Sunday, August 7, 2011
We continue now with our series of TTUF Profiles based (in part) on Brannon Howse’s book GRAVE INFLUENCES – 21 Radicals and Their Worldview Rule America from the Grave.
UPDATE: 12/12/11 From The FUEL PROJECT SERIES: KNOW YOUR ENEMY - EVOLUTION
Where did the theory of evolution initially come from? Charles Darwin or perhaps someone else? You may be surprised! Watch this 10 minute clip!
~ ~ end of update
UPDATE: 10/17/11 From the book: Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress we have an article from Evolution News (http://www.evolutionnews.org/):
Richard Weikart on Darwinism and Hitlerism
~ ~ end of update
First a brief biography on the man himself, as taken from Wikipedia:
"Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist. He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection.
"He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed that natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution. In modified form, Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life."
~ "Charles Robert Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England on 12 February 1809 at his family home, the Mount. He was the fifth of six children of wealthy society doctor and financier Robert Darwin, and Susannah Darwin (née Wedgwood). He was the grandson of Erasmus Darwin on his father's side, and of Josiah Wedgwood on his mother's side.
"Both families were largely Unitarian, though the Wedgwoods were adopting Anglicanism. Robert Darwin, himself quietly a freethinker, had baby Charles baptised in the Anglican Church, but Charles and his siblings attended the Unitarian chapel with their mother. The eight-year-old Charles already had a taste for natural history and collecting when he joined the day school run by its preacher in 1817. That July, his mother died. From September 1818, he joined his older brother Erasmus attending the nearby Anglican Shrewsbury School as a boarder."
Bio on Darwin
What many people don’t realize is that Darwin was not the originator of evolutionary theory; there were many that influenced his thinking and guided him on the path which led him to conclusions about “natural selection” among other key points in his infamous book On the Origin of the Species:
“Charles Darwin was not the first evolutionist! There were many prominent evolutionists who came before him. Starting in the late 1700's, there were significant evolutionary writers who influenced Charles Darwin. The list of these men includes James Hutton, Lamarck, Malthus, Dr. Erasmus Darwin, M.D. (grandfather of Charles), Sir Charles Lyell and Alfred Russel Wallace. Each of them had a profound effect on the public acceptance of evolutionary theory in the early to mid-1800's.”
“Perhaps Darwin is best understood if you realize that what he accomplished was not the origination of the Theory of Evolution. His permanence came from his grasping the mood of the people in England. The great successes of the Industrial Revolution had lead people to embrace materialism. The burgeoning middle class that had barely existed only a few decades earlier, was busy convincing itself that it could pull itself up by its own bootstraps. These people were looking for an excuse that would prove that they were the captains of their own ships, the savior of their own souls.
“Darwin gave these people what they wanted. He made the concept that there is no god popular and gave the people a way to make this philosophy credible. If there is no god, then all things are permissible. If there is no god, then there are no consequences. If there is no greater authority than yourself, then the rules of survival of the fittest are in effect; and, you may succeed at the cost of the life and limbs of others. The problem being that Darwin had no physical evidence to support his contention that one kind of biological life form had evolved from a previous biological life form. There was plenty of evidence for the variety of life forms on earth. His own work in the Galapagos Islands could be used to support that view. What he lacked was the evidence of transitional forms between reptiles and mammals; between single-celled organisms and multiple-celled organisms; between apes and men.”
“As a young man Darwin read the book Natural Theology (1802) by the great Biblical Scientific Creationist William Paley. In that book Paley correctly argued that if there is a watch, there must be a watchmaker. This is the classical argument for the existence of God from design. If there is design, there must be a Designer. Interestingly enough, during his twenties this book was Charles Darwin's favorite book. There was more to the religious atmosphere of his early adult life. His wife, Emma, read the Bible to his children. But, something happened to him internally as he continued to dwell on his thoughts about life, death and evolution. Some time after the unfortunate early death of his oldest daughter he remarked, "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years old."
“Darwin was an intelligent man, even though his parents once described him as being a little slow (mentally). He was fully aware that the concepts that he was dealing with, and making up pretty little stories to rationalize, would be the foundation of pure atheistic materialism. He fully understood that his writings would undermine Christianity. He fully realized that his writings were completely anti-Bible, anti-Church and anti-God. When he was a student at Cambridge, Darwin met the greatest geologist of his day, Adam Sedgwick (another Biblical Scientific Creationist). In 1861, Dr. Sedgwick read The Origin of Species (1859) and wrote a commentary on it. He stated, ‘From first to last it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up . . . And why is this done? For no other reason, I am sure, except to make us independent of a Creator.’”
The above quotes were taken from the web site: Creation Worldview ministries –
The life of Charles Darwin & whether he became a Christian
Now let’s get into what Mr. Howse has to share with us:
Of these ‘Twenty One Radicals’, Mr. Howse declared that of them all, the one that would rank highest in “order of importance of influence, [would be] Darwin.” His two books, Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man have had a spectacular (in the negative sense) effect in the world. It’s worthy of note that any society based on truth and a commitment to such will prosper and benefit by it. However, a society predicated upon a lie will suffer for it.
There are times when we see lies, especially those of the ‘white’ variety as having no real significance or consequence. However if we examine a lie in proportion to its promotion (say in an expansive proliferation throughout an entire nation) we can see the exponential destructiveness wreaking chaos and ruin.
Adolf Hitler embraced Darwinism; so did Alice Bailey. Dr. F.J.A. Hort of Cambridge University (liberal Bible scholar) did likewise: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.”
We can readily perceive the damage done to Germany, the nations that opposed her during WWII, their citizens and Jewry because of Hitler and the Nazi movement; likewise the insidious infiltration of the Theosophical Society into so much of our world today (See TTUF Profile on Alice Bailey, associate of Madame Helena Blavatsky and matriarch of today’s Globalist/Occult influences) that has affected the entire globe politically as well as ecumenically; and the liberalization of Christianity due in significant measure to scholastic approval of certain ancient Codices that have resulted in the dizzying display of myriad modern-day translations which deplete crucial information in the Scriptures.
While certainly not traceable directly back to Darwinism (with the noteable exception of Blavatsky), this theory most certainly had a profound influence on these and many others in the late 19th century, through the 20th and well into the 21st century: all such movements, organizations, and endeavors based upon a presumed acknowledgment of the truth of evolution has had and will continue to have dire consequences and destructive tendencies in our human society.
Brannon Howse comments: “The spectacular scope and intensity of Darwinism’s influence on virtually very area of thought is breathtaking. The acceptance of Darwin’s worldview and the associated ‘science’ paved the way for acceptance of every one of the [20 other] people named in this [Grave Influences] book. If rising to Darwin’s level of impact was the standard for induction into the Destructive Ideas Hall of Fame, he would be the only one to qualify for admittance.”
It is for this reason that, in addition to this TTUF Profile, we at The TRUTH Under FIRE will also engage in a comprehensive series on Biblical creation, evolution and the evidence articles that supports the truth about our world, its origins and its destiny.
Darwin’s Descent of Man promoted the idea of eugenics (selective breeding with the intent of improving the human species) which he referred to as “survival of the fittest”. Do you happen to know the full title of Origin of the Species?
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”
One must wonder who the ‘favoured races’ are, and by whom or what are they favored: a Creator, natural selection, an oligarchy that decides via eugenics who gets to procreate and with whom and who doesn’t?
According to Mr. Howse, Darwin described an animal farm where controlled breeding was proposed, but later clarified that he wasn’t talking about animals at all, but human ‘evolution’. “The legacy of this one idea has led to the deaths of millions. Eugenicists as defined by a Dr. George Grant are: ‘. . . the practitioners of an odd pseudo-science who sincerely believe that if human civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be eliminated” (quote from The New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997 by Richard Lewontin in his article ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’).
Such a breeding program would resist the ‘Descent of Man’ and elevate him upwards towards superior forms of near god-like humanity. The ideal man or the ‘super man’ as conceived and popularized by Nietzsche was (and is) the objective of such a program in creating a Super Man.
And yet with the development of a super man, the deletion of inferior men is a directive that cannot be ignored ‘for the betterment of mankind on the whole.’
Darwin stated: “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated and those that survive exhibit a vigorous state of health… We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. One who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will not 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 anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
It was Darwin’s belief that unless the inferior members of society are checked in their propagation, but rather allowed to freely reproduce they would excel in numbers than the “better class of men” and the people as a whole would retrograde. He stated that “progress is a no variable rule” (from Origin of the Species. Part 1, Chapter Five. 177).
Howse then makes the comparison from Darwin to Hitler’s own writing in Mein Kamf:
“Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, , but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb to any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to the improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.”
In Dr. Erwin Lutzer’s book Hitler’s Cross, he states that Hitler believed it was correct for mankind to be “as cruel as nature” and lectures in special schools for his SS troops taught such a philosophy. Jews were ‘proved’ to be of an inferior class while those of the Aryan race (themselves of course) were the superior. So because only the “fittest” and “superior” must survive at the expense of the weaker, sickly, intellectually and morally deficient peoples, it is the obligation of the superior to eliminate the weaker, and the obligation of the weaker to comply with being eliminated.
In Howses’ book, he lists the consequences to the belief in naturalism as held by Darwin, that is to say, that everything real exists in the natural world (as opposed to any spiritual world) without a Creator God:
1) If there is no God or Creator, then everything happens by chance or by mistake.
2) If there is no God, then man was not created in His image.
3) If there is no God, then there is no right or wrong.
4) If there is no God, there is only the natural world.
5) If there is no God, then man does not have an eternal soul and there is no life after death.
6) If there is no God, then life has no [intrinsic] meaning.
7) If there is no God, man does not have a free will, for he is the product of his environment.
Again from Friedrich Nietzsche – the idea of Nihilism which has permeated our worldviews in virtually every nation – “God is dead*”:
* This quote is actually a summary statement derived from a fictitious character created by Nietzsche, who stated that “we have killed God,” but actually said much more than merely this
The Infamous 'God is dead' quote'.
“[A] vulgar form of Nihilism has a remarkable influence in our educational system through our universities. The consequence of the victory of such ideas would be enormous. If both religion and reason are removed, all that remains is will and power, where the only law is that of the tooth and claw.” (Taken from Donald Kagan’s Academic Questions, 8; No. 2 (Spring 1995) 56. – “Nihilism rejects the objective basis for society and its morality, the very concept of objectivity, even the possibility of communication itself”).
Certain leaders in the world that don’t acknowledge God, spiritual reality in both capacities of heaven and hell or a Judgment Day on which they will be held accountable by the righteous Judge are autonomous and unaccountable to anyone but themselves, and as a result demonstrate a brazen attitude of arrogance in their governing policies, even terribly destructive tendencies such as modeled by the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao. As I have often said myself: When man rejects God, he becomes something other than what God intended for him – he becomes a god who then further mutates into a monster who preys upon his fellow man who is perceived as inferior.
Hitler’s orders killed about 11 million people; Stalin’s regime slew somewhere between 20 to 40 million people. According to The Congressional Record, “135 million people were killed by Communists in the 20th century”. (D. James Kennedy, Lord of All, Developing A Christian World-and-Life View; Wheaton, IL. Crossway, 2005, 130).
Any society is of course, comprised of individual citizens, and it’s as each individual, most particularly the leaders of any nation believes and understands that though they have a position of power they are, like all people, subject to the Almighty Who possesses All Power, and as such reins in any tendency towards the abuse of power and the corruption that so often results from unrestrained usage of such; thus that society retains at least some semblance of civilized and ethical behavior.
Howse reminds us that Benjamin Rush, the Founding Father who promoted the establishment of schools in America said:
“Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinion of Confucius or Mohammad inculcated upon our youth than see them wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament (Why Am I a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, by Dr. N.L. Geisler and P.K. Hoffman; Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Books – 2001; 93.)
A belief in God made for responsible and commendable citizens, according to Rush, and if America’s future educators were not firm in their belief in the Deity that rewards good and punishes evil, then our republican form of government would not last.
“In 1925, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the NEA (both liberal organizations) defended evolution in the now-famous Scopes trial (A thorough treatment of this history and its current ramifications, The Creator in the Classroom “Scopes Two” by Norman Geisler in collaboration with A.F. Brooke II and Mark J. Keough will be presented on TTUF in an upcoming article relating to the issue of evolution (and education)) founded and supported by well-known humanists, we should not be shocked by their contempt for the creationist worldview. Evolution, as outlined in the Humanist Manifesto I, II and 2000, is a major religious doctrine or tenet of Secular Humanism. Instead of a belief in God as the basis for their religion, humanists believe in nature, or “natural science”. Thus, a humanist is said to believe in naturalism.
“The humanist’s point in promoting naturalistic evolution is to create an intellectually sophisticated way to deny the existence of God. I would contend, however, that believing in evolution requires more blind faith than believing in God. Dr. D.G. Lindsay agrees and describes the blind religion of evolution in this way:
“‘Evolution is a religion that attributes everything to ‘nature’. It demands a faith that is totally blind. Since the evolutionist believes nature and its laws are the guiding force in the universe, he is totally at odds with the Christian faith and the essential miraculous aspect of creation. The miraculous events of the Bible deviate from the known laws of nature, or at least from our understanding of them. However, the evolutionist is blind to the fact that his religion, evolution, violates every known law for its own existence, making atheistic evolution more incredible (miraculous) than the Christian faith.’”
I will at this point make the following observations regarding the quintessential importance of a literal six day creation week as well as a literal interpretation of Genesis (especially chapters 1 and 3), and the direct creation of man (Adam was his name); such a view that denies both atheistic and theistic evolution is necessary in order for the Gospel to have any validity or need; an affirmation of either abrogates the Cross of Calvary and dismisses any necessity for such.
If the creation week was a mere Hebrew myth or poetic expression that can’t be taken literally, but only allegorically and if evolution (whether by chance of Divine commencement) is true, then we are the product of millions of years of death and suffering, slowly, gradually evolving into higher, more complex beings and thus the supposedly tragic death of Adam due to his violation of God’s Law and its subsequent sin is of no consequence; humanity has no sin nature to deal with, but only a natural inclination towards things that ‘religion’ would classify and denounce as sin as a means of domination and suppression, and the blood atonement of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world is not only impotent, but unimportant.
It is for these very reasons I believe Christians ought to be firmly committed to a study and proclamation of creationism from a biblical world view and that in order to support the faith of our younger generations who are overwhelmed with teachings of evolution on a daily basis at school, we must educate them on the scientifically valid perspective of Genesis and creation. Statistically speaking we are losing our young believers by the droves because they no longer hold to a biblical account of creation and the fall of mankind into sin, and see no need for the Gospel, the very foundation of the Christian faith!
Educrats such as Robert Muller, Benjamin Bloom and John Dewey (see the previous TTUF Profiles on each of these people) would rather have your children and grandchildren taught the humanist philosophy rather than the Christian faith:
“Man, for the humanist, is his own ‘higher power’. The humanist rejects God and so must accept biological evolution because the alternative is to say that there is a supernatural Creator and intelligent designer. If there is such a Creator, then He is the author of the laws of nature, and we are accountable to Him. But being accountable to anyone other than self is not acceptable to the humanist, As a result, humanists reject our of hand any and all evidence that challenges their desired reality.”
“The liberal then, who chooses to have faith in evolution does so not because of compelling intellectual honesty but because the alternative requires accountability to God. This renders the liberal agenda a house of cards, for if a liberal acknowledges God then abortion is murder, homosexuality is a sin, and sex outside of marriage is fornication. Most humanists refuse to admit God’s existence – regardless of the sound reasoning and evidence to the contrary – because of their commitment to self-idolatry and pride.
But the Bible paints a clear picture of these people in Psalm 14:1:
“The fool says in his heart, ‘God does not exist’.” Only a fool could look at the historical, archeological, prophetic, philosophical and scientific evidence and deny God’s existence.”
The Humanist Manifesto II states the following:
“We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As non-theists, we begin with humans, not God, nature not deity.”
Basically humanists believe as a foregone conclusion that there is no God, and therefore any evidence that suggests such a thing is dismissed entirely as untenable even in light of the fact that faith in a theory which is mathematically impossible and “contradicts the known scientific facts and laws of physics.”
“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
From Professor D.M.S. Watson’s Adaptation article as appearing in Nature, 124:233 1929
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
From Professor Richard Lewontin’s article Billions and Billions of Demons, as appearing in The New York Review, Jan. 9, 1997, 31.
Evolution is not based on science, nor on scientific method held strictly for means of acquiring valid, scientifically verifiable information because “spontaneous macro-evolution” cannot be observed nor reproduced (obviously in miniature) in the lab:
“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.” Dr. Robert A. Millikin, physicist and Nobel Prize winner.
For the above quote and others like it, see the following web site:
Quotes by Noted Evolutionists by Hebronics.org
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky proclaims the work of His hands.”
Brannon Howse concludes this segment on Darwin by saying,
“Happily for some in the scientific community, the remarkable discoveries of the past few years have caused some scientists to reject the lie of evolution and explore evidence for an ‘intelligent designer’. The complexity of the human body and the orderliness of the universe are so overwhelming that these researchers no longer believe everything we see and know happened by chance. They may not quite be ready to say “God is,” but at least they acknowledge the necessity of an intelligent designer of some sort.
“So, the issue is not that one worldview (theism) requires faith while the other (atheism) does not – both do. The question is: Which worldview is based on a more rational faith? And to that, the answer is clear.
“There is far greater evidence for the existence of God as Creator than for the notion that everything came about by random chance. To accept the idea of a Creator God, you need to have faith in only one thing – an all-knowing, all-powerful Being. The astonishing complexity of creation is consistent with the infinitely knowledgeable, omnipotent Creator. Only such a One could have created the universe as we know it. On the other hand, to believe in spontaneous evolution, you must have faith in billions and billions of mathematically improbable and scientifically impossible occurrences.
“The real goal of evolution[ary theory] is not to gain knowledge about how the world came to be. The primary purpose is to explain away the existence of God. Atheists just don’t want to admit that Someone could be so powerful and unimaginably intelligent as to put together the cosmos as well know it. It’s too . . . well . . . humbling.
“They have Darwin to thank for giving them a way out.”
This concludes this TTUF Profile on Darwin. Please understand that this article is not intended to provide evidences to disprove evolution per se, but to examine the ramifications of Darwinism and its effects on societies that have opted for millions and billions of years of random chance and natural selection over the Creator God. While the information contained in this article does provide some limited insights that tend towards disproving this theory, the primary thrust was intended to address issues related to, and results from Darwin’s ideas.
Having said that, it is the certain intentions of the writers of TTUF to bring a series of articles that will reveal evolution for what it is, to expound on the evidence for creation, to establish the reliability of the Genesis account in its historicity as accurate and actual; we will use various resources both in literature and online information for this purpose, and we would solicit your prayers for guidance from the LORD God Creator in this endeavor.
You will also note that on this web site of ours we have a few links to resources that will prove useful for your own study into this crucial subject, and please feel free to take advantage of them all. Until next time then, may the LORD GOD, Creator of heaven and earth, the LORD Jesus Christ – God made flesh, bless us all with His grace and truth, and edify us in the Word Inspired by the empowerment of the Spirit!
Posted by James J. Fire at 10:51 AM