Saturday, May 05, 2012

Clark University's "Freethought Society" promotes racist Charles Darwin and the fantasy of Darwinian Evolution

I was not surprised to learn that Clark University's "Freethought Society," a student group which is Christianophobic and celebrates mocking Christian belief, promotes Darwin Day.  Darwin Day is described as, "..a global celebration of science and reason held on or around Feb. 12, the birthday anniversary of evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin."

It is most ironic that Darwin Day should be described as a "celebration of science and reason" since Charles Darwin epitomized neither.  Darwinian evolution has been thoroughly refuted and has nothing to do with science.  In fact, Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, and later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, was quoted in The Advocate (March 8, 1984, p. 17) as having said that, "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.  It is useless." 

In his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin asserted that, "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

This is reason?  Darwin believed that the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, would emerge as the distinct species, human being, while all the "transitional forms" - such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, Australian aborigine - would become extinct.  In his Descent, Darwin issued a call to arms while offering his solution as to how the European race could be saved from slipping back down the slope of evolution:

"When a race of plants is once pretty well established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but merely go over their seed-beds, and pull up the 'rogues,' as they call the plants that deviate from the proper standard.  With animals this kind of selection is, in fact, likewise followed; for hardly any one is so careless as to breed from his worst animals."

Ernst Haeckel, a zoologist,  would later popularize Darwin's racist ideas in Germany and the Third Reich , greatly influenced by them, would launch its eugenic program and its "Final Solution."  Haeckel  would argue, in one of his numerous books entitled "History of Creation," that, "In the same way as by careful rooting out of the weeds ['rogues' as Darwin had called them], light, air, and ground is gained for good and useful plants, in like manner, by the indiscriminate destruction of all incorrigible criminals, not only would the struggle for life among the better portion of mankind be made easier, but also an advantageous artificial process of selection would be set in practice, since the possibility of transmitting their injurious qualities by inheritance would be taken from those degenerate outcasts." (History of Creation, 1. 178).

Enter Adolph Hitler with his plan for a Master Race.

Women didn't fare too well in Darwin's thought either.  In The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, he advances the idea that men are naturally superior to women and that man is capable of, "a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on 'Hereditary Genius' that ... the average of mental power in man must be above that of women."

There you have it.  Clark University's "Freethought Society," a student group which has little to do with actual thought, is promoting a racist ideologue whose theories have been largely discredited.  And this with Clark University's approval. Even as Deborah Dwork, Director of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, engages in slander against Pius XII, a great Pontiff who condemned National Socialism and its racist ideology.



Samantha said...

More bigotry from Clark University. Thanks again for exposing what Allen Dale has referred to as a "third-rate school."

Jonathan said...

Interesting. Clark students promoting a racist who viewed blacks as "weeds" or "rogues." Interesting but not surprising. Clark University advances hate in many forms.

Michael Cole said...

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University. "Evolution’s Erratic Pace", Natural History Vol. 5, May 1977).

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution.” (Dr. Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now, p. 140, Professor at Harvard University in Boston)."

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Mario Seiglie, in an article entitled "DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution," writes:

"Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident —by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.

Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." ( God: The Evidence , 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).

Quality of genetic information the same
Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.

So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language—alphabet, grammar and semantics—in simple bacteria and algae as in man.

Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).

So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?

Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282)."

Ted Loiseau said...

Joseph Keysor writes that "Haeckel was a committed secularist. He despised religion and thought only scientific knowledge had any value. He not only saw Darwinism as the correct explanation of the origin and development of life on earth, he evangelized for it. Many of his statements asserting the factual truth of Darwinism and attacking religion as false and opposed to science are identical in content and in spirit to those uttered by present-day champions of those same ideas.

Unfortunately, Haeckel’s pursuit of disinterested and objective scientific truth was combined with a belief in German racial superiority. He saw blacks as inherently inferior, and imagined that the superior northern Europeans had through evolutionary struggle attained to the top of the evolutionary pyramid.

Haeckel also advocated militarism and imperialism. He upgraded the evolutionary concept of survival of the fittest to the level of nations and of races. Thus, if one nation defeated a weaker one and seized its territory, this was only an illustration of the basic law that was the foundation of our earthly existence. If a stronger and superior race – in this case the white Europeans – subjugated weaker and inferior races, this was only natural, an example of evolution in action."

Haeckel described himself as a "free-thinker."

Site Meter