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
The analogy here would be to time and space. Both are distinct, yet both are necessary in context.
I don't. I'm questioning whether the interpretion of "void and without form" as meaning "having neither form nor substance" is correct. Putting this into context, we have "God created the earth, and there was no earth there".
I'm asking if it wouldn't make more sense in context to interpret it to mean "God created the earth, and it was lifeless and featureless", and proceed with creation from there.
That argument seems to agree with betty boop's, that the Earth was created outside of time as we understand it, so the reference to "days" can't be held to be as we experience it.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.. d;-)~.,.,,
Outrageous is the hubris that some can present what the earth was in Genesis ch 1.. as if Genesis ch 1 (time stamped) was as certain as Quantum Mechanics.. NO WAIT.. Einsteins relativity.. urg!. some other wazoo if'n... Whatever God did to the earth (then) there is no standard to measure or disassemble.. or even conceive of the processes involved..
On the otherhand God is pretty outrageous.. Let there be LIGHT!.. Woo Wee lighting up the Sun like a light bulb.. or starting a campfire.. Actually walking on unfrozen water is quite a trick too.. I tend to like Jesus spitting into some dudes eyes and creating functioning eyes.. Is that outrageous or WHAT?.. Him saying eat my flesh and drink my blood did indeed blow a few Jewish minds.. Many still to this day have their eyes rolling and their tongues hanging out drooling makeing stange noises over that one..
Csense: but I do like to cause Boopie to do double takes ever now again.. I'm guilty.. brothers are like that..
Really? Although they are required by Darwinism, those statements are all false, and obviously so, especially insofar as applied to man.
Because Christianity declares that all men are "equal" under and before God, Who one day will judge us "equally," according to His justice.
Many non christian and/or non religious groups declare that all men should treat each other as equals, as you would be treated in return.
Mankind's golden rule is the basis for all rational law. - And Christians have no special claim to that concept, - no factual support for their 'equality' opinion.
Every person has dignity; every person has unalienable rights.
Is someone arguing otherwise?
This is so because we are all desired sons (and daughters) of God, and He gives us what we need to be fully human....
You're free to believe your God gives you - whatever. - I hope you can agree I'm fully human even though I do not believe that anything is 'given' by a God/Creator.
There are NO unalienable rights without a God to grant them.. Actually there are not even any rights at all.. All a government can grant are privileges.. Which of course are infinitely alienable.. and are alienated at every opportunity..
Some don't even know the difference between rights and privileges.. And UNalienable rights are beyond them to understand..
Why would that matter? Without a God, who would there be to grant them to?
Introduction to
Samuel Rutherford's
Lex, Rex
by Jon Roland
The title, Lex, Rex, is a play on the words that conveys the meaning the law is king. When theologian Samuel Rutherford published the book in 1644, on the eve of the revolutions that rocked the English nation from 1645 through 1688, it caused a sensation, and provoked a great deal of controversy. It is ostensibly an argument for limited monarchy and against absolute monarchy, but its arguments were quickly perceived as subversive of monarchy altogether, and in context, we can perceive that it provided a bridge between the earlier natural law philosophers and those who would further develop their ideas: the Leveller movement and such men as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Algernon Sidney, which laid the basis for the American Republic.
This book has long been undeservedly neglected by scholars, probably because it is written as a polemic in the political and sectarian controversies that are distasteful to later generations, and many of its references are somewhat obscure, but a closer reading reveals how it laid the foundation for the contractarian and libertarian ideas that came to be embodied in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Rutherford's main idea is that in the politic realm the real sovereign is the people, and that all officials, including monarchs, are subject to the rule of law, a phrase Rutherford uses only once, in Question 26, "Whether the King be above the Law or no", but this is the book that developed the contrast between the rule of law and the rule of men. He does not use the term social contract, but does develop the earlier idea of covenant in a way that leads naturally to the idea of the social contract. He also develops the idea of a separation of powers between legislative (nomothetic), executive (monarchic), and judicial functions, in a way that they can balance one another, in a mixed constitutional order that combines the best features of monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic forms of government.
What made the book controversial was Rutherford's argument that not only does the magistrate lose his authority when he violates the law, but that it is a right, and perhaps even a duty, for the people to resist such violations.
Cordially,
I'm asking if it wouldn't make more sense in context to interpret it to mean "God created the earth, and it was lifeless and featureless", and proceed with creation from there.
You're still making the fundamental mistake that the first line in Genesis is an act of creation. It's not.
Saying that ' evolutionary humanists' are causing gov't socialism is a ludicrous nonproductive generalization.
The issue is not about you and your feelings.
Exactly. the issue is about our Constitution. As I said just above.
You only feel it is divisive because you've allowed yourself to dwell on your feelings.
You feel that I 'feel'? How silly.
..The Declaration and Constitution are founded squarely upon the core presupposition: God created man - man is His creature, made in His image. Streaming forth from this core presupposition is this major assumption: man's Creator has endowed man with inalienable (not from man) rights....
You want to believe a Creator endowed you? - Fine. - I don't. Our inalienable [not infringable] rights are self-evident and do not require a creator to be valid.
Expecting that an elected leadership comprised of evolutionary humanists who reject God, and who contemptuously call Him a superstitious belief to nonetheless respect a system grounded upon God, is to be disattached-from-reality.
Read Joseph Story on the religious tests line of Article 6, Clause 3:
"-- It had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. -"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saying that "evolutionary humanists" are causing gov't socialism is a ludicrous nonproductive generalization
Evolutionary Humanism is but the modern version of pre-Biblical naturalism. Naturalism, in its many permutations, has always been socialistic (collectivistic), with an aristocractic ruling class and a rigid class and/or caste system.
American indian & pre-christian nordic cultures belie your theory. Both were developing individual rights as a basis for law.
Evolutionary Humanism leads to socialism as naturally as day follows night.
Study worldview and you'll discover these things.
Studying our Constitutions principles is a far better preparation to fight socialism.
Within the context of the discussion (relating to evolution/evolutionists and creation/creationists), the question seems nonsensical.
Assuming the question is posed by a creationist (which seems a reasonable assumption), speculating on whether we would have inalienable rights without a God is pointless. If you really believe in creation then without a God it should be inconceivable that we would even be here to have those rights granted to us.
It certainly appears so. Is there some secret decoder ring you need to know it isn't really saying what it appears to say?
HUGS! dear brother 'pipe. You do make me do double-takes, all the time! :^)
But I still hope you'll take me fishing on your boat some "day" soon, or even sooner.
Just to assure you, I do not think that Genesis 1 and quantum mechanics are "identities."
Just another one of them pesky philosophical terms. Identity simply means "two seemingly different terms refer to the same thing." In the case of the Logos and QM, they do not. The two terms are not even in the same category.
That argument seems to agree with betty boop's, that the Earth was created outside of time as we understand it, so the reference to "days" can't be held to be as we experience it.
You misunderstand.
My statement above was in response to this statement by you:
I find it redundant to say that a physical entity ("the earth") is without form or substance, when being without substance seems to necessarily imply an absence of form.
The point I was trying to make was, you can't speak of space, without an inference to time, (motion) and you can't speak of time, without an inference to space (distance)
Both are distinct, and necessary when speaking the language of the universe, yet neither is redundant.
The fact that things have these two qualities, form and substance, does not mean they are indistinguishable, or that one is redundant if they are. Neither quality is inferred by the other. Form does not infer substance, and substance does not infer form.
That's all I was trying to clear up.
As far as Betty Boop's argument, and those that are similar, believe me, I would welcome an interpretation of eons with regard to Genesis. It would certainly make science and theology much more compatible, but again, I have yet to hear one that has merit.
So you're saying the conclusion that something with no substance would also have no form is irrational?
Every person has dignity; every person has unalienable rights.
This is so because we are all desired sons (and daughters) of God, and He gives us what we need to be fully human....
Is someone arguing otherwise?
You're free to believe your God gives you - whatever. - I hope you can agree I'm fully human even though I do not believe that anything is 'given' by a God/Creator.
Hosepipe:
There are NO unalienable rights without a God to grant them.. Actually there are not even any rights at all..
Well, I think the Framers, even the religious ones, - would have called you a Tory [or worse] for that rather odd view.
All a government can grant are privileges.. Which of course are infinitely alienable.. and are alienated at every opportunity..
"Infinitely alienable" is hyperbole.. [lots of that on this thread]
Governments under our State/Fed Constitutions can not be empowered to 'grant rights'. [See the 9th] - As to privileges and immunities, read the 14th. Due process must be followed if someone is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property.
Some don't even know the difference between rights and privileges.. And UNalienable rights are beyond them to understand..
Speak for yourself Hose. Your first line above doesn't inspire much confidence in 'understanding'.
Boy do I wish there was. It would make this so much easier. I don't know what to say tactic. It's all very obvious to me. I'm befuddled that people get confused over this.
Well, actually I'm not, but let's not get into that. You probably wouldn't believe me, even if I told you....
"the wonderful progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people, are the results of natural selection" - Darwin, Descent of Man, ch.5. Is the "progress of the United States" a genetic change? It must be if it arose by natural selection, as Darwin says. What about the "character" of the american people? Is that genetic? What are the loci for these genes?
Second, the process of reproduction creates far more offspring than survive to reproduce.
This assertion is nonsensical. Are there far more Norwegians born than can survive to reproduce? Is your pet cat busy producing "far more offspring" than can survive? What about you?
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.