The 20th Century Heritage
of
Evolutionary and Humanistic Atheism
Atheists delight in blaming the church for being a hindrance to social progress. Apparently,
they feel that the church should remain silent for its past errors. Their underlying
assumption is that atheism has the high moral ground. However, before the church goes
into guilt-ridden hibernation, let us look at what secular humanism and modern scientific
atheism have produced in the 20th century. And let us see if their moral virtues have
been so outstanding and superior that they have earned the right to demand that the church
be silent.
Darwinian Roots of Evolutionary Atheism
Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882)
Modern scientific atheism arose in the 19th century with Charles Robert Darwin. In 1859,
Darwin revealed his evolutionary theory in his book entitled, The Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection. His theory set aside the need for a Creator as the
cause of the variety and abundance of life on our planet. He was an agnostic and a
believer in the survival of the fittest. Today, agnostics and atheists praise and
revere him, because he developed a pseudo-scientific basis to support their rejection of God.
Charles Darwin saw the practical implications of evolution for the human species. Humans
could be bred to improve their physical, ethical, and intellectual qualities. He argued
that selective breeding of the human herd could cause rapid biological improvements that,
otherwise, would take evolutionary processes millions of years to achieve.
Darwin warned that medical advances could rapidly degenerate the human species, because
medical technology saves the genetically inferior individuals from death. For example,
Darwin argued against the use of small-pox vaccinations. He held his view in spite of
knowing that, before researchers developed small-pox vaccine, small-pox caused multitudes
to die from its infection. Furthermore, he knew those who survived the disease were physically
disfigured for life. Small-pox vaccine was an early medical advance that has genuinely
benefited mankind. At the present time, the vaccine has been used to eradicate the disease
from the face of the earth, and, now, it is no longer a scourge to humanity. For this
disease, we can only imagine the untold suffering that humanity did not suffer because
Charles Darwin's complaint went unheeded.
Now, notice Darwin's cold-hearted concern for those who were afflicted with this disease.
For him, those who became infected with small-pox were weak and inferior human beings. They
were the "worst animals," and society should not allow them to breed and produce
inferior progeny.
There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a
weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members
of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding
of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.
It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any
one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.1
Charles Darwin himself was a physically weak human specimen. His son, Francis Darwin,
wrote that, from his earliest childhood, he saw his father in constant ill-health.
2 So, by Charles
Darwin's own standard, he must have injured the human stock. Through lack of breeding
control by society, no one prevented him from degenerate breeding. As a result,
Darwin "mated" with his wife and "bred" ten children.
"Mating" and "breeding" are animal husbandry terms that
evolutionist like to use for human reproduction, but which they seldom apply to their
own reproductive behavior.
Eugenics for the Human Race
Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911)
Following Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
many scientists envisioned the day when evolutionary principles would enrich the qualities of the
human species. Why does not society breed a better race of humankind, using this new found
scientific knowledge? Sir Francis Galton, an Englishman who was Charles Darwin's first cousin,
began the study of human eugenicsGreek for "good genes." He did a scientific
study of the abilities of different human genetic strains. In his study, he rated the value
of human beings according to their different capabilities. Using his extensive data, he
argued in support of racial discrimination, claiming that some human races are inherently
superior to others.
In Sir Francis Galton's book, Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry Into Its Laws and Consequences,
he stated.
It would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages
during several consecutive generations.3
Just as a race could improve, it could also degenerate back into ape-like men. He
proudly disdained Negroes who made him ashamed even to be a member of the human species.
He wrote,
The mistakes the negroes made in their own matters, were so childish, stupid, and
simpleton-like, as frequently to make me ashamed of my own species.
4
The biblical view of mankind is that all individuals of every human race are creatures made
in the image of God. This gives utmost value to every human being. The poor and mentally
handicapped have supreme value in Christian theology. This is in sharp contrast to
scientific atheism that has disdained the weak, claiming they were unworthy
to survive.
Leonard Darwin (1850-1943)
Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin's son, was the president of The Eugenics Education
Society, a scientific society devoted to racial improvement. Like his father, he
was an ardent believer in biological evolution. He envisioned the strong mastering
the weak. He was an evolutionary racist who thought whites were biologically superior
to Negroes. For him, this superiority was simply a matter of scientific fact. In
1926, he wrote
The aim of eugenics should be the production in future ages of the highest type
attainable, it must be wrong to attempt to raise the black races by any process which would
result in a lowering of the white stock.5
Leonard Darwin's faith held that mankind's salvation would occur through the science
and technology of genetics. He stated
It is a revolution of thought because it opens out before our eyes the possibility of
making use of the laws of nature so as to affect beneficially the very nature of man
in the future in ways never contemplated in the past.
He then added
The fate of our nation in the future lies largely in our own hands.
6
The theory of biological evolution provided the justification for scientists to guide
the biological evolution of humankind toward a new Superhuman Race.
Charles Galton Darwin (1887-1962)
Charles Galton Darwin, the grandson of Charles Robert Darwin, delivered the Galton Lecture
before the Eugenics Society on February 16th, 1939. Perhaps, the Eugenics Society gave him
this honor because he was a descendent of Charles R. Darwin. He titled his speech
Positive Eugenic Policy.7
Though he was not a biologist by education, he held a deep belief in the importance of
evolutionary eugenics. He believed that a caring and civilized society would cause disastrous
effects upon the survival qualities of human beings.
If then civilization is the condition in which natural selection is inoperative for
humanity, it must inevitably lead to degeneration, which for men means decay of the
intellect, and such decay must surely lead to a collapse of the civilization.
8
As a side note, C. G. Darwin's position that civilized society causes "disastrous"
effects is an argument that, logically, turns against biological evolution. Since evolution
has no purpose, direction, or value, it cannot produce "disastrous" or "
beneficial" effects. Evolution is indifferent to whether humans exist or what
qualities they possess. According to the theory of evolution, civilized society arose
through evolution, and it could now evolve in another direction. Evolution places no
value upon the continued existence of a human civilization.
Also, the proposition that evolution is caused by "the survival of the
fittest" is non-falsifiable. It is simply a truism that those organisms which
most successfully produce progeny for next generation are those organisms which are the
most fit to survive. If a species did not survive, obviously, it was not the most fit
to survive. Hence, to seek to demonstrate the truth of evolution on the basis of
"the survival of the fittest" fails because in every case "the most
fit survive," making the proposition is non-falsifiable.
Furthermore, C. G. Darwin's concept of evolutionary progress requires a standard of progress
outside of the evolutionary system. Evolutionists need a standard different from the evolutionary
process to measure the changes made by the evolutionary process. They require a measurement
standard that does not evolve, that is, a non-changing or absolute standard. Yet,
evolutionists claim to measure the regress or progress of human qualities caused by evolution.
Therefore, to do this, they would have to have a non-evolving standard to evaluate an evolving
change. Yet, from an evolutionary viewpoint there is nothing outside the evolving universe.
Evolutionists claim evolution created and controls everything within the entire universe.
Therefore, every statement evaluating evolutionary progress is itself within the evolutionary
process. There is the claim that "everything is evolving," and there is the
underlying supposition that "everything is not evolving," namely, the
standard to measure change. These two propositions are contradictory; hence, they violate
the law of non-contradiction, a fundamental law of logic.
A person must stand upon non-relative or absolute ground to make judgments about any
relative or evolving progress. Theism is grounded the absolute being of God who is the
standard by which the universe is measured. These standards originate beyond the
universe and provide a standard by which to evaluate what happens within the universe.
In addition, since change is relative without an absolute frame of reference,
evolutionists cannot know for certain if the change is occurring in the observer or in
the subject of observation.
C. G. Darwin argued that drastic eugenic measures must be taken to maintain the
current level of human evolution. He proposed that society should value a person
according to the wages that they earned.
Can anyone suggest a better rough and ready way of estimating a man's value than by
the amount he is paid? There are obviously a great many cases which can be cited against
this, but is anything better possible. At any rate when we wish to mark our approval of
the value of the services of someone we do so by increasing, not diminishing, his salary.
That will furnish a rough starting point, and it suggests that our national organization
ought to be such that the number of children would bear some close positive relation to
the income.9
To increase the fecundity of the rich, he proposed a large tax deduction for each
child of the rich. With this tax break, the wealthy would find it worthwhile to have
large families. For poorly paid but otherwise beneficial professions, he proposed increasing
the wages of these professions. For example, society could raise the salaries of poets
to increase their population.
I have for instance heard the argument that if we merely adopt the policy of making the
well-to-do breed, we shall have no poets because poets are usually badly paid for their
services. I will not attempt to judge whether we ought to have a large supply of
poets—after all Plato thought that they should all be killed; but the advocate of this
view regarded it as a major objection against a eugenic scheme of the kind I propose,
that there would be no provision in it for breeding poets. It is not so; it is an
objection against our social organization in general. If poets ought to play a greater
part in the world, then the proper way to do it is to reward their services better,
which means to give them better pay, and then under the eugenic scheme they will
increase the poetic population.10
C.G. Darwin delivered his address to the Eugenics Society in 1939. That was the same year
that World War II began. His worries over the deleterious effects of peace and tranquillity
upon Western Civilization probably came to an end when the bombs started to explode over
England. The world saw, firsthand, the destruction caused by his brand of social
Darwinism. It took a person like Adolf Hitler, who sincerely believed in eugenics and
the mastery of the strong, to show the world the evils of evolutionary ideology. He was
powerful and heartless enough to force scientific atheism upon a whole nation. The fall
of the Third Reich and the fall in popularity of Darwinian eugenics happened together.
The Third Reich's fall exposed Hitler's atrocities and embarrassed Darwinian evolutionary
eugenists into silence.
Miscellaneous Eugenic Statements
In the Journal of Heredity in 1933, scientists expressed their restlessness
because no one had the political courage or military power to advance evolutionary
eugenics into public policy. If someone could overcome religious and political
opposition, their glorious eugenic plans for a master human race would succeed.
Evolutionary eugenists ridiculed the "muddle-minded" person who
strives to belittle the possibilities of eugenical improvement because eugenists are
not able to take a whole nation by the neck and inaugurate an effective eugenic policy.
11
Little did they know that their evolutionary hero and savior was rising to power in
Germany. Their eugenic idealist was Adolf Hitler who had the courage and power to take
Germany "by the neck and inaugurate an effective eugenic policy."
How true was the American scientist's statement in 1933, "Eugenics is not dead
but sleeping." 12
Evolutionary scientists felt the need to suppress social norms and moral sensibilities.
This suppression had to happen to accomplish the biological salvation of the human race.
In the Journal of Heredity they boldly claimed that civilized society lowers
the quality of the human species. The intellectual consensus was that war and anarchy
were the necessary seeds for humanity's evolutionary progress.
Indeed modern social theory can be seen to be inconsistent with and antagonistic to
biological evolution. Biological evolution displays no tendency to strive for equality
in individuals, but rather to produce variant individuals, and to eliminate those of
inferior survival value, and thus constantly to improve the survival quality of a
species or of a race. The major trouble with modern humanity is due to the fact that
it has been constantly blocking and defeating this biological process throughout
its civilized period.13
Shortly after this was written, the whole world had the opportunity to see social
conventions thrown aside and replaced by the terrors of a ruthless world war. In
strange silence, after World War II, we no longer hear these evolutionary scientists
bragging about the benefits of uncivilized society. Maybe they have been scared
into silence by modern military armaments and the destruction that nuclear bombs
could cause upon civilized society. Where have the evolutionists honestly
acknowledged their role in providing the intellectual justification for Hitler's
racial policies?
The elitist attitudes of these visionary scientists caused them to look down upon the
average American voter. Using their supposed brilliant ideas, they envisioned corporate
America constructing biological manufacturing plants to fabricate human beings using
modern quality-control production procedures.
Organized eugenics in the United States is in the doldrums because of several facts.
Among these may be cited the following:
...
(3) Inability of the average voter at present to see that many if not all of our major
ills of today are dependent on the fact that we have not used our intellect in making of
men as we have in the production of machinery.
14
These evolutionists were against what people normally would consider medical progress.
Just like Charles Darwin who was against small pox vaccinations, they feared modern
obstetrics would save racially unworthy mothers and babies. Eugenic evolutionists wished
that the babies of poor mothers had a high infant mortality. They thought obstetricians
should base their treatment upon the racial value of the child--not its individual human
value. Otherwise, they claimed that modern obstetrics would be a curse for mankind.
Hence we see to what a great extent short-sighted Obstetrics, which, in all cases,
considers as its duty the indiscriminate preservation not only of the maternal but also
of the infant life, may contribute to the increasing degeneration of the power to bear
children.15
We must seek to awaken the "race conscience" of the obstetrician. He must
no longer blindly seek to produce for the mother a living child, but must ask himself,
in individual cases, whether he can take the responsibility as regards race.
Only when a different, a Eugenic, spirit influences Obstetrics, will it become a
blessing and not a curse to the race.
16
Evolutionary eugenists wanted to keep Christians out of politics. For example, the
Eugenic Section of the American Breeder's Association criticized Roman
Catholics and their involvement in politically opposing human sterilization. These
Christians obstructed the Association's plans to herd humans into a stall to neuter
them. Apparently, the human cattle in Pennsylvania disliked their evolutionary solution,
and they were difficult to round up for sterilization.
The preponderance of Roman Catholic sentiment, however, at the present time is
undoubtedly opposed to any form of sterilization as a Eugenic measure. In Pennsylvania
it is said a sterilization bill was defeated in the Legislature solely by the strong
opposition of one Roman Catholic member, who considered it an unjustified
mutilation.17
Evolutionary biologists froth at the mouth, when they contemplate fanatical Christians
thwarting their noble plans for humanity. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, humanists, and
evolutionists unitedly oppose Christian ideals. However, when these atheists have come
to power, the human rights of Christians as well as non-Christians have suffered.
Adolf Hitler and Evolutionary Biology
The Role of Human Eugenics
In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler stated in clearest terms the Darwinian credo
of evolutionary eugenics. Charles Darwin, Francis Galton, Francis Darwin, and Leonard
Darwin could not have drafted a better creed than Hitler. The evolutionary
establishment would have agreed with Hitler's ideals, as practical and theoretically
correct.
No, there is only one holiest human right, and this right is at the same time
the holiest obligation, to wit: to see to it that the blood is preserved pure and,
by preserving the best humanity, to create the possibility of a nobler development of
these beings.18
He envisioned a master race of genetically superior individuals who would populate the
joyous Thousand Year Reich. On the basis of modern scientific eugenics, he eliminated
those who were mentally deficient, deformed, Christian, Jewish, or criminals.
The Role of Medical Science
To deceive the world, Hitler cleverly used medical scientists to accomplish his racial
policies. These scientists were easy pawns to manipulate, since his policies matched
their own evolutionary ideals. Hitler used the medical profession, because ordinary
people trusted the respected life-saving profession, dressed in their clean white coats.
Little did the average person suspect that college-educated doctors would turn out to
be "medical killers."
It must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge.
19
The documentation of medicalized killing by Nazis is extensive. Professor Robert
Lifton's book entitled, The Nazi Doctors, Medical Killing and the Psychology
of Genocide,20 is an
excellent and comprehensive treatment of this subject.
Hitler's Germany does not bear the guilt alone, since his ideas flowed from the
evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin and his intellectual followers. Also, in
America, many in the medical community embraced evolutionary eugenics. The American
Medical Association fondly reported Hitler's progress in their journal (JAMA).
Their Berlin Correspondent quoted Hitler's propaganda for race improvement: "
evidence of brotherly love and of watchfulness over the welfare of the coming
generation." 21
The Role of Race
In evolutionary theory, race is more important than an individual's rights. An
individual lasts only a few years while a biologically fit race endures for many
centuries. Hitler fully agreed with this concept. In Mein Kampf, he wrote
The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this
field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep
it pure.22(Italics in original).
In contrast to this atheistic belief, Christianity places the individual first, because
the individual has a soul which lasts forever.
As discussed above, early Darwinian evolutionists claimed Negroes were less evolved
than Nordic whites. Hitler agreed with biological evolutionists. He wrote,
It was and it is Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same
secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily resulting
bastardization."23
The dogma that Negroes were close kin to early ape-men appalled Christians. However,
evolutionary atheists of the early 20th century considered that it was simply a matter
of factual scientific data. To Hitler's embarrassment, Jesse Owens, a superb
Afro-American athlete, won Olympic Game championships in 1936 at Berlin in the
100-meter dash, 200-meter dash, and running broad jump.
Results of Hitler's Social & Evolutionary Atheism
The rejection of the Creator by Darwin gave birth to the awful Nazi Holocaust. In
World War II, scientific atheism came to power and left fifty five million dead. This
does not count the wounded, the homeless children, and the destruction of homes and
cities. Evolutionists hate anyone who exposes the link between their intellectual
high priest, Charles Darwin, and their pragmatic politician, Adolf Hitler. Each
time Christians mention this link, evolutionist cry foul. However, scientific
journals provide abundant documentation to support this allegation. It should never
be forgotten; Auschwitz and Dachau were the horrific results of Hitler's belief in
Darwin's theory of evolution.
Hitler's opposition to Christianity
Christians bled and died under the heavy heel of Hitler's evolution-worshipping
government. This was well documented in the Nazi War criminal trials at Nuremberg,
Germany.
The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology. ... the
conspirators devised and carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all
Christian sects and churches.24
In one case the hatred of the impious against Christ reached the point of parodying
on the person of an interned priest, with barbed wire, the scourging and the crowning
with thorns of our Redeemer.25
In the Diocese of Chelmno, where about 650 priests were installed before the war,
only 3 percent were allowed to stay, the 97 percent of them were imprisoned, executed,
or put into concentration camps. .. By January 1941 about 700 priests were killed,
3,000 were in prison or concentration camps. ... The Tribunal will recall, from
the previous reading of this document, the imprisonment of 2,800 priests and lay
brothers in Dachau alone from 1940 to 1945, of whom all but about 800 were dead by
April 1945, including an auxiliary bishop.26
Strangely, some individuals accuse the church of being silent during the Holocaust.
These people should remember that Christians had to be silent when they were rotting
in mass graves or being held behind barbed wire in concentration camps. They physically
could not oppose the atrocities of Nazism and its military elite who were putting into
practice Darwinian ideology.
Reichsleiter Martin Bormann wrote in the secret decree entitled, Relationship of
National Socialism and Christianity, that "National Socialist and Christian
concepts are irreconcilable."27
Nazis murdered Christians of all denominations on the altar of biological atheism.
The S.S. Black Guard executed Dietrich Bonhoeffer on April 9, 1945. In his book,
Cost of Discipleship, Bonhoeffer challenged Christians to live devoted lives
for Christ. He wrote in 1937 "when Christ calls a man, he bids him come
and die."28
They executed Bonhoeffer for his faith by hanging.
Social & Evolutionary Atheism is Irrational
The Allied powers found Defendant Fritz Schwalm, a member of the Schutzstaffeln
(SS), guilty for his war time activities. They sentenced him to prison on three counts:
crimes against humanity, war crimes, and membership in a criminal organization. At his
trial, he spoke warmly of his faith in the theory of evolution. In spite of the
massive destruction unleashed upon the world by the belief in the evolutionary
superiority of the Aryan race, his irrational faith remained intact. Like most
evolutionists of today, no amount of evidence could change his mind; his evolutionary
dogma totally deluded him. At the Nuremberg War Trials, Herr Schwalm
said,
If we, nevertheless, still remain optimistic and continued to have the courage to
go on living, then it is because of the knowledge which biology especially gives us.
The theory of evolution has not only widened our view of the history of the past, but
it particularly gives us new hope for the future. If uncounted millions of years
were necessary to create man out of primeval life, then compared with these periods
of time, man is at the beginning of his development and has approximately the same
scope before him.
The greater our achievements in these fields of knowledge become, the harder
the work will be to banish what today we still call misfortune. And yet this
science conveys hope. This science and the belief in an eternal divine law can
also spur us to action. This idea was recently expressed by the President of
UNESCO, Julian Huxley."29
Amazement strikes us to think of the incredible mental blindness that overtake
devotees of scientific Darwinism. Apparently, they think gas chambers, mass
graves, bombed out cities, and starving children are the necessary by-products
of the survival of the fittest.
Humanism: The Religion of Death
Humanist Manifestos I and II
Humanist Manifestos I and II state that no one created the universe and that man
emerged from a continuous biological process. Like the Nazis, humanists reject a
Creator and espouse organic evolution.30
The humanist's religion advocates the improvement of human
behavior, using technology and evolutionary principles as guidelines. Their plan
promises to reduce the hardships of the human experience while achieving an abundant
and meaningful life.
We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits
of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther
into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we can control
our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span,
significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural
development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity
for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.31
Further, they claim there is no deity or divine purpose for the human species. They
boldly declare mankind must save themselves. They believe that traditional theism with
its prayer-hearing God is an outmoded faith. In fact, they contend that it is a very
harmful belief system. For them, Christians hinder the gospel of humanism and its
plan of salvation for humankind. They feel that Christians are guilty of condemning
multitudes of human beings to an irrational and unfulfilled life.
While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or
will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.
32
Humanist Manifesto II explicitly states that they want to legalize abortion, suicide,
and euthanasia. Abortion is for the preborn child; suicide is for the teenager and the
middle aged person, while euthanasia is for the aged.
Sixth: ... The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce
should be recognized. ...
Seventh: ... It also includes a recognition of an individual's right
to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide.
33
Abortion
These humanists kindly encourage mothers to go to abortion clinics. In the United
States, more than 30 million mothers have visited these clinics since 1973. They
have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to enrich the bank accounts of humanistic
doctors. It is hard to understand humanists calling it a free choice when it is
so expensive. Where is the humanist's compassion for the 30 million tiny babies
exterminated since 1973 in the United States? Why don't they have the freedom of
choice too?
Suicide
Humanists would find "Problem-Resolution Centers" an attractive alternative
for distraught teenagers with personal problems. At these centers, teenage boys and
girls could solve their parental conflicts and broken romances. Also, emotionally
battered wives could find encouragement from the Center's understanding counselors
who would wisely suggest the "Sympathy Needle" or "Compassion Pill."
Humanists could argue that, since abortion is protected by the constitutional right to
privacy, physician-assisted suicide, likewise, must be considered protected by a
constitutional right to privacy. In addition, if doctors can euthanize the aged,
mentally competent teenagers should have the same constitutionally protected "
freedom-of-choice" regarding assisted suicide. If this were not the case,
teenagers could argue there was age discrimination which is considered unconstitutional.
Euthanasia
Once their "Dignity-In-Exiting" initiativecommonly
known as the DIE initiativehas passed, we can imagine the following
scenario happening daily. "Twilight Dignity Havens" or "Sunset
Compassion Clinics" will be established. Humanistic doctors will make
appointments for the non-working elderly at a local "Twilight Dignity Haven.
" At these clinics, medical professionals would prescribe a barbiturate overdose
for the aged, claiming the overdose beautifully displays the dignity of the human
spirit. The "legal" advances in medical treatment options provide the
aged with personal autonomy and freedom-of-choice, so death can eliminate their
mental pain and physical suffering.
Humanists will make sure that Christian bigots do not prevent a person's grandmother
from meeting her children's financial needs. With humanists in charge, a grandmother
would not have to waste her precious dollars on medical treatment in a nursing home.
Now she can show her love to her children by accepting medical treatment in a serene
"Sunset Compassion Clinic." She would have the benefit of not having to
face the horrors of growing old.
From a humanist perspective, if a grandmother were not willing to go to a "
Twilight Dignity Haven," it would show that she did not love her children.
Only a self-centered grandmother would waste her children's inheritance by paying
to stay in an institutional nursing home. If a grandmother did not see the benefits
of a "Compassion Pill," it would be evidence, showing that she was
mentally impaired.
Even after a presenting the benefits of Dignity-In-Exiting, for some strange reason,
some grandmothers might try to avoid visiting a "Twilight Dignity Haven."
Everyone knows that a true grandmother's heart is not self-centered. Caring people
conclude that a grandmother's refusal to accept a doctor's treatment must be caused
by her mental incompetence. In response to the assessment of a grandmother's condition,
a humanistic doctor would nod in agreement toward the grandmother's children with
an understanding smile. It is accepted by intelligent people that others are responsible
to decide morally difficult questions for the mentally impaired.
So, the children decide that grandmother should be medically "cured" by
putting her to sleep compassionately and permanently, and according to what her real
wishes would be if she were mentally competent. The doctor supports their decision
and reminds each one that what was about to be done was legal and that no one has
the right to impose their morality and religious beliefs upon them. With grandmother gone,
the children receive their inheritance. Now, they can afford the down payment for
their new home. Death benefits are good. However, because of what they did to
their grandmother, their conscience is not at ease. Slowly and continually, it
whispers; "it was wrong, wrong, wrong."
Death the Problem Solver
A person needs more than a pocket full of posies to hide the stench of death in the
Humanist Manifesto II. As in a funeral, they play well the words of human dignity and
freedom. Their sweet notes of liberty and reason gently sound forth. Their soft melody
of compassion and love calm the human spirit. They cleverly play these musical scores
to divert our attention from the foulness coming from their doctrinal casket: abortion,
suicide, euthanasia, and God-is-dead.
Death has a real charm for humanists who believe death is an efficient problem solver
for any difficulty that a person or society has. It is all too true that killing people
can eliminate poverty, prison over-crowding, Christian fundamentalists, unwanted babies,
mental deficiency, non-productive old people, politically incorrect ideologies, physical
handicaps, and difficult domestic situations. On the other hand, real Christians oppose
the humanist's death solution. Christians seek "problem resolution" rather
than "people dissolution."
Thanatology is the study of death. The experts in this field are thanatologists who have
the expertise and advanced technology to aid humanists to achieve their social agenda.
Humanist Lack a Moral and Ethical Standards
Humanists cannot offer a rational justification of why life is actually meaningful.
They claim life has meaning, but they lack a rational basis for this claim. Those who
chose to live must pretend life has meaning and is worthwhile. Humanists assert
people should live moral lives, but they offer no rational basis for this assertion.
They want us blindly to act as if life and morality had value.
The question is not whether some humanists live moral lives. The question that we ask
them is what logical reason can they give to live morally. Since humanists are
materialists, how can they explain the change of matter into something moral? There
is nothing apparently moral about atoms. Humanists boast they are rational, yet their
boast rings hollow when they cannot give a rational basis for their belief system.
Communism: The Deadly Atheism
Russia
Another important figure was Karl Marx who held Darwin in utmost esteem. Marx's
political theory of communism correlated well with Darwin's scientific theory of
organic evolution. Both theories embrace atheism. Without God, Marxism promises it
can usher in the proletariat's utopia. It entices many people with dreams of a
worker's paradise. What Marxism has actually delivered has been a spiritual and
economic nightmare. It has blighted the lives of hundred of millions of people worldwide.
In Russia, Stalin implemented Communism by collectivizing agriculture. As a result,
about 10 million farmers starved or froze to death. Stalin was an atheist who felt no
responsibility to God. To maintain power, he ruthlessly murdered millions more in his
cruel purges. The USSR was an atheistic state where the leaders of the people
suppressed, murdered, and deprived them of their basic human rights. Their official
doctrine was atheism, so the church suffered militant persecution. Recently, the winds
of freedom have been blowing in the USSR; and, world wide, atheistic communism has been
discredited. However, we should never forget the millions killed by this evolutionary-loving,
anti-God system.
China
In China, Mao Zedong forced modern scientific atheism upon China's masses. He avowed
his atheism when he proclaimed, "They are theists and we are atheists."
34 Tens of millions of Chinese
citizens were executed to achieve his utopic dream of atheism. Even today, the Chinese
communist leaders continue to purge dissent. They fear the Bible, because it proclaims
that man's ultimate responsibility is to God and not to the state. The Bible is banned
from their country, so much for the atheist's vaunted freedom of the press. The Great
Leap Forward caused starvation, and the Cultural Revolution was a bloody crushing of
human aspirations. On June 4, 1989, Red Chinese soldiers massacred Chinese students
at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. The student's crime was the desire for basic human
rights. Such is the bloody legacy of atheism.
Conclusion
Atheism's Love Affair with Death
Governments under atheistic ideologies have murdered hundreds of millions of persons.
Men, women and children have gone to the gas chamber, gallows, and concentration camps
at the command of the atheistic leaders of Nazism and communism. These atheists were
driven by their ideas of a utopia for the human race. They think that if they kill
enough people, they will establish the perfect state. Death is their solution for
personal and societal problems.
Their necrophilialove affair with deathresults from their sub-conscious
desire to have never been born. If they had never been born, they would never have to
give an account to God. They blame God for their life that brought them into moral
accountability to God. Furthermore, they reason that abortion is an act of kindness,
since it prevents the unborn from reaching moral accountability. Unwittingly, secular
humanists affirm the veracity of scripture because it states that those who hate God
love death.
All they that hate me love death. Prov 8:36 (KJV)
Atheism Suppresses Human Rights
The devastation grows horrendously when we consider those who have lived under communism
for more than seven decades. Millions of lives were wasted by atheism, and their human
spirits crushed under its heavy load. Atheism took away freedom of religion, freedom
of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. Today, China bans the Bible
and jails Christian pastors. Even in America, the Bible is taken from public institutions
under the banner of "separation of church and state." Sadly, the Bible is
the world's most banned book.
Atheism is Mentally Blinding
In spite of the mass graves, the gas chambers, and the Siberian concentration camps of
atheistic governmental regimes, atheists continue to heap guilt upon Christians. They
cleverly do this so no one will look at their bloody hands. There is no amount of
evidence that can alter their closed minds. The atheist's difficulty is moral and
emotional not intellectual. Atheism is a theology of emotional hatred towards God.
Atheism is Not Logical
Logically, atheism is self-defeating. Atheism claims to know that God is nowhere.
This claim is a universal negative. No finite being can see the entire universe while
limited to a minute portion of the total space-time continuum. For an atheist to know
that God is nowhere, the atheist must presuppose a divine attribute, that is, omnipresence.
God is omnipresent and observes all there is to perceive. Hence, an atheist would have
to be God to prove a universal negative, because only God is infinite in knowledge and
presence. It is self-defeating to presuppose a divine attribute to argue against
the existence of a being with this divine attribute.
Furthermore, a finite being cannot see everywhere. If a being could see everywhere,
it would not be a finite being; it would be an infinite being. To be an infinite being
is to be God. Again, this is not what the atheist desires to demonstrate.
Theists consider that God is a spirit. A spirit being cannot be visually seen, because
it is not a material being. Finitude limits the capabilities of a being. Humans are
finite and limited beings. One human limitation is not being able to see spiritual
beings, because the human visual system is limited to material objects. Hence, it
logically follows humans cannot physically see God who is a spirit.
Some objects are not visible. Gravity and magnetism are not visible, although we see
the effects of gravity and magnetism. Intelligence is neither visible nor material.
Mind is an immaterial entity. We intuit its existence. Any discussion between two
individuals assumes that two minds are communicating. The speaker presupposes that
the hearer has an intellect which is capable of understanding what is being said.
We base our interpersonal communications upon the presupposition of its presence.
Mortimer Adler presents an insightful discussion of mind in his book, Intellect:
Mind Over Matter.35 Like
magnetism, gravity, and intellect, God is a not visible. Consequently, since
materialistic atheists accept non-visible entities such as gravity, magnetism, and
intellect, they do not have a logical basis, a priori, to reject the existence
of a non-visible God.
Are there natural objects whose ultimate cause of their existence needs to be God?
We believe there are. When causes and their effects are logically considered, it can
be shown there has to be a first uncaused cause. If an object is the result of some
cause, it is considered an effect. If there were not an adequate cause for the existence
of an effect, the effect would not exist. Objects are either (1) self-caused,
(2) uncaused, or (3) caused by another. There are no self-caused objects, because a
self-caused object would have "to exist" to be the cause its own existence,
and it would have "to not exist" so it could be brought into existence. Hence,
a self-caused object violates the law of non-contradiction, because it would have "
to exist" and "to not exist" in the same respect. It would be arguing
that a cause and an effect were one and the same thing. Hence, there are no
self-caused beings, including God.
There are two possibilities remaining. Either an object is (2) an uncaused being or
it is (3) a being caused by another (a being caused by another is the same thing as an
effect). Now, if every effect requires a cause and if that cause were also an effect
it would require a further cause. And if this further cause were another effect, it
would require one more cause. This effect-cause linkage cannot go back forever
in an infinite regress, because, in an infinite series, a starting point is never
reached to bring about the whole process. There has to be an uncaused cause to begin
the series. This uncaused cause is the first cause in the series of causes and effects.
Without a first cause, there never would be an effect. Now, since we observe there are
some objects in nature which are effects, there must exist a first uncaused cause.
Furthermore, we have shown that it cannot be a self-caused object, because a
self-caused object is logically impossible. Therefore, it must be an uncaused object,
since there is not a prior cause in the series of causes.
Just as a scientist argues from an observed effect to the required properties of its
cause, so have we argued from the nature of an effect to the necessity of a first
uncaused being. We have shown logically that there are natural objects whose ultimate
cause must be traced to the first uncaused being. In answer to the question asked
above, "Are there objects whose ultimate cause would need to be God?" we
must answer in the affirmative. In theistic terms, the being who is the first uncaused
cause is by definition, God.
Since God is not an effect, it does not make logical sense to ask, "What is the
cause of God?" Only an effect requires a cause. Since God is the first cause
and not an effect, questions about the cause of God are meaningless. For example,
the question, "Who was the first person to step upon the moon?" should be
answered with, "Mr. Neil A. Armstrong was the first person who stepped upon the
moon." To ask the question, "Who stepped on the moon, before the first
person stepped on the moon?" is logically incoherent. Likewise, the question,
"What was the cause of the first cause?" is a logical fallacy called a
category mistake.
Hypocrisy of Atheists
Sometimes atheists endorse great social ideals. For example, they demand governmental
help for the poor, but they seldom financially support these efforts from their own
pocketbooks. They feel their tax dollars are their contribution to the poor. It is
ironic to see some politicians voting for legislation repealing Christian rights, and
then, later, to see them having their photograph taken while they are serving food to
the poor in a gospel mission's dining room. These politicians need the backdrop of
a Christian food line to show the public that they have a concern for the poor.
Apparently, the atheist's food lines are closed down. So, they must find a gospel
mission each Thanksgiving or Christmas for an opportunity to have their photograph
taken showing them feeding the poor. It almost makes one suspicious that seeking
votes is more important to these politicians than actually helping the poor.
Atheists put a guilt-trip upon Christians for Galileo, while they ignore their
Russian colleagues who sent scientists and Christians to Siberia for disagreeing with
the atheism of the Communist system. At least, the Church did not kill Galileo or
send him to Siberia. Scientific atheists readily remember the 20 Salem witches who
were executed in Massachusetts, while they conveniently forget the 200-300 million
murdered in the attempt to achieve a utopia of atheism.
In 1553, John Calvin of Geneva, Switzerland had Servetus executed for heresy. Later,
Christians made a monument upon which they engraved an apology for his execution. Where
are the monuments of apology for the atrocities committed because of belief in evolution
and atheism? Maybe they cannot afford to purchase enough concrete to make the millions of
memorials needed to honor the dead who were killed in the name of their ideologies.
Confessions of Atheists
Jean-Paul Sartre, a French existential atheist, admitted atheism is a cruel affair.
For him life was an empty bubble upon the sea of nothingness. Life had no rational
meaning or eternal value. He was too hard-headed and true to the facts to claim life
and reality had meaning or merit. He chose to accept reality in all its harshness and
embrace existential nothingness. He was no mushy-minded humanist who needed to pretend
human existence had value. He chose to accept the consequences of rational thought
no matter where it led. He was not going to generate a pretend reality through a
volitional act of the will like a typical humanist.
Atheism is a cruel and long range affair: I think I've carried it through. I see clearly,
I've lost my illusions.36
Robert Jastrow, former Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is an
evolutionist and astrophysicist. In his book entitled, God and the Astronomers,
he presented evidence supporting the "Big Bang Theory." The evidence
demonstrates that the universe was created and is now expanding. Entropy is increasing,
and the universe is thermodynamically becoming more disordered. It is as if the
universe had been wound up like a clock and is now winding down. This is what
theologians have been saying for centuries. Scientists are finally catching up with
Christian theologians.
Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning,
but astronomers are curiously upset37
... For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends
like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; He is about to conquer the
highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of
theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.38
Some people try to escape the fact the universe had a beginning. They propose the
universe expands in a "Big Bang" and then collapses in a "Big Crunch."
This cyclic process is envisioned to yield an eternal universe that repeatedly goes
on expanding and then collapsing. However, even a cyclical universe would need an
input of energy to begin the whole "bouncing" process. Atheists dislike the
light of good science and desperately seek shelter in an implausible theory.
Furthermore, the second law of thermodynamics predicts that a bouncing ball would lose
amplitude with each bounce and finally come to a state-of-rest. Consequently, an
expanding and collapsing universe would reach a state-of-rest in an infinite amount of
time. Since the universe is not in a state-of-rest, the amount of time in the past is
not infinite. The amount of time in the past has to be finite. Therefore, the universe
has not always existed, and it must have had a beginning.
Like the magician who pulls the rabbit from an empty hat, evolutionists try to pull
the universe from absolute nothingness. It takes irrational faith to believe absolutely
"no thing" could create "some thing." They embrace their religious
faith to avoid the logic of a Creator. To give a scientific flavor to their
religion, scientific atheism uses the magic of chance. They employ the analogy of
throwing dice and mathematical probability to arrive at some degree of probability
for the appearance of life and the universe. In the beginning, there was absolute
nothingness. With absolute nothingness there is no dice or probability. There was no
warped space-time continuum to generate virtual quantum particles. There was just
utter nothingness.
There is no such thing as pure chance. There is probability. Probabilities exist
when there are possibilities among choices. One does not roll two dice and get a
horse; one gets a sum between two and twelve. Probability defines mathematically
the odds of an event occurring. The event must pre-exist in the dice. When the dice
are non-existent, the odds of rolling a "universe" remain non-existent.
The odds are zero; they are not even as great as 10-10,000. The
philosopher and skeptic, David Hume (1711-1776), explicitly taught there is no chance.
There be no such thing as Chance in the world.39
It is universally allowed that nothing exists without a cause of its existence, and
that chance, when strictly examined, is a mere negative word, and means not any real
power which has anywhere a being in nature.40
The modern day magicianthe Darwinian evolutionistsometimes tricks the
unsuspecting with the non-entity of chance. Using the "non-being" of
chance, they seek to generate the "being" of the entire universe. An
explosion in a print shop has an infinitely better probability of producing Webster's
dictionary than does "nothing" in creating a single molecule of one
of the dictionary's pages. In the case of the print shop, something is producing
something. In the second case, "nothing" is producing "
something." There is a finite difference between two contingent beings, such
as a print shop and a dictionary. However, there is an infinite distance between
non-being and being, such a distance exists between nothing and even a single
molecule. In the light of this logic, evolutionists lack the intellectual integrity
to admit there has to be a powerful and wise Creator of the universe.
Bertrand Russell, a famous atheist and philosopher, confessed the need for Christian
love. However, he also realized his typical audience would consider that his answer was
a compromise to Christianity, a religion they despised. Notice, Mr. Russell stating
that Christian love gives "a motive for existence, a guide in action, and
a reason for courage, and an imperative necessity for intellectual honesty."
The root of the matter is a very simple and old-fashioned thing, a thing so simple
that I am almost ashamed to mention it, for fear of the derisive smile with which wise
cynics will greet my words. The thing I mean - please forgive me for mentioning
it—is love, Christian love, or compassion. If you feel this, you have a motive
for existence, a guide in action, a reason for courage, an imperative necessity
for intellectual honesty.41
Christianity gives an imperative necessity for intellectual honesty while evolutionary
theory does not. From an evolutionary view, survival of the fittest is more important
than intellectual honesty. Animals use deception in many forms to attain their ends.
For example, a lion sneaks upon its unsuspecting prey to kill for its own survival.
In the struggle to receive a good grade in a college course, cheating on an examination
could make good sense. Whereas, intellectual honesty does not always make good sense
from the viewpoint of receiving a high grade.
Positive Christian Social Influence
The Bible is the guide for the Christian faith. Christian failure results from
disobedience to the Scriptures. The Bible commands Christians to love even their
enemies. The doctrinal foundations of the Christian faith are sound, but Christians
who are unfaithful to scriptural precepts become unjust. Christian theology teaches
the equality and dignity of each human being. However, an atheist must borrow a
base for good moral behavior from the Judeo-Christian heritage, since their
doctrinal foundation does not provide theoretical justification for ethical actions.
The doctrinal foundations of evolutionary atheism are the fang and claw of the
survival of the fittest. The strong attack the weak in the process of natural
selection. According to Darwinism, the evolutionary achievements of the human species
happened through killing the weak and out-smarting the less cunning. This process
left the strong and cunning to breed and produce future offspring. Eugenists have
claimed that further improvement of the human race would continue, if the strong
could weed out the weak and less intelligent. The doctrine of scientific atheism
states that biological evolution has no tendency towards equality of persons. Equal
rights obstruct evolutionary progress. Christian doctrine stresses equality of races.
However, when the world has seen their doctrine put into practice, the world has
experienced the terrors of unimaginable suffering. Survival is by power and deception,
practices well developed by atheistic dictators.
Christians have thousands of hospitals worldwide. There are Baptist Memorial Hospitals,
Catholic Saint Mary Hospitals, Presbyterian Hospitals, and many hospitals owned by
other Christian denominations. Nearly every city has some gospel missions to
feed and shelter the poor. There are medical missions in most foreign countries.
The early universities and colleges in America were started by Christian churches.
To the Christian's credit, they morally and politically oppose the humanist's agenda
of death.
The integrity of scientific research depends upon absolute ethical standards.
Situational or relative ethical standards could justify altered research data.
Sometimes people lose their lives because of dishonest reports. Investigators traced
the cause of the disaster of the Challenger space shuttle on January 28, 1986
to O-ring failure. Knowledge of the environmental conditions of O-ring failure was
alleged to have been suppressed by the manufacturer's management. In fact, cheating
and bogus research data has discredited the character of some US scientific researchers.
It takes a Christian ethical foundation to have trustworthy science.
God Loves Atheists
God loves everyone in the world, including atheists. God does not love their acts of
sin, but He loves them as persons. Though atheists irrationally embrace a theology
of hatred towards God, He entreats them to choose life. This is a choice for real
life, real freedom, and real truth.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you
life and death: ... therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may
live: Deut 30:19 (KJV)
God sent the Lord Jesus Christ into the world to be the Savior of sinners.
God desires all to be saved from their sins. The gift of salvation is for all who
admit they are a sinner and who accept Christ as their personal Savior. As a
sinner, you need to accept the gift of salvation. The choice is yours. Christ
paid the penalty for the sins of those who believe in His sacrifice on the cross
of Calvary. He is now risen from the grave. Please accept God's great and gracious
gift today! Christ is coming again.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 (KJV)
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom 10:9 (KJV)
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy
house. Acts 16:31 (KJV)
Ted J. McDonald, Ph.D.
References
1
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, John Murray, London, England, 1871, Republished by Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, Vol. 1, p. 168.
2
Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters, Edited by Francis Darwin, Republication of 1892 edition, Dover Publications, Mineola, NY, 1958, p. 109.
3
Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry Into Its Laws and Consequences, MacMillan and Co, London, England, 1869, p. 1.
4
ibid. p. 339.
5
Leonard Darwin, The Need For Eugenic Reform, John Murray Publisher, London, England, 1926, p. 496.
6
ibid. p. 5.
7
Charles Galton Darwin, Positive Eugenic Policy, The Eugenic Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 1, April 1939, p. 13-22.
8
ibid. p. 15.
9
ibid. p. 20.
10
ibid. p. 21.
11
C.G. Campbell, The Present Position of Eugenics, The Journal of Heredity, Vol. 24, 1933, p. 145
12
C.C. Little, "Not Dead But Sleeping." Journal of Heredity, Vol. 24, 1933, p. 149.
13
Campbell, op. cit. supra note 11 at p. 144.
14
Little, op. cit. supra note 12 at p. 149.
15
Agnes Bluhm, Eugenics and Obstetrics, In: Problems in Eugenics, First International Eugenics Congress, University of London, Published by The Eugenics Education Society, London, England, 1912, p. 391.
16
ibid. p. 395.
17
Bleecker Van Wagenen, Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeders' Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population, In: Problems in Eugenics, First International Eugenics Congress, University of London, Published by The Eugenics Education Society, London, England, 1912, p. 478.
18
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Trans. Ralph Manheim, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA, 1971, p. 402.
19
ibid. p. 403-4.
20
Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors, Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY, 1986, pp. 561.
21
Berlin Correspondent, Sterilization to Improve the Race, JAMA, Vol. 101, No. 11, Sept. 9, 1933, p. 866.
22
Hitler, op. cit. supra note 18 at p. 403.
23
Hitler, op. cit. supra note 18 at p. 325.
24
Trial of The Major War Criminals before The International Military Tribunal, Official Text in the English Language, Proceedings November 14-30, 1945, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947, Vol. II, p. 115.
25
ibid. Vol. IV, p. 65.
26
ibid. Vol. IV, p. 518-9.
27
ibid. Vol. IV, p. 58.
28
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, MacMillan Publishers, New York, NY, Revised Edition 1963, p. 99.
29
Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuerenberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, United States Government Printing Office, 1950, Vol. V, p. 85.
30
Humanist Manifestos, I and II, Edited by Paul Kurtz, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1933 (I), 1973 (II), p. 8.
31
ibid. p. 14.
32
ibid. p. 16.
33
ibid. p. 18-19.
34
Mao Tsetung, Selected Readings from the Works of Mao Tsetung, Foreign Languages Press, Peking, China, 1971, p. 482.
35
Mortimer J. Adler, Intellect: Mind Over Matter, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1990, pp. 205.
36
Jean-Paul Sartre, The Words, Translated from French by B. Frechtman, George Braziller, Inc. New York, NY, 1964, p. 253.
37
Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, W.W. Norton, New York, NY, 1978, p. 16.
38
ibid. p. 116.
39
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, N.Y., 1988, p. 55
40
ibid. p. 88.
41
Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, Unwin Paperbacks, London, England, 1952, Re-issued 1985, p. 105.
|