Newt Gingrich once stated the problem of evolutionism and morality about as succinctly as is possible in noting that the question of whether a man views his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes simply has to affect human relationships.
Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it. A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the evolosers) have a favorite term ( "quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.
My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist (actually, FORMER evolutionist) Jeffrey Dahmer:
"If a person doesnt think there is a God to be accountable to, thenthen whats the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? Thats how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing "
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.
Dahmer converted to Christianity before he died. The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and "secular humanist" societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from "lucky dust" is a formula for getting people killed.
Evolution was the basic philosophical cornerstone of communism, naziism, the various eugenics programs, the out of control arms races which led to WW-I and WW-II, and all of the grief of the last 150 years. Starting from 1913, Europe had gone for a hundred years without a major war. They didn't even have to think. All they needed to do was act cool, go to church, have parades, formal balls, attend board meetings, and they'd still be running the world today; they'd be so fat and happy they'd not know what to do with themselves. Instead, they all got to reading about Darwinism, fang and claw, survival of the fittest and all the rest of that nonsense, and the rest as they say is history.
The most interesting analysis of that sad tale is probably Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics"
Keith apparently viewed belief in evolution as some sort of duty of the English educated classes, nonetheless he had a very clear vision of the problems inherent in it and laid it out in no uncertain terms:
From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:
The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942
....It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people....
... "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.
...I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.
....No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany.... ...Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions....
It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.
Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End
IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).
It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:
If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose i
s finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."
...If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this:
the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.
All of that, of course, deals only with the question of ethics and the logical consequences of evolutionism. The fact that evolution is junk science argues against it as well.
All excellent points, Wendy. And thanks for that final link! I have never run across that site before, and I plan on going through it tonight. It looks like a definite candidate for my favorites list.
All the best—GGG
Actually, that last link looked good when I read the links, but when I clicked on them all I got was a bunch of advertisements. Am I missing something?
The truth of what Newt says is evidenced by what happened after Darwin's "Origin" was published. The emerging elites were swept away by enthusiasm and sought to apply Natural selection to every aspect of human life. Darwin didn't invent social darwinism, but his authority was behind this promiscuous application of nature selection. William Jennings Bryan, to this day, is treated as a buffoon because he was horrified by the bloodymindedness of the elites with regard to the poor and for this reason sought to curb the teaching of it in the schools.
Seems like you are assuming Naturalism to be the inevatable conclusion of evolution.
If so I disagree.
I will grant that Naturalism needs Evolution or it fails. For Naturalism to be true, there must be a way for inorganic matter to become organic matter without supernatural intervention. However, I, as many others, think this is plausible and thus not the best grounds for rejecting Naturalism.
But it is not remotely true that if you accept Evolution you must accept Naturalism, for Naturalism also requires that inorganic stuff (matter and energy--all the stuff of nature) came from nothing else. This is not remotely plausible when one takes the time to reason it out. Thus Naturalism fails to rencocile itself to reason. Moreover it also fails other ways. for instance it can not be reconciled with the existance of experience--something we all have inately and constantly.
For the sake of argument though, let us assume you are correct and Evolution is false. I still think it is an ineffective mechanism for freeing the mind from Naturalism. When I was an agnostic, such a focus didn't help me at all. The arguments that freed my mind were based on conscious experience, and on the existance of stuff...things that were so obvious I needed to rely on no-one else's authority to ge the basic facts straight. I think these are the proofs that God gave to the skeptics like myself.
Do you view evolution as "just a theory" or as the best explanation for how we came to be?
Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have. But it's changing too. The current tree of life is not anything like a 19th-century Darwinian tree. We're learning a lot about how systems evolve and don't evolve. Cockroaches became successful several hundred million years ago and just stopped evolving.
“The basic tenets of true religion appear to be inprinted upon most of us biologically which is the only reason that Islammic societies and “secular humanist” societies like Britain and Canada function at all. A psychopath like Dahmer is basically somebody on whom that imprint did not take. For those guys, it has to be written down somewhere, and it has to be written down accurately; the bible does that. Telling somebody like Dahmer that we all evolved from “lucky dust” is a formula for getting people killed.”
Is that part of the alternative scientific theory that you’d like to see presented in Texas schools?
Very nicely done.
As an MD and History major (phi beta kappa and cum laude)-—I learned in school that evolution was fact and those who didn’t “get it” were idiots and flat earth types. I’ve now gone to the trouble to read the evidence—listen to the arguments (Berninski, “Expelled”, etc)-—and it boggles my mind like the elephant in the living room of how specious the theory of evolution is. Unbelievable—the garbage we are ordered to accept. Funny how the evolutionists don’t bat an eye at the miracle of existence out of nothing but suggest there may be some intelligent design at play in the highly complex forms of life we see or in the fine tuning of the Universe and they’re ready to skin you alive.
This is just another version of "Could God create a rock so big that he couldn't lift it?"
The answers are "no" because they are both nonsense statements.
More baloney. Communism comes from the Bible Communists of the 18th and 19th centuries. They simply followed Saint Thomas More's blueprint in Utopia.
Also evolution is a philosophy only to creationists. To people who actually studied it, it's simply the best description of what's lying around on the planet.