Michael Egnor on the relationship between Darwinism and totalitarianism

The following is from a blog post by someone who describes himself as partial to the Darwinian point of view. He didn’t think Darwin was a racist but changed his mind after reading what Darwin actually wrote--- imagine that!

I’d only heard of Darwin’s dark side in passing, and I’d always assumed that Darwin’s critics were driven by ignorance or ulterior motives. But as I scrolled by debates online about Darwin’s theories, I noticed something peculiar: Darwin’s defenders most often cited his abolitionist identity, notes from his diaries, or quotes from people who knew Darwin. His accusers, on the other hand, often directly cited text from The Descent of Man. Conclusions drawn from the authorial approach to the question, in which defenders focused on proving that Darwin himself was not a racist, starkly contradicted conclusions drawn from the approach of consulting Darwin’s text itself. I’m familiar with Darwin’s theories, but I had never actually read his books; I suspect the same is true for most of you. However, I found that to determine whether or not Darwin’s theories are racist, the text of his books is revealing and conclusive. Information outside the text of The Descent of Man can help us understand the man behind the pen, but it does nothing to soften the brutal racism and white supremacism found in the text of his theory. (emphasis added)

https://sites.williams.edu/engl-209-fall16/uncategorized/the-dark-side-of-darwinism/ Here is a “key” paragraph:

Darwin makes a disturbing link between his belief in white supremacy and his theory of natural selection. He justifies violent imperialism. “From the remotest times successful tribes have supplanted other tribes. … At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations” (160). Darwin’s theory applies survival of the fittest to human races, suggesting that extermination of non-white races is a natural consequence of white Europeans being a superior and more successful race. Further, Darwin justifies violently overtaking other cultures because it has happened regularly throughout natural history. The arc of Darwin’s evolutionary universe evidently does not bend toward justice: He has no problem with continuing the vicious behavior of past generations. Claims such as those made evident in the title of a 2004 book, “From Darwin to Hitler,” may not be as alarmist as they seem.

But it doesn’t end there. He then doubles down and then doubles down again. Read the whole blog post. It is well worth your time. john_a_designer

Since it's just a matter of time before someone brings up African slavery in America, it would be without factual content. London had an orphan problem and sold children as slaves in their colonies, including the American colonies. Convicts were also sold as slaves. Elizabeth Abbott was one child slave of European descent. She ran away from the cruel treatment she received from her master, but was caught. He ordered 500 lashes be given to the girl as punishment, which resulted in her being beaten to death. BobRyan

Despite what some believe about racism being around for centuries or millennia, it was not until Darwin that the idea of skin color had anything to do with ability. He turned race into science and was clear about civilized races killing off the savage races based on nothing more than the color of their skin. That is not to say there was no sense of superiority prior to Darwin, but it was based on nationality. The English believed that only English, rather than British could captain ships of war, which is why Captain John Paul Jones, a Scotsman who is the father of the United States Navy, was only able to captain merchant vessels. Rome believed itself superior to everyone, including the Jews. A freed slave by the name of Josephus who was Jewish was accepted as a Roman citizen and became one of their greatest historians. The work was so important that monks altered some of his writing to save his work. By adding in a few lines, they were able to save his writing from being burned. Imhotep was not born in Egypt, but moved there from parts unknown to history. He not only succeeded in business, but rose to become the highest ranking advisor in Egypt. The similarities between Imhotep and Joseph are striking and there is a good chance the third dark period is too long. When shortened compared to other events happening outside of Egypt, they line up pretty close to the same date. Prior to Darwin, where were the racist events in history even close to what followed? BobRyan

Before Hitler and Stalin came to power, there was Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had political prisoners, including members of the press who refused to print his propaganda. Wilson was a eugenicist who segregated the federal government and the military. Margaret Sanger, eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood believed segregation or sterilization for black people. His propaganda influenced the Nazis and they did much of what Wilson did to the same level of success. Had it not been for Wilson's stroke during his second term, the option for segregation would have been replaced by forced sterilization. Franklin Roosevelt believed everything Wilson believed and continued to support eugenics. It was Eisenhower, a Republican, who brought an end to segregation. The Dixiecrats voted for Thurman in 1948 and had nothing to do with what happened in 1968. Every state that had voted Dixiecrat in 1948, voted against Eisenhower in 1952. They all went back to being Democrats, otherwise Eisenhower would have won those states. Franklin Roosevelt was a eugenicist anti-Semite who surrounded himself with anti-Semites. When Truman came out in support of Israel, it was under threat that his entire cabinet, which he inherited from Roosevelt, would quit. Not one supported Israel, since Israel was and is a Jewish state. Jordan was created at the same time through the same means, yet no one criticizes Jordan. The history of the Democratic party is filled with those who want the government to use force to bring about a desired result. After the Democratic-Republicans split over the issue of slavery and Republicans took the place of the Federalist party, the first presidential candidate and president was Jackson, who was responsible for a number of nasty things including the Trail of Tears. The first Republican candidate was John Quincy Adams, who was a staunch segregationist and the one who would later argue successfuly before the Supreme Court in regards to the Amistad Case. BobRyan

In the meta-analysis one of the researchers also remarked that 'we can't explain (the anticipatory activity of the body) using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense’,,, And, exactly as she thought, quantum biological findings do indeed shed light how it might be possible for the body to anticipate morally troubling situations before they happen. In fact, as this following video shows,,

Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

,,,findings in quantum biology go much further than that and also give us strong physical evidence that humans possess a transcendent component to their being on the molecular level that is not reducible to materialistic explanations. That is to say, recent findings from quantum biology now give us experimental evidence strongly suggesting we do indeed have a transcendent 'soul' that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies just as Christians have held all along. As the following article states, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php

In short and in conclusion, according to our best science, we are NOT amoral physical beings, as Richard Dawkins believes,

"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, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life - (1996), p. 133.

,, but we are instead very much moral spiritual beings, i.e. we are "souls!"

“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892 Mark 8:37-38 Is anything worth more than your soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”

bornagain77

The reason why this is completely antithetical to Darwin’s theory is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video which states, “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?”

Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – with 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? Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, programmed cell death, sight, hearing, thinking, and especially morally noble and/or altruistic behavior by humans, etc… etc.. all would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view of things, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it would obviously slow down the primary criteria of successful reproduction. As Charles 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 illustrated in this following graph,

The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308

In fact, instead of eating us, as would be expected under Darwinian presuppositions, we now know bacteria are instead directly helping us, providing vital functions essential for human survival, 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, besides the entire notion of a single cell somehow turning into numerous different multi-celled organisms being against the logic that lays behind natural selection, and as Stephen Meyer documented in his book on the Cambrian Explosion, “Darwin’s Doubt”, Darwinists simply have no realistic scientific clue how it was possible for a single cell creature to somehow become the numerous different multicellular organisms, each composed of trillions of cells, during the Cambrian explosion.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD talks about the Case for Intelligent Design – video (excellent lecture on the Cambrian Explosion – Oct. 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl802lHAk5Y Oct 18, 2015 – Trinity Classical Academy’s Speaker Series welcomes Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, author of the New York Times® Bestseller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, which won “Book of the Year” by The Times of London Literary Supplement.

Moreover, the genetic expression of humans are also found to respond in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonistic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:

How Happiness Boosts the Immune System Researchers have struggled to identify how certain states of mind influence physical health. One biologist thinks he has an answer By Jo Marchant - November 27, 2013 Excerpt: The questions were designed to distinguish between the two forms of happiness recognized by psychologists: hedonic well-being (characterized by material or bodily pleasures such as eating well or having sex) and eudaimonic well-being (deeper satisfaction from activities with a greater meaning or purpose, such as intellectual pursuits, social relationships or charity work). The researchers were surprised to find that the two types of happiness influenced gene expression in different ways. People with a meaning-based or purpose-based outlook had favorable gene-expression profiles, whereas hedonic well-being, when it occurred on its own, was associated with profiles similar to those seen in individuals facing adversity. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-happiness-boosts-the-immune-system/

That the genetic responses of humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonistic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral behavior is very interesting since, number 1, Darwinian evolution cannot even explain the origin of a single gene and/or protein, much less can it explain how it is possible for highly integrated gene networks to produce such morally nuanced responses between the mental states of hedonism and altruism.

Stephen Meyer (and Doug Axe) Critique Richard Dawkins’s “Mount Improbable” Illustration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rgainpMXa8

And number 2, all of our mental states states, under the presuppositions of Darwinian materialism, are suppose to be the result of the physical states of the brain and the body. Physical states simply are not suppose to be influenced by whatever mental states a person may have, whether they be selfish or altruistic mental states that a person may possess. And as if the preceding was not troubling enough for Darwinists, the following meta-analysis actually showed that our moral intuition transcends space and time itself. In the following meta-analysis of 26 reports that were published between 1978 and 2010, the researchers found that your body can anticipate morally troubling situations between two and 10 seconds before it happens

Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: "A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can't hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner. But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm

bornagain77

The unmitigated horror unleashed on the world by these men, who, as we have seen, found strong support for their socialistic ideologies in Darwin's theory, would be hard to exaggerate. Here’s is a conservative estimate of the deaths that were inflicted upon mankind by these Godless men when they took control of their respective countries:

“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” http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there actually were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world that resulted from the undermining of the sanctity of human life when Darwin’s theory burst onto the scene.

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.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA – graph http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10449486_10154444727070445_6800239725838679585_n-e1406834704889.jpg

Moreover, all this horror that these socialistic ideologies have unleashed on the world is, as we have seen, more or less directly based upon the lie that is Darwinian evolution. Scientifically speaking, Darwin’s theory simply is not true. There are many empirical falsifications of Darwin’s theory that show that Darwin’s theory simply is not true. But Darwinists, by and large, resolutely refuse to ever accept any of these empirical evidences that falsify their theory.

Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself 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.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “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 modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

Since Darwinists refuse to accept falsification of their theory, then Darwin’s theory is, for all practical purposes, unfalsifiable. But if a scientific theory is unfalsifiable, then, as Karl Popper himself stated, “it does not speak about reality."

"In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality." - Karl Popper - The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Moreover, besides all the other falsifications of Darwin’s theory that I listed, it turns out that self sacrificial Altruistic behavior, in and of itself, also falsifies Darwin’s theory as being true. Charles Darwin stated in his book “Origin of Species’ that, “Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed,, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor.”

“Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor.” – Charles Darwin – page 201

And yet, although Darwin claimed that natural selection will never form anything for “doing an injury to its possessor”, and as Dr. Cornelius Hunter points out in the following article, “today we have many examples of injurious behavior that falsify Darwin’s prediction that natural selection “will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being.”

“But today we have many examples of injurious behavior that falsify Darwin’s prediction that natural selection “will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being.” - Dr. Cornelius Hunter – PhD. Biophysics https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/cell-death

As the following article points out, at the cellular level, apoptosis, sometimes called "cellular suicide," is essential for life. Without apoptosis, and/or the self sacrifice of individual cells, we wouldn't have distinct fingers and toes or brain cell connections,,,

Cell Suicide: An Essential Part of Life - February 23, 2011 Excerpt: At the cellular level, death is essential for life. Apoptosis, sometimes called "cellular suicide," is a normal, programmed process of cellular self-destruction. Even though it involves cell death, apoptosis serves a healthy and protective role in our bodies. The work of many researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health has taught us that apoptosis helps shape our physical features and organs before birth and rids our bodies of unneeded or potentially harmful cells. Without apoptosis, we wouldn't have distinct fingers and toes or the brain cell connections to understand the words in this article. Apoptosis also helps support the immune system. For instance, it plays a critical role during viral infections, killing off invaded cells before they spill over with virus particles. This act of self-sacrifice hampers the spread of viruses and can save the whole organism. https://www.livescience.com/12949-cell-suicide-apoptosis-nih.html

In fact, the integrated molecular complexity that is now being found to be involved in the process of apoptosis is far beyond anything that Darwin himself could have possibly imagined. As the following recent article on apoptosis stated, ‘the complexity in their description (of apoptosis) quickly overwhelms the reader.’

In Cell Death, a Stunning Display of Intelligent Design - July 13, 2020 Excerpt: Numbered caspase-1 through -14, these enzymes cut through (“cleave”) molecules like buzz saws.,,, Numerous actors come onto the stage when the apoptosis signal is triggered.,,, the complexity in their description (of apoptosis) quickly overwhelms the reader. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/07/in-cell-death-a-stunning-display-of-intelligent-design/

Of course this extremely complex and sophisticated mechanism of self destruction within the cell is clear example altruistic behavior. In other words, some cells are self-sacrificing their own lives in order that other cells in the organism can live. Yet, to repeat, such altruistic behavior within the cell is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s theory. As Darwin himself stated elsewhere in his book, “On the other hand, we may feel sure that any (biological) variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.”

“On the other hand, we may feel sure that any (biological) variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.” – Charles Darwin – page 81

As well, Charles Darwin also offered the following altruistic behavior as a falsification criteria of 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 – page 241

And yet, in one example that directly falsifies that prediction from Darwin, “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.”

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, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the entire notion that a single cell somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism.

One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4

bornagain77

In his book “Origin of Species” Charles Darwin himself stated that,

“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 – page 266

As well, in his subsequent book “Descent of Man”, Charles Darwin stated that, “We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment.,,, No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.,,, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." - Charles Darwin - Descent of Man - [Volume 1, page 168]

As should be obvious to everyone who is not a psychopath, not only is “let the strongest live and the weakest die” amoral, but it is completely ANTI-moral. Specifically, it is a direct violation of the golden rule, i.e. love your neighbor as you love yourself, and is also in direct contradiction as to how that altruistic ethic plays out in the Christian worldview. Namely, it is in direct contradiction to the Christian ethos of looking out for those who are less fortunate and/or ‘weaker’ than you are.

Matthew 25:34-40 “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. 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, 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.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “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.’

In short, if you believe in Christian ethic of charity, you are in direct violation of evolution. As Charles Darwin himself saw it, charity enabled the weaker to survive and to therefore weaken the species as a whole. It is also interesting to note how closely Darwin’s ‘general law’ of letting “the strongest live and the weakest die” mirrored Hitler’s own views. Specifically Hitler stated that, “A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong."

"But if that policy be carried out the final results must be that such a nation will eventually terminate its own existence on this earth; for though man may defy the eternal laws of procreation during a certain period, vengeance will follow sooner or later. A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong." - Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf - Chapter 4

In fact, Hitler once stated that "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure."

Hitler on Religion Selections from Hitler's Table Talk Excerpt: "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure." Adolf Hitler - - Hitler's Table Talk, a series of informal, private conversations among Hitler and his closest associates, as recorded by Martin Bormann. The ex tempore remarks excerpted above are from July 1941 to June 1942, most late at night or in early morning.

I have seen Darwinian atheists fight tooth and nail against the notion that Darwinian evolution was behind the genocides that Hitler orchestrated, but, as historian Richard Weikart has thoroughly documented, the fact of matter is that, “The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology.”

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. https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf From Darwin to Hitler – Richard Weikart - 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.

And as Sir Arthur Keith noted in 1947, shortly after WWII had ended, “for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”

“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15

Besides Darwin’s theory being behind the Nazi’s racial ideology, Darwin’s theory also provided the basis of all the other Marxist, Socialist, and/or Communist ideologies of the last century. In 1848 Friedrich Engels co-authored 'The Communist Manifesto' with Karl Marx. Upon reading Darwin's book 'Origin of Species' in 1860, Marx wrote to Engels that "This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” And in another letter to another ‘comrade’ Marx further wrote that “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”

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, Vladimir Lenin himself kept a little statue of an ape staring at a human skull on his desk. As you can see, the ape is sitting on a pile of books which includes Darwin’s book, “Origin of Species”.

“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 Here is a picture of what the little statue on Lenin’s desk looked like: Hugo Rheinhold’s Monkey - picture https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Y8HpKyHOL._SL1009_.jpg

Likewise Joseph Stalin, while at a seminary school of all places, was also heavily influenced by Darwinism. Specifically Stalin, while at seminary told a friend, ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God',,, ‘I’ll lend you a book to read',,, ‘Darwin. You must read it,’

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/

As well Chairman Mao, who outdid Hitler and Stalin in monstrous evil,

Chairman MAO: Genocide Master (Black Book of Communism) “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/

, Chairman Mao was also deeply influenced by Darwin’s theory. In fact, as the following article states, Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors.

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. https://creation.com/deconstructing-darwin-darwins-impact 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

bornagain77