The acceptance of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution among societies can be likened to a nuclear event, decimating the fragile moral fabric of humanity.
Evolution, the concept of the survival of the fittest, and natural selection has only contributed to the devastation of human reason and thinking. The acceptance of evolution creates a shift in worldview that is so radical it threatens the very fabric of society. It holds that we derive our morality in the same way animals do, through force and strength. It contends that ultimately, might equals right, and even good because it assures the success of the strongest in society is guaranteed, and thus our survival as a species becomes a morally justifiable end in itself. Evolution attaches us to the base desires of animals as the only means of deriving purpose in life, outside of survival, nature is cruel and purposeless.
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
As famed skeptic, Richard Dawkins demonstrates in the referenced quote, the acceptance of atheism and evolution is to be set adrift in a world void of purpose.
From what I can see, nihilism proves to be a hellacious place to try and reason personal morality from, much less provide a framework of societal laws. Here we are, more than a century past the time of Darwin, and the acceptance of his theory of evolution as truth, and what do we have? A dumbed down population acting like animals, hoarding, sex, money, and worldly pleasure like it is the end of the world. The evils of the last century can be directly attributed to the widespread acceptance of this fallacious theory.
The Human Doomsday Device is an Ideological One
Proponents living in Darwin’s day rightly saw evolution for what it was, the collapse of Christian Tradition and Western Society.
Son of a preacher, and famed agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll writing in Darwin’s day, enthusiastically proclaimed this about Darwin in one of his lectures,
“This century will be called Darwin’s century. He was one of the greatest men who ever touched this globe. He has explained more of the phenomena of life than all of the religious teachers. Write the name of Charles Darwin on the one hand and the name of every theologian who ever lived on the other, and from that name has come more light to the world than from all of those. His doctrine of evolution, his doctrine of the survival of the fittest, his doctrine of the origin of species, has removed in every thinking mind the last vestige of orthodox Christianity. He has not only stated, but he has demonstrated, that the inspired writer knew nothing of this world, nothing of the origin of man, nothing of geology, nothing of astronomy, nothing of nature; that the Bible is a book written by ignorance–at the instigation of fear.
Charles Darwin destroyed the foundation of orthodox Christianity. There is nothing left but faith in what we know could not and did not happen. Religion and science are enemies. One is a superstition; the other is a fact. One rests upon the false, the other upon the true. One is the result of fear and faith, the other of investigation and reason.” (Source)
The problem with this thinking is the so-called science behind evolution has flopped. Darwin himself said that if he was correct about evolution then millions of transitional fossils should exist and be found.
“(Since) innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” – Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin p. 162.
“Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” – Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin p. 293.
150 years later and the list of supposed humanoid fossils can pathetically fit on a small Wikipedia page seen here. Where are the innumerable examples speculated by Darwin?
When you look at the examples on the linked Wikepedia page what you see is fragments of fragments filled in by sculpted clay, almost always angling the forehead and jawline in parody of modern apes. Nothing there but mislabeled crushed monkey bones, and very few at that. By Darwin’s own metric, laid out in the very boring and tedious book, Origin of Species evolution is a failed theory.
It is obvious that the people of Darwin’s day were ready and eager to accept his premise before evidence had even materialized. They were much more interested in the ideological dynamite evolution was perceived to be, rather than wait for scientific proof of its viability.
In the above quote, Ingersoll’s worship of Darwin and his theories betrays the early hype that evolution had in Darwin’s day.
“Even before Charles Darwin publishes his On the Origin of Species, the English social scientist Herbert Spencer proclaims that a struggle for existence in human society leads, in effect, to its evolution. Spencer argues that struggle is valuable because it gives rise to fit individuals and institutions. He argues against policies, such as charity, that might interfere with this process. Spencer’s ideas lay the foundation for Social Darwinism, a philosophy never directly espoused by Darwin himself. Social Darwinism is embraced by John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and other laissez-faire capitalists around the turn of the century, and critics charge that it encourages cutthroat capitalism and other ills.” (Source)
This hype and publicity wasn’t organic, it was manufactured by the world’s elite at the time. Everybody was clamoring for the money these Robber Barons had to offer, and the scientific community sold their souls to evolution theory in exchange for it all.
The theory of evolution was first adopted by men like Rockefeller and Carnage. Through their extensive network of foundations, they purchased for themselves politicians, media conglomerates, universities, chemical factories, research labs, and even governments. These institutions greedily signed on to their version of Social Darwinism as a means to cozy up to their money. As a result, those above-mentioned ills turned out some of the most nefarious philosophies on earth, like eugenics, Atheistic Communism, and even heavily influenced Hitler and Nazism and his pursuit of a master race. All of these were evolutionary based, political philosophies that ended up starting 2 World Wars and killing millions over the last 100 years or more. Sanitizing populations based on strength, resulted in profound racism, war and genocide, not a better understanding of human nature. As a result, it should be apparent that using strength as a measure of human value has rendered meaningless all of the higher, noble qualities unique to mankind.
The Point of Attack
This is why for thousands of years humans have refrained from comparing themselves to animals as a means of understanding ourselves. We are obviously different at every metric. Instead, ancient and enlightenment philosophers always proposed that humans have their own morality distinct from animals and thus all laws and societal norms must involve itself in defining human morality through what was natural to humans, as opposed to what was natural to the brutality often associated with the animal kingdom and nature.
As an example, enlightenment philosopher and father of the American founding fathers John Locke was one of the first to popularize and really articulate what is now called Natural Law. In his The Two Treatises of Civil Government, he stated:
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.”
Notice how he first states that nature has its own discernible laws, but then immediately applies the lessons derived from Natural Law to the human condition, and our instinct to preserve our own life and wellbeing, as well as the wellbeing of others. We define human nature on what is naturally permissible and endearing within humanity, not what we find in nature itself seeing we are so far removed from that limited perspective and space.
We reason from the perspective that humans have a different set of morality than the animal kingdom because that is the correct observation. We possess qualities not found in the animal kingdom, and thus can’t rightly apply their version of morality to our own without drastic consequences. Animals have their own morality and law within their social groups, as do humans. While there may be a few base similarities, human morality is infinitely more complex and sophisticated than animal kind, this is an easily discernable fact.
Here lies the problem, evolutionary theory has done nothing but muddy the philosophical waters. By inextricably tying mankind reasoning to that of animal reasoning we completely rewire every aspect of society towards brutal competition for pleasure and resources. Whether it be a pagan society that worships nature and animals, or a communist society that relegates us to nothing more than godless monkey’s, the result is always the same, a preference for brutality and the tyrannical oppression found in animal social groups. Tribalism, Animism, and now evolution are barbaric because it denies us our own distinct morality apart from the animal kingdom.
This is why evolution is so popular among psychopathic control freaks. It gives them a place to rationalize their domineering urges. Like Rockefeller using Social Darwinism as a means to rationalize his grossly inhumane business practices, or Stalin whose belief in atheism caused him to institutionalize the persecution of religious Christians in communist Russia during that same time. It extends from the belief that the application of religion breeds weakness in humanity, not strength and must be purged.
Read an interview with Stalin in 1927 in which he declares his hate for religious thought at any degree, even within his own government.
A DELEGATE: I often read of expulsions from the Party because of belief in God
STALIN: I can only repeat the conditions of membership in our Party that I have just mentioned. We have no other condition.
Does that mean the Party is neutral towards religion? No, it does not. We carry on and will continue to carry on propaganda against religious prejudices. Our legislation guaranteed to citizens the right to adhere to any religion. This is a matter for the conscience of each individual. That is precisely why we carried out the separation of the Church from the State. But in separating the Church from the State and proclaiming religious liberty we at the same time guaranteed the right of every citizen to combat by argument, by propaganda and agitation any and all religion. The Party cannot be neutral towards religion and does conduct anti-religious propaganda against all and every religious prejudice because it stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science. Cases such as recently occurred in America in which Darwinists were prosecuted in court, cannot occur here because the Party carries out a policy of the general defense of science. The Party cannot be neutral towards religious prejudices and it will continue to carry on propaganda against these prejudices because this is one of the best means of undermining the influence of the reactionary clergy who support the exploiting classes and who preach submission to these classes. The Party cannot be neutral towards the bearers of religious prejudices, towards the reactionary clergy who poison the minds of the toiling masses. Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not been completely liquidated. Anti-religious propaganda is a means by which the complete liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought about. Cases occur when certain members of the Party hamper the complete development of anti-religious propaganda. If such members are expelled it is a good thing because there is no room for such “Communists” in the ranks of our Party. (Source)
Evolution attaches us to animals and as a result, for the last hundred or so years, we have reasoned as animals to our collective hurt.
It is little wonder that war, drugs, greed, entertainment culture, and hedonism prevails in society. Being told we are animals has had a profound consequence on the human psyche. It causes a crisis of understanding, we are not meant to reason from a position of nature, we are meant to reason from a position of our humanity taking into account all of the noble characteristics that separate us from the animal kingdom. Evolution is directly responsible for the slide into moral decay. The philosophy of Natural Law relative to human morality was a gift, and helped separate ourselves from the animal kingdom, while evolution and the supposed survival of the fittest mindset has caused unimaginable pain on a worldwide scale that nobody could have foreseen. Most can’t even articulate the problems it has caused in every level of society much less understand its impact.
All they know is science says we are apes, so lets act and govern like apes. To hell with virtue, morality, absolute truth, reason, and the higher call of religion that is without question the defining factors of what it means to be human. All evolution has done is destroy a millennia of human understanding in favor of a philosophy that rationalizes brutality and tyranny as the sole governing compass of humankind.
People, upon hearing Natural Law, assume it means law based on the Laws of Nature, that is entirely incorrect. Natural Law is not the Law of Nature, Natural Law is the law that governs the natural morality of humankind and should never be confused. We have a world now that denies God and confuses the two, an error we must recover from or it will without question mark our own demise.
So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before thee. Psalm 73:22