Stuff we never knew but it makes sense:
Philosopher Hannah Arendt is, in my view, the most perceptive analyst of totalitarianism. In her magnum opus, The Origins of Totalitarianism, she points out that Darwinism played an essential role in the rise of totalitarian governments in the 20th century. Arendt:
“Underlying the Nazi’s belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human beings, just as under the Bolsheviks’ belief in class-struggle as the expression of the law of history lies Marx’s notion of society as the product of a gigantic historical movement which races according to its own law of motion to the end of historical times when it will abolish itself.”
Nazism was clearly inspired in no small part by Darwin’s theory, and Arendt notes that Marx and Engels explicitly credited Darwin with insights essential to Marxism. She points out
“…the great and positive interest Marx took in Darwin’s theories; Engels could not think of a greater compliment to Marx’s scholarly achievements than to call him the “Darwin of history”… the movement of history and the movement of nature are one and the same.”
Michael Egnor, “Totalitarianism Is Darwinism Applied to Politics” at Evolution News and Science Today
It would be an understatement to say that the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby will see to it that this is never taught.
In a curious example of Darwinists being given permission to simply rewrite history, consider the “Darwin, Marx, and Freud” triad, which ID sympathizers were ridiculed for bringing up. It turned out:
Discovery Institute notes the following from Douglas Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology (1998, 3rd Ed., Sinauer Associates), p. 5:
“Darwin showed that material causes are a sufficient explanation not only for physical phenomena, as Descartes and Newton had shown, but also for biological phenomena with all their seeming evidence of design and purpose. By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous. Together with Marx’s materialistic theory of history and society and Freud’s attribution of human behavior to influences over which we have little control, Darwin’s theory of evolution was a crucial plank in the platform of mechanism and materialism.”
This is especially interesting in view of the sometimes-heard claim that ID advocates invented the Marx-Freud-Darwin triad of materialist influences.
Denyse O’Leary, “Textbook Watch: Did ID Folk Invent Marx, Freud, And Darwin As The “Textbook Triad” Of Materialism?” at Uncommon Descent
Being a Darwinist insulates a person for the usual consequences of treating fiction as fact.
See also: Michael Egnor counsels: Live not by lies. He explains how he got involved with ID. Sure, he tells us, people tried to get him fired and he received death threats. He offers various strategies to fight Cancel Culture, ending with “Censors of all sorts depend on the cooperation of their victims. Don’t cooperate. Don’t participate. Serve only the truth. Live not by lies. ”
In his book “Origin of Species” Charles Darwin himself stated that,
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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”.
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,’
As well Chairman Mao, who outdid Hitler and Stalin in monstrous evil,
, 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.
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:
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.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.”
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,,,
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.’
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.
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?”
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;”
The logic of natural selection is nicely illustrated in this following graph,
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:
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.
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:
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.
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
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,,
,,,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,”
In short and in conclusion, according to our best science, we are NOT amoral physical beings, as Richard Dawkins believes,
,, but we are instead very much moral spiritual beings, i.e. we are “souls!”
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.
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?
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.
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!
https://sites.williams.edu/engl-209-fall16/uncategorized/the-dark-side-of-darwinism/
Here is a “key” paragraph:
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.