Darwin and Marx

From a darwinist, talking about Darwin’s racial bigotry, and prediction that the “inferior races” would be obliterated eventually by the “civilized” races:

> > To repeat, I don’t think Darwin had a change of heart. He just changed the message he wanted to give out, from one of “horrid things are happening in the colonies but active liberals are fixing that” to one of “there’s no hope for the savage races”>>


In sharp contrast to the legacy left to him by the tireless work of William Wilberforce, who made the abolition of slavery in the Empire his Christian mission.

And in great contrast to the never ending tirades against the slave trade by the missionary David Livingstone, whom the Arab and Portuguese held in awe and respect and fear, a man who loved the African people with an immense love.

>It would seem that Darwin had come to think that there was no hope for the “savage races” and that they would all be exterminated by the advance of the “civilized” (i.e. European) nations. We can be thankful that in this case he was not an infallible prognosticator.

And yet we see this self-fulfilling prognostication, with its painfully obvious applicability to Malthusian practices, borne out in the racist political ideologies of the 20th century, always with reference to the same idea of superior and inferior races that Charles Darwin saw, logically, as an implication of his theory. Not only in the genocide and eugenics of the fascist regimes of the Axis powers of World War II, but on the American side of the Atlantic in the eugenicist policies and practices of their ideological allies, Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control League, now known as Planned Parenthood, which would be better called Planned Sterilization.

>Sure, and he (Dawkins) chooses to act as an Englishman of a certain class and heir of a particular science tradition. Whether he does so consciously or not is another issue. Being English, where the class tradition is still alive and well and not swept under the carpet as in America, he could well be conscious of the fact that he is of a certain class and chooses to uphold its traditions. Darwin, perhaps, even more so, for it would be a rare person of his time who thought class barriers should be eradicated, in spite of the contemporary work of Marx.


Darwin and Marx are hand-and-glove. Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, described Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, which set forth the basis of the theory of evolution, as “a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views.” (David Jorafsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, p.12

Marx demonstrated his regard for Darwin by dedicating his own most important work, Das Kapital, to him. His own handwriting in the German edition of the book read, “Mr. Charles Darwin / On the part of his sincere admirer / Karl Marx.” Ralph Colp, Jr., “The Contacts Between Karl Marx and Charles Darwin,” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Apr.-Jun., 1974), pp. 329-338

The social scientist Tom Bethell, who works at the Hoover Institute in America, explains the fundamental reasons for the link between the two theories: “…Marx admired Darwin’s book not for economic reasons but for the more fundamental one that Darwin’s universe was purely materialistic, and the explication of it no longer involved any reference to unobservable, nonmaterial causes outside or ‘beyond’ it. In that important respect, Darwin and Marx were truly comrades…”
And what “eradication of class barriers”? Karl Marx’ gargantuan tomes in “Das Kapital”, written for the UPPER classes, NOT the masses, should give an independent thinker a clue, for starters. The fact that Marx trotted all over Europe expensively enjoying himself with no “visible means of support” (they are obscure, aren’t they?) should be another, while his own kids suffered low-class ravages.

Scant few people ask if it is so egalitarian, why are the richest and most powerful plutocrats in the whole world behind what is supposedly a poor-friendly socialist model that will overthrow their power? Why did they support Lenin’s Bolshevik revolution in Russia, Mao Tse-Tung in China, the Castro brothers in Cuba, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and most recently, the dictator golpista Manuel Zelaya in Honduras, a guy who had already overthrown his own constitution and government by ruling by decree, ruling as if Congress and the Courts did not exist?

Harun Yahya did exhaustive and indisputable research showing the connections between not only Darwinism and Marxism but the persons Darwin and Marx:

http://us1.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/EDCRFV/productId/16463/MARX,_KARL

>> The reason why I think these naturalists [Paley & Selbourne]were right is because it seems to me that in the Western spiritual tradition, “God” is the word we use for what did create the universe, so that “through Nature up to Nature’s God” is correct. We learn about God partly by learning about Nature. That was what the Victorian biologists sought to overturn.>

> I don’t think the Victorian biologists sought to overturn the creative relationship between God and creation. I would agree that we learn about God partly by learning about Nature. But we can only do that if we accept Nature as it is. To the extent that Paley or Selbourne attached their view of Nature’s God to the separate and independent creation of species fixed in forms designed for their specific habitats, they were wrong.

Oh rich. “Nature’s God” is a stupid oxymoron if you don’t conceive of that God as existing as Creator, which by the way is another explicit reference to God in the Declaration of Independence, for example, showing that the concept of Nature’s God held by philosophers of the day.

And guess what? Creationists are the ones who are even willing to learn about God from accepting Nature as it is. Otherwise it’s just some stupid homage to the cultural use of the word.

> It’s obvious that coming to grips with that error rattled a lot of theological assumptions. Yet the Church provided almost immediately a way of grasping the new insights into nature theologically. That God, rather than designing specific species for specific habitats, both unchangeable, created a dynamic interaction among changing habitats and changing species in a cosmic dance gives us a new view of Nature and God, but is just as conducive to the principle of “through Nature to Nature’s God”.


Try to learn what creationists actually think instead of the caricature pounded into your head by operatives of dogma in school years. Creationists don’t regard the created species as “specific species for specific habitats, both unchangeable”. ROTFL! That’s such a hilarious error that I think I’ll share it for a joke on another Creationist email list!

In years past, before darwinists found that any creationist scientist could beat them in a fair debate almost every time (I’ve never heard of a different outcome), that’s just one of the reasons darwinists looked so foolish. Their cartoonish ideas of creationists crashed and burned with a debate opponent who knew more about what the darwinist was talking about than the darwinist himself!

For example, an “evolutionary biologist” who has several articles on the darwinist site TalkOrigins, in one exchange in early Internet days, called me an “unmitigated liar” for daring to say that Piltdown man was a fraud! I had to post a link to a darwinist web site about science frauds to show him!

–Alan

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: