quote:

Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection.[1] Its leading proponents opine atheism.[2][3][4]

Beginning in 1887, social scientists were using the term "social Darwinism" to apply the survival of the fittest theory to social situations. Under this theory, the wealthiest or most powerful in society must be biologically superior, and less "fit" persons should die.

Proponents of this particular form of ‘social Darwinism’, such as Herbert Spencer, taught that the powerful and wealthy were this way because they were biologically and evolutionally superior to the struggling masses. They believed that we should therefore do nothing to help improve the working and living conditions of the lesser evolved masses. Charities were clearly evil in helping sustain the lives of those who otherwise would and should die in the natural selection process. In other words, the weak were to do their duty and die while the fittest survived, which would one day lead to an evolutionarily super society and race. [2]

Soon many began to view racial struggles, and war itself, as a perfectly natural example of survival-of-the-fittest in the human race. The horrific wars of the 20th century, employing shockingly brutal tactics, were encouraged by a belief in survival-of-the-fittest among humans. While social Darwinism itself was applied to social and economic situations rather than military ones, it is easy how extreme versions of social Darwinism could justify physical struggles among races.

Social Darwinism has been linked with racism, nationalism, imperialism, and atheism.[2][3][4][5][6] To elitists, strong nations were composed of white people who successful at expanding their empires, and as such, these strong nations would survive in the struggle for dominance.[5] With this attitude, Europeans, except for Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.[5] Christian missionaries, on the other hand, were the very first individuals to meet new peoples and develop writing systems for local inhabitants' languages that lacked one.[5] Being critics of Darwinism, they ardently opposed slavery and provided an education and religious instruction to the new peoples they interacted with since they felt that this was their duty as Christians.[5]

quote:

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928:
"An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right."[7]

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that
"crude social-Darwinism" gave Hitler "his entire political ‘world-view.’ "

This view called "social Darwinism" is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Charles Darwin himself.

quote:

American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism

Liberals are more likely to believe in evolution.[8] Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."[9] Professor Brooks found that American liberals are significantly less charitable than American conservatives despite earning more.[10] American Conservatives also donate more time and donate more blood than American liberals.[11] The results are not entirely surprising given that liberals are more likely to believe in evolution and that Darwinists historically have often displayed behavior in accordance with Social Darwinism.

quote:

Poland was still behind the Iron Curtain then. It was the summer of 1972, and I was travelling to that country with student colleagues. Our tertiary course involved Marxism, and we wanted to see something of its implications in practice.

Entering East Germany en route, I felt a certain sense of excitement; I had not penetrated the ‘Berlin Wall’ before. ‘No-man’s Land’ and the ugly prison defences separating East and West Germany were chilling.

Even more chilling was the concentration camp of Auschwitz in southern Poland. I saw hair, spectacles and teeth piled high, and the gas chambers where thousands of victims were mercilessly destroyed. It was summer, but the birds did not sing. There was death in the air. A Polish boy who acted as our guide whispered, ‘My grandparents died in this camp. It is my duty to let people know what happened.’

Underlying question

Three years later, my wife and I went to visit an East German pen-friend, Dorothea, who was not allowed to visit us. Once again, we traversed ‘No-man’s Land’ and went beyond the Berlin Wall—this time feeling very vulnerable.

We have been many times since. On one occasion we asked our friend, ‘Do you ever see the situation changing?’ The answer was a short ‘No’, but her resigned look of despair spoke more eloquently.

I trust you can imagine, therefore, the tears and the joy that flowed in November 1989 when the Wall came down. The prison doors had broken open, and our friends were free!

Yet lingering beneath the surface was a question that would not go away. I had seen the horrific impact of Nazism on the life of a nation. I had then experienced the similarly grim effect of a different ideology—Communism. Why had such enormous evil been unleashed upon so many people?

A common denominator

I had seen the horrific impact of Nazism on the life of a nation. I had then experienced the similarly grim effect of a different ideology—Communism. Why had such enormous evil been unleashed upon so many people?

In those years since my first visit to Poland, I sought to understand Marxism and Nazism, and what shaped the worldviews that had justified the horrific actions that I had witnessed. I discovered a common denominator.

Marxism, so I learnt, sought to be scientific. It was anchored in a social and economic theory that was believed to mirror the true history of life. Central to that theory was the struggle between the class that owned the means of production (the capitalist ‘bourgeoisie’) and the working class (the ‘proletariat’) that did not.

Evil, in the socialist worldview, is the oppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie. Having been enlightened by Marx regarding the ‘true history of life’, men and women could now take control of that history. They could accelerate ‘nature’ as it sped towards its goal of a world revolution that would banish such ‘evil’ and produce a socialist utopia.

Hitler, I discovered, shared a similar worldview, as outlined in his book Mein Kampf (literally ‘my struggle’). He believed that people, like animals and plants, were engaged in a constant struggle for survival. The climax of history would be the survival of the fittest race—which he believed to be the ‘Aryan race’, as embodied in the German people.

Hitler and Stalin both applied their ‘scientific’ logic with a ruthless, overwhelming determination. So did Mao Zedong in China, where countless millions also perished in the name of a utopian Marxist dream. And they not only convinced themselves, but millions of others—people just like you and me—that they were right to do so.

But where did these ideas come from? What was the ‘scientific’ basis for such evil?


A way of seeing

Hitler’s understanding of the history of life, and that of Marx, Stalin and Mao, was not devised by a German, Russian or Chinese. It was shaped by an Englishman named Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), laid the groundwork for their worldviews. They each applied the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ to their own situation.

For Marx and Stalin it was class struggle; for Hitler it was racial struggle. And because Darwinism undermined the authority of the Bible on origins, it meant that, logically, there was no accountability to God for the mass murder they used to implement their ideas. In fact, such tactics could be justified by Darwinism. Without an absolute standard of right and wrong, those in power are not accountable to any standard. So ‘might’ becomes ‘right’.

As Darwin’s evolutionary thinking became widely welcomed and absorbed by society, it not only convinced leaders like Marx and Hitler, but it became a ‘scientific’ framework justifying the public acceptance of their actions for the ‘benefit’ of all humanity.

Frightening dream

Over the years, I have visited East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. I have become accustomed to seeing crude and faceless residential slab blocks encircling towns and cities.

Recently, I visited Romania as well. I was not surprised to see the same thing in her capital city, Bucharest—which was at one time called ‘Little Paris’.

The sheer scale of the destruction was a shock, not only around Bucharest, but at its very heart. I listened to a Romanian woman whose family home had disappeared to make way for the Grand Avenue that leads to the People’s Palace of (now-deposed) communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

As I walked the length of this cultural wasteland, I found it difficult to articulate the depth of sadness I was feeling. I was seeing the impact of Darwin’s thinking, as interpreted through Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and then Romanian leader Ceausescu, on the life of yet another nation.

They were wrong

On the Sunday of my visit I shared these thoughts with a group of Christians in Bucharest. As an Englishman, I could only stand before them and express immense regret for what one of my countrymen had released into an unsuspecting world.

Hitler was wrong. Stalin was wrong. Ceausescu was wrong. Darwin’s theory, upon which those tyrants based their actions, was wrong, too. The evidence was before my eyes; its radical effect on the lives of everyone I was speaking to. For them it was not just an interesting theory, but a frightening practice.

At the same time, however, I was also able to point them to someone who was right, not just in theory but also in practice. He understood the true history of the world and the true nature of life, because He created it (John 1:1–3).

That person is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh (John 8:58). He came to Earth to verify and fulfil statements that He had made in earlier times concerning the beginning of life. And He added to it with inspired insight into what is yet to come. And He validated all this by rising from the dead.

Not from chaos

On that Sunday, I referred to a passage from John’s Gospel, chapter 10, where Jesus said, ‘I tell you the truth … the thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; but I have come so that they may have life, and have it to the full’ (John 10:1, 10).

That same Jesus is the Word (John 1:1) who has spoken into history from its very beginning. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth … God created man in His own image … God saw all that He had made, and it was very good … Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array’ (Genesis 1:1, 27, 31, 2:1).

We do not come from chaos, ascending via ‘survival of the fittest’ to reach a utopia of our own making.

We do not come from chaos, ascending via ‘survival of the fittest’ to reach a utopia of our own making. We come from perfection, through failure into pain and death—which came into being when our first parents sought to exclude God; just as Darwin, and then Hitler, Stalin and Ceausescu had done these years since.

Each of these was wrong about the past; this is evident in the death and destruction their ideas wrought. But Jesus was right—as is equally evident in the good fruit of His own life.

They were also wrong about the future. The Utopian dream will not be fulfilled by man, but by God. History is heading towards ‘that day’—the promised new heavens and new earth, which follows the death of death and the destruction of the ‘old’ (2 Peter 3:10).

All those who love Jesus can look forward to the heavenly Marriage Feast of the Lamb of God (Rev. 19)—of which all marriages and all positive relationships are but a foretaste. Those new heavens and that new earth will be the home of the people who love Jesus, living together with Him for eternity in a relationship that is rich, full and perfect. And every tear—even those from Auschwitz and Bucharest—will be wiped away.

quote:

1860: Karl Marx [sorry comrades]
The ‘spiritual father’ of the communist system, Marx was an avid adherent of Darwin. He combined his social and economic idea with evolutionary principles. Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ His disciple Lenin applied utter ruthlessness and terror in Russia—the term ‘rivers of blood’ has commonly been applied in describing his reign

1918: Leon Trotsky [sorry comrades]
Fanatically committed to Darwinism and Marxism, communist leader Trotsky was brutal against the Christian church. He said that Darwin’s ideas ‘intoxicated’ him, and ‘Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.’ With no Creator’s laws to restrain him and the justification of evolution, he felt free to use any means to attain power and political ends

1930: Joseph Stalin [sorry comrades]
The world’s worst mass-murderer studied at Tiflis (Tbilisi) Georgia, theological college. A friend later said Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin. He was expelled from the college at 19 because of his revolutionary connections. After understanding that evolution provided no basis for conscience or morals, he felt free to torture and murder to whatever extent he chose to achieve his communist goals

1940: Adolf Hitler
Formed his racial and social policies on the evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and the superiority of certain ‘favoured races’ (as in the subtitle of Darwin’s book). Hitler’s reign resulted in the murder of six million Jews as well as many blacks, gypsies, the retarded, and other groups deemed unfit to live. [piss off realone] The evolutionary ‘science’ of eugenics provided him with justification for his decrees

1975: Pol Pot
The death in 1998 of Cambodia’s Pol Pot marked the end of one of the world’s worst mass murderers. From 1975 he led the Khmer Rouge to genocide against his own people in a bloodthirsty regime which was inspired by the communism of Stalin and China’s notorious Mao Zedong. Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"The Scientific Case Against Evolution"

[heavily edited]

quote:

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

quote:

. it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

...

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving...

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

quote:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means...The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense...

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, best proved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

quote:

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

quote:

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

quote:

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

quote:

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

quote:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

quote:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today...

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement

quote:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

quote:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

quote:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

quote:

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism

Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more...

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

quote:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern." Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

some of the fun "facts" of evolution:

[long, but worth the read comrades]

quote:

Earnst Haeckels evolution embryo fraud.

Evolution fraud Haeckels drawingsEvolution fraud. Haeckels drawings are still printed in some of todays school science text books with full knowledge that they are wrong.

One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution – reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years...

Yet, despite Haeckel’s fraud conviction and early exposure, Western educators continued using the pictures for decades as proof of the theory of evolution...


Piltdown man, deliberate evolution fraud

The history of the discovery of the earliest Englishman (as Piltdown Man was so often called) is fairly common knowledge. A laborer was supposedly digging in a gravel pit near the village of Piltdown in Sussex in southern England when he found a piece of bone. He passed it to the local amateur archaeologist of the district, Charles Dawson, who verified its antiquity and pronounced that it was part of a skull which was possibly human. Dawson began to search for the rest of the skull and, in 1912, a jawbone was discovered. Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum verified that the skull had human features and the jaw was ape-like. The fossils became known as Piltdown Man and were called Eoanthropus dawsoni which means ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man’. In 1915, another Dawn Man was found a couple of miles away from the site of the first find. Fossil remains of animals that lived with Piltdown Man, together with the tools that he used, were also found at the two sites. At last, here was ‘proof’ that apes had evolved into humans in England.

Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley. He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down to make them look human. The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient. In addition, it was also shown that none of the finds associated with Piltdown Man had been originally buried in the gravel that had been deposited at Piltdown...


Nebraska Man. False evolutionary model made from a pigs tooth. The pig was still alive too.

Like many supposed predecessors to our current human form. Nebraska man was formed form the minimalist of bones. A single tooth was all it took for evolutionists to come up with the drawing you see [at the site].

In 1922 Paleontologist Harald Cook found a single tooth in Western Nebraska USA in Pliocene deposits that were alleged to be 6 million years old. To find a “Missing link” in the USA is a big thing for a start as most humanoids were thought to be from Africa. Another example of “we will take any proof of evolution”. This Nebraska man tooth was the reason that evolution started to be taught in schools. Before Nebraska man evolution had a hard time getting taught in schools but such was the fanfare of Nebraska man that evolution became the excepted norm. Even so this embarrassing oversight due to the rabidness of evolutionists to “prove” their theory, only lasted a few years before it was found out as a “DUMB” mistake. The pig it belonged too is a species of pig called “prosthennops serus”, this pig was found still alive in Paraguay in 1972.


Java Man is False!

Java man was created from [a] bone fragment...

After years of excavations with the assistance of forced laborers, they dug up a tooth and skullcap on the banks of the Solo River on Java island (an island of Indonesia). The skullcap was ape-like having a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. The following year and about forty feet away, the workmen uncovered a thigh bone that was clearly human. Due to the close proximity of the find, Dubois assumed they belonged to the same creature. Dubois then named the find Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).

After returning to Europe in 1895, Dubois went on a lecture circuit and displayed his fossils to the International Congress of Zoology. His discovery received a lukewarm reception, causing him to became secretive, and paranoid, refusing to let anyone else examine the bones. Rudolph Virchow, who had been Haeckel’s professor and is considered the father of modern pathology remarked: “In my opinion this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull.”

A later team of German scientists traveled to Java in 1907 to unearth more clues on human ancestry. They hired 75 workers and sent 43 crates of fossil material back to Germany, but no evidence of Pithecanthropus could be found. Instead the German scientists found modern flora and fauna in the strata where Dubois had found his Pithecanthropus. Dr. E. Carthaus, a geologist on the expedition concluded that Pithecanthropus was a modern human.


Neanderthal man, another deliberate fraud by evolutionist scientists...

Protsch’s work first attracted suspicion when scientists at Oxford wanted to double-check the authenticity of his dates and verify the ages of many previously reported fossils using modern techniques. Oxford officials insist that this “dating disaster” was discovered during a routine examination, and was not an attempt to discredit Professor Protsch. The fossils he had dated were just in a long line of others that were being rechecked. According to Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax: “[A]nthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago” (as quoted in Harding, 2005). He continued: “Prof. Protsch’s work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish” (emp. added)...


Neanderthal man, just a modern human with disease

After discovering the first Neanderthal skullcap in 1856 in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, German anatomist Ruldolph Virchow said in essence that the fossil was the remains of a modern man afflicted with rickets and osteoporosis. In 1958, at the International Congress of Zoology, A.J.E. Cave stated that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton established that it was simply an old man who had suffered from arthritis. Francis Ivanhoe authored an article that appeared in Nature titled “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” (1970). Virchow had reported that the Neanderthal’s ape-like appearance was due to a condition known as rickets, which is a vitamin-D deficiency characterized by overproduction (and deficient calcification) of bone tissue. The disease causes skeletal deformities, enlargement of the liver and spleen, and generalized tenderness throughout the body. Dr. Cave noted that every Neanderthal child’s skull that had been studied up to that point in time apparently was affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children, it commonly produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphysis and fontanels...

Scientists have debated long and hard concerning whether there exists any difference between Neanderthal specimens and modern humans. One of the world’s foremost authorities on the Neanderthals, Erik Trinkaus, concluded:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans...


Lucy the hominid

Lucy the ape was said to be our ancestor.

Lucy, a hominid ancester to modern man supposedly is really just an extinct species of ape. There is no evidence for or against but evolutionist and geologist Frank Brown of the university of Utah said this, “We’ve always assumed Lucy was our ancestor, and now we need to re-evaluate that idea,”

On this video below we see Dr David menton show how lucy has possibly been fraudelently modified to walk like a human. Its a very interesting video to watch and we can see from the original bones of Lucy that she was a knuckle walker.

As we can clearly see evolutionary scientists do not let science do the talking. Scientists today enter their field of expertise as already converted atheist evolutionists. Subscribing to a theory of faith, they then set out on a lifelong mission to prove their personal beliefs, even to the point of fraud rather than let science speak for itself...


Orce Man.

A skull found in Spain and promoted as the oldest example of man in Eurasia, was later identified as that of a young donkey!

A three-day scientific symposium had been scheduled, so that the experts could examine and discuss the bone which had already been named, Orce Man, for the southern Spanish town near which it had been found. The French caused problems, however. Scientists from Paris showed that Orce Man was a skull fragment of a four-month-old donkey. The embarrassed Spanish officials sent out 500 letters canceling the symposium...


Archaeoraptor is a faked evolution example of a missing link

Fake Dinosaur bird. Evolutionists are so quick to swallow fabrications such is the keenness to prove evolution.

The hoax was most likely an honest mistake not like the Piltdown man fraud of 1908 which combined recent skeletal remains with various animal parts. The name given the find in July 1997 was Archaeoraptor Liaoningenesis Sloan after Christopher Sloan, senior assistant editor of National Geographic, who wrote, “With arms of a primitive bird and tail of a dinosaur, this creature found in Liaoning Province, China, is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” He confidently affirmed, “We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we can say that humans are mammals” (“Feathers for T. Rex?” National Geographic, vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pages 98-107.

In the last article of the October, 2000, issue is the embarrassing admission that the Archaeoraptor fossil was a fraud, a combination of fossils. This all happened because of inadequate scientific consideration of evidence...

Kevin Aulenback examined the fossil and wrote that it “is a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens.with a maximum.of five.separate specimens” (Vol. 198, No. 4, page 131). This should have been adequate evidence that it was a fraud; however, not until Xu Xing presented the results of his examination of the fossil was it finally admitted that it was a fraud. “`I am 100% sure..’ Xu wrote, `we have to admit that Archaeoraptor is a faked specimen'” (page 132).Finally it was conceded that “beyond all doubt that the tail belonged to the second fossil”...


Horse evolution fraud

1.In 1841, the earliest so-called “horse” fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox’s head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.

2.In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.

3.In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn’t changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution” of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.

The question is: “Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?”

The simple answer is “No”. While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.

So what’s the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution?

1.If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don’t. In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest” horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where “both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus”. In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: “Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.” Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

2.There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.

3.The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly “intermediate” stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

4.Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

Two horses. Photo copyrighted. Supplied by Eden Communications. My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:

“I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable …”.

The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall.

https://evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com/evolution-frauds/

yeah---you know when things are true, we need to not genuinely examine the evidence and/or make things up in order to show it is so!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

yep...

"Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!"

quote:

In every debate I've had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, "Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion." Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science."

Need I remind our readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel's recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.

Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them...." And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no "fossil traces" of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard admitted, "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change." I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. (I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!)

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures."

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart. Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been "discarded" and is considered a "phantom" and "illusion" because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can't be counted on being a horse then we've got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.

Concerning transitional fossils, world famous paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted that "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Not one.

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired "ape man." Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as many evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.

Biologist, Dr. Pierre Grasse, considered the greatest living scientist in France, wrote a book to "launch a frontal assault on all forms of Darwinism." Grasse is not a religious fanatic, yet he called evolution a "pseudo-science."

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden wrote, "I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary...thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events." He went on to say, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science." He also said, "Evolution is 'anti-science.'" And so it is.

Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as "speculation," based on faith," similar to theories of "little green men," "dead," "effectively dead," "very flimsy," "incoherent," and a "myth." Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don't need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire.

World known Swiss scientist Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith (who recently died), with three earned doctorates in science and considered to be an expert by the United Nations, confessed after seeing the fossilized dinosaur tracks and men prints within inches of each other at Glen Rose, Texas, "...all this makes evolution impossible." And so it does...

So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution...

And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the alleged ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what's a few million lives to be concerned about?

I don't have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, an hypothesis, a theory, a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, "Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith?"...

It's interesting that the hypocrites at the ACLU (who helped fund the Scopes Trial) whined in Dayton that only one theory of origins can legally be taught in Tennessee and that's unfair. Well, now they are on the inside, and demand to keep the same monopoly that they argued against. When I asked the ACLU to support my bill in the Indiana House of Representatives that required Indiana schools to teach scientific creation and evolution equally, they refused to support my bill! Surprise, surprise, surprise. I thought various ideas should be presented to students so they could make up their own minds. Could it be that evolutionists are not as sure of their faith as they pretend to be? I think so. They are like a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat – that isn't there.

[the rest of the phrase goes "the theologian finds the cat]

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html

quote:

In all of the news stories and commentary about the shootings at Virginia Tech, very rarely were the actions of the murderer, Seung-Hui Cho, described as wrong, evil or wicked.


Rather, the flood of what-made-him-do-it analyses presented Cho as essentially a helpless victim of psychological forces beyond his control; a troubled young man who didn't get the help he needed.

Columnist David Brooks, in his excellent article "The shifting morality line" (April 20), decried this trend to explain evil as only a mental problem. But he still thought he had no choice but to accept the "science" of it.

"Over the past few decades," he wrote, "neuroscientists, evolutionary psychologists, and social scientists have made huge strides in understanding why people -- even murderers -- do the things they do." Brooks mourns that "in the realm of the new science, the individual is like a cork bobbing on the currents of giant forces: evolution, brain chemistry, stress and upbringing. ... At the extreme, many scientists now doubt there is such a thing as free will."

Brooks accepts the supposed scientific validity of this argument, even as he mourns the logical implications. This puts him in much the same position as Nietzsche, who, after concluding "God is dead," spent years wrestling with the moral implications for mankind and went insane during the last years of his life.

Nietzsche's descent into insanity is a picture of our time.

If evolution and its resulting systems of thought are true, then those who commit unspeakable evil are indeed only helpless hostages of their brain chemistry. The trouble is it logically follows that those who do selfless, heroic deeds are also helpless robots.

Forget the medals and praise for bravery. After all, the medevac pilot who braved enemy fire to rescue his wounded comrades did it only because his brain chemistry and mental conditioning made him do it. The father who works hard to support his family does it only because of the evolutionary development of the male role.

"Good" actions can't logically be praised if "bad" ones can't be condemned. This is the black hole into which evolutionary thinking has sunk the human race.

Brooks concludes "we're never going back. We're not going to put our knowledge of brain chemistry or evolutionary psychology back in the bottle. It would be madness to think Cho Seung-Hui could have been saved from his demons with better sermons."

Oh really? What if Cho, earlier in his life, had indeed heard and responded to better sermons? What if he had believed he was created with a free will by a wonderful, loving God who had fixed standards of right and wrong? What if he knew he was responsible to God for his actions?

What if that knowledge had prompted him early in life to accept the forgiveness and salvation provided through Jesus Christ? Then he would have had the joy and security of knowing his creator was also his savior, Lord and best friend.

Of course he may still have struggled with unavoidable neuroses or clinical depression. But his life would have been on a secure moral platform to deal with those issues. Gone would've been the cosmic loneliness and the poisonous hatred. If that had been the case, it's safe to say that 32 noble, beautiful people at Virginia Tech would still be alive today, and Cho himself would not now be facing the judgment of God.

At the crux of these two views of mankind is the question: Is evolution scientifically valid? That debate is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say, however, more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that evolution is scientifically absurd; and, if so, the thought systems flowing from it are also suspect.

Perhaps it's time we give them a fair hearing instead of closing our minds with the usual ridicule. Because the current dominance of the evolutionary view is leading us ever deeper into a moral morass where we will likely see more senseless atrocities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
You know, this whole debate is fucking stupid. Of course God created everything, the real question is if God is an independent sentient entity outside of the laws of physics, or is God simply the laws of physics. I incline to the latter view, that the laws of physics are themselves the action of a non-self aware divine existence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

oh contrare, in fact its you who has to show me an openly professed atheist society with thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not murder as their dogma that predate believers if athiests want to claim it, otherwise it plain and simply pliagerism and theft from believers.

Show me somebody who's been burned at the stake,beheaded,or stoned to death in the name of atheism

that's not really a right question.

the right question is what are the natural societal consequences of evolutionary thought?

here are some thoughts:

"The Influence of Evolution on Nazi Race Programs"

http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v08n3p24.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"The Evils of Evolution"

quote:

1. Nazism and evolution

Much has been written about one of fascism’s more infamous sons, Adolf Hitler. His treatment of Jews may be attributed, at least in part, to his belief in evolution. P. Hoffman, in Hitler’s Personal Security, said: “Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish … . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger.”1

Sir Arthur Keith, the well-known evolutionist, explains how Hitler was only being consistent in what he did to the Jews—he was applying the principles of Darwinian evolution. In Evolution and Ethics, he said: “To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”2

2. Racism and evolution [right up your alley Vincent]

Stephen J. Gould, in Natural History (April 1980, p. 144), said that “Recapitulation [the evolutionary theory which postulates that a developing embryo in its mother’s womb goes through evolutionary stages, such as the fish stage, etc., until it becomes human] provided a convenient focus for the pervasive racism of white scientists; they looked to the activities of their own children for comparison with normal, adult behavior in lower races” (brackets mine). Gould also concludes that the term “mongoloid” became synonymous with mentally defective people because it was believed the Caucasian race was more highly developed than the Mongoloid. Therefore, some thought that a mentally defective child was really a throwback to a previous stage in evolution.

The leading American paleontologist of the first half of the 20th century, Henry Fairchild Osborne, adds fuel to the fire with his belief that “The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian … . The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven year old of the species Homo sapiens.”3

Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the “white man,” because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania (Australia) in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state. In 1924, the New York Tribune (Sunday, February 10) had a very large article telling their readers that the missing link had been found in Australia. The missing link referred to happened to be aborigines from the state of Tasmania.4

The incredible thing is that we live in a society that states it wants to be rid of racist attitudes. Yet we are conditioned to racist attitudes by our very education system, and the whole foundational basis for racism permeates people’s minds.

It was the evolutionary view that convinced anthropologists there were different races of humans at different levels of intelligence and ability. It is the Christian view that teaches there is one race (in the sense that we all came from the same two humans, and therefore there are no lower or higher evolutionary groups) and that all people are equal.

At one school a teacher said to her students that if ape-like creatures had evolved into people, then this should be seen to be happening today. Some of the students told her that this was happening today because some aborigines are primitive and therefore, still evolving. Regrettably, in the children’s eyes the teaching of evolution had relegated the Australian Aborigines to a sub-human level.

3. Drugs and evolution

Many people would not think of evolution as being in any way related to the taking of drugs. However, the following letter of testimony from a man in Western Australia shows clearly this relationship.

At school, the theory of evolution was presented in such a way that none of us ever doubted it was scientific fact. Although the school was supposedly Christian, the biblical account of creation was presented as a kind of romantic fiction, not intended to convey literal truths about God, man or the cosmos. As a result, I assumed the Bible was unscientific, and therefore practically of little or no use.

It never occurred to me that evolution was only an assumption—a concept concocted in someone’s head—and I regret to say that I wasn’t sufficiently interested to go check out the so-called “facts” for myself. I assumed that reliable people had already done that.

After I left school, I began to put into practice the assumptions and presuppositions I’d picked up during childhood. My naive belief in evolution had three important practical consequences:

1. It strongly encouraged me to look to drugs as an ultimate source of comfort and creativity.

2. It led me to the conclusion that God, if He was around at all, was a very distant and impersonal figure, separated from humanity by very great distances of space and time.

3. It led me to increasingly abandon the moral values I had been taught at home, because when man is viewed as an arbitrary by-product of Time + Matter + Chance, there is no logical reason for treating men or women as objects of dignity and respect, since in principle they are no different from the animals, trees, and rocks from which they supposedly came.

I want to elaborate on just one point, the great faith in dope that I had as a result of being convinced that evolution was “fact.” After leaving school, I became increasingly susceptible to drugs. Drug-taking seemed to me to make sense because in principle it fitted with what I’d been taught about the nature and origin of man. “From chemical reactions hast thou come, and unto chemicals thou shalt return.” And so I did.

My faith in drugs as a source of comfort and creativity was almost unbreakable even after ten years of total devastation, during which my job, personality, and relationships had fallen apart. Even after I came to Christ, I still continued using drugs, or feeling strongly drawn to them, until some Christians had pointed out the truth about man’s nature, origin, and destiny as recounted in Genesis. It was only when I perceived the truth of this, that my private love of drugs was completely and voluntarily abandoned. I now know that my hope is in the person of Jesus Christ, and in Him only. It’s no longer a platitude, but a living reality. I’m free, and it is the truth which has made me free—free from any desire for dope, free from the compelling faith I once had in chemicals as a result of believing a lie—the lie of evolution. I appeal to you parents and teachers, to re-examine the evidence as I have done.

4. Abortion and evolution

Many will remember being taught at school that as an embryo develops in its mother’s womb it goes through a fish stage with gill slits, etc., and other evolutionary stages until it becomes human. In other words, the idea is that as the embryo develops it passes through all the evolutionary stages reflecting its ancestry. This theory of “embryonic recapitulation” was first proposed by a man called Ernest Haeckel. Not many people realize that this whole theory was an intentional deception. I quote, “But it still remains true that, in attempting to prove his law, Haeckel resorted to a series of dishonest distortions in making his illustrations. Branding them as dishonest is not too harsh, since Haeckel mentions where he originally procured some of his drawings without mentioning the alterations he made.”5

Eventually, Ernest Haeckel admitted this fraud, but the deplorable aspect is that this theory is still taught in many universities, schools, and colleges throughout the world. Admittedly, evolutionists who have kept up with the latest writings know that this view is wrong and refrain from teaching it in their classes. However, in most of the popular school textbooks and reading materials this view is still promulgated in various forms, often very subtle.

As people accepted that the child developing in a mother’s womb was just an animal reflecting its evolutionary ancestry, there was less and less problem about destroying it. As evolutionary ideas became more accepted, the easier it became to accept abortion. In fact, some abortion clinics in America have taken women aside to explain to them that what is being aborted is just an embryo in the fish stage of evolution, and that the embryo must not be thought of as human. These women are being fed outright lies.

Again, let me state here that abortion certainly existed before Darwin popularized his evolutionary theory. However, his evolutionary theory has been used to give abortion its respectability, and thus we see the great increase in abortion today.

5. Business methods and evolution

In the last half of the 19th century, a widespread philosophy known as “social Darwinism” dominated the thinking of many industrial tycoons of the era. They believed that because evolution was true in the biological sphere, the same methods should apply in the business world: survival of the fittest, elimination of the weak, no love for the poor.

In 1985 one of Australia’s large banks (the National Australia Bank), in a commemorative magazine concerning their merging with another bank, was using Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest to justify its merger. There are many other examples in history books of famous businessmen who have accepted evolutionism and applied it in the business field.

6. Male chauvinism and evolution

Many try to blame Christianity for the chauvinist attitude of many males in our society. They claim the Bible teaches that men are superior to women and that women are not equal to men. This, of course, is not true. The Bible teaches that men and women are equal, but they have different roles because of the way God created them and because of their reactions to the temptation of the serpent (1 Timothy 2:12–14). In New Scientist, Eveleen Richards states: “In a period when women were beginning to demand the suffrage, higher education and entrance to middle-class professions, it was comforting to know that women could never outstrip men; the new Darwinism scientifically guaranteed it.” She went on in the article to say, “ … an evolutionary reconstruction that centers on the aggressive, territorial, hunting male and relegates the female to submissive domesticity and the periphery of the evolutionary process.”6 In other words, some have used Darwinian evolution to justify that females are inferior. However, there are those in the feminist movement today who use evolution to try to justify that females are superior. There are even those who use evolution to justify children’s rights. When you think about this, any theory that justifies either male or female supremacy justifies neither.

Christian women need to realize that the radical feminist movement is pervaded by evolutionist philosophy. Christian women need to be alert and not be deceived by such an anti-God movement.

A whole book could be written about the justification of many of the evils we see today from a foundational acceptance of evolutionary philosophy. But at this stage people start saying to me, “Are you blaming evolution for all the evils in society?” My answer is, “Yes and no.” No—because it is not primarily evolution that is to blame, but the rejection of God as Creator. As people reject the God of creation and therefore reject His rules, they abandon Christian ethics and accept beliefs in accordance with their own opinions. Yes—because, in a very real sense, the justification for people rejecting the God of creation is the so-called “scientific” view of evolution. Evolution is the main justification today for rejecting belief in divine creation.

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-vs-evolution/the-evils-of-evolution/

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

You are right, it it fucking awful, but what can be done about it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown
So miles,I rarely get to converse with some one with yer...em....view point

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown
You do realize that you evolved,right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown
While you were a fetus,you had gills and a tail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown
We humans might not metamorphosise like a butterfly,but in our short life time's,our changing biology is littered with evidences of evolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown
We have vestigial bit's and pieces all over us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown
Not enough for ya,how bout the complete transformation happening all around us
Do you think the myriad amounts of specialized breeds of dogs & cat's just poofed into existence?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown
Do you realize that modern domesticated corn & banana varieties can't even reproduce without human intervention,because we bred and shaped them over generations to better serve our own needs,they no more resemble their wild ancestors as we resemble Bonobo's?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PyrotheClown
Or do you see all the overwhelming evidence and think"that's nice and all,but it aint what mah and pah taught me,so it's all a load of shit"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I believe that is basically what I was pointing out, that if you use the “first cause fallacy” for Religion then you have to realize that the same thing applies to Evolution.

That would be true if Evolutionists were making a statement about the beginning of matter/energy, the beginning of the universe, or the beginning of life on this planet, but Evolutionists are not addressing those issues; they are simply addressing the perceived varieties and assumed morphological and physiological changes that have occurred. All claim to the beginning of the universe was presented by you while I simply countered it outside of the Evolutionary model. Darwin said nothing about the beginning of life on earth. That is why Creationism cannot replace Evolution. They are not comments on the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

And although at this time it does seem that the comparison is “far beyond the pale”, I feel that one day Astrology and Evolution will be put in the same category.

What you feel, sir should have little import in an intellectual debate.
That you enjoy ice cream or not is beside the point here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I do not “debate against evolution to cover over the complete lack of credibility of creationism”; I find Creation to be credible, it is Evolution that I don’t find to be credible.

Apples and oranges, my friend. Evolution does not speak of BEGINNINGS. That is what is so silly about any argument by a creationist against evolution. The only thing you can argue about is whether lfe forms have changed and the record of the rocks gives ample evidence they have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Miles, this is the sarcasm emoji . . . .

I use it when I am being sarcastic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
You know, this whole debate is fucking stupid. Of course God created everything, the real question is if God is an independent sentient entity outside of the laws of physics, or is God simply the laws of physics. I incline to the latter view, that the laws of physics are themselves the action of a non-self aware divine existence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Yes, there is war and killing, so we are reduced to who first to commit 'acts of war.' But while politics and hegemony at times does take a break, religion at least since the big 3, came along...didn't miss a beat until the enlightenment and yes, for religious reasons, while Islam ridiculously...struggles on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Neither King or Ghandi had the power to be murderous tyrants.