Why Darwinism is "distinctively atheist"

[The Barbarian]

As Richard Dawkins, P.C Meyers and Provine (and Darwin) all admit - the principles of Darwinist evolutionism drive logically to the atheist conclusion.

Your position is shared by Dawkins and Meyers, but Darwin would not agree with you:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin Last sentence from The Origin of Species (1872)

 

[BobRyan]

Your position is shared by Dawkins and Meyers, but Darwin would not agree with you:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin Last sentence from The Origin of Species (1872)

As it turns out -- Darwin made decisions after writing Origin of the Species.

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

in Christ,

Bob

 

[marlowe007]

As it turns out -- Darwin made decisions after writing Origin of the Species.

But the Origin did not actually influence his decision; it was the death of his ten-year-old daughter that made him lose faith.

 

[BobRyan]

RE: The definition of science became a victim of circular reasoning

][/b]Why is Darwinism "distinctly evolutionist"

Short of contradicting an earlier post I made about "Theistic Evolutionists"
(which I at one time fell for the deception(s), I would like to address what actually happened in the natural sciences.

The whole problem is actually the result of circular reasoning. Years ago,
someone made the assertion that science (by definition) was only the study of "naturalistic causes" and could therefore only have naturalistic and materialistic answers (especially regarding origins).

Indeed. When it comes to physics and other branches of science "a human can cause something" so that has to be factored in. But when it comes to biology they thought that if a design were detected it could not be human in origin which would get us into violation of "there is no god" doctrines held by some.

If you think about it - chemistry is applied physics and biology is applied chemistry with the engineering mind in that case being God.

How do they know science is only the study of what is "natural?" What IS "natural?" What if what we perceive as natural is actually being sustained by the super natural? What if the process of crystalization was the result of supernatural design? Why assume NO supernatural involvement?

Often when the atheist is confronted with the circular assumption that
everything is natural and therefore conclusions can only be naturalistic
(assumption in science= natural, conclusion = natural assumption=
conclusion), they will start talking about goblins, unicorns, invisible
dragons in your garage (Sagan), and flying spaghetti monsters rather
than deal with how you gauge "natural" verses "supernatural" or
unnatural verses natural. How do you know everything is "natural?"

True. But that is because they need to circle the wagons around "there is no god" to protect their religious by-faith-alone assertion in that regard.

If they admit that we DO have the ability to detect design in nature (for example design detexted in EM wave forms is done by your car radio as it SCANS for stations against "background noise". Where background noise is defined as a pattern that rocks can generate given enough mass and access to an energy source like radioactive decay etc)

If you start with this assumption, and immediately eliminate the
POSSIBILITY of the supernatural, then everything you study will
be based on the circular assumption that you started with (it must
be explained naturally).

Indeed. "it is nature because... because... it just IS".

Well known Atheist Darwinist Colin Patterson pointed out that "stories about how one thing came from another are easy enough to MAKE UP but they are NOT science" when it comes to fossil science.

He also argued that atheists take a distinctively RELIGIOUS argument when they admit in Darwinism that they "are ignorant as to the means... but are sure it is true anyway".

This is NOT true agnosticism. A true agnostic would make NO assumptions
about "natural" or "supernatural" and they would let the chips fall where
they may (information needs an intelligent source, biological information
needs a supernatural intelligent source, etc).

Indeed - and it is not "true science" either. But they will not admit to either point.

They would be able to
make the logical deduction that RNA/DNA was the result of supernatural
intelligence WITHOUT the circular assumption BIAS that everything is
somehow "natural."

In my view, creationists have not spent enough time exposing this
circular assumption in the definition of science. It is actually the definition
of so called "natural" sciences that is rooted in a circular assumption.

Philip Johnson addressed that point in chapter after chapter of his book "Darwin on Trial"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mark kennedy]

I've always been surprised at the violent way some TEs attack Behe. Behe believes in evolution, he just has the audacity to point out why it is not possible for it to take place outside of a directed context. His book, "Edge of Evolution" is a great book, and details out how studies of germs with HUGE populations and numbers of generations demonstrates clearly the problems with conventional evolutionary theory. Behe just doesn't take things to their logical conclusion -- he stays within an evolutionary framework. Is that so troubling to a THEISTIC evolutionist? Oh well.

Hey Mark -- have you looked Behe's book over? What did you think?

Theistic evolution is not all that different from atheistic materialism, that's my problem with it. It is very disturbing that professing Christians hold to it with such vigor. That aside, I have seen a few interviews and reviews about the book but hadn't thought about actually buying it until now. I have a four day weekend coming up, that might be a good time to revisit the work of that courageous Intelligent Design scientist once again.

If I do I'll let you know what I think of it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

But the Origin did not actually influence his decision; it was the death of his ten-year-old daughter that made him lose faith.

Darwin grieved the death of his young daughter bitterly, he could not even keep himself from weeping in public. He blamed God for it but that one of the curious things about it. Charles Darwin knew so much about how favorable traits tha he married his cousin. Then when they are afflicted with chronic sickness he blames God.

He also found the doctrine of hell repulsive, he couldn't understand how good people could go to hell simply because they rejected Christianity.

Louise Agassiz was one of the naturalists who rejected On the Origin of Species since, he reasoned, such a well ordered and rational system as the universe and living systems it must be a product of design.

Natural History must, in good time, become the analysis of the thoughts of the Creator of the Universe, as manifested in the animal and vegetable kingdoms (Louise Agassiz)​

This was normal for scientists at the time to infer a creator, a design and a purpose in nature. Darwin quietly accepted the Intelligent Design philosophy of natural theology but felt the time was right to win over younger academic and scientific philosophers.

Species, genera, families, &c exist as thoughts, individuals as facts. AS the community of characters among the beings belonging to thoese different categories arises from the intellectual connection which shows them to be categories of thought, they cannot be the result of a gradual, material differentiation of the objects themselves." (Louise Agassiz)​

In other words these categories are an intellectual invention. The way individuals are different does not change the essence of the species. This was all philosophical and what was being wrestled here was not the mental and physical tools of science. What Darwin and his cohorts were determined to do is to replace the idealism of Plato and Aristotle with an a priori (without prior) assumption of naturalistic and material causes spured on by environmental forces.

But the most effective weapons of the modern champions of Evolution were fabricated by Darwin; and the 'Origin of Species' has enlisted a formidable body of combatants, trained in the severe school of Physical Science, whose ears might have long remained deaf to the speculations of a priori philosophers.(ON THE RECEPTION OF THE 'ORIGIN OF SPECIES' by PROFESSOR THOMAS HENRY HUXLEY)​

Evolution has become a self evident fact in the mind of academic and scientific professionals and they have developed a zero tolerance for any theistic reasoning whatsoever. The weapons came from Charles Darwin and while I understand his terrible grief his work was philosophical not empirical.

 

[The Barbarian]

He also found the doctrine of hell repulsive, he couldn't understand how good people could go to hell simply because they rejected Christianity.

It was due to his misunderstanding of Christianity. Not all atheists go to hell.

Louise Agassiz was one of the naturalists who rejected On the Origin of Species since, he reasoned, such a well ordered and rational system as the universe and living systems it must be a product of design.

He also reasoned that black people were not fully human. For some of the same reasons.

What Darwin and his cohorts were determined to do is to replace the idealism of Plato and Aristotle with an a priori (without prior) assumption of naturalistic and material causes spured on by environmental forces.

Hmmm...

Charles Darwin's famous 1882 letter, in response to a gift by his friend, William Ogle of Ogle's recent translation of Aristotle's Parts of Animals, in which Darwin remarks that his ``two gods,'' Linnaeus and Cuvier, were ``mere school-boys to old Aristotle,'' has been thought to be only an extravagantly worded gesture of politeness. However, a close examination of this and other Darwin letters, and of references to Aristotle in Darwin's earlier work, shows that the famous letter was written several weeks after a first, polite letter of thanks, and was carefully formulated and literally meant. Indeed, it reflected an authentic, and substantial, increase in Darwin's already high respect for Aristotle, as a result of a careful reading both of Ogle's Introduction and of more or less the portion of Ogle's translation which Darwin says he has read. Aristotle's promotion to the pantheon, as an examination of the basis for Darwin's admiration of Linnaeus and Cuvier suggests, was most likely the result specifically of Darwin's late discovery that the man he already knew as ``one of the greatest … observers that ever lived'' (1879) was also the ancient equivalent both of the great modern systematist and of the great modern advocate of comparative functional explanation. It may also have reflected some real insight on Darwin's part into the teleological aspect of Aristotle's thought, indeed more insight than Ogle himself had achieved, as a portion of their correspondence reveals.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/hist/1999/00000032/00000001/00202548

Doesn't seem to be true, um?

Evolution has become a self evident fact in the mind of academic and scientific professionals and they have developed a zero tolerance for any theistic reasoning whatsoever.

Odd then, that giants of evolutionary theory like Theodosius Dobzhansky nd Francisco Ayalaare both devout Christians and highly regarded by their peers.

The professor (who headed the department of Zoology, BTW) who taught me my first course in evolution was on the vestry board at the local Episcopal church.

The weapons came from Charles Darwin and while I understand his terrible grief his work was philosophical not empirical.

If you think so, you have never read his book. Empirical data in numbing detail.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolution has become a self evident fact in the mind of academic and scientific professionals and they have developed a zero tolerance for any theistic reasoning whatsoever.

Indeed as atheist darwinist paleontologist Colin Patterson lamented - his fellow atheist darwinists seem to take it as "revealed truth" to the extent that Patterons considers it to convey "antiknowledge" -- that which "has the appearance of knowledge - but infact conveys none".

Still they set the stage for darwinism as "religion" and then boldly attack ID SCIENCE on purely religious grounds. The weird thing is that so many Christians would allow themselves to be duped into following this atheist initiative against ID SCIENCE as if Romans 1 would allow it. Truth is they go after ID SCIENCE by religiously NOT paying attion to Romans 1. Then when confronted with the "need" to toss Paul under the bus just as their atheist brethren do -- they often do that as well!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[crawfish]

I bring this up here because in past lives I have seen Christian evolutionists unwittingly drawn into the atheist agenda of attacking Intelligent Design evolutionists.

It seems that theoretically, evolutionary creationists should be included in the umbrella of intelligent design. The vast majority of us believe in an intelligent, purposeful designer. Unfortunately, it seems to aid the political goals of some creationists to pit an unyielding barrier between being Christian and believing in evolution, and to resist any attempts for our inclusion.

 

[Assyrian]

I think evolution is an amazingly wise and intelligent design God set into the very fabric of his creation. The problem with ID as far as I can see is they seek to limit how God can intelligently design, and they seem to use bad science to make the case.

 

[Christian Soldier]

It was due to his misunderstanding of Christianity. Not all atheists go to hell.

Prove it.

If Christianity and the Bible are true, as most of us here believe, then they most certainly all do.

He also reasoned that black people were not fully human. For some of the same reasons.

Agassiz' opinions in regard to Blacks were influenced by his polygenism, which REJECTED the biblical view of origins:

"His lectures on polygenism were popular among the slaveholders in the South; for many this opinion legitimized the belief in a lower standard of the Negro.[5] Interestingly, his stance in this case was considered to be quite radical in its time, because it went against the more orthodox and standard reading of the Bible in his time which implied all human stock descended from a single couple (Adam and Eve), and in his defense Agassiz often used what now sounds like a very "modern" argument about the need for independence between science and religion"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz

Odd then, that giants of evolutionary theory like Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala are both devout Christians and highly regarded by their peers.

"Devout" by whose standards? Please list some of the books they've written on Christianity, Christian apologetics etc. Please list some of their documented accomplishments in Christian evangelism, missions, teaching etc.

If you think so, you have never read his book. Empirical data in numbing detail.

Numbing indeed, because so much of it was inaccurate and unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It was due to his misunderstanding of Christianity. Not all atheists go to hell.

Prove it.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

These are people who are puzzled as to why they are being saved: they are ignorant of Jesus, and what they had to do to be saved. But it doesn't matter to Him.

If Christianity and the Bible are true, as most of us here believe, then they most certainly all do.

If you are a Christian, you know better. There are no rules that can be uttered by man, that bind God. He can save anyone, even an atheist.

Barbarian on the last great scientist who was a creationist:
He also reasoned that black people were not fully human. For some of the same reasons.
​

Agassiz' opinions in regard to Blacks were influenced by his polygenism, which REJECTED the biblical view of origins:

He was quite typical of the "Christian" segregationist creationists. I agree that is faulty Christianity.

Barbarian observes:
Odd then, that giants of evolutionary theory like Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala are both devout Christians and highly regarded by their peers.

"Devout" by whose standards?

Christian ones.

Please list some of the books they've written on Christianity, Christian apologetics etc.

They wrote as many books on it as Jesus did.

Barbarian chuckles:
If you think so, you have never read his book. Empirical data in numbing detail.

Numbing indeed, because so much of it was inaccurate and unsubstantiated opinion.

Even his critics admitted that his facts were correct. Why not read it and learn what it's about?

 

[mark kennedy]

Indeed as atheist darwinist paleontologist Colin Patterson lamented - his fellow atheist darwinists seem to take it as "revealed truth" to the extent that Patterons considers it to convey "antiknowledge" -- that which "has the appearance of knowledge - but infact conveys none".

I have been seeing this so clearly and for so long that it no longer surprises me. Darwinism is essentially metaphysical, which means, it's an attempt to define a substantive element that transcends all reality. In Western culture this has traditionally understood to be God. For an atheistic philosophy to replace Christian theism it must first remove God from the equation and by Darwinian logic they have effectively done that. There is a reason why they, 'take it as revealed truth', it's because it is revelation that they are attempting to neutralize. God is revealed both in nature (Romans 1:18-21) and in the Gospel (John 1:1-12). They can only attain that by attacking theistic reason at it's root, the only problem is they have nothing to replace it with.

Still they set the stage for darwinism as "religion" and then boldly attack ID SCIENCE on purely religious grounds. The weird thing is that so many Christians would allow themselves to be duped into following this atheist initiative against ID SCIENCE as if Romans 1 would allow it. Truth is they go after ID SCIENCE by religiously NOT paying attion to Romans 1. Then when confronted with the "need" to toss Paul under the bus just as their atheist brethren do -- they often do that as well!

in Christ,

Bob

I've seen how they do that and the clear meaning of Scripture from Paul and every New Testament writer that speaks on the subject confirms two things. One, the sin was introduced into humanity through Adam and Eve's sin and that they were specially created with no natural ancestry. I finished a debate with one of our resident TEs and in summary I made the most detailed and concise expositions of Romans I was capable of:

The Scriptures are crystal clear, in Adam all sinned and there is no orthodox Christian doctrine to the contrary.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12) or as shernen said it, Adam’s dragging everyone down into sin. It looks something like this:

1) Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2) Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3) All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4) Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5) Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6) Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7) The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8) Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved.

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'. Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy​

Darwinism knows no bounds and the proponents of evolutionary metaphysics have even got their sights on replacing Christian theism in Christian theology:

1. The theological phase of man was based on whole-hearted belief in all things with reference to God.
2. Comte describes the metaphysical phase of humanity as the time since the Enlightenment, a time steeped in logical rationalism,
3. The final stage of the trilogy of Comte’s universal law is the scientific, or positive stage.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857)

This is their game plan, remove theistic reasoning through metaphysics and replace it with scientific rationality (naturalism). This is an all out assault on theism and it take many forms, one of the most repugnant in my estimation is Liberal Theology and it's many naturalistic cohorts. It's not hard to discern the difference between a Darwinian philosophy and Christian theism, one of the most obvious being how they treat the Scriptures.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Christian Soldier]

Barbarian observes:
It was due to his misunderstanding of Christianity. Not all atheists go to hell.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

These are people who are puzzled as to why they are being saved: they are ignorant of Jesus, and what they had to do to be saved. But it doesn't matter to Him.

If you are a Christian, you know better. There are no rules that can be uttered by man, that bind God. He can save anyone, even an atheist.

Barbarian on the last great scientist who was a creationist:
He also reasoned that black people were not fully human. For some of the same reasons.
​

He was quite typical of the "Christian" segregationist creationists. I agree that is faulty Christianity.

Barbarian observes:
Odd then, that giants of evolutionary theory like Theodosius Dobzhansky and Francisco Ayala are both devout Christians and highly regarded by their peers.

Christian ones.

They wrote as many books on it as Jesus did.

Barbarian chuckles:
If you think so, you have never read his book. Empirical data in numbing detail.

Even his critics admitted that his facts were correct. Why not read it and learn what it's about?

Your answers are pure poppycock, and do NOTHING to prove your meaningless assertions.

Darwin did more to advance scientific racism than any man in history:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths."

Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Page 127
Harvard University Press

 

[Mallon]

Please don't quote mine, Christian Soldier. Here's the entire paragraph:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths. But the data were worthless. We never have had, and still do not have, any unambiguous data on the innate mental capacities of different human groups--a meaningless notion anyway since environments cannot be standardized. If the chorus of racist arguments did not follow a constraint of data, it must have reflected social prejudice pure and simple--anything from an a priori belief in universal progress among apolitical but chauvinistic scientists to an explicit desire to construct a rationale for imperialism."

 

[Christian Soldier]

Please don't quote mine, Christian Soldier. Here's the entire paragraph:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths. But the data were worthless. We never have had, and still do not have, any unambiguous data on the innate mental capacities of different human groups--a meaningless notion anyway since environments cannot be standardized. If the chorus of racist arguments did not follow a constraint of data, it must have reflected social prejudice pure and simple--anything from an a priori belief in universal progress among apolitical but chauvinistic scientists to an explicit desire to construct a rationale for imperialism."

I'll post any documented quotation I wish. So do NOT tell me what to do. I don't bow to evolutionist imperialism.

Of course we realize today that evolution-inspired racism had a social prejudice factor, but that does NOTHING to change Gould's STATED FACT that evolutionary theory "increased by orders of magnitude" the number of biological arguments FOR racism.

In fact, Gould gives numerous examples of evolution-inspired racist arguments in the book, many of them put forth by highly qualified evolutionist scientists.

So your additional quotation is MEANINGLESS, and doesn't disprove my original quotation in any way.

If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.

--Adolf Hitler, Evolutionist
Mein Kampf

 

[Mallon]

Of course we realize today that evolution-inspired racism had a social prejudice factor, but that does NOTHING to change Gould's STATED FACT that evolutionary theory "increased by orders of magnitude" the number of biological arguments FOR racism.

I think if you were to read the passage again, you would find that Gould is, in fact, stating that there is ZERO evidence for the evolutionary superiority of any one human race over another. Hence the parts I bolded. Yes, people tried to use evolution to validate their racist dispositions. No, there was no evidence to support their claims.

In fact, Gould gives numerous examples of evolution-inspired racist arguments in the book, many of them put forth by highly qualified evolutionist scientists.

Here's a racist quote from Henry Morris, one of the founding fathers of modern creationism:

Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).

Do you now hold the same disdain for neocreationism as you do evolution? Does he speak for all creationists as you think a few outspoken evolutionists from the Victorian era speak for all evolutionists today?

 

[Christian Soldier]

I think if you were to read the passage again, you would find that Gould is, in fact, stating that there is ZERO evidence for the evolutionary superiority of any one human race over another. Hence the parts I bolded. Yes, people tried to use evolution to validate their racist dispositions. No, there was no evidence to support their claims.

Your evasive pap is still irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, the militant evolutionists and anti-Christians of Darwin's era, as well as the Nazi era, firmly believed that evolutionary theory DOES support a view of RACIAL SUPERIORITY.

Darwin, Huxley and many of their fellow evolutionist henchmen of that era, as well as Hitler and the Nazi's only several short decades ago, FIRMLY BELIEVED that evolution "proved" the racial superiority of some races.

They all believed the caucasian race to be the "pinnacle of human evolution"---of having achieved the "highest rung" on the "ladder" of human evolution.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Here's a racist quote from Henry Morris, one of the founding fathers of modern creationism:

Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).

Do you now hold the same disdain for neocreationism as you do evolution? Does he speak for all creationists as you think a few outspoken evolutionists from the Victorian era speak for all evolutionists today?

It's a shame that evolutionists like mallon must use out-of-context quotes when attempting to smear Henry Morris and other Creationists.

From the very same page of the very same book that mallon quotes, Morris clearly states that the biblical prophecy was NEVER intended to forcibly subjugate people.

Unfortunately, Darwin, the Nazis, Communists, Fascists and other evolutionists had no such qualms about subjugating innocent people:

"These very general and broad national and racial characteristics obviously admit of many exceptions on an individual genetic basis. It is also obvious the the prophecy is a divine description of future facts, in no way needing the deliberate assistance of man for its accomplishment. Neither Negroes nor any other Hamitic people were intended to be forcibly subjugated on the basis of this Noahic declaration."

Dr. Henry Morris, The Beginning of the World, Page 148

 

[Christian Soldier]

"The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947
Evolutionary anthropologist of international repute
Evolutionist and atheist

.