The Evolution Of Hate

 

On May 14, 2022, 18-year old Payton S. Gendron entered a supermarket in Buffalo, New York wearing body armor and toting a  modified Bushmaster XM-15 rifle. He opened fire, killing ten innocent people, and seriously wounding three others. (See apnews.com/article/buffalo-supermarket-shooting-442c6d97a073f39f99d006dbba40f64b). All the victims were African-American, and Gendron wanted it that way as it was racially motivated by his hatred of black people. Immediately, the usual "white people are all racist" crowd began using this tragedy to further their agenda. The alleged need for "Critical Race Theory" nonsense in schools was stressed, and calls for confiscating guns from law abiding citizens ("gun control") was renewed. 

What was passed over quietly was that Gendron self-identified as an eco-fascist, a white supremacist, national socialist, ethno-nationalist, and an antisemite who was politically on the Authoritarian Left. Notice the lack of religious affiliation, and his identification with National Socialism. Likewise on April 20, 1999, Eric Harris donned a shirt emblazoned with "Natural Selection" before heading off to high school. For weeks he had been preparing a special event in honor of Adolf Hitler (April 20th being "the Fuhrer's" birthday). Together with his friend, Dylan Klebold, he planted a bomb in the Columbine High School cafeteria. Harris planned to shoot his fellow students as they fled the explosion. When the bomb failed to detonate, he and Klebold entered the school and opened fire, killing thirteen and wounding twenty-four before turning their guns on themselves.

If we delve into the ideology of Nazis, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists, we find that Darwinism—the view that species have evolved over eons of time through the process of natural selection—plays a fundamental role, shaping their views about race and society. Nazis and white nationalists consider it their mission to advance their own race in this universal racial struggle, even to the point of perpetrating violence against those deemed their racial enemies. In the Darwinian struggle for existence, someone has to die, after all. Atheistic Darwinism is at the core of the hatred and shootings we see today. It excludes God from its warped worldview. 

In this post, Charles Darwin, the man and his theory of evolution, will be investigated. Darwin was far from the "brave man of science" his defenders claim him to be, and evolution has led to the overthrow of God in society, with disastrous consequences. For this post, I have used many sources, especially Thomas Glick, The Comparative Reception of Darwinism (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1988); Mark Isaak, The Counter-Creationism Handbook (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005); and Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin; The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: Time Warner, 1991)---Introibo. 

Life Without Meaning or Purpose

Darwin demanded that evolution must exclude all inference of design or purpose. Everything is here in a stochastic way. This is why any attempt to introduce Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is met with anger and lawsuits by the scientific community [See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)]. The fact that evolution teaches life is purposeless except to aid survival is not lost on teachers. Yale psychologists Bloom and Weisberg concluded in a study on why children resist accepting evolution, that the evolutionary view of the world, which the authors call "promiscuous teleology," makes it difficult for children to accept evolution. Children "naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose" and they have to be indoctrinated to see the world in another way.(See Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg, "Childhood Origins to Adult Resistance to Science," Science 316 (2007): 996; Emphasis mine). 

The ultimate purposelessness of evolution, and thus its products including life, was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows: "We're just a bit of pollution. . . . If you got rid of us . . . the universe would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant." As Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins concluded, although "humans have always wondered about the meaning of life" the fact is "life has no higher purpose [other] than to perpetuate the survival of DNA."[See The Selfish Gene, (1976)]. According to Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine's high school textbook, Biology, [fourth edition (1998), p. 161]:

[Darwin knew his theory] required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless — a process in which . . . nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us. (First emphasis in original, the rest is mine).

One text taught that humans are just "a tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life" and the belief that a "progressive, guiding force, consistently pushing evolution to move in a single direction" is now known to be "misguided."[See Peter H. Raven and George B Johnson, Biology, (2002)]. Many texts teach that evolution is purposeless and goal-less except to achieve brute survival:

[Natural selection is] totally blind to the future. . . . Humans . . . came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and our brains. . . . Natural selection . . . explains . . . the whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, [and] the apparent design in life (from an interview with atheist evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins). [See Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece, and Lawrence G. Mitchell, Biology, (1999)]. 

The same claim of purposelessness that results from evolution is related in the mass media as well. For example, Newsweek relates that Darwin knew full well the consequences of his theory. Mankind was no longer the culmination of life but merely part of it; creation was mechanistic and purposeless. In a letter to a fellow scientist, Darwin wrote that confiding his theory was "like confessing a murder."(See Malcolm Jones, "Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?" Newsweek (July 7–July 14, 2008): 32). 

These texts all clearly teach worldviews, not science. An excellent example is a textbook that openly ruled out not only theistic evolution but any role for God in nature, noting that Darwinism threatened theism by showing that humans and all life "could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god":

Evolutionary randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. The Darwinian view that . . . present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past,contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. . . . In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary. . . . Religion has been bolstered by . . . the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of ethical and moral values. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries. . . . The positions of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable. (See Monroe W. Strickberger, Evolution, third edition, (2000), pgs. 70-71). Note well, that by "creationists," they are not talking about Protestant fundamentalists who insist on a literal six days of creation lasting 24 hours each, but anything other than atheistic evolution. I was a New York City science teacher for five years before going to law school. I wrote a paper submitted to a journal for science teachers showing that design can be found in nature, and it nearly cost me tenure and my job. This was in the 1980s. Today, you wouldn't have any chance to survive as a science teacher unless you tow the Darwinian line. 

Darwin: A Disturbed, God-Hating Sadist

Lest anyone claim that by attacking Darwin, I'm committing the ad hominem fallacy, let me be clear that science doesn't tell us anything, scientists do. The scientific method may be objective, but how the results are tabulated, presented, how information may be omitted, etc., is the product of scientists. Are they without bias and agendas? If you think so, you weren't paying attention during COVID-19. 

So why was Darwin so insistent that his theory must exclude God? I offer three reasons:

1. The death of his daughter Anna. 

According to Randal Keynes, in his book Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution (2002), Darwin saw in the death of his ten-year old a universe that couldn't have a loving God. Keynes wrote that Darwin was at a loss to understand why most naturalists at the time thought they saw evidence of ubiquitous, benevolent design in a world so full of pain, death and disease. "There seems to me," he wrote, "too much misery in the world" for a loving deity to have designed it that way. He had witnessed genocide of the Indians in Argentina and the torture of slaves in Brazil. He had written of wasps whose larvae devour a living caterpillar from within, leaving the beating heart for last. With the slow death of Annie, the misery became personal. So too, his hatred of any idea of God.

2. His lukewarm religious upbringing.

Darwin's father, Robert, his brother Erasmus, and his grandfather Erasmus, all well-known students of science in their own right, were agnostics. Darwin would later declare himself agnostic. He had no use for God in his life.

3. His circle of friends.

Darwin's ideas on religion were also partly a reflection of his upper-class British social milieu. His views for the most part were not all that radical or highly original in his social circle; his achievement was primarily to elaborate and publicize them through his best-selling books. Darwin's family and social network included many liberal Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists.

. 

Darwin's mental state.

Darwin suffered from severe depression; insomnia; incapacitating anxiety; fits of hysterical crying; depersonalization; vision alterations (such as seeing spots and other visual hallucinations); malaise; vertigo; shaking; tachycardia; fainting spells; shortness of breath; trembling; nausea; vomiting; dizziness; muscle twitches, spasms, and tremors; cramps and colics; bloating and nocturnal flatulence; headaches; nervous exhaustion; dyspnea; skin problems (including scalp blisters and eczema); tinnitus; and sensations of loss of consciousness and impending death. (See Clifford A. Picover, Strange Brains and Genius: The Secret Lives of Eccentric Scientists and Madmen (1998), p. 290). Darwin suffered severe anxiety disorder, which he attributed to his tyrannical father. English psychiatrist Dr. Rankine Good claimed that, "If Darwin did not slay his father in the flesh, then he certainly slew the Heavenly Father in the realm of natural history," suffering for his "unconscious patricide" which accounted for "almost forty years of severe and crippling neurotic suffering." (See Ralph Colp, To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin, (1977), pg.32). 

Darwin's Sadism.

Darwin glorified death and loved torturing animals. He beat a puppy to death as a young boy and trembled with excitement. He loved guns and hunting, watching with pleasure to see his prey die slowly. He liked to make lab animals die as painfully as possible. Darwin clearly viewed death and destruction as an engine of evolutionary progress, as we see in the penultimate sentence of The Origin of Species: "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." To escape any guilt or fear of punishment, God must be jettisoned. 

 Social Darwinism

When Darwin's ideas are applied to society, the survival of the fittest means that the physically and mentally handicapped must not be allowed to reproduce and—-in extreme cases, like Nazi Germany--must be euthanized. Here in the United States, the Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), upheld a statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit "for the protection and health of the state." The 8 to 1 decision, had Oliver Wendell Holmes as the author of the majority opinion. He wrote:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles is enough. (Emphasis mine).

The sole dissenter was Associate Justice Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic. Afraid of Protestant harassment, he declined to write a dissenting opinion. 

If God doesn't exist, and life is about survival, racists of all colors, will want to stamp out the other races for "genetic purity" and to make this ephemeral life better by promoting the advancement of evolution. Darwin himself was racist and exulted in the European extermination of the “lower races,” which he integrated into his theory of human evolution. Many other scientists likewise promoted racism on the basis of their understanding of evolutionary theory. If the Nazi perspective was a misinterpretation of Darwinism, it was a misinterpretation fostered by the Darwinian biologists themselves, not by non-scientists or fringe publicists. 

Conclusion

Atheistic evolution, shoved down the throats of the young, has had its intended effects.  According to a 2014 Pew research survey of atheists, only 9% were age 65 and older, compared to 14% of those ages 50-64, 37% of those ages 30-49, and 40% ages 18-29. (See pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/religious-family/atheist). The Vatican II sect tells us (via Bergoglio) that atheists can go to Heaven; a clear implication beliefs are unimportant--even belief in God Himself.

God has been banished from public life, and "St." John Paul the Great Apostate helped facilitate it by promoting Vatican II's heretical religious liberty. The time is ripe for Darwinian ideas to seep in deeply once more. The Church combatted the Communists and Nazis--the Vatican II sect does nothing. Children are told that science says there is no purpose, no God, and no meaning. Life is for the survival of the fittest. Those deemed unfit get picked on and want to strike back, while those who think they are superior believe in a right to eliminate the inferior.

So the next time you hear of a shooting spree, don't blame Trump, guns, or anything else the mass media is selling. Blame a world that has grown up without the true Faith, and fed a steady diet of Darwinism.