Search This Blog

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Ian Juby -Genesis Week and the high cost of "forgetting God"

"Men have forgotten God;
that's why all this has happened." - 
Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn

Ian Juby is presenting a video that is a perfect follow-up to yesterday's post and serves as the introduction to the premise that was introduced thereby - 




“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism... neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the worlds greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.” 

― Richard WeikartFrom Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany



Why was it okay to have catch, kill and stuff  "Aborigines" at one time? 

Why was it okay to cage and present a man of dark color, Ota Benga in the Bronx Zoo? 


credit

Why was it just fine to segregate the US Military in the early 20th Century? 

Why was it okay to have pictures of naked or partially naked African women in the National Geographic Magazine back in the 60's and probably beyond and stocked in libraries (even school libraries) while similar magazines were kept behind the counter and only sold to adults?

Why did the American Eugenicists sterilize African-Americans in the early 20th Century?

Why did Hitler kill off so many Jews?   Why did Stalin do the same?

Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin, founded Eugenics.   Eugenicists wanted to eliminate people with dark skin, people with Down's Syndrome and generally thought the white people were a superior "race" who were the "most evolved" of humankind.

Abortion on demand is highly unlikely to be allowed in a civilized society.  But when people do not see intrinsic value in human life as given by God, they can not only decide it is fine to kill off people of color or perhaps political enemies or aging people but why not kill babies in the womb?

The Founding Fathers would never have envisioned abortion or they would have made sure to specify it in the Bill of Rights.  But men such as these could not have supposed that the United States of America would ever be so savage as to allow baby murdering!  

Darwinism applied to society would not prohibit murder at all, but rather every person would be expected to do whatever it takes to reproduce his own seed at the expense of anyone else who might get in the way.  Jeff Dahmer simply explained that he was living out a Darwinian lifestyle.  Later in prison, Dahmer found Christ and prayed to be killed because he truly believed his acts were too heinous to allow him to live.  An inmate did kill him in prison as Dahmer had hoped.

Hitler sought to build a society with the underlying thought that the German/Aryan people were supreme and needed to rule the world.  That Hitler himself was not strictly an Aryan himself was ironic, all things considered.  Karl Marx certainly admired the works of Charles Darwin, as did Engels. Go and read for yourself:  The Link

Socialists and Communists of today are quite happy to admit their link to Darwinist thought!

Stalin was every bit as devoted to Darwinian thought as was Hitler!


Stalin's Brutal Faith

Some have the mistaken notion that faith and religion are linked inseparably with the confession of a supreme being, but many exercise faith in self and other human beings--to the exclusion of the divine. This, too, is religion. Whatever serves as one's basic system of beliefs about his or her place and role in the universe is certainly a faith, a religion.
Joseph Stalin, though an atheist, was a believer. His was a faith resulting in tremendous brutality--nevertheless, a faith! What was this faith? Was it uniquely Stalin's? Also, how brutal was it? The purpose of this article is to offer some answers to these questions and to add insights of the eminent authority on Russia's soul, Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
STALIN'S FAITH--WHAT WAS IT?

Often an individual's faith is firmly attached to a book of some kind. Muslims have the Koran; Hindus, their Veda; and Christians, the Bible. Writings of Confucius, Buddha, and indeed, Mao Tse-Tung, serve similar purposes for other groups. In Stalin's case, the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin incited him, but to stop here would be premature. There is one man-book amalgam which may have been even more determinative for Stalin, especially during his youthful, impressionable years. The man was Charles Darwin; the book--his The Origin of Species.
To document this, appeal is made first to a book published in Moscow entitled,Landmarks in the Life of Stalin. It was written during Stalin's "glory," and was designed to set him in a positive light. Note in the selection cited, that faith in Darwin and his "book" contrasts markedly with faith in a supreme being:

At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates:
"I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said:
"'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .'
"I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.
"'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.
"'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
"'What book is that?' I enquired.
"'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me" 1

A few pages later, another individual--also reflecting on Stalin's youthful pursuits, added the following:
". . .in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin's teachings."1
HAD MARX, ENGELS, AND LENIN SHARED THE SAME FAITH?

It has already been stated that Stalin was influenced by the writings of these men. Did this dilute the effect of Darwin on him, or were these men also affected by the same British naturalist? The answer to the second question must be affirmative. Conway Zirkle, Professor of Botany at the University of Pennsylvania, published a book in 1959 entitled, Evolution, Marxian Biologyand the Social Scene, in which he cites comments made in correspondence between Engels and Marx. As early as December 12, 1859 (only months after The Origin of Species was published), Friedrich Engels wrote to Karl Marx, "Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid." [2] About a year later (December 19, 1860), Marx, the Father of Communism, responded, "During my time of trial, these last few weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view." 2 To one Ferdinand Lassalle, he wrote (January 16, 1861), "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." [2] Zirkle also indicated that Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. 2 Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, an intense and modern spokesman for evolution, corroborates this by reporting that he saw Darwin's copy of Marx's first volume inscribed by Marx--describing himself as a "sincere admirer" of the English naturalist. 3
Ruis credits Vladimir Lenin with the following commentary on Darwin:
Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God, and hence immutable. 4
HOW BRUTAL WAS STALIN'S FAITH?

The 20th century has been one of tyranny and mass genocide. One needs only to remember the two million Cambodians slaughtered under Pol Pot, the six million Jews exterminated by Adolf Hitler, and the 20 million helpless lives aborted in America. Leading the list of atrocities, however, might well be the millions of Russian people eliminated under Stalin's murderous rule.
Harrison E. Salisbury of The New York Times, described the Soviet system of prison camps as "a whole continent of terror. . . . Compared with those who brought about the hundreds of thousands of executions and the millions of deaths in the Soviet terror system, the Czars seem almost benign. . . . Our minds boggle at the thought of a systematized, routine evil, under which three or four or more million men and women were sentenced each year to forced labor and eternal exile--and in a manner so casual that the prisoners often were not even told what their sentences were. . . ." 5
SOLZHENITZYN'S INSIGHTS

In 1983, Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn, winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize for Literature, gave an address in London in which he attempted to explain why so much evil had befallen his people:
Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." 
Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened." 6
But has Solzhenitsyn considered any relationship involving Soviet oppression, Stalin's terror, and Darwin's theories on origin? In his towering book, The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn recounts an incident which apparently took place in 1937-38 at a district Party conference meeting in Moscow Province. The secretary (replacing an arrested one) was paying tribute to Comrade Stalin. The group, including the new secretary, was standing and applauding their esteemed Leader. Even a single minute of feverish clapping consumes energy, but in this case it was important to sustain the "enthusiasm" much longer. Three, four, five minutes passed and more! Tired arms!--but who could risk stopping? Seven, eight, and nine minutes elapsed. It was absurd! Finally after eleven minutes (!), a local factory director stopped clapping and sat down. All followed suit, but that night the one who stopped first was arrested and given ten years! He was told, "Don't ever be the first to stop applauding!" Solzhenitsyn queries, "And just what are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to stop?" 7 In harmony with the position of this article, he adds:
Now that's what Darwin's natural selection is. And that's also how to grind people down with stupidity. 7
CONCLUSION

In a previous article, 8 the present author documented the thesis that Hitler was a fanatical evolutionist. Evolutionary language and terms were shown to be used in Hitler's Mein Kampf. Sir Arthur Keith summarized, "Hitler (was) an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his action." 9
This present article relates Stalin, along with the Fathers of Communism, to the same concepts. The attachments of these men to Darwin have been made explicit, and, again, it would seem wise to include evolutionary explanations if we want fully to understand their actions. Of Hitler it may be said that he killed millions; of these men--and especially of Stalin--tens of millions!
Of course none of this either proves or disproves the theory itself, but it does strongly suggest that much evil has entered the world under the tutelage of Darwin's theory.
Henry Fairfield Osborn once wrote, "The ethical principle inherent in evolution is that only the best has a right to survive. . . ." 10 Jesus, however, was concerned to heal the sick and deformed. He showed compassion for the weak and enfeebled. Not much of a follower of evolution's "ethical principle" was He, but, then again, one would hardly expect this from the Creator.
"Men have forgotten God;
that's why all this has happened."
REFERENCES
1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12.
2 Conway Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959), pp. 85-87.
3 Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1977), p. 26.
4 Eduardo del Rio (pseudonym="Rius"), Marx for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), Glossary, n.p.
5 Harrison E. Salisbury, "Reading The Gulag Archipelago is like no other reading experience of our day," Book-of-the-Month Club NEWS, Midsummer, 1974, pp. 4,5.
6 Edward E. Ericson, Jr., "Solzhenitsyn - Voice from the Gulag," Eternity, October 1985, pp. 23, 24.
7 Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 7.
8 Paul G. Humber, "The Ascent of Racism," Impact (Institute for Creation Research, February 1987).
9 Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons 1947), p. 14.
10 Henry Fairfield Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education (London: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), p. 48.
* Paul G. Humber, A.B., M.S., M.Div., is a schoolmaster at a college preparatory school in the Philadelphia area.


7 comments:

Jon W said...

By the exact same logic, one can dismiss the entire religion of Christianity out of hand because of the Inquisition, witch-burnings, and the Catholic Church religious-abuse scandals.

I don't accept that reasoning. Why do you?

radar said...

I expected that one! The Catholic Church at that time was not really Christian at all, they were a set of rulers intent on keeping the people ignorant and paying indulgences while terrorizing those who resisted. They were going AGAINST the foundational Christian morality. There was one Pope who raped whatever virgins he desired and one who was actually a woman! At that time the Catholic Church was joined at the hip with the royals, just as the Jewish leaders of the time of Christ were leeching off of and afraid to offend Rome. Jesus Christ had harsh words for them and would have lambasted the Spanish Inquisition in no uncertain terms as well. Witch burnings were even less common than Wild West fast-draw gunfights, idiotic superstitious unbiblical behavior!

Christianity has its share of so-called preachers putting on shows in which they display their "power with God" or preaching prospertity via sending THEM money!!! Normal Christians cringe at the Benny Hinns and Robert Tiltons, charlatans who convince people to enrich them, fly in private jets, have millions of dollars and are about as Christian as Lenin or Hitler!

Even Richard Dawkins has stated that Darwinian philosophy would make for terrible government and morality at different times.

Jesus said that the two primary points of Christianity were to:

1) Love your neighbor as yourself
2) Love God with all that is in you

Darwinism is based on:

1) Survival of the fittest
2) The strong overpower the weak

So when we look at the foundational morality of Christianity versus Darwinism, we see opposing positions. The United States was built on Christian principles. Hitler's Third Reich and Stalin's Soviet Union were built on Darwinist foundations.

Of course a Darwinist can be a great neighbor and fine fellow and of course a Christian can be a deceptive and selfish person. In both cases they are not acting in accordance with the underlying philosophy of their worldviews. It remains true that the Darwinist worldview is fundamental to Fascism/Socialism/Communism and certainly Machiavellian dictatorship. It remains true that the USA was founded upon Christian principles and we are destroying ourselves by accepting Socialist and Darwinist concepts.

Jon W said...

"They were going AGAINST the foundational Christian morality."

Exactly. And Stalin, Hitler, and the others you listed were going against the theory of evolution as Darwin stated it.

"Darwinism is based on:

1) Survival of the fittest
2) The strong overpower the weak"

Half right. Yes, evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," but what that means depends on how fitness is defined. Darwin himself argued strongly that for a highly social species such as Homo sapiens, cooperation and mutual support is a better path than competition and conflict. In other words, he argued that for humankind, the strong should support and aid the weak, not that the strong should overpower the weak.

radar said...

Darwin was a very depressed individual in his later days. He was conflicted over what the results of his hypotheses would be. It is no surprise that he argued against applying the Darwinist morality to humankind although you know as well as I that he did see the conundrum there.

An English gentleman, Darwin would not be in favor of uncouth behavior because of his training. I have a lot of, I don't know, pity, for the guy. He was raised in a home where so-called Christianity was just a ritual to make them acceptable to society. He lost his favorite daughter and considered God to be unjust. His grandfather was a devoted Atheopath. Darwin would never accept what the moral implications of his works meant.

But his cousin Francis Galton certainly did, as did his contemporaries Karl Marx and Thomas Huxley. Social change in a tyrannical and murderous direction was in part due to Darwin's claims and this cannot be disputed. The very words of Marx, Engels and Hitler confirm it. The Socialist Party still maintains Darwin's evolution is a part of their fundamental philosophy.

What evolution claims to be is survival of the fittest and that mutation drives natural selection to change organisms on an upward path. This is not observed but rather organisms are on a downward path - extinctions, mutations, loss of genetic information. I would also say that Darwinism has led to the downward spiral of human morality in the Western world. Depravity and murdering of babies and a frontal assault on Christianity can be laid at Darwin's feet.

Anonymous said...

"Christianity has its share of so-called preachers putting on shows"

Seems to me you missed the essential point of Jon's first post. Should the "so-called preachers" be taken as justification to dismiss the entire Christianity package in its entirety?

I would think not. And I don't think you'd agree with that sentiment either.

But that is exactly the kind of argument you're presenting in posts like these.

radar said...

No I am NOT making that same argument. Jon is talking about how some Christians (in name only or otherwise) act against their basic foundational belief system. I am not arguing about merely the actions of some individuals. I am pointing out what the fundamental belief system of the two worldviews are and where it leads if obeyed.

Jon W said...

" I am pointing out what the fundamental belief system of the two worldviews are and where it leads if obeyed."

No, you're not. Because evolutionary theory doesn't actually say what you claim it says.