Search This Blog

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Things we can thank Darwinism for...racism, genocide and immorality!

Let's see....first let's see what Darwinists are saying right now:

Evolutionists Endorse Sin     12/15/2010    
Dec 15, 2010 — Crime pays in Darwinism, apparently.  Some biologists find good in what most of us find evil.  After all, in Darwinism, evil is only an illusion.
  1. Corruption:  Victims of corruption may have a different outlook on what Science Daily told its readers:
    Francisco Úbeda, an evolutionary biology professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Edgar Duéñez of Harvard University found that power and corruption may play a role in maintaining overall societal cooperation.
        A report of their research is published in the journal Evolution.
  2. Gossip:  In evolution, gossip is no longer a sin.  In the wake of WikiLeaks, Live Science asked, “Is Gossip Good?”  The answer is found in Darwinian theory:
    Some researchers have argued that the tendency toward jawing about our neighbors is rooted in our evolutionary past.  In his book “Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language,” (Harvard University Press, 1998), Oxford anthropologist Robin Dunbar argues that gossip and language evolved as primate groups got too large to bond by grooming.  In other words, instead of picking lice off each other, humans buy “US Weekly.”
When evolution is left out of the research, sometimes the findings coincide with traditional values.  Science Daily reported on an economist who found a shocking thing: money doesn’t buy happiness.  “Across a worldwide sample of 37 countries, rich and poor, ex-Communist and capitalist, Richard Easterlin and his co-authors shows strikingly consistent results: over the long term, a sense of well-being within a country does not go up with income.”  But did we need science to tell us that?
Darwinism is not just superfluous; it is downright evil.  By turning good and evil into amoral illusions, and by making people pawns of a mythical evolutionary past, evolutionists open the door to a flood of vices.  Some of Darwin’s contemporaries understood the danger his theory posed.  Adam Sedgwick, his geology professor, wrote:
There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical.  A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.  ’Tis the crown and glory of organic science that it does through final cause, link material and moral; and yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, and our classification of such laws, whether we consider one side of nature or the other.  You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it.  Were it possible (which, thank God, it is not) to break it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.
Two world wars and a host of secular totalitarian dictatorships in the 20th century are the result.  See What Hath Darwin Wrought? as described in the 09/27/2010.  After all the social wreckage they have caused, Darwinists remain unrepentant, as the above articles show, still committed to preaching amoral ideas from the mire of folly.
Next headline on:  Politics and EthicsDarwin and EvolutionDumb Ideas

Darwinism can hardly lay claim to anything but the lowest possible morality.   Darwinists believe in the survival of the fittest so anything beyond "I must live even if it means you must die" cannot actually be argued from a Darwinist perspective.   There is no justification or absolute from which a Darwinist can argue right or wrong.  Of course a Darwinist will lie to you!   Why not?  He doesn't acknowledge God's moral code so in fact when he says something is "right" or "wrong" ask him whose morality he has borrowed those terms from, as he has abandoned God's morality when he abandoned God.

I can certainly come up with a list of Darwinist evils - The Eugenics movement which led to mass sterilizations and a rebirth of legal segregation in the South in the early 20th Century, the slaughter of Aborigines like they were just animals to provide specimens to be stuffed and displayed in museums, the slaughter of Jews, non-whites, handicapped and disabled and the infirm in Nazi Germany and Russia and the eliimination of political enemies in China, the legalization of baby murdering and the degeneration of morality in society as people abandon Biblical standards of morality...just to name a few.   Darwinists have been caught deliberately lying and promoting misinformation, sometimes big ridiculous lies like the Haeckel Embryo chart and sometimes subtle lies like presenting a "world geological column"  or a "line of evolution" for, for instance, the eye.   Sometimes it was the overt racism of the textbooks:

Excerpted from George William Hunter, A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (New York, 1914): pp. 193-196, 253-254, 261-263.  (the portion of the textbook that was cause for the Scopes trial.   Think that was a victory for science?  Not.)

"Evolution of Man. - Undoubtedly there once lived upon the earth races of men who were much lower in their mental organization than the present inhabitants. If we follow the early history of man upon the earth, we find that at first he must have been little better than one of the lower animals. He was a nomad, wandering from place to place, feeding upon whatever living things he could kill with his hands. Gradually he must have learned to use weapons, and thus kill his prey, first using rough stone implements for this purpose. As man became more civilized, implements of bronze and of iron were used. About this time the subjugation and domestication of animals began to take place. Man then began to cultivate the fields, and to have a fixed place of abode other than a cave. The beginnings of civilization were long ago, but even to-day the earth is not entirely civilized.

The Races of Man. - At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest race type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America�."

Darwin's own words betrayed his own racist views, which I have presented previously.   Darwinism not only gave profligates like Julian Huxley an excuse to exercise immoral behavior, but license to slaughter other human beings who are weaker or of a different color or culture than those in power.  

““[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Origin of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.””

Charles Darwin's view of non-white races is obvious:

" “The Descent Of Man”, Darwin explains that there is indeed a link between Man and Ape. During Darwin's glory years, Africa was being colonized and explored by the Europeans. This is where Darwin found his “savage” link, the Negroe of Africa. As a matter of fact, in this work by Darwin he in many ways expresses that he holds the Negroe of Africa to be BELOW the monkey. Darwin also introduced many
new and wonderful theories in the “Descent Of Man”, including racial engineering, and ethnic cleansing. These are terms, that unfortunately, we are all too familiar with today. Though reluctantly saying these ideas should not necessarily be enacted, Darwin explains that while earlier forms of men probably killed the handicapped, idiots, and racially undesirable among them, the fact that we now take care of the weaker among us, furthers our “Descent”. And we certainly know from recent history how serious some European leaders took these theories. (Can somebody say Heil?)

Here are some examples to give you a quick tour of Darwin's dementia. Keep in mind, that in the following quotes from the “Descent Of Man”, the term “Savage” is interchangeable with the “African Negroe” to whom he is referring.

Darwin on human engineering -

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man............hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed”   Page - 138-139

Darwin on monkeys and Negroes-

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descended from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs—as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions” Page - 642-643

Darwin, on the future of Negroes and Australian Aborigines-

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla” - Page - 162,163

Yes, Charles Darwin stole the concept of natural selection from a creationist, Edward Blyth.  Blyth identified natural selection as a means of conserving the species and not being a creative force.  Others did the work of  identifying natural selection and Darwin  misapplied it.  He helped popularize racism in the Western World just as Christians were succeeding in putting an end to slavery and slave trading in Europe and the United States.  Social Darwinism has been a plague on mankind ever since Darwin first published his hypothesis.  I would propose to say that Charles Darwin was a plagiarizer and a man of low moral integrity, as this page makes fairly clear!

In fact, these words from that reference are worth considering, being the general worldview of Charles Darwin:

Darwin summed up his viewpoint on natural selection in the final part of the eighth chapter of his Origin of Species, where he wrote: 

". . . To my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting it's foster brothers (from the nest),-ants making slaves-the larvae of ichneumonide feeding with the live bodies of the caterpillars,-not as especially endowed or created instincts, but as one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings [mankind included],-namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." (Origin, final paragraph of Chapter Eight on Instinct, 6th edition)
We find Darwin's outlook on his role as a naturalist and what he thought of the delicate balance of nature when he wrote in 1856, upon beginning his Origin: 

"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature." (25)"

"Let the strongest live and the weakest die" Charles Darwin 

  “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ - Jesus Christ

Which is the morally superior statement?   Which is closer to the TRUTH, in your opinion?   

A Christian acknowledges God, the Creator and Designer of all that we see and know.  Each day we learn more about the intricate and amazing designs found in nature and the fantastic amount of information required to make them work properly.   God should amaze us as we learn more and more about the brilliance of His designs as expressed in nature, even in a world that is fallen and running downhill.   

A Darwinist is a god onto himself, but this is nothing new, man has been making gods clay and stone and wood and especially he has tended to take the title for himself.   You who speak with authority against God and His works will find your fate described in Psalms 82...

Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.

 1 God presides in the great assembly;
   he renders judgment among the “gods”:
 2 “How long will you defend the unjust
   and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
   uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
   deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
 5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
   They walk about in darkness;
   all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
 6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
   you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
   you will fall like every other ruler.”
 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
   for all the nations are your inheritance.


Anonymous said...

Deb, since you were asking about when Radar lies, here is an example:

"Let the strongest live and the weakest die" - Charles Darwin

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ - Jesus Christ

Which is the morally superior statement?

Darwin's quote is completely taken out of context (the rest of the sentence is omitted without any indication that there is more to the quote), and when this is done knowingly and used to misrepresent what the person was actually saying, it is nothing less than a lie. Darwin never said that we should "let the strongest live and the weakest die". He was describing nature. Here is the full sentence:

"Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, —ants making slaves, —the larvæ of ichneumonidæ feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, —not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die."

Radar, when will you start demonstrating some of this supposed moral superiority that you keep bragging about? Lying for Jesus is not setting a good example.

Anonymous said...


Interesting. Radar loses yet another argument (he couldn't back up his claim that science showed that abiogenesis was impossible), and he promptly stomps around with a great big pout, trying to demonize people he doesn't agree with. Wow, Radar, that makes us really want to be like you. Can we be part of your club? Can we, please?

But since you make these allegations, let's take a look: let's say that, for the purpose of this discussion, when you say "Darwinism" you actually mean "atheism". Since you allege that Darwinism/atheism is "downright evil", perhaps there is some evidence for this allegation.

Actually, if it were true, there would be evidence for it: we'd see vastly larger numbers of atheists charged with crimes or being sent to prison.

So: is there any evidence that this is true?

Is there any evidence that atheists act immorally in society any more so than their religious counterparts?

I'll predict right now that this is yet another of many, many claims that you simply can't back up. You make stuff up and rant about it and when you're presented with evidence to the contrary, you run off to the next topic.

Anonymous said...

Darwinists believe in the survival of the fittest so anything beyond "I must live even if it means you must die" cannot actually be argued from a Darwinist perspective.

False. Altruism benefits the survival of a species.

You really don't do much reading outside of your creationist comfort zone, do you?

Anonymous said...

Radar's still peddling the "Nazis were Darwinists" lie, I see. Never gets old, does it?

Radar, Nazis were neither atheists nor did they accept Darwin's theory of evolution. Evolution was anathema to them due to the implication that their Aryan superman was descended from apes. That's why any books about Darwinian evolution were on their list of books to burn. Racism doesn't automatically indicate acceptance of the theory of evolution.

Of course the Nazis weren't exactly what you'd call model Christians, but that doesn't make them atheists.

radar said...

Those who read the entire post do not make stupid claims unless they hope that commenters do not read the posts. Again, accusing me of lying is idiotic and besides that, if you are a Darwinist, lying is perfectly acceptable behavior for you. I can tell by the comment threads that lying is part of the creed of many commenters. The most common charges are that I have not answered a question and every time I had already posted on it in the past, and that even includes LIPS!

Quit lying and try arguing using reason...I will not answer stupid comments.

radar said...

I had also used that entire Darwin quote earlier, so taking part of it and highlighting it is not out of context.

Anonymous said...

Wow Radar you really have turned in to a sad little frustrated man.

You really have no sense of shame, do you?

radar said...

I will never be ashamed to point out how Social Darwinism has badly eroded the morality of society, been used to murder hundreds of millions of innocents and is the reason society agreed to abortion (euphemism for baby murdering) and shamelessly locates most abortion clinics in the areas where the poor and people of color live. Nor can any of your lies sway the truth that all Western nations adopted aspects of Eugenics, to the point that Australian aborigines were hunted for specimens for museums and slaughtered like animals to be hunted. American black people were attacked with Eugenics by sterilization and hemmed in by Jim Crow laws that were enacted in the 20th Century by racists with Darwinist beliefs as an excuse.

A dedicated Darwinist has no problem lying, as we saw in the Dover trial. As we saw in the Haeckel Embryo chart. As we see today as fabrications are the primary basis for Darwinist teachings. No one has observed one kind of animal or plant change into another. You can cry all you like, I am going to keep posting truth. Ad hominem attacks are simply making you commenters look desperate.

radar said...

One more time, the Law of Biogenesis falsifies abiogenesis.

One more time, natural selection and mutation do not produce information.

Natural selection chooses from pre-existing information. Mutations are mistakes, kind of like a word spelled incorrectly.

Darwinists cannot find a source for information, which is why they lie about it or pretend to give an answer that is illogical or pretense. They know they have no answer to this. They hope the man on the street never figures these things out.

No answer for time, matter and energy.

No answer for life.

No answer for information.

No answers, period.

Captain Stubing said...

"Natural selection chooses from pre-existing information."

I see you've made this claim multiple times.

Where's the evidence?

Captain Stubing said...

"No one has observed one kind of animal or plant change into another."

Science doesn't deal with a term like "kinds", but speciation - the branching off of new species - has been observed in fruit flies, for example.

Captain Stubing said...

"No answer for time, matter and energy."

What exactly is the question?

Captain Stubing said...

"One more time, the Law of Biogenesis falsifies abiogenesis."

What is the falsifiable claim that was used?

Don't skip the hard part now.

Captain Stubing said...

I'll predict that you're too cowardly to go near these questions, but I'd like for your readers to see the limitations of your arguments. Simple questions and you run for the hills.

Captain Stubing said...

"No answer for life.

No answer for information."

What exactly are creation scientists' answers to these, uh, questions, if we can call them that?

Anything? Anything at all?

Jon Woolf said...

Captain Stubing: "What exactly are creation scientists' answers to these, uh, questions, if we can call them that?"

Gawd done did it.

That's their answer to everything.

No, I take that back. That's their answer when they have the guts to offer an answer at all. Most of the time, to most of the difficult and interesting questions, they have no answer at all. They run and hide, or lie about it, or change the subject real quick.

Brad Cooper said...

Jon, Why is "God did it" such a bad answer?

When we look at the ancient pyramids in Egypt, we say the ancient Egyptians did it. We don't know exactly how they did it, but we know they did.

And no one goes: "Oh...I see that you are giving up on science. There must be a natural explanation for the pyramids. But instead of doing the hard work of science, you just say: "The ancient Egyptians did it." That's just the old "ancient Egyptians of the gap" argument.

So what exactly was your point???

And by the way, creationists have far more scientific answers than evolutionists offer.

Brad Cooper said...

And Anonymous: The quote is not out of context. Of course, Darwin was referring to nature. But according to Darwinism, humans are part of nature. According to Darwinism, there is nothing special about us that makes us any different from the other animals. We are merely their descendants.

radar said...

@Brad Cooper. The Pyramids comparison is dead on! Well said...