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)

It is the equivalent of me blaming the despotism and genocide of the previous two thousand years on Jesus.

...

And even then it was the religiously motivated Islamic invasion of the Indian Subcontinent that still stands as the greatest mass genocide in all of history.

Both you and I are able to look back at these social trends and declare them evil. But there is a problem with your theory of why:

It should offend us because we possess empathy and understand that what we do not want to happen to us is thereby wrong. I think most people start figuring that out by about age 5.

The social evils that offended us, were not offensive to all the people involved. Certainly not all of the nazis who thought it was right to exterminate jews were younger than 5. So how is it that they thought they were doing right? So your answer to this implied question seems to be:

The problem comes when people start proposing moral systems based not on empathy but on "revealed truth."

But certainly we both can see that "revealed truth" is not always a common factor in all the goings on we object to. And on the other hand the holding of some "revealed truth" is not always a cause for what we consider evil, but sometimes a cause for what we would call good. I find three of four cases easy to think of examples for:

1) Stalin: Evil with no "revealed truth".

2) Mohammed: Evil with "revealed truth".

3) Mother Teresa: Good with "revealed truth"

While I'm pretty sure there are examples of relative good without "revealed truth", most of the people who epitomize good in my mind seemingly believed in "revealed truth". Perhaps you know of some examples off the top of your head?

But honestly, can we not both admit "revealed truth" as the commonality of evil doesn't pan out?

But I suspect what you were really driving at was being "wrong" about the truth? That the problem comes when people have false notions about what moral truth is? And presumably you think of "revealed truth" as being perilously arbitrary in that regard, and empathy should be our guide.

If so, naturalism still has a problem. Why "should" empathy be our guide? What standard tells us so? And how is such a standard not ultimately just as arbitrary as some false revelation by a religious nut?

Perhaps survival and happiness are what is ultimately good? But then who told us that. Why is it better for life to continue at all? On the naturalist view, the only reason we think so is that such a disposition made us more likely to survive and reproduce et al.

A consistent and thoughtful naturalist is forced to believe all moral systems are products of natural processes, and have no more validity than the result of a coin toss. Even if its a "good" natural cause like a warm fuzzy "empathy"...and if you think it through, you can find times where empathy sometimes leads to bad moral decisions.

Alternatively, if you accept that some things really are good and some things really evil, logic insists you accept it as a transcendent truth that was somehow revealed to us. Otherwise, we are just making arbitrary judgments as the biochemistry in our brains directs us.

”The social evils that offended us, were not offensive to all the people involved. Certainly not all of the nazis who thought it was right to exterminate jews were younger than 5. So how is it that they thought they were doing right?”

I will address the question directly rather than (and I hope you don’t mind) considering the straw man answer you provided for me. After all... you deserve my answer rather than your own.

First and foremost, let’s not pretend that European anti-Semitism derives originally from some naturalistic philosophy. Hatred for the Jews is instead a long standing characteristic of Christianity and found a welcome reception in post-war Germany specifically because it already had such a long Christian tradition. As a primarily Lutheran nation, we need only observe that Martin Luther’s vicious hatred for the Jews was no small component of the rhetoric of the Reformation.

In Luther’s book On the Jews and Their Lies we find the foundation of Nazi anti-Semitism. Luther calls them a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth." He writes that they are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine." He urges that their synagogues and schools be burned to the ground, their homes torn down, their property and money confiscated. He recommends that these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. And he finally advocates their genocide, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."

Hitler’s anti-jewish rhetoric was well refined because he had in Martin Luther (among others) a very good teacher.

So out of the gate we can see that at least some of them “thought they were doing right” because they were pious Christians before they were Nazis. I would argue that most were motivated by these religious convictions, and the Nazi leadership merely took advantage of the groundwork that had been provided by the Gospels.

Second, who here has pretended for a second that no people are sociopaths? Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of empathy... the very characteristic that allows “you and I ... to look back at these social trends and declare them evil.” This is why the rest of us create moral/ethical frameworks and then attempt to impose them on the community through the formulation of law. We have the imperative to protect ourselves from the worst among us.

”But certainly we both can see that "revealed truth" is not always a common factor in all the goings on we object to.”

It is odd that you are trying to saddle me with this particular straw man, since I already called it absurd in my previous post. It is not and has never been my contention that “revealed truth” is the root of all evil. In fact, I find most religious traditions to be at the very worst benign, at the best great sources of solace, continuity, community and beauty. Alas... such traditions no longer have the franchise for most human devotion since they have been rather ruthlessly suppressed over the last few millennia by the anomalously intolerant imposition of “exclusive monotheism” in forms of Islam and Christianity.

By “exclusive monotheism” I mean religions that exclude all non-believers (infidels) from the benefits of salvation. If you do not believe in their particular version of God, you are essentially reduced to a lesser sub-human status, worthy ultimately of oppression, exploitation and slaughter. I mean after all... what can a true believer do to an infidel that is worse than what God has planned for them; eternal suffering in a lake of fire?

”While I'm pretty sure there are examples of relative good without "revealed truth", most of the people who epitomize good in my mind seemingly believed in "revealed truth". Perhaps you know of some examples off the top of your head? “

Robert Wilson (Atheist) – Gave the Archdiocese of New York received a record-breaking gift of $22.5 million to provide educational scholarships for inner-city children. Asked why he did it, Wilson said, "It was a chance for a very modest amount of money to get kids out of a lousy school system and into a good school system."

Bill Gates (Atheist) - Has given over $36 billion to charity.

Andrew Carnegie (Atheist) - Gave away most of his money to establish many libraries, schools, and universities in America, the United Kingdom and other countries, as well as a pension fund for former employees.

Warren Buffett (Atheist) - In 2007 gave $30.7 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Ted Turner (Atheist) - Has donated $600 million to UN causes, and has pledged to add another $400 million - taking his commitment to $1 billion.

Fred Hollows (Atheist) – “Australia's unofficial saint.’ His foundation has provided cataract operations for the needy around the world.

S.H.A.R.E. (The Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort) - Has contributed aid to the Tsunami disaster relief effort in Sri Lanka; Medical relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans; Aid to assist displaced families in the California wildfires; Basic food aid for tornado victims in middle Tennessee; Aid to the families of the February 2009 plane crash in Clarence, NY.

I could go on... but you did ask for “just off the top of my head.”

”If so, naturalism still has a problem. Why "should" empathy be our guide? What standard tells us so? And how is such a standard not ultimately just as arbitrary as some false revelation by a religious nut?”

Again, we stray into the excruciating and often pointless philosophical miasma of “ought” vs. “is.” I do not particularly care to waste significant bandwidth over the question “Why ‘should’ empathy be our guide?” because our speculations on that matter are ultimately of no consequence.

Empathy is the origin of all morality and moral systems. It is the basis by which each (or at least most) individuals understands viscerally without instruction that a difference exits between wrong and right. “Ought” it to be that way? I don’t particularly care. Because when I leave my front door and engage with the universe I must account for what actually “is,” not for how I wish it were.

”Perhaps survival and happiness are what is ultimately good? But then who told us that. Why is it better for life to continue at all? On the naturalist view, the only reason we think so is that such a disposition made us more likely to survive and reproduce et al. “

Close, but not quite. You asked, “Who told us that?” And the answer has always been, “We told us that.” This inexplicable need that some have for things to be imposed on us by some external “other” is fascinating, but ultimately little more than a pleasant fiction.

We are what we are because it works. If it didn’t, then the ruthless and invariant operation of natural law would have gotten rid of us long ago. You came closest to hitting the nail on the head when you mused, “the only reason we think so is that such a disposition made us more likely to survive and reproduce.”

Of course!!That is what has worked for us and made us successful. Heck, we certainly do not have the tools that other species have for success. We do not have the teeth of a lion, the claws of a bear, the poison of a pit viper, the size of a blue whale. Even our big brains would serve us in poor stead were we to try to stand alone against most other organisms on the planet. It is the fact that we are social animals that generates our success as a species. We do not and cannot survive as individuals... we only survive as communities. And critical to that communal success is the empathy that we have evolved to transform individual desire into communal imperative.

”A consistent and thoughtful naturalist is forced to believe all moral systems are products of natural processes, and have no more validity than the result of a coin toss. Even if its a "good" natural cause like a warm fuzzy "empathy"...and if you think it through, you can find times where empathy sometimes leads to bad moral decisions.”

So... excuse me... you actually believe that there is such a thing as a perfect moral system which never leads to bad decisions? Can you show me one?

We do not design our moral systems to be perfect. We design them to be good enough for the community.

But since a community can be anything ranging from two consenting adults negotiating a sexual encounter, to the family, to the economic business organization, to the city, to the nation/state, to the global community with shared interests in global assets such as clean water and the ozone layer... there will be always be irremediable conflicts. Each individual operates within overlapping and different sets of morals and ethics relevant to the communities to which that individual belongs. And the same act can be either moral, immoral or have no moral implications whatsoever depending on the communities involved. And when different communities overlap the identical act can be both moral and immoral at the same time... depending again on the perspective of that community.

Hey... it’s messy stuff. Just like real life.

”Alternatively, if you accept that some things really are good and some things really evil, logic insists you accept it as a transcendent truth that was somehow revealed to us. Otherwise, we are just making arbitrary judgments as the biochemistry in our brains directs us. “

Since it is clear that this is your position, I’d love for you to give me a discrete and granular example of one of these things that “really are good [or] really evil.” I mean something that is simply never, ever of a character opposite from its inherent ‘goodness” or badness.”

I will telegraph my own position here... the universe shows us without question that there are no such things. We pretend there are, but do not genuinely believe there are.

Even the few rules that almost all moral systems agree on are ultimately only suggestions at best. There is (for example) not a people on the planet who actually believes that "Thou shalt not kill."

Everything that we can label good is sometimes evil. And everything that we label evil is sometimes not only good... it is necessary. This is because the universe does not care what we label things. The universe operates entirely dependent on what “is,” not on what “ought.”

The biggest failing of "revealed truth” is that it causes so many of us to abdicate the hard work around defining what is good or bad to some great cosmic lawgiver who does not ultimately exist. It allows us to stop making moral choices at all and instead blindly follow like sheep those who would use the authority of God to manipulate us against our genuine interests. It misleads us into bleieveing that we are not responsible for those choices.

The most obscene statement I have ever read is this:

“God said it. I believe it. And that settles it.”

In those ten words you have set the stage for atrocity.

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.