But how can evolution be “wrong”?

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 23, 2019

Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Out of Our Minds: What We Think and How We Came to Think It by [FernÃ¡ndez-Armesto, Felipe]

Concluding a review of Felipe Fernández-Armesto’s Out of Our Minds: What We Think and How We Came to Think It,
philosopher John Gray writes,

Most puzzling in this fascinating compendium of ideas is Fernández-Armesto’s own idea that human imagination is an immaterial faculty. “Human intelligence,” he avers, “is probably fundamentally unmechanical: there is a ghost in the human machine.” Again, he is not the first to suggest that the human mind may not be wholly explicable in mechanical terms. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Darwin of modern evolutionary theory, believed the human animal emerged via natural selection but at some point acquired higher mental powers from a non-natural source. Having studied animal minds and emotions, Darwin was horrified by Russel Wallace’s suggestion. What was at stake for Darwin was not just his own theory, which was meant to include the human mind. It was the idea of science itself, which – though he never unequivocally rejected theism – he thought meant explaining events in the world by reference to natural processes within it. Whether Fernández-Armesto rejects this idea of science is unclear.
The puzzle is deepened by his observation that most ideas are bad or wrong or both. If what makes humans unique is the power of seeing what is not there, what makes them so destructive is that they believe what they have seen to be real. Untold millions have killed and died for the sake of dreams – gods, utopias, visions of the past or future – conjured up in the imagination. The ancient Gnostics, discussed by Fernández-Armesto when he considers the origins of Christianity, believed a malignant deity or “demiurge” had consigned human beings to a lower world of ghosts and phantasms. It’s an entertaining metaphysical speculation. But perhaps we should consider the more mundane possibility that in the course of its evolution something went badly wrong with the human brain. The destructive power of ideas may have a natural explanation. There may be no ghost in the human machine, simply some crossed wires we cannot untangle.
John Gray, “The perils of the human imagination” at New Statesman

Well, it’s important to know whether there is a “ghost in the human machine” vs. “crossed wires we cannot entangle” because the ghost may be acting badly. But evolution caan’t go “badly wrong.” Ain’t no such animal.

Comments

Seversky as quoted by SA at 38
Human beings are social animals. Individually, they are weak and vulnerable to many predator species but the chances of individual survival are improved if that individual is a member of a co-operative group. If the strength and resilience of a group in the face environmental stresses and crises are enhanced by a moral code under which group members feel protected and valued then that is advantageous for all in terms of survival.
At least that is the 'just-so story' that Seversky would rather believe in than believe in God, but the real world empirical evidence of the situation is a far cry from the bed-time story Seversky wants to believe in. In fact, not only is Seversky's materialistic worldview completely amoral, i.e. blind pitiless indifference,,,
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins
,,,not only that, but when coupled with Darwin's ‘survival of the fittest’ principle,,,
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
,,,when coupled with Darwin's ‘survival of the fittest’ principle, Seversky's materialistic Darwinian worldview is not only amoral but becomes downright anti-moral, and even actually provides yet another empirical falsification of Darwin's theory. Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1866/1866-241-c-1859.html
And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim, it is now known that ” “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”
Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf
Moreover, the falsification of ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking goes even deeper than that. If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:
Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for? Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66
The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:
The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308
As you can see, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially morally noble altruistic behavior of any sort, would be highly superfluous and even detrimental to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a ‘survival of the fittest’ Darwinian view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction. Yet, contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found. And they even stated that “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html
And again, directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:
NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.” http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs
Moreover, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf – Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers
Darwin’s theory simply has no explanation for such altruistic behavior from microorganisms, (much less for altruistic behavior in humans), and in fact such behavior is completely contrary to the central assumption of ‘survival of the fittest’ that lays at the heart of Darwin’s theoretical framework. And according to a falsification criteria that was laid down by Darwin himself, these findings, (and several other findings like these), falsifies Darwin's theory as a viable scientific theory. Thus, Seversky can tell himself as many bedtime stories as he wants as to how man's innate moral sense came about, but as far as the science itself is concerned, Seversky's bed-time stories do not even get out of the starting gate in regards to being scientifically credible. bornagain77

Seversky
Human beings are social animals. Individually, they are weak and vulnerable to many predator species but the chances of individual survival are improved if that individual is a member of a co-operative group. If the strength and resilience of a group in the face environmental stresses and crises are enhanced by a moral code under which group members feel protected and valued then that is advantageous for all in terms of survival.
That's a reasonable explanation but I do not see that a goal of evolution is the survival of a group but rather, there are no goals and that mutations and selection pressures merely allow the fittest to dominate. The fact that a group survives or not is not a goal for evolution. I also do not see that human moral systems are oriented to the survival of a group. Again, evolution is not about survival alone but also reproductive success, and moral norms (against rape, polygamy) often limit that aspect of what evolution would obtain. Animals, for example, do not appear to need any moral norms in order to compete and survive and reproduce. They will either continue as a group or become extinct. Evolution does care either way and the animals don't either. Silver Asiatic

Seversky
Evolution is a theory in biology not ethics.
Ethics comes from somewhere other than biology? Perhaps from some immaterial cause or source?
It is concerned with describing and explaining how life is, not how it should be.
Evolution is not merely a theory, it is supposedly the process that created human life. Evolution does not "explain" how things are or should be, instead it Created how they are and how they "should be" is how evolution made them to be.
Categorizing an act as an atrocity is a moral judgment made by humans about human behavior which, as far as we can tell, only we as humans are capable of here on Earth.
The fact that we make such judgements argues against an evolutionary origin.
If a society has developed rules of behavior which protect the majority from the depredations of the few that would ignore the rights and well-being of their fellows then the bonds which hold that society together are strengthened by that amount.
It is assuming that evolution occurs in order to hold society together. You're supplying some purpose and direction to evolution, which the process does not have. Populations compete with each other and even have competition within their own ranks. The most fit might survive, or not. Evolution does not care. The existence of morals and ethics, for reasons you've given (which conflict with evolutionary patterns) are arguments against evolutionary origins of human beings. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic @ 33
In Darwinian belief, there are no atrocities. But you’re saying that humans have a set of rules (reference?) which conflict with evolutionary outcomes. I see that as a conflict between human reason and evolutionary processes, and therefore, one cannot be the outcome of the other. In any case, evolution always has a problem explaining why products of evolution (humans) create rules that frustrate evolutionary processes.
Evolution is a theory in biology not ethics. It is concerned with describing and explaining how life is, not how it should be. Categorizing an act as an atrocity is a moral judgment made by humans about human behavior which, as far as we can tell, only we as humans are capable of here on Earth. If a society has developed rules of behavior which protect the majority from the depredations of the few that would ignore the rights and well-being of their fellows then the bonds which hold that society together are strengthened by that amount. Seversky

Silver Asiatic @ 13
Humans have different moral systems. Supposedly, these all emerged from biological processes. But the fact that humans attempt to create moral norms to regulate behavior, is an argument against evolutionary-origins, since there is no need for moral systems in the animal kingdom, for example.
Human beings are social animals. Individually, they are weak and vulnerable to many predator species but the chances of individual survival are improved if that individual is a member of a co-operative group. If the strength and resilience of a group in the face environmental stresses and crises are enhanced by a moral code under which group members feel protected and valued then that is advantageous for all in terms of survival. Seversky

Mimus

BB
It’s a good thing that humans have decided to establish a set of rules that everybody is expected to follow, and punish those who don’t.
In Darwinian belief, there are no atrocities. But you're saying that humans have a set of rules (reference?) which conflict with evolutionary outcomes. I see that as a conflict between human reason and evolutionary processes, and therefore, one cannot be the outcome of the other. In any case, evolution always has a problem explaining why products of evolution (humans) create rules that frustrate evolutionary processes. Silver Asiatic

Comically my last statement about saying we could hate them together is also wrong as that does not follow with the teachings of Christ and I need to love them as I need to love everybody else “love the enemy” As I said I’m not the best and I admit that I suck AaronS1978

There is one thing I want to clear up about the comment “those that commit atrocities and say they’re Christians aren’t following the teachings of Christ” This is not a denial that Christians don’t commit atrocities This is a statement of fact that they are being hypocritical if they’re claiming to be Christian and then turning around and doing something horrible In other words practice what you preach and if you can’t do that stop preaching And to a degree I do see why you think that it is a denial that Christians commit atrocities. But at least from how I was raised in the family that I was in in the culture that I’ve dealt with this is not the case it is considered a shameful mistake that was committed by people that follow our belief that were being incredibly hypocritical and we should learn not to do what they’re doing I know that’s a really long picky explanation And I know there are tons of hypocrites on both sides of this coin. But I agree, a person that says they’re Christian and says they’re doing something in the name of Christ and what they’re doing is horribly wrong is being a hypocrite they could still be Christian they’re just really bad Christians And if that is the case we can hate them together. By the way I never claimed that I am perfect nor can I follow the teachings of Christ perfectly I suck at doing that I am not the best and I admit very clearly when I am wrong AaronS1978

V@29, thank you for pointing this out. I really should stop drinking at lunch. :) Brother Brian

BB Your post in 28 should be addressed to SA , he wrote it. Really you really need to work on actually reading what people write. Vivid vividbleau

SA
From the Darwinian view, there are no atrocities.
This is correct. It's a good thing that humans have decided to establish a set of rules that everybody is expected to follow, and punish those who don't. The benefit of being animals that can reason, think abstractly and predict outcomes is that we can do this. Brother Brian

From the Darwinian view, there are no atrocities. There are just evolutionary outcomes which are neither good nor bad. Through competition, new features and species emerge. The dying off or internal conflict within populations, for whatever reasons, are not 'atrocities'. Evolutionists only rarely accept and act upon that key point. Silver Asiatic

BB “My point was just to demonstrate to AaronS1978 that there actually are commenters here who claim that Christians don’t commit atrocities because, as their argument goes, a “true Christian” wouldn’t do that. Thank you for proving my point. ????“ LOL you have serious reading comprehension problems. Vivid vividbleau

V
I would be very surprised if Aaron disagrees with what I wrote.
My point was just to demonstrate to AaronS1978 that there actually are commenters here who claim that Christians don't commit atrocities because, as their argument goes, a "true Christian" wouldn't do that. Thank you for proving my point. :) Brother Brian

BB re 23 I would be very surprised if Aaron disagrees with what I wrote. Vivid vividbleau

V
To commit atrocities is antithetical to the teachings of Christ and anyone who does so is not following the teachings of Christ.
AaronS1978, I rest my case. Brother Brian

BB “Or something like, ‘atrocities may be committed in the name of Christianity but these decisions were made by people who were not following the teachings of Christ’.” To commit atrocities is antithetical to the teachings of Christ and anyone who does so is not following the teachings of Christ. Vivid vividbleau

AaronS1978
That’s simply not true, Correct me if I’m wrong but no one here says that Christians didn’t commit any atrocities every human being group has committed to atrocities, And I don’t know of anybody who has directly denied that not even BA77
I apologize if I implied that this is the case for all Christians. My wording should have been clearer. However, I have seen the claim I made from more than one commenter here. Here are a few examples from another thread.
Barb: Also, being raised a Christian/claiming to be a Christian =/= actually following the teachings of Christ. Seriously, I have to explain this? Really?

Timaeus: Christianity is not to be equated with formal upbringing. Most Germans were either Catholic or Lutheran at the time. But their faith was often weak, and their churchgoing more a matter of habit or culture than the expression of any deep belief in the truth of the Gospels. Those whose Christianity was truly an expression of the Gospels were not leaders of the Nazi party, did not plan the death camps, and did not direct their operation.

Joe: USA is predominately religious? Maybe if one considers those who call themselves religious but have no idea what that means.

Joe: And it’s no true scotsman because most religious people in the US have no idea what it means?
My point is just that many Christians use the argument that Christians don't commit atrocities because someone who truly followed Christ's teachings would not do so. Or something like, 'atrocities may be committed in the name of Christianity but these decisions were made by people who were not following the teachings of Christ'. Brother Brian

Bb But what I do find amusing in these discussions of atrocities and religious beliefs (or lack there-of) is that Christians always claim that Christians never commit atrocities because if they did, they would not be true Christians. BB That’s simply not true, Correct me if I’m wrong but no one here says that Christians didn’t commit any atrocities every human being group has committed to atrocities, And I don’t know of anybody who has directly denied that not even BA77 What has happened is I have had to sit there and correct seversky on a lot of his claims towards Christians being the most awful people and most terrible people ever to exist Implying that the atrocities that he’s pulling up apparently far worse than what Joseph Stalin, the nazis, and Mao have done. Which I can’t see how because if you combine all the religious wars in history it doesn’t equal the number of people that were murdered between those three groups The biggest problem here is the finger-pointing Which to be honest gets kind of annoying AaronS1978

Brother Brian:
it would have no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory.
LoL! There isn't any validity to any evolutionary theory. Evos are still struggling to try to find a way to test their claims. ET

Sev
Not one of those are directly and solely attributable to Darwin’s theory.
And even if they were, it would have no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory. But what I do find amusing in these discussions of atrocities and religious beliefs (or lack there-of) is that Christians always claim that Christians never commit atrocities because if they did, they would not be true Christians. Brother Brian

Seversky:
Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection was an attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation of how the diversity of life on Earth came to be.
FAILed attempt. Natural selection has shown to be impotent with respect to the diversity of life. ET

EDTA @ 14
Just to add one small point to what BA77 has pointed out above: Hitler could not legitimately claim to be a Christian because when push came to shove, he acknowledged no power higher than himself. His actions made that clear, regardless of what his public-facing words were
What is apparent is that Hitler and the Nazis were ideological opportunists. They would quote whatever suited their purpose at any given time. Hitler would espouse Christian beliefs if he thought it would appeal to his audience of the moment and would then argue for survival of the fittest in another context. Probably, the only things he really believed in were himself and his version of a pagan German nationalism. The point, however, is that references to survival of the fittest are no more a legitimate criticism of the biological theory than his references to Christian belief are a legitimate criticism of the faith. Seversky

EDTA @ 7
It is correct that human beings can be extremely evil–all kinds of human beings. But when it comes to concerning myself with genocide, evil empires and so forth, it just makes sense to put more weight on the recent past rather than the distant past. I’m not living in the 1200s. I’d spend my time worrying about totalitarianism, Communism,…
If these atrocities are not attributable to any one ideology or faith but are symptomatic of absolutist beliefs of any kind then the problem is in us. Since there is nothing to indicate we are significantly different in the way we behave from people of 2,000 or 10,000 years ago, we should learn from the lessons of the past lest we repeat them. Seversky

> Hitler who said in a speech in Munich on April 12 1922,... Just to add one small point to what BA77 has pointed out above: Hitler could not legitimately claim to be a Christian because when push came to shove, he acknowledged no power higher than himself. His actions made that clear, regardless of what his public-facing words were. EDTA

Seversky
Christian morality, like other moralities, prescribes how people should behave, mostly towards one another but also in respect of their religious beliefs and their relationship to the natural world.
Humans have different moral systems. Supposedly, these all emerged from biological processes. But the fact that humans attempt to create moral norms to regulate behavior, is an argument against evolutionary-origins, since there is no need for moral systems in the animal kingdom, for example. Silver Asiatic

Seversky at 9, You really have gone off the deep end. Trying to insinuate that Hitler was a true Christian in any way, shape, or form, is insane. I suppose you are next going to try and say that his concentration camps were really just soup kitchens in disguise. The truth of the matter is that Hitler was a keen politician and used Christianity in public merely as a means to gain power. But in private, away from the public eye, his true feelings about Christianity came out:
Was Hitler a Christian? Reasons to Disbelieve In fact, Hitler contemptuously called Christianity a poison and a bacillus and openly mocked its teachings. In a long diatribe ridiculing many core Christian teachings, Hitler told his colleagues that the Christian concept of heaven was insipid and undesirable. After scoffing at doctrines such as the Fall, the Virgin Birth, and redemption through the death of Jesus, Hitler stated, “Christianity is the most insane thing that a human brain in its delusion has ever brought forth, a mockery of everything divine.” He followed this up with a hard right jab to any believing Catholic, claiming that a “Negro with his fetish” is far superior to someone who believes in transubstantiation. Hitler, in his own twisted mind, believed black Africans were subhumans intellectually closer to apes than to Europeans, so to him, this was a spectacular insult to Catholics. In February 1942, Hitler again scoffed at the basic teachings of Christianity, sarcastically relating the story of humanity from a Christian standpoint. He implied that God was responsible for original sin and commented that God’s method of redemption by sending his Son was a “murderous subterfuge.” Then, according to Hitler, when others did not accept these strange teachings, the church tortured them into submission. In the course of this anti-Christian diatribe, Hitler called the Catholic Church a form of idolatry and “Satanic superstition.” Another theme that surfaced frequently in Hitler’s monologues of 1941–42 was that the sneaky first-century rabbi Paul was responsible for repackaging the Jewish worldview in the guise of Christianity, thereby causing the downfall of the Roman Empire. In December 1941, Hitler stated that although Christ was an Aryan, “Paul used his teachings to mobilize the underworld and organize a proto-Bolshevism. With its emergence the beautiful clarity of the ancient world was lost.” In fact, since Christianity was tainted from the very start, Hitler sometimes referred to it as “Jew-Christianity.” While Hitler often associated Jesus with Aryan traits and socialism, he consistently lambasted Christianity as Jewish and communist. He denigrated the “Jew-Christians” of the fourth century for destroying Roman temples and even called the destruction of the Alexandrian library a “JewishChristian deed.” Hitler thus construed the contest between Christianity and the ancient pagan world as part of the racial struggle between Jews and Aryans. In the end, the evidence is preponderant against Hitler embracing any form of Christianity for most of his adult life. Was Hitler a Christian? No. Even though he tried to palm himself off as a Christian when it served his political purposes, none of his friends and comrades considered him one. Even though he never officially left the Catholic Church, Schroeder claimed he promised to withdraw from the church immediately after the war to symbolize the dawn of a new historical era.125 All of Hitler’s close associates agreed with Schroeder, testifying that he was antagonistic toward Christianity. He admired the whip-wielding Jesus, whom he considered a fellow Aryan warrior fighting against the allegedly infernal Jews, but he had utter contempt for the Jesus who told His followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek. He also did not believe that Jesus’s death had any significance other than showing the perfidy of the Jews, nor did he believe in Jesus’s resurrection. In private conversations and monologues he railed at Christianity because it had followed the lead of that insidious Jewish rabbi Paul. Despite Hitler’s disingenuous public statements, and despite his esteem for (his anti-Semitic version of) Jesus, it is abundantly clear that Hitler did not consider himself a Christian. https://www.historyonthenet.com/was-hitler-a-christian
bornagain77

LOL Seversky, you state,,,
You don’t get Christianity off the hook by trying to argue they killed fewer. If they were true to their beliefs, they shouldn’t have been killing any at all.
That's exactly what I said. Thanks for admitting I was right!
even if you add up all the murderous atrocities that were listed by Seversky (that were committed by those who falsely claimed to be Christians even though they were killing people in direct contradiction to the commandments of Christ), the number of murders is still only a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions of murders committed by those who followed the morality enshrined in Darwin’s maxim ‘survival of the fittest’, (as well as those hundreds of millions of murders committed by Muslims following the murderous teachings of Mohammad):
Moreover, besides you agreeing with me that those who killed in the name of Christianity were not being true to the teachings of Christ, when a Darwinist murders he is staying true to the (a)morality inherent within the teaching of Darwin, i.e. 'survival of the fittest'. As Hitler stated:
“The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live. Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect help from anyone.” – Adolf Hitler
Compared that to what Jesus said about taking care of 'the least of these',,
Matthew 25 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
The difference between Darwin and Christianity could not be greater. I also noticed that you quoted Matthew 10:34-36 to try to insinuate that Christianity is a murderous religion.
Matthew 10 34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
But, if you would have taken the time to try to actually understand the verse that you yourself cited you would have understood that the 'sword' that Jesus is speaking of in that passage is certainly not a physical sword as you are trying to insinuate but is a spiritual sword. ,,, As the concluding line in the following article states, "In any case, Jesus says a spiritual sword, not a physical one, may sever family ties, so his disciples must be ready for that.
I read constantly that Christians should not be proud of a verse attributed to Jesus. The verse reads: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword." At first glance it indeed appears that Jesus encourages violence and calls his disciples to practice it, presumably righteous violence. But appearances can be deceiving. A text without a context often becomes a pretext, as the old saying goes. Once this verse is read in its historical and literary contexts, the meaning will change. It is time to set the record straight about that verse. The historical context, we should recall, is Jewish culture, as Jesus ministers to his own people. He sends out the twelve disciples to the "lost sheep of Israel," not yet to the gentiles, who will be reached after the Resurrection. It is not surprising, historically speaking, that he would spread his word by proclamation to his own, by Jewish disciples. Second, he predicts that some towns may not receive the disciples and that the authorities may put them on trial and flog them. In that eventuality, they should shake the dust off their feet, pray for them, and flee to another city. Third, it is only natural that first-century Jews may not understand this new sect or "Jesus movement" (as sociologists of the New Testament call it), so they resist it. Does this mean, then, that Jesus calls for a holy war with a physical, military sword against his fellow Jews—say, against his own family who wanted to take custody of him because they thought he was "out of his mind" (Mark 3:21)? Next, those cultural facts explain the immediate literary context, which shows division among family members. The context must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of "sword" in Matthew 10:34 (bold print): 32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6] 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word "sword," and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may "split" it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6). Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them, because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently. Furthermore, we can reference the larger textual context in the Gospel of Matthew. In the Garden of Gethsemane, during the hour when Jesus was betrayed and arrested, Peter struck off the ear of the servant of the high priest in order to protect his Lord. But Jesus tells him to stop. Matthew 26:52-53 says: 52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" (NIV) Jesus denounces violence to accomplish the will of God—at least as Peter imagines the will of God. Then Jesus says that he has more than twelve legions of angels at his disposal. He did not come to crush the Roman Empire. Instead, he willingly lays down his life and dies for the sins of the whole world. Will it accept this wonderful gift? Now we can appeal to even a much larger textual context. The non-literal interpretation of the sword is confirmed by a parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke. Luke 12:49-53 reads: 49 "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo [my death], and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." It is entirely possible that these two parallel passages in Matthew and Luke represent two different occasions. After all, when I teach the same topic in two different classes, I also change the wording a little. Neither class knows about the slight change, but this does not matter, for the meaning is essentially the same. Likewise, in the three years that Jesus taught, he most likely repeated this call to commitment several times to different audiences (though recorded only twice in the Gospels), as he crisscrossed Israel. He issued such radical calls often, telling his listeners to pick up their cross and to follow him (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27). Whatever the case, the proper way to interpret Scripture is to let verses clarify other verses, particularly parallel passages. And now Luke 12:49-53 confirms our interpretation of Matt. 10:34. Jesus did not endorse physical violence against one’s own family, but he warns people about possible family division. So what does all of this mean? History demonstrates that Jesus never wielded a sword against anyone, and in Matt. 10:34 he does not order his followers to swing one either, in order to kill their family opponents or for any reason. But a true disciple who is worthy of following Christ and who comes from a possibly hostile family has to use a sword of the will (never a physical sword) to sever away all opposition, even as far as taking up his cross—another metaphorical implement for the disciples. It is true that Jesus divides the world into two camps, those who follow him, and those who do not, those in the light, and those in the dark. However, he never tells his followers to wage war on everyone else, and certainly not on one’s family. It is true that the Roman Emperor Constantine, Medieval Crusaders, and Protestants and Catholics have used the sword against unbelievers and each other. However, none of them is foundational to Christianity—only Jesus is, and he never endorses the sword to spread his message. Also, Christianity has undergone Reform (c. 1400-1600) and has been put under the pressure of the Enlightenment (c. 1600-1800), which demanded peace. Be that as it may, Jesus himself never calls for military holy war, and only he sets the genetic code for his movement. There is not a single verse in the New Testament that calls the Church to commit violence to spread the gospel or to plant churches or to accomplish anything else. Rather, the New Testament hands the sword over to the State (Rom. 13:1-6). In any case, Jesus says a spiritual sword, not a physical one, may sever family ties, so his disciples must be ready for that. https://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/matthew_10_34.htm
Moreover Seversky, you really should honestly answer Silver Asiatic's question to you in 6. You cannot bemoan moral injustice when your Darwinian worldview, as you yourself admitted, does not even recognize moral injustice. i.e. "that was neither right nor wrong, it’s just what happened." bornagain77

Silver Asiatic @ 6
Seversky
When the dinosaurs became the dominants clade of animals on Earth for billions of years, that was neither right nor wrong, it’s just what happened. If you think it was right or wrong then you need to explain by what measure you are deciding that. …looking at the anti-Semitic atrocities committed by the so-called Christian states of Europe for centuries before Darwin published.
Can you see a contradiction in those two ideas? In one case, evolution cannot be right or wrong. It is just what happens. In the next case, you bemoan certain “atrocities” and blame them on Christians. I think you have to pick one or the other. Christian morality or evolution which “can’t be wrong about anything”.
That's not the way I see it. Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection was an attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation of how the diversity of life on Earth came to be. It says nothing about whether or not it should be that way. It's just the way it is. Christian morality, like other moralities, prescribes how people should behave, mostly towards one another but also in respect of their religious beliefs and their relationship to the natural world. There is no obvious contradiction because they are addressing different issues. Seversky

Bornagain77 @ 5
and yet,,, Richard Weikart has thoroughly documented how Darwinian ideology was foundational to the Nazis’ racism:
I haven't read Weikart's book. Have you? What I have read is that there are equally competent historians who strongly disagree with his interpretation of those events. I would also think it is possible to make a far stronger case that Nazi racism was much more firmly rooted in the anti-Semitism that had been endemic throughout Christian Europe for centuries before Darwin published. For Weikart to try and lay the blame squarely on Darwin sounds much more like anti-evolution advocacy than history. If that's what he's actually doing, then it is also little more than an extended argumentum ad consequentiam
The claim from atheists that Hitler was a Christian should be the very definition of the word ludicrous,,
Hitler hated Judaism. But he loathed Christianity, too. “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.”

Perhaps Bullock was right but this was the same Hitler who said in a speech in Munich on April 12 1922:
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people
That sounds much more like the Christian anti-Semitism of Martin Luther. Seversky

Bornagain77 @ 4
In order to try to counterbalance the unmitigated horror committed by the atheistic/Darwinian regimes of the Nazis and Communists over the last century, Seversky reaches over the entire span of Christianity’s 2000 years of existence and cherry picks atrocities to try to claim that Christianity is as murderous as the atheistic/Darwinian regimes have been over the last century.
Slaughtering the women and children of a defeated enemy is an atrocity whether it's 200 or 200,000 victims. The numbers are irrelevant. You don't get Christianity off the hook by trying to argue they killed fewer. If they were true to their beliefs, they shouldn't have been killing any at all.

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

In rebuttal to that preposterous claim let me first point out that Christ himself, rather than call down 12 legions of angels to slay his enemies submitted himself instead to death on a Cross by the hands of his enemies:
Matthew 26:52-53 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him. “For all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

So what? This is the same Jesus that said in Matthew 10:34-36
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Modern day Atheists, starting with the French revolution, to Communist Russia to present day China and North Korea have been particularly brutal and murderous of professing Christians. The murderous brutality of present day Muslims against Christians in the middle east hardly needs to be mentioned since they often behead their Christian victims on TV.
Autocratic regimes are brutal in their treatment of any group, whether political or religious, that they perceive as a threat to their supremacy. Besides, no true Christian should be playing the victim card. They should be concerned with the suffering of others, not their own. Seversky

It is correct that human beings can be extremely evil--all kinds of human beings. But when it comes to concerning myself with genocide, evil empires and so forth, it just makes sense to put more weight on the recent past rather than the distant past. I'm not living in the 1200s. I'd spend my time worrying about totalitarianism, Communism,... EDTA

Seversky
When the dinosaurs became the dominants clade of animals on Earth for billions of years, that was neither right nor wrong, it’s just what happened. If you think it was right or wrong then you need to explain by what measure you are deciding that.

...looking at the anti-Semitic atrocities committed by the so-called Christian states of Europe for centuries before Darwin published …
Can you see a contradiction in those two ideas? In one case, evolution cannot be right or wrong. It is just what happens. In the next case, you bemoan certain "atrocities" and blame them on Christians. I think you have to pick one or the other. Christian morality or evolution which "can't be wrong about anything". Silver Asiatic

Seversky, you claimed that “Not one of those (Democides) are directly and solely attributable to Darwin’s theory.” and yet,,, Richard Weikart has thoroughly documented how Darwinian ideology was foundational to the Nazis’ racism:
From Darwin to Hitler – lecture video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles. The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought – Richard Weikart – October 2013 Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology. http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/darwinism-in-nazi-racial-thought.pdf
As Adolph Hitler himself stated,
“The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live. Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect help from anyone.” – Adolf Hitler “Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf
The claim from atheists that Hitler was a Christian should be the very definition of the word ludicrous,,
Hitler hated Judaism. But he loathed Christianity, too. “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.” per washington post
Besides directly undermining Hitler’s, (and the overall German society’s), innate sense of objective morality, Darwinism also directly undermined Stalin and Mao’s innate sense of objective morality,
The Darwinian Foundation of Communism by Dr. Jerry Bergman Summary In the minds of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, treating people as animals was not wrong because they believed that Darwin had ‘proved’ humans were not God’s creation, but instead descended from some simple, one-cell organism. All three men believed it was morally proper to eliminate the less fit or ‘herd them like cattle into boxcars bound for concentration camps and gulags’ if it achieved the goal of their Darwinist philosophy. per answers in genesis
Karl Marx himself was deeply influenced by Darwin:
Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?” To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/
In fact, Lenin even kept a little statue of an ape staring at a human skull on his desk. The ape was sitting on a pile of books which included Darwin’s book, “Origin”.
“V.I. Lenin, creator of the Soviet totalitarian state, kept a little statue on his desk—an ape sitting on a pile of books including mine [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life], gazing at a human skull. And Mao Zedong, butcher of the tens of millions of his own countrymen, who regarded the German ‘Darwinismus’ writings as the foundation of Chinese ‘scientific socialism.’ This disciple mandated my works as reading material for the indoctrination phase of his lethal Great Leap Forward.” Nickell John Romjue, I, Charles Darwin, p. 45 https://thunderontheright.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/hitler-lenin-stalin-mao-and-darwin/
Here is a picture of what the little statue on Lenin’s desk looked like:
Hugo Rheinhold’s Monkey https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Y8HpKyHOL._SL1009_.jpg
Stalin likewise, while at ecclesiastical school of all places, was also heavily influenced by Darwinism,
Stalin’s Brutal Faith Excerpt: 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 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,, per icr
Even Chairman Mao was deeply influenced by Darwinian ‘morality’:
Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution Excerpt: Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors. per creation DOT com Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China – 2/13/2013 https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china
Even today in America, with its strong Christian heritage, and even though America overcame the Nazi and Communist scourges in Europe, has not escaped unscathed from the devastating effects of “Darwinian morality”.
"At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA" per skepchick How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). per – gnmagazine. The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society – Dr. Phil Fernandes – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcQfwICe2Og The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution – John West, PhD – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU
Verse:
Isaiah 1:19-20 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best of the land. But if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.…
bornagain77

In order to try to counterbalance the unmitigated horror committed by the atheistic/Darwinian regimes of the Nazis and Communists over the last century, Seversky reaches over the entire span of Christianity’s 2000 years of existence and cherry picks atrocities to try to claim that Christianity is as murderous as the atheistic/Darwinian regimes have been over the last century. In rebuttal to that preposterous claim let me first point out that Christ himself, rather than call down 12 legions of angels to slay his enemies submitted himself instead to death on a Cross by the hands of his enemies:
Matthew 26:52-53 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him. “For all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Moreover, Christ himself commanded his followers to not return evil for evil but to return good for evil:
Matthew 5:38-40 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
In fact, Jesus instead of commanding his followers to kill those who did not believe, (as Mohammad told his followers to do), instead told his followers to endure persecution.
John 15:20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
In fact, all the disciples, save for John, suffered martyrs deaths.
Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs for their Faith? By Sean McDowell http://magazine.biola.edu/article/13-fall/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f/
Martyrdom, especially where Christians were a minority, has been a staple of Christian life throughout Christian history:
The New Encyclopedia of Christian Martyrs – September 1, 2001 https://www.amazon.com/New-Encyclopedia-Christian-Martyrs/dp/0801012252
Modern day Atheists, starting with the French revolution, to Communist Russia to present day China and North Korea have been particularly brutal and murderous of professing Christians. The murderous brutality of present day Muslims against Christians in the middle east hardly needs to be mentioned since they often behead their Christian victims on TV. In fact, Christianity easily qualifies for the most persecuted religion in the world today:
Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians http://www.amazon.com/Persecuted-The-Global-Assault-Christians/dp/1400204410 Knowing our world: The three major reasons for persecution of Christians worldwide – Denyse O’Leary Excerpt: The world-wide picture is sobering. Pew Research Center, Newsweek, and The Economist all agree that Christians are the world’s most widely persecuted group. Marshall and team offer information about three quite different reasons for persecution by different types of regimes (pp. 9–11): First, there is post-Communist persecution, following the collapse of Communism in the late 1980s, where the regimes ” … have since retreated to an onerous policy of registration, supervision, and control. Those who will not be controlled are sent to prison or labor camps, or simply held, abused, and sometimes tortured.” The most intense persecutor is the still Communist (not post-Communist) regime, North Korea (pp. 9–10). There, “Christians are executed or sent to prison camps for lengthy terms for such crimes as the mere possession of a Bible.” Second, in some countries, “Hindu or Buddhist religious movements equate their religion with the nature and meaning of their country itself.” They persecute minority tribes as well as religions (pp. 10–11). These countries include Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan. Third, of course the Muslim world where “Even though the remaining Communist countries persecute the most Christians, it is in the Muslim world where persecution of Christians is now most widespread, intense, and, ominously, increasing. Extremist Muslims are expanding their presence and sometimes exporting their repression of all other faiths. … Even ancient churches, such as the two-thousand-year-old Chaldean and Assyrian churches of Iraq and the Coptic churches of Egypt, are under intense threat at this time. (p. 11).” http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2013/03/30/knowing-world-major-reasons-persecution-christians-worldwide/
That hardly sounds like Christianity is the murderous religion that Seversky is falsely trying to portray Christianity as being. And even if you add up all the murderous atrocities that were listed by Seversky (that were committed by those who falsely claimed to be Christians even though they were killing people in direct contradiction to the commandments of Christ), the number of murders is still only a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions of murders committed by those who followed the morality enshrined in Darwin’s maxim ‘survival of the fittest’, (as well as those hundreds of millions of murders committed by Muslims following the murderous teachings of Mohammad):
Tears of Jihad - Mar 3 2008 | by Bill Warner Excerpt:,,,120 million Africans,,, ,,,60 million Christians,,, ,,,80 million Hindus,,, ,,,10 million Buddhists,,, This gives a rough estimate of 270 million killed by jihad (since Islam was founded). https://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/
bornagain77

Seversky, you claimed that "Not one of those (Democides) are directly and solely attributable to Darwin’s theory." and yet,,, Richard Weikart has thoroughly documented how Darwinian ideology was foundational to the Nazis’ racism:
From Darwin to Hitler – lecture video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles. The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought – Richard Weikart – October 2013 Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology. http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/darwinism-in-nazi-racial-thought.pdf
As Adolph Hitler himself stated,
“The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live. Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect help from anyone.” – Adolf Hitler “Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf
The claim from atheists that Hitler was a Christian should be the very definition of the word ludicrous,,
Hitler hated Judaism. But he loathed Christianity, too. “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.” per washington post
Besides directly undermining Hitler’s, (and the overall German society’s), innate sense of objective morality, Darwinism also directly undermined Stalin and Mao’s innate sense of objective morality,
The Darwinian Foundation of Communism by Dr. Jerry Bergman Summary In the minds of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, treating people as animals was not wrong because they believed that Darwin had ‘proved’ humans were not God’s creation, but instead descended from some simple, one-cell organism. All three men believed it was morally proper to eliminate the less fit or ‘herd them like cattle into boxcars bound for concentration camps and gulags’ if it achieved the goal of their Darwinist philosophy. per answers in genesis
Karl Marx was deeply influenced by Darwin:
Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?” To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/
In fact, Lenin even kept a little statue of an ape staring at a human skull on his desk. The ape was sitting on a pile of books which included Darwin’s book, “Origin”.
“V.I. Lenin, creator of the Soviet totalitarian state, kept a little statue on his desk—an ape sitting on a pile of books including mine [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life], gazing at a human skull. And Mao Zedong, butcher of the tens of millions of his own countrymen, who regarded the German ‘Darwinismus’ writings as the foundation of Chinese ‘scientific socialism.’ This disciple mandated my works as reading material for the indoctrination phase of his lethal Great Leap Forward.” Nickell John Romjue, I, Charles Darwin, p. 45 https://thunderontheright.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/hitler-lenin-stalin-mao-and-darwin/
Here is a picture of what the little statue on Lenin’s desk looked like:
Hugo Rheinhold’s Monkey https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Y8HpKyHOL._SL1009_.jpg
Stalin likewise, while at ecclesiastical school of all places, was also heavily influenced by Darwinism,
Stalin’s Brutal Faith Excerpt: 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 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,, http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/
Even Chairman Mao was deeply influenced by Darwinian ‘morality’:
Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution Excerpt: Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors. per creation DOT com Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China – 2/13/2013 https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china
Even today in America, with its strong Christian heritage, and even though America overcame the Nazi and Communist scourges in Europe, has not escaped unscathed from the devastating effects of “Darwinian morality”.
At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA – graph http://skepchick.org/wp-conten.....704889.jpg How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). per - gnmagazine. The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society – Dr. Phil Fernandes – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcQfwICe2Og The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution – John West, PhD – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU
Verse:
Isaiah 1:19-20 If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best of the land. But if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.…
bornagain77

Bornagain77 @ 1
“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Not one of those are directly and solely attributable to Darwin's theory. If he had never published, it's highly likely that all of them would have happened because they were driven by political and religious beliefs that had no basis in evolutionary theory even if it was occasionally used as a justification. As for Weikart's anti-evolutionary BS, before taking him at his word, thy looking at the anti-Semitic atrocities committed by the so-called Christian states of Europe for centuries before Darwin published.
Already in the 4th and 5th centuries synagogues were burned by Christians. Number of Jews slain unknown. In the middle of the fourth century the first synagogue was destroyed on command of bishop Innocentius of Dertona in Northern Italy. The first synagogue known to have been burned down was near the river Euphrat, on command of the bishop of Kallinikon in the year 388. Council of Toledo 694: Jews were enslaved, their property confiscated, and their children forcibly baptized. The Bishop of Limoges (France) in 1010 had the cities’ Jews, who would not convert to Christianity, expelled or killed. First Crusade: Thousands of Jews slaughtered 1096, maybe 12.000 total. Second Crusade: 1147. Several hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all locations in France). Third Crusade: English Jewish communities sacked 1189/90. Fulda, Germany 1235: 34 Jewish men and women slain. 1257, 1267: Jewish communities of London, Canterbury, Northampton, Lincoln, Cambridge, and others exterminated. 1290 in Bohemia (Poland) 10,000 Jews killed. 1337 Starting in Deggendorf/Germany a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, Poland. 1348 All Jews of Basel, Switzerland and Strasbourg, France (two thousand) burned. 1349 In more than 350 towns in Germany all Jews murdered, mostly burned alive (in this one year more Jews were killed than Christians in 200 years of ancient Roman persecution of Christians). 1389 In Prague 3,000 Jews were slaughtered. 1391 Seville’s Jews killed (Archbishop Martinez leading). 4,000 were slain, 25,000 sold as slaves. Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored “badges of shame” that all Jews above the age of ten had been forced to wear. 1492: In the year Columbus set sail to conquer a New World, more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain, many died on their way. 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres: In Poland about 200,000 Jews were slain.
Or if, you want some Biblical stats:
GE 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children. GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to do something about it. He kills every living thing on the face of the earth other than Noah's family and thereby makes himself the greatest mass murderer in history. EX 9:22-25 A plague of hail from the Lord strikes down everything in the fields of Egypt both man and beast except in Goshen where the Israelites reside. EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt. EX 17:13 With the Lord's approval, Joshua mows down Amalek and his people. EX 32:27 "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. EX 32:27-29 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay 3000 men. NU 12:1-10 God makes Miriam a leper for seven days because she and Aaron had spoken against Moses. NU 15:32-36 A Sabbath breaker (who had gathered sticks for a fire) is stoned to death at the Lord's command. NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men and their households (including wives and children) because the men had been rebellious. NU 16:35 A fire from the Lord consumes 250 men. NU 16:49 A plague from the Lord kills 14,700 people. NU 21:3 The Israelites utterly destroy the Canaanites. NU 21:35 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay Og "... and his sons and all his people, until there was not one survivor left ...." NU 25:4 (KJV) "And the Lord said unto Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun ...." NU 25:8 "He went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly." NU 25:9 24,000 people die in a plague from the Lord. NU 31:9 The Israelites capture Midianite women and children. NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has known man ...." ) NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty. Thirty-two are set aside (to be sacrificed?) as a tribute for the Lord. DT 2:33-34 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Sihon. DT 3:6 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Og. DT 7:2 The Lord commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" and show "no mercy" to those whom he gives them for defeat. DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." DT 20:16 "In the cities of the nations the Lord is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes." JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho--men, women, and children--with the edge of the sword. JS 8:22-25 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly smites the people of Ai, killing 12,000 men and women, so that there were none who escaped. JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the Gibeonites. JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah. JS 10:30 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Libnahites. JS 10:32-33 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Lachish. JS 10:34-35 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Eglonites. JS 10:36-37 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Hebronites. JS 10:38-39 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Debirites. JS 11:21-23 Joshua utterly destroys the Anakim. JG 1:4 With the Lord's support, Judah defeats 10,000 Canaanites at Bezek. JG 1:17 With the Lord's approval, Judah and Simeon utterly destroy the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath. JG 3:29 The Israelites kill about 10,000 Moabites. JG 20:43-48 The Israelites smite 25,000+ "men of valor" from amongst the Benjamites, "men and beasts and all that they found," and set their towns on fire. JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use. 1SA 14:48 Saul smites the Amalekites. 1SA 15:3, 7-8 "This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ....' And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." 1SA 30:17 David smites the Amalekites. 2SA 8:5 David slew 22,000 Syrians. 2SA 8:13 David slew 18,000 Edomites in the valley of salt and made the rest slaves. 1KI 20:29-30 The Israelites smite 100,000 Syrian soldiers in one day. A wall falls on 27,000 remaining Syrians. 2KI 14:5, 7 Amaziah kills his servants and then 10,000 Edomites. 2KI 19:35 An angel of the Lord kills 185,000 men. IS 13:15 "Everyone who is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their ... wives will be ravished." IS 13:18 "Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children." IS 14:21-22 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers."
Seversky

But evolution caan’t go “badly wrong.” Ain’t no such animal.
By George, she's got it! When the dinosaurs became the dominants clade of animals on Earth for billions of years, that was neither right nor wrong, it's just what happened. If you think it was right or wrong then you need to explain by what measure you are deciding that. Unfortunately, for those with the hubris to believe that humans are in some way special, the same is true of us. There's no reason to think it's somehow "right" that we have become the dominant species of life on Earth, at least for a short time. More likely, we just got lucky and that means we could just as easily get unlucky if we aren't careful. Seversky

It is good to see that John (“human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould”) Gray,,,
“human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” John Gray - Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals - page 33 - 2002
It is good to see that John (“human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould”) Gray has finally realized how destructive unrestrained imagination can be,,
"Untold millions have killed and died for the sake of dreams,,, conjured up in the imagination." - John Gray
Too bad that John Gray has not yet realized that Darwinian evolution itself is based, not on empirical science, but on unrestrained imagination.
As I have pointed out several times now, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
And indeed, as John Gray pointed out, untold millions have died and suffered untold misery because of the unrestrained imagination of the pseudo-science of Darwinian evolution,,,
If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers. —Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School; from his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi). “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their murderous ideology (Nov. 2018) https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170
bornagain77

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply