laws, the Boy Scouts, Christianity, the concept of sin, and man's created condition as either male or female will be demolished, thus allowing equality of condition to prevail.  This is what the Left means when it rhapsodizes about 'peace.' 

In a brutal, but much deserved condemnation of Marx's dialectical materialism, David Horowitz wrote:  "In every revolutionary battle in this century, the Left has been a vanguard without a viable future to offer, whose only purpose was to destroy whatever civilization actually existed.  Consider:  If no one had believed Marx's idea, there would have been no Bolshevik Revolution…Hitler would not have come to power; there would have been no cold war."  (The Politics of Bad Faith)  Additionally, more than one-hundred million people would not have been slaughtered.

By the turn of the century, Marx's idea (the religion of scientific materialism) had crossed the Atlantic where it then began to metastasize in America.  It was not long before it began to bear rotten fruit.  By 1932, William Z. Foster, head of the Communist Party USA stated:  "Class ideologies…will give place to scientific materialist philosophy…the American Soviet government will…further the cultural revolution (by doing) the following: schools, colleges, universities will be coordinated…under the National Department of Education…studies will be revolutionized…cleansed of religious, patriotic…ideology…students will be taught…Marxian dialectical materialism; general ethics of the new socialist society.  Science will become materialistic…God will be banished from laboratories as well as from schools." ('Toward Soviet America," by William Z. Foster, 1932)

So now its America's turn to be sacrificed upon the altar of Promethean narcissism, for having learned nothing from his corpse-littered past, bloody-handed Prometheus continues to doggedly pursue his fantasy of a terrestrial paradise—in the name of 'Absolute Science! Amen!"

Copyright Linda Kimball 2006 About the writer:  Linda is a writer and author of numerous published articles and essays on culture, politics, and worldview.

[betty boop]

I am stunned to hear someone, who is apparently intelligent, say there is no conflict in nature. Absolutely stunned.

I didn't say there was no conflict in nature. All I meant to suggest is that man and human living is not wholly contained within the paradigm of conflict. For man, unlike other existents in nature, conflict is optional.

If you ascribe to the theory of human "unalienable rights" which are absolutely contingent on God-given human nature in support of human free will, then I don't know how you could arrive at a different conclusion. But if you have, I'd be deeply interested in hearing the details.

[balrog666]

[freedumb2003]

My goodness! Can I get a "posts on tape" version (I guess Podcast is what the kids today would call it)? ;) But I think it is worth going through and picking out what I think are the essential elements. If I miss any connective tissue or am truly out of context, please let me know.

At bottom, the problem I have with Darwinist theory is the way in which it has been appropriated by other thinkers.

I have seen this a lot today in particular. I am still trying to determine how a theory is used somehow invalidates it. I mean, muslim use guns, so does that make guns inherently bad? Jim Jones quoted the Bible -- does that invalidate the Bible?

What Huxley, Haeckel, and Marx have in common is they are all radical materialists who utterly reject any possibility of transcendence in reality: random mutation + natural selection essentially boils down to its unstated initial premise, that “matter in all its motions is all that there is.”

The instated premise is "matter (and energy) in all its motions is all we can observe." The "all there is" part is a theological conclusion, not a scientific one.

In short, Darwinist evolutionary theory has had some rather stunning social effects that Darwin himself most probably did not intend or anticipate. And manifestly, political effects, too

In this you are right, but so was the Magna Carta, Sun Tsu's The Art Of War, the publication of Newton's theories, Ptolomy's map, etc. etc. etc.

We do need to recognize that “logos” on the one hand, and “random mutation + natural selection” according to “chance and necessity” on the other, are mutually irreconcilable concepts: They are totally “non-isomorphic.”

This is not true (although it sounds great). The ability to reason and think can be seen as a very strong necessity to survive. You confuse higher thinking of today with the more slow process of "if I touch the fire I burn my hand" to "if I burn my hand I can use fire to burn other things" to "why does fire burn my hand?" But stepwise it went

Your elegant post implicitly brings up on point that is external to Evolution and Darwin: To what end?

This is applying the evolved logos to the existence of logos (i.e. self-awareness). A meta-question which defines Modern Man.

That, my dear, is a theological question, not a scientific one.

[ml1954]

Marx was not a "communist."

Priceless.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"All I meant to suggest is that man and human living is not wholly contained within the paradigm of conflict. For man, unlike other existents in nature, conflict is optional."

That is not what you said before, or else you misunderstood me(or I you). And the above is not completely true. Cooperation is common enough in the animal world (for example, the apes). This doesn't mean that life isn't a struggle for existence. I was talking about the struggle *within nature*. Human society, while following all the laws of the nature world, is not usually considered *in nature*. You are talking now about civilization. One of the greatest benefits of civilization is the way it helps counter the ferocity of the conflicts that are found in the natural world.

When Hobbes coined the phrase, "bellum omnium contra omnes", he was referring to man outside of civilization, in what was considered a *state of nature*. Marx used it to describe the workings of capitalism. Darwin used it (correctly) to describe the struggle that exists in the natural world between organisms. He did not invent the concept in biology, nor did he approve of attempts to translate this to human society.

[hosepipe]

[ Marx was not a "communist." / Priceless. ]

It was wasn't it (priceless).. Marx was for the dictatorship of the proletariat not some utopian scheme of a classless society.. I.E communism.. which developed an elite of parasites anyway...

BOOP; Ancient and modern civilization is and was parasitic at its roots.. As I layed out in my other musings.. Marx only wanted to manage the parasitism in a different way.. Mankind just can't handle right vs wrong, good vs evil, accrate vs inaccurate, debits vs credits.. beauty vs ugly.. fair vs unfair, justice vs injustice.. science vs ignorance.. they get confused easily.. So they "hire" "experts" to tell them what to think.. The smart experts know they are stupid too but fake it.. The dumb ones actually believe their bull squeeze.. because of arrogance.. Humans farm other humans as much as they do the animals that they farm.. They just don't eat them, usually(humans)..

Amazing how some humans totally miss Jesus' message.. which is the cure to all that..

[ml1954]

Mankind just can't handle right vs wrong, good vs evil, accrate vs inaccurate, debits vs credits.. beauty vs ugly.. fair vs unfair, justice vs injustice.. science vs ignorance.. they get confused easily..

Let me guess...you can.

they get confused easily..

Ahhhh yes, but of course you don't. I bet you know the answer that all those confused ignorant other humans (especially, Buddhists, Hindu, Jews, etc) don't know.

Amazing how some humans totally miss Jesus' message.. which is the cure to all that..

Because the answer is, TADA, your interpretation of Jesus' message, which of course is the right one.

[hosepipe]

[ Because the answer is, TADA, your interpretation of Jesus' message, which of course is the right one. ]

I didn't think you'd understand thats why I addressed the comment to Boopie.. I was correct.. Hinduism and Buddhism is funny.. as is some "Christianity" thats in essence Hindism or Buddism clouded by creative dogma and semantics.. There I go again.. you can't possibly understand that either.. I'm incorrigible...

[ml1954]

I didn't think you'd understand thats why I addressed the comment to Boopie..

Hmmmm, I went back and checked. Yes, you did post directly to me as well as 'Boopie'. And I understood better than you can ever imagine.

There I go again.. you can't possibly understand that either.. I'm incorrigible...

Rest assured, I understand very well.

[andysandmikesmom]

These last few posts have been way over my head, and my intelligence, as I am really having a hard time understanding what all of you are discussing...but I have latched onto one statement made by Betty Boop and repeated by Freedumb2003 "At bottom, the problem I have with Darwinist theory is the way in which it has been appropriated by other thinkers."....When Freedumb2003 brought up the example of how Jim Jones quoted the Bible, and yet correctly asserts, can this then invalidate the Bible?, he makes a tremendous point...

This hit especially home to me, because you see, Jim Jones, actually had his Temple, in Redwood Valley California, just down the road from my aunt and uncle...who for themselves saw the destructive nature of Jim Jones temple, and how he perverted the Bible for his own use, and saw many of their neighbors and those who followed Jones from their previous location, misled...no one in their full senses should blame this whole situation on the Bible, what Jones did was a horrible and terrible perversion of the Bible, for his own selfish use...

So, I just dont see how Darwin, can be held accountable for how anyone else used his writings...it makes no sense...people often write of things which they believe to be true, should they then be held accountable for anyone who might try to twist and pervert those writings to suit their own purpose?...I dont think so...I think its important to actually read what Darwin did say, to be firm in what in what he said, and then should someone else try to pervert the meanings in those writings for his own purpose, the informed reader can see those perversions for what they are...

If I write something, based on my observations, and then form my own conclusions, and then someone else reads it, and then uses what I say, but tilts it, whether a little or
a lot, to suit their own purpose, am I then responsible for how that reader perverted what I said?..I dont think so...

Darwin said what he said, he wrote what he wrote...if others chose to take that, and used it to suit their own purpose, how is that Darwins fault?

[hosepipe]

[ Rest assured, I understand very well. ]

Maybe, maybe not.. You're obviously much smarter than me..
When I was twenty I was very smart... but have grown progressively dumber over the years..
d;-)~',',

[freedumb2003]

but have grown progressively dumber over the years..

Aghh - Devolution

[freedumb2003]

Thanks for picking up on that.

Sometimes I feel I am all alone out here. Coyoteman and Ichemon keep the facts going, but I am trying to battle the 100% Logical Fallacy strategy that is embraced by the CRIDers.

As always, what happens is when I challenge them, they don't answer or just use ad hominem responses.

This is even beyond the facts -- it is about a blatant attempt by those who would attempt to defend the indefensible (CRID, attacks on TTOE) by using a web of pure lies. I even had someone say the other day that Strawman arguments are NOT lies, just "an attempt at obfuscation which isn't lying." (I can provide the link but I have to comb back through the pages of posts to find it).

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks...I was not really sure if I had made myself clear or not...glad you understood what I was trying to say...you are certainly not alone, I read all you write...actually, I do read the posts of everyone, and then have to make the decision as to ponder it further or simply discard it, as often its nothing but a lot of blathering and namecalling, and adds nothing of value to the discussion...(I am sure you know of what I am speaking)

What does disturb me is that even the definition of what a lie is or is not, seems to be redefined on these threads...its as if sometimes, the matter of the lie, the fact of the lie is not as important, as why the lie was put forth in the first place...that seems twisted and wrong, in and of itself...there are times, I suppose, when lying is warranted(such as saving someones life, by lying to a 'deranged' husband, about his wifes whereabouts)...but it seems that lying on these types of threads would necessarily be a fruitless endeavour...because eventually the lie is found out, and then one would be forever branded as a liar, no matter what they say in the future...

Anyway, I was glad that you brought up Jim Jones, and his relation to the Bible, as I found it a very good illustration of the point you were making...all the more so, as I have some small knowledge of what this screwball did in my relatives home town, knowledge from my relatives from their first hand experience...

[freedumb2003]

You are always a very clear poster -- perhaps because you do contemplate before posting.

Me? I guess at times I am a "fools rush in" kinda guy at times ;)

[TheBrotherhood]

"You are always a very clear poster -- perhaps because you do contemplate before posting."

Darwinism = Atheism.

[andysandmikesmom]

Actually sometimes I rip off a post when I am angry about some lame something or another someone has said...but I always stop and reread it...many of those posts, I am sure, would have gotten me banned...I wind up just never posting them...I just go elsewhere and try to cool down for a while...QVC and Ebay are my friends...if I am angry, spending little money always soothes me down, knowing BigBrown will soon be at my house, with new packages to unwrap...(this is the excuse I give my hubby, when he is dragging in boxes)...

[andysandmikesmom]

Yeah, yeah, we know how you feel...

[freedumb2003]

Darwinism = Atheism.

Need I say more.

Thank you, TheBrotherhood, for demonstrating standard Creationist' "logic."

I will boomkark this post to show the depth of your invective.

[TheBrotherhood]

"Thank you, TheBrotherhood, for demonstrating standard Creationist' "logic." "

Logic is immutable and it's neither creationist nor darwinist; it is guided by the inherent God-given laws of the absolute, truth, virtue and God Himself.

I think it makes sense. It does to me.