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.

Unbelievable.

Mr. David Niose and Clark University's Christianophobic "Freethought Society"

Back in January, I noted how Paul Agne of Clark University's "Freethought Society" wrote that there's nothing wrong with mocking Christianity, asserting that, "Even if we do criticize/mock Christianity, there is nothing wrong with that. If I see irrational dogma, bigotry, intolerance, etc it is not exempt from criticism/ridicule just because it is someone's religious (or political/cultural/etc) belief. And furthermore, as Christianity is the dominant religion in the US, and inserts itself into our lives daily it will of course be more relevant to us, and we will have more to say about it than, say, Jainism."

For Mr. Agne then [and for the "Freethought Society" as a whole since the group published his comments], Christianity is equivalent to irrationality, bigotry and intolerance.  Which no doubt is why the Worcester Telegram & Gazette ran a positive story on this hate group.  In an article entitled "Non-believer groups grow on campus," we read that, "Mr David Niose, a local attorney who is president of the American Humanist Association, said many students today prefer reason or logic over spirituality."

Of course, as Pope John Paul II reminded us in his Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio, on the relationship between faith and reason, faith and reason go hand-in-hand: "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

But Mr. Niose insists that the students attracted to atheist groups on campus such as Clark's "Freethought Society," "choose reason over the beliefs that come from ancient texts" and that "many students are being driven to non-belief because of the rigid dogma and very conservative views espoused by some churches." (See here).

But faith and reason can never contradict one another.  As Saint Thomas Aquinas explains in his Summa Contra Gentiles I, 7:

"The truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know cannot be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith.  For that with which the human reason is naturally endowed is clearly most true; so much so, that it is impossible for us to think of such truths as false.  If we only understand the meaning of the terms in such self-evident propositions as 'The whole is greater than the part' or 'What has color must have size,' we cannot think them false.  Nor is it permissible to believe as false that which we hold by faith, since this is confirmed in a way that is so clearly divine.  It is not our faith but its object, God, that justifies our certainty.  Since, therefore, only the false is opposed to the true, as is clearly evident from an examination of their definitions, it is impossible that truth of faith should be opposed to those principles that the human reason knows naturally."

It is most ironic that Mr. Niose should refer to some of the Churches as being "rigid."  This because Clark University's "Freethought Society" is extremely rigid and intolerant toward views which dissent from its own.  As I noted here:

Just recently, Pope Benedict XVI said that, "It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the Church's public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres...Cardinal George Pell of Australia has correctly noted that, 'Some secularists seem to like one way streets..Their intolerance of Christianity seeks to drive it out not only from the public square, but even from the provision of education, health care and welfare services to the wider community. Tolerance has come to mean different things for different groups. Indeed. And this intolerance of tolerance is in evidence at Clark University in Worcester. At its website, we read that:

"Clark students

•Are passionate about ideas, causes and events beyond themselves.

•Embrace issues and take action.

•Approach life with open minds and a global perspective."
And yet, because I questioned the research findings of one of Clark University's professors, Dr. Abbie Goldberg, one of the university's approved student groups - the Clark "Freethought" Society, posted my photo with the following commentary from Clark Student Brian Seitzman: "He's a delusional nutter who spends a lot of time posting photos of aborted fetuses on FB [Facebook]*...He also appears to have some major persecution fantasies...In short, the guy's pretty much of an ass.... but you'd likely figured that much out already." Apparently Mr. Seitzman would consider Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Pell - not to mention a growing number of the Church's hierarchy - to be "delusonal nutters" who suffer from "persecution fantasies."

Pope John Paul II reminded us in Centesimus Annus that, "Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the 'subjectivity' of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism."

Authentic Christians have always and everywhere accepted a "healthy pluralism." At the same time, such Christians have also understood that they have an obligation to acknowledge their beliefs and to preach the moral message given to them by the Lord Jesus. The follower of the Lord Jesus possesses a qualified certainty regarding the tenets of Natural Law and other truths which are revealed by God and help guide the conduct of man. Consequently, the authentic Christian understands that Christian ethical principles inform human society. Secular Humanists and those committed toward advancing the radical homosexual agenda have their own agenda and will do everything in their power to censor the Christian view.

The authentic Christian [or any person of good will] will reject the sophism of those who declare that anyone who does not buy into the Dictatorship of Relativism (a pluralism of opinions which rejects any and all absolute truth or even its possibility) is a "fanatic" or a "fundamentalist." On the contrary, such people will defend the truth in a positive manner. And while respecting persons and living out charity, they will proclaim the truth without fear.

This is the mind of Christ. As Pope John Paul II taught us in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 95:

"The Church's teaching, and in particular her firmness in defending the universal and permanent validity of the precepts prohibiting intrinsically evil acts, is not infrequently seen as the sign of an intolerable intransigence, particularly with regard to the enormously complex and conflict-filled situations present in the moral life of individuals and of society today; this intransigence is said to be in contrast with the Church's motherhood. The Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding and compassion. But the Church's motherhood can never in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in person. As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm... The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection...

In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God's eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness."

Clark University's "Freethought" Society has one post after another on Facebook ridiculing religious belief (especially Christianity) and has numerous links to radical secularist groups which seek to drive Christianity out of the political and cultural spheres and to relegate it to the margins of society. In short, far from encouraging authentic dialogue and a healthy pluralism, the university-approved student group apparently has the sole purpose of demonizing any and all religious expression.

Free thought? Or slavery to what Pope Benedict XVI has referred to as the "Dictatorship of Relativism"?

* I have posted one photograph of an aborted baby on Facebook.  Why should this trouble Brian Seitzman?  The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) has hundreds of photographs of murdered Jews at its website to highlight the atrocities of the Third Reich. 


Related posts here and here.

Clark University's need to demonize any and all opposition to its ideology...

The Scarlet, a Clark University publication, wants its readers to believe that I am "angry." You see, it is much easier to dismiss honest criticism that way. But I'm not the one attacking the Natural Law and Catholic moral teaching while slandering the memory of a great Pontiff. It would seem that it is Clark University which has succumbed to anger and ideology.

As readers of this Blog know, I have documented Clark University's attempt to demonize moral opposition toward homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."  For Clark University, moral opposition to the radical homosexual agenda is equivalent to being "anti-gay." It is termed "heterosexism" and is put in the same category as rape and sexual assault. This is tantamount to saying that the Natural Law is "anti-gay," a position which is so absurd that it could only originate from a place like Clark University.

 Deborah Dwork, Director of Clark University's Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies, has slandered the memory of Pope Pius XII, suggesting that he "failed Europe's Jews miserably, unconscionably," a position which I have totally refuted.  See here.

Clark University's "Freethought Society" posted a message on Facebook saying that it is "okay" to mock Christianity.  See here. Before that, simply because I do not agree with the radical homosexual agitprop and Christianophobic ideology coming out of Clark University, members of the Clark University "Freethought Society" asserted [again on Facebook] that I am "a delusional nutter" who "appears to have some major persecution fantasies."  I was called an "ass...." who is simply "crazy."  See here.

And I am the angry one?

But even if I were "angry," such anger would be justified.  This point is not understood by many at Clark University who have replaced thought with slogans and knee-jerk responses.  It was Blaise Pascal who said that, "It is as much a crime to disturb the peace when truth prevails as it is a crime to keep the peace when truth is violated. There is therefore a time in which peace is justified and another time when it is not justifiable. For it is written that there is a time for peace and a time for war and it is the law of truth that distinguishes the two. But at no time is there a time for truth and a time for error, for it is written that God's truth shall abide forever. That is why Christ has said that He has come to bring peace and at the same time He has come to bring the sword. But He does not say that He has come to bring both the truth and the falsehood."


Because our age has succumbed to a cult of softness, it is fashionable to believe that any display of anger is due to a lack of charity or to some psychological problem. This cult of softness has, in turn, contributed much to an effeminate Christianity which is incapable of opposing the evils of our present epoch.

It is forgotten that sometimes anger is the proper response to value. In the words of Fr. Bede Jarrett, O.P., "Not only may I sin by being angry when I should not, but I may sin by not being angry when I should be. If my reason tells me that it is right to be angry, then I disobey God when I refuse to give place to wrath; for, as the New Testament teaches, it is possible to "be angry and sin not" (Ephesians 4:26). Our Lord Himself, when need arose, roped together a bundle of cords and drove from the Temple those who trafficked in the House of Prayer, and down the front steps He flung the tables of the money-changers. Perhaps for most of us, the fault is not that we are too angry, but that we are not angry enough. Think of the evils that are in the world, that are known to all, admitted to exist by public press and on public platform. Would they have survived thus far, had folk all shown the indignant anger of Christ? Hypocrisy, cant, and the whole blatant injustice that stalks naked and unashamed in national life - may not our own weakness and silence have helped to render impotent all efforts to reduce these terrible things?....I have got to make myself realize that anger is itself neither evil nor good, and that it can be either. Hence I must pledge myself to see how far I allow anger to rule me when it should not, and how far I overrule it when I should give it a free hand." (Classic Catholic Meditations, p. 168, Sophia Institute Press).

There is then just and unjust anger.  Is it an expression of just anger to slander a great Pontiff?  To mock Christian beliefs simply because you do not share them?  To label another an "ass...." and a "delusional nutter" because he is personally opposed to the radical homosexual agenda?

Here again we see that Clark University is not interested in authentic dialogue and free thought.  It is more concerned with placing opposing views in an intellectual ghetto and in demonizing those who refuse to embrace its secular humanist ideology as "crazy" and "hateful."

What a shame.

Update on Clark University's "Freethought Society"...It's "okay" to mock Christianity

It was brought to my attention by a student at Clark University that Paul Agne, a Clark Student and member of the Christianophobic "Freethought Society," wrote the following:


"Even if we do criticize/mock Christianity, there is nothing wrong with that. If I see irrational dogma, bigotry, intolerance, etc it is not exempt from criticism/ridicule just because it is someone's religious (or political/cultural/etc) be...lief. And furthermore, as Christianity is the dominant religion in the US, and inserts itself into our lives daily it will of course be more relevant to us, and we will have more to say about it than, say, Jainism."

There you have it. Members of the Clark University "Freethought Society" have such a hatred toward Christianity that they justify mocking the religion.  Christian dogma is presented as "irrational," "bigoted" and "intolerant."

Ironically, many who commented in the discussion thread of a previous post, asserted that Clark University is "tolerant" toward religious viewpoints.  Yes, I can see that.  An individual who posted a comment as "Dr. Halpern" wrote: "As a Clark University alum, I can honestly say that in my 4 years there I did not encounter any anti-Christian sentiments. I would describe the atmosphere at Clark as supportive, intellectually stimulating, and encouraging of healthy, thoughtful debate... As an alum concerned with investing in the future of the institution, I would like to counter BostonCatholic by ENCOURAGING Christian parents to send their children to Clark. It is through inclusiveness that we learn about the world we live in, and everyone's viewpoints are equally important in that learning process."

Oh boy.

Molly Burman wrote, "I am a Catholic student at Clark University. I learn and live in an accepting environment. This acceptance includes people of all faiths, sexualities, and races. One of our mottos is "Categorizing is not something we do here." This means not judging a person based on his or her sexuality OR religion."

Unless of course that religion is Christianity.  Then it's "okay" to mock.

Yesiree, healthy, thoughtful debate is alive and well at Clark University.  That's why I was called an "ass...." for simply challenging Clark University professor Abbie Goldberg.

With friends like that...