For one thing, Darwinism is a pagan religion whose roots go back to the Sumerians and Ancient Egypt. The Egyptians also believed that life emerged spontaneously from the muddy waters of the Nile. The theory of evolution is a superstitious belief that has been around ever since and that is not supported by a shred of scientific evidence.

In order to avoid unnecessary battles, it is better to argue that the relatively small number of gradual fossil sequences provided by Darwinists are not representative of the dominant patterns found and may well be works of imagination and wishfully thinking. Having learned about the Cambrian explosion, stasis, the frequent abrupt appearance of new forms in the fossil record and the extent to which naturalism had previously clouded my thinking, I am personally less certain than ever that these alleged sequences tell us anything about how new species emerged. I know longer feel compelled to believe that some form of evolution from different forms is the only possible explanation and will reserve my judgement until we can see the fossil record interpreted honestly and critically, without the Darwinian blinkers.

“But they start to act as if they’ve found a real law of nature, and not an arbitrary standard of fitness that only exists by consensus.”

Phillip Johnson does a masterful job of explaining the four ways in which Darwinists employ the term “Natural Selection” in chapter 2 of “Darwin on trial”. It is available free to view as a PDF here: http://talebooks.com/images/bs/291.pdf

He points out that Darwinists employ the term natural selection most often as a tautology, a deductive argument or a philosophical necessity. When it used as a scientific hypothesis open to refutation, the examples given refer to microevolution.

—–”Thank you, Mrs O’Leary. There has never been enough humor published on UD.”

But we’re never short on sarcasm, thanks to the commenters.

________________

. . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance.

But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as “thoughts” and “conclusions” can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].)

–> So far, this is descriptive

–> But, it has some consequences that must be addressed . . .

Therefore, if materialism is true, the “thoughts” we have and the “conclusions” we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited!

Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze?

In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . .

–> Drawing out the evident implications and concerns over quesitons of morality and policy

–> Which then would have serious consequences, some of which sound all too familiar . . .

In Law, Government, and Public Policy, the same bitter seed has shot up the idea that “Right” and “Wrong” are simply arbitrary social conventions. This has often led to the adoption of hypocritical, inconsistent, futile and self-destructive public policies.

“Truth is dead,” so Education has become a power struggle; the victors have the right to propagandise the next generation as they please. Media power games simply extend this cynical manipulation from the school and the campus to the street, the office, the factory, the church and the home . . .
________________

Such concerns have often been dismissed or distracted from. What they need is to be cogently addressed.

Darwinism, as you will observe from the name, is about 150 years old this year. (I am aware that the Wallace paper came to CRD in June 1858, and precipitated presentations of papers that year.)

In that context, I am dealing with fundamental principles of Darwinism [citing relevant foundational sources], and their implications (as sadly proved on the ground), by making reference to relevant sources — including (i) Darwin’s 2nd major book, (ii) a widely read warning by way of science fiction scenario on the cusp of the Century in which Darwinism’s socio-cultural implications were to play out on the ground, and (iii) a sadly important specific case in point that cost dozens of millions their lives through triggering World War II. (And BTW, pardon, but some of Japan’s activities in China and wider Asia in the 1930′s – 40′s unfortunately fit in under the same themes.)

To see just how foundational to Darwinian thought the themes and sources are, we may observe from the introduction to Origin [6th Edn]:

the Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world . . . inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of their increase . . . This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form. This fundamental subject of Natural Selection . . . almost inevitably causes much Extinction of the less improved forms of life, and leads to what I have called Divergence of Character . . . .

In short, 200+ year old Malthusian socio- cultural thought — contrary to the attempts to dismiss “Social Darwinism” above — is written into the foundation of Darwinism, and is deeply embedded into the concept of Natural Selection.

So, Social Darwinism is simply closing the circle and carrying back home to humans a principle of competition to survive that started from a particular analysis of relations between people and means of economic survival and thriving, and was then extended to the animal world.

(A principle, I beg to remind, that fails to appreciate the power and impact of creativity to multiply potential for economic prosperity; which moves us from a world of geometrical population growth tending to outstrip linear growth in production of food etc. Thus, we see revealed the logic of Hitler’s demand for “living room” for the Nordic- Aryan “race” at the expense of “inferiors” and thus also much of the “population bomb”- thinking driven cry for unrestricted abortions etc in our day; as well as the demand of certain deep ecology spokesmen for a collapsing of the human population to 1/3 – 1/5 or less (in some cases, MUCH less) than its current size. Which makes the matter considerably more current and relevant than some might think.)

Further to this, I find that current Darwinists too often distract from and dismiss rather than cogently address this foundational concern, one that has a history that speaks in warning tones. (In this context, pardon an aside: I find your taking up the rhetoric of the Anti-Evo spokesmen here, rather unimpressive and below the former standard of your remarks. My notes above were by way of commentary surrounding key citations from major sources, including one that would throw a key side-light to why Mr Oktar — as a Turk; a specifically named “inferior” race beaten “all hollow” in the struggle for existence — has legitimate concerns, whatever his own problems may be. And, root history and foundational ideas are always cogent.)

So, again, I must ask that today’s Darwinists deal foursquare with this foundational cluster of ideas, and the history that unfortunately stemmed from it. On that histry, they — in particular, evolutionary materialists and their fellow travellers — have to show an adequate grounding for mind, reason and morality that convincingly shows that the ideas and tendencies that have already had such sad consequences have been properly tamed.(I will append on that subject, to document my more general concerns.)

If they refuse or fail to do so, those of us who look on will have to take warning and act prudently in our defence.

For, those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

GEM of TKI

I recently found myself happy to be advising a Christian on ID, who was in the middle of a crisis of faith as a result of having read “The God Delusion”. Surely this is what ID is all about. There is currently a glaring absence of Muslims involved in ID. Despite the rhetoric, the majority of “genuine” ID proponents are from a Judeo-Christian background and in my experience, many would like to keep it a Judeo Christian affair. On rare occasions when Islam or Muslims are mentioned, it tends to be in hushed tones and with the usual negative connotations. I have yet to see a reference to the fact that Muslims instigated the first universal science effort and were the first to try to systematically harmonise secular and sacred knowledge. Is it any wonder that when Islamic knowledge filtered into Europe, via Muslim Spain that Christian theists dominated science. Where is their chapter in the history of ID?

So is your point that eugenics is still a modern concern in this century? (even though you cite sources from 1871, 1881, 1896-7, and 1925 – and one of these is a fictional source).

No offense but I frequently find your writing style so longwinded, obtuse and convoluted at times it’s honestly difficulty at times to parse what your point is.