The Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism
Antimulticulture
The Religion of Nature: Social Darwinism
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro15.html
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.
March 22, 2006
It has been said that no book, other than the Bible, has had a greater
affect on society than Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Evolutionist
Steven Jay Gould, wrote that following the publication of On the Origin of
Species in 1859, "subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial
differences, class structures, and sex roles would go forth primarily under
the banner of science" (The Mismeasure of Man, W.W. Norton and Company, New
York, 1981, p. 72). Darwin himself seemed to approve of the application of
his evolutionary ideas to moral and social issues. In a letter to H. Thiel
in 1869, Darwin said:
"You will really believe how much interested I am in observing that you
apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those which I have
used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me
formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different and most
important subjects." (The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Francis Darwin
editor, D. Appleton and Co., 1896, Vol. 2, p . 294).
The feature of Darwinism most often cited by those who attempt to justify
their moral and social views with "science" (evolution), is the concept of
the "survival of the fittest." This application of Darwinian dogma to human
society and behavior is known as Social Darwinism.
One of the most insidious features of Darwin's evolutionary speculation
was that it sought to erase the fundamental differences between man and
animals. This not only invited a comparison between man and the apes, but
also between the "highest" and "lowest" humans. Blacks and American Indians
were among the first to be singled out as being "lower" than Caucasians. In
his book The Mismeasure of Man (Chap. 3), Steven Jay Gould pointed out that
some anthropologists were not above falsifying their data to prove the
"superiority" of the white race. For example, assuming brain size had
something to do with intelligence (it doesn't), many anthropologists
intentionally exaggerated the size of Caucasian skulls and underestimated
the size of skulls from Blacks and Indians. Social Darwinism thus came to
serve as a "scientific" justification for racism.
[ed. And of course leftists aren't "racist", therefore they have no need
to quote the works of the 'great man' as gospel, do they now?.......]
It might be argued that Darwin would never have condoned this use of his
"theory," but his own writings reveal profoundly racist implications. In the
sixth chapter of his book The Descent of Man, Darwin predicted that
eventually evolution would increase the gap between humans and the lower
apes through the extinction of such "evolutionary intermediates" as gorillas
and Negroes! Darwin declared that "the break will then be rendered wider,
for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope,
than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at
present between the Negro or Australian and the Gorilla" (The Descent of
Man, Charles Darwin, 1871, p. 201).
In an effort to promote the evolution of "higher forms" of humans,
Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, founded the Eugenics Movement. Eugenics
is the "science" which seeks to improve the biological makeup of the human
species by selective breeding. Galton advocated the regulation of marriage
and family size according to the genetic quality of the parents. He believed
that if controlled breeding was applied to humans, as it was to farm
animals, a perfect human breed could be developed. This concept of the
"master race" was put into practice by Adolph Hitler in Germany in an effort
to create a "pure Aryan race," while exterminating "inferior" Jews.
German politicians and scholars first used Social Darwinism around the
turn of the century to justify Germany's increasingly aggressive militarism.
The German militarist, Friederich von Bernhardi, praised the virtues of war
in strong evolutionary terms in his influential book Germany and the Next
War. Bernhardi declared that war, like Darwinian survival of the fittest,
was a "biological necessity" and that it "gives a biologically just
decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things." Bernhardi
dismissed the whole idea of peaceful arbitration as a "presumptuous
encroachment on the natural laws of development." According to Bernhardi, a
study of plant and animal life clearly showed that "war is a universal law
of nature." (As quoted by Ashley Montagu in Man in Process, World Pub. Co.,
1961, pp. 76-77). Bernhardi's book, published in 1911, had Germany's highest
official sanction and approval -- three years later, Germany plunged the
world into World War I.
By the time of the Second World War, we find the full "flower" of Social
Darwinism in fascism. Hitler based his fascism on evolutionary theory, as is
evident from both his speeches and his book Mein Kampf. Benito Mussolini,
who brought fascism to Italy, was also greatly influenced by Darwinism,
which he thought supported his belief that violence is essential for
beneficial social transformation. Mussolini repeatedly used Darwinian
catchwords in his speeches and ridiculed efforts at peace because they
interfered with natural evolutionary process.
No discussion of the devastating impact of Social Darwinism on society
would be complete without considering its strong influence on the
development of Marxism and communism. Frederich Engels and Karl Marx
(co-founders of Marxist communism) were exceedingly enthusiastic over
Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Karl Marx wrote a letter to Engels
in December of 1860 declaring that On the Origin of Species was "the book
which contains the basis in natural history for our views." In another
letter to Engels in January of 1861, Marx declared:
"Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis of struggle in
history...not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to
'Teleology' in the natural sciences, but their rational meaning is
emphatically explained." (As quoted by Conway Zirkle in: Evolution, Marxian
Biology, and the Social Scene, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959, p.
86).
The three things for which Marx was most indebted to Darwinism were: 1)
an atheistic explanation for the origin of the Cosmos (Marxism doesn't
recognize anything as being higher than the state so it demands atheism); 2)
the struggle for existence; and 3) the progressive development and
improvement of man (Marxism insists that man's well-being is inevitably and
progressively improved through a blind process of class struggle and
revolution - [ed violent if need be]). Indeed, Karl Marx was so deeply indebted
to Darwin that he wanted to dedicate his book Das Capital to him, but Darwin
declined the "honor."
The close affinity between Marxism and Darwinism continues to be evident
in the currently popular evolutionary speculation called "punctuated
equilibrium." (This declares that evolution occurs by sudden lucky-leaps
forward, separated by long periods of essentially no change.) Stephen Jay
Gould and Niles Eldredge, who first popularized this notion, recently
pointed out that:
"Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have
become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws
of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary
transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy,
it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation, much
like our own, but devoid of references to synthetic evolutionary theory, has
long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be
irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us learned his Marxism,
literally, at his daddy's knee" (Eldredge, Niles and Stephen Jay Gould,
Paleobiology, Vol. 3, Spring 1977, pp. 145-146.).
When man ceases to give credit to God as Creator, he generally gives the
credit to nature (evolution). Not only is nature then perceived as
"creator", but also man's guide for morality and behavior. The "nature god"
declares that anything which is "natural" may be considered "moral." (Thus,
elective abortions are moral because spontaneous abortions occur in nature.)
As we have seen, the fruit of this religion of nature (in the form of Social
Darwinism) has been untold suffering and death. The Bible tells us that this
sad state of affairs results from the fact that many have "exchanged the
truth of God for a lie, and worshipped the creature (nature) rather than the
Creator" (Rom. 1:25).
--
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/anti_multiculture/index.html
Unite Against Multiculturalism!
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!"