Posted by: Bruno Bilro | August 1, 2010

Erasmus & Charles Darwin – Theory of Evolution – Nazi Eugenics – Depopulation – Freemasonry Connection. The Complete Disaster Darwinism / Atheism / Evolutionism Brought to Society

Kent Hovind – Seminar 5 – The Dangers of Evolution – HIGH QUALITY

In The Dangers of Evolution, Dr. Hovind reveals the terrible effects that evolutionary beliefs have had on societies throughout history. Giving examples of evolution-based philosophies being used to rationalize the brutal acts of rulers, he exposes evolutionary propaganda in its effort toward the “New World Order.”

More here.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Charles Darwin: Influences On the Man, His Science, And His Theory

Never a believer, he rejected the gospel Of Christ and chose evolution

By Robert E. Kofal, Ph.D.
http://www.creationscienceoc.org/Articles/CharlesDarwin.html

Copyright ã1996 by Robert E. Kofal

21st Century Creation Evangelisn

1322 E. Wilson Ave., Glendale, California (818)244-5289

e-mail address Truth4Free@aol.com
Introduction

The published research and books about Charles Darwin is sometimes referred to as the “Darwin Industry” because it is so immense. Unfortunately, almost all of Darwin’s biographers have been either secular people or religionists having little or no understanding of biblical Christian faith and its crucial differences from nominal Christianity and assorted theisms. As a result none of them has rightly understood the pertinent theological issues involved. As the standard story goes, Darwin as a Christian believer studied at a theological seminary to be a minister. But afterward, on his five-year trip around the globe on the Beagle he discovered evidence for evolution which led him subsequently to renounce his Christian faith in favor of evolution. This is not, in my opinion, the Charles Darwin of history.

We will see, from a study of the influences upon Darwin during his youth and his university training and of his correspondence, research notes and publications, that Charles never embraced or professed biblical Christian faith. In fact, it is clear that early on he was an opponent of evangelical Christianity. In addition to his family background, other important influences which, in the absence of divine grace, made the man, Charles Darwin, include the social, political, philosophical, religious and scientific conditions of the time, all of which were in ferment in early nineteenth century England. It will become apparent that Darwin was both a man of his time and a pioneer who had a hidden agenda for science.

The Darwin and Wedgwood Family Background

Charles Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin(1731-1802), was a prominent and wealthy English medical doctor. An author and poet, his most famous publication was the book, Zoo-nomia (Latin for “law of life”). In this book he proposed (1) the spontaneous (chance) origin of life and (2) the gradual evolution of original simple plants and animals into more complex ones. Religiously, he was a pantheist (believing that God is everything and everything is God).

Josiah Wedgwood 1 (1730-1795) was Erasmus Darwin’s closest friend. He founded the famous Wedgwood pottery industry and was a leader in the English industrial revolution Josiah’s favorite minister was a Unitarian (Unitarians believe there is one God but deny the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, they do not believe that Jesus is God). Thus the Wedgwood family was strongly influenced by Unitarian religious views. Wedgwood hired a Unitarian minister to teach in his school at Etruria where his pottery manufacturing plant was located. In this school Erasmus’s son Robert (Charles’s father) and also Charles’s mother, Susannah Wedgwood, were educated. It is easy to see why Unitarian theology spread through the Wedgwood and Darwin families and why the Darwin men were generally freethinkers.

Erasmus Darwin’s son, Robert Waring Darwin(l 766-1848), was also a successful and wealthy physician. He married Susannah Wedgwood (1765-1817). Thus the Darwin and Wedgwood families became intimately connected. The Darwin and Wedgwood men were generally freethinkers (They wanted to be free from the orthodox faith in the God of the Bible). Robert Waring Darwin was probably an atheist. However, he made sure that his family maintained public connections with the Church of England (Anglican Church). This was the century of the Victorian Era (Queen Victoria reigned from 1837 to 1901). In Victorian England professional men and other leaders of society generally protected their reputations for respectability by being members of or publicly associated with the Anglican Church. And that is what the Darwin family did, even though father Robert was really an unbeliever.

Robert told his son, Charles, that he knew scarcely any intelligent men who were orthodox Christian believers. He also said that religious faith resided mainly in the women, but that he knew a few of the more intelligent women who were skeptics (rejected the Bible faith). The father advised his son, Charles, that it was well for a husband to conceal his unorthodox be-liefs from his wife, because if he died first, she would suffer undue pain knowing that he died in unbelief.

A Brief Chronology of Charles Darwin’s Life

1809, Feb. 12 Birth

1825 Enters Edinburgh University.

1827 Leaves Edinburgh, his medical career aborted.

1828 Enters University of Cambridge to pursue divinity degree.

1831 Graduates from Cambridge with BA in divinity.

1831, Dec. 10 Voyage on the Beagle begins.

1836, Oct. 2 Voyage on the Beagle ends.

1837-1842 Darwin lives in London, writes his Notebooks, develops his theory while publishing reports and books on his Beagle voyage and building his scientific career.

1837, Sept. 20 His medical symptoms began to appear.

1842 Marries Emma Wedgwood.

1842 Writes a detailed sketch of his theory of evolution by descent with variation an natural selection.

1843 Moves with his wife to country home in Down.

1843-1858 Continues building his career, worrying about when to publish Origin.

1858 A 20-page paper on evolution by natural selection arrives from naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace.

1858-1859 Darwin does a crash writing of his Origin of Species for publication.

1859, Nov. 22 Origin of Species went on sale, an immediate, huge success.

1871 Darwin’s The Descent of Man published.

1876 His Autobiography written in which he repudiated Christianity, but only published post mortem.

1882, April 19 His death, to be entombed in Westminster Abbey!
Charles Darwin, the Social Person

Charles as a child, youth and young man was physically active, strong willed, a sports-man. He attended a boys academy where he imitated his peers. In an account of a family visit to the country he reported that at age 13 he “swore like a trooper.” While in the boys’ academy he practiced making other students indebted to himself by giving them thoughtfully chosen gifts. He successfully extended this social art into adult life, constantly enlarging his circle of people who so valued his friendship that they would be willing to help him. All of his associates regarded him as a very friendly and attractive personality. During his professional career he could and did call on his friends all over the world to help him in his research for his theories and books. After the publication of his controversial Origin of Species in 1859, Darwin adroitly let his friends defend him, his book and his theory, so that he could avoid involvement in public disputation. Through all the years he and his wife, Emma, with their children were a close-knit, loving family, as were all of both the Darwin and Wedgwood clans.

Father, Son and the Universities

Charles’ father envisioned for his son a career in medicine, and he sent him off with his older brother, Erasmus, to the University of Edinburgh in October, 1825, at the age of sixteen. This was the university open to religious Dissenters, Independents and freethinkers. It was a hotbed of anti-religious, social and political radicalism. Evolutionary theories were in the air and embraced by many. Young Darwin had read and admired his grandfather’s book in which a theory of evolution similar to Lamarck’s was described a decade before the French zoologist published his own more famous theory. Charles saw that the advocates of evolution were usually violently anti-Christian, politically radical, and opposed to the established Church and the conservative Tory government. This is one reason that he did not publish his theory until he was forced to when another naturalist, Alfred Russel Wallace, conceived the same theory.

At Edinburgh Charles came to hate medicine and grew in his devotion to natural history. His closest and most influential friend in Edinburgh was Robert Edmund Grant. Grant was an atheistic evolutionist and a leading authority in invertebrate zoology. Young Charles went on field trips with Grant, collecting marine specimens and absorbing the older man’s materialistic philosophy of science. Grant believed in the original spontaneous (chance) origin of life and the grand evolutionary history from single cells to man. Young Darwin listened and kept his own counsel. He learned a great deal about zoology, geology and other fields of science at Edinburgh, but he came to abhor medicine. He also took valuable instruction in such practical arts as taxidermy and the preservation of specimens. In April, 1827, he left Edinburgh without a degree and headed for home, forever turning his back on the medical profession.

What was a wealthy English father to do with a son who was devoted to horsemanship and the hunt, a dabbler in insects, geology and barnacles, and seemingly without direction or a future? He could send him to Cambridge to prepare for a tax-funded “living” as a minister in the Anglican Church! So Charles signed the required paper affirming acceptance of the 39 Articles of the Church of England and entered Christ’s College, Cambridge University. There Charles managed to cover the requirements for a degree in theology, but his real love was geology, entomology, botany and zoology. He became a protege of Adam Sedgwick, professor of geology, an orthodox Anglican opponent of evolution. Though studying for a theology degree, Charles devoted his major energy to geology and other sciences. Sedgwick took him on a geological field trip to the hill country of southern England. The Professor was impressed with the young man and predicted that he would make his mark in science. Charles learned how to make long-lasting friendships with men of science, such as Adam Sedgwick, who would help him in his career. He saw that among the university professors, many of them ordained clergy and all of them church members, virtually all devoted to their Christian faith, not a single one was committed to the traditional grammatical-historical-literal understanding of the Scriptures. They accommodated the Scriptures to fit the reigning secular scientific conclusions. Some even accepted theistic evolution (the idea that God somehow used evolution to accomplish His work of creation). Darwin observed that among the ostensibly theologically orthodox scientists on the university faculties, not one upheld the literal biblical doctrine of creation or the Genesis flood. For the plain meaning of Genesis many substituted the compromise idea of a series of special creations interleaved with a series of extinctions.

While at Cambridge Darwin also learned that if one engaged openly in political radicalism or exposed his belief in a materialistic form of evolution, his career could be endangered. Du ties by engaging in a riot against the school authorities. Charles observed from a distance was careful not to become implicated in the disorders. Furthermore, Darwin pretty much his liberal Whig political ideals and sympathy for social reform private within his family immediate social circle. He was careful never to make public his religious views, and he concealed his materialistic evolutionary ideas from public view until the publication of his book in 1859. In particular, he kept his idea of evolution from apes to humans under cover for over thirty years until the publication of his book. The Descent of Man, in 1871.

Charles read the required theology texts by Arch-deacon William Paley and others. On his own he read Paley’s classic book on natural theology, the argument for God based on the evidence for intelligent, purposeful design in the structures and relationships of living things. Impressed, he nevertheless devoted his entire professional career to the difficult task of over- throwing Paley’s case. As graduation drew nearer, confronted by the prospect of examination for ordination to the Anglican ministry, Charles read a standard text on theology. He concluded that he could give intellectual assent to the arguments for Christianity. Some time later, however, in a frank and intimate discussion with a fellow student, he agreed with his friend that he, too, could not affirm an inner calling to the Christian ministry. As biographers Desmond and Morris suggest, Darwin’s interactions with theology characteristically were limited to the intellectual level. He finally opted out of the ministerial gravy train. His father had co-operated by paying for his education, concerned not at all with his religion or irreligion. The son without question recognized the hypocrisy in an atheist father’s financing the fitting of his son for a career in the Church. It was merely a convenience arranged with a view to assuring a comfortable, government-sponsored career for the son.

Charles had read with great interest the books by Alexander von Humboldt, the famous German naturalist, and other naturalists who traveled to the far corners of the earth collecting new data for geology, zoology and other sciences. He yearned to follow their example and to experience for himself the spectacular green mysteries of the tropics. So his future after graduation was uncertain. He reasoned about the advantages of a “living” in the Church to en- able him to carry on with his scientific studies with tax funding as a country clergyman. Upon graduation he was looking for some opportunity to travel and do science. While planning with a friend for an overseas expedition, he was surprised by the arrival of an invitation from the British Admiralty. He had been chosen to serve as the official naturalist for the voyage around the world of the Royal Navy’s ship, the Beagle. After some negotiations with the government and with his father, Charles accepted. His appointment with destiny was sealed.

When he embarked on the Beagle Darwin had with him the first volume of Charles Lyell’s new three volume set. Principles of Geology, given to him by Captain FitzRoy. He devoured the book and within five months was sold on Lyell’s uniformitarian view of geology. It became the lynch pin of his interpretation of all geological and fossil observations. Lyell’s theory of earth history provided Darwin with the time needed to make any theory of evolution at all plausible. Lyell worked from the a priori assumption that the biblical young-earth chronology was false and that the Genesis flood never occurred. Lyell was determined completely to discredit the biblical record of earth history. This was his agenda for science. But he cannily refused publicly to espouse evolution until after Darwin’s Origin had conquered the scientific world. Then Lyell went public with his acceptance of evolutionary theory, after such a step no longer seemed dangerous to his reputation.

Charles Darwin’s Religious Beliefs: From Social Conformity to Confirmed Denial

Since Charles’ mother died when he was only eight years old, his three older sisters sup- plied most of the maternal influence as he grew up to manhood. Sincerely pious, they tried to guide him at least to a formal relationship to the Anglican Church. Being a male with an independent and freethinking streak, hemmed in by females, he put up with it for some years. Nevertheless, he did appreciate their concern for his spiritual welfare. With some sense of guilt, he finally followed in the steps of his dominant, skeptical and probably atheist father. The casual church attendance of his family was pretty much within the established Anglican Church. That this was not likely under evangelical ministers is suggested by the fact that in forty years of Charles’ correspondence, a considerable portion of it with family members, there was never a whisper of consciousness of the fierce theological ecclesiastical contest which was stirring the established Church. This was the struggle between the Evangelical party and the dominant High Church party (The Evangelicals emphasized preaching the Bible. The High Church party were close to Roman Catholicism and emphasized religious ceremony). Starting late in the previous century, evangelical believers in the Church began a concerted effort not only to evangelize all levels of English society, but also to move the entire Church toward biblical faith and theology by placing Evangelical ministers in the pulpits and on the councils of the Church. By mid-century almost half of the pulpits were filled by Evangelical pastors. It appears, however, that the Darwins had no particular interest in the theology of the Church and so the conflict meant little to them.

Sixty years of published correspondence contains no evidence that Charles Darwin ever embraced the biblical faith of Christ. From the time that Charles began courting Emma Wedg- wood the young couple became quite close and able to be frank with each other. Charles, ignoring the counsel of his father, revealed his lack of faith in God to Emma. This was always a cause of distress to her, even though her personal faith was not truly evangelical. She always protected his reputation, even after his death. A particularly poignant evidence of lack of evangelical Christian faith in either husband or wife is found in the family correspondence in 1851 when their beloved daughter, Annie, died at the age of nine. Emma Darwin was away helping another family member when Annie fell desperately ill. During some two weeks of her fatal illness the exchange of letters between Charles and Emma and with other family members contains numerous references to God, such as “God bless you,” or “I pray God.” However, In Charles’ and Emma’s letters there is absolutely no reference to any thought about life after death for little Annie, nor of ever seeing her again. Nor does any such thought appear in the three-page memorial which Charles wrote in memory of his daughter. The closest thing to this is in the closing paragraph of the memorial: “We have lost the joy of the Household, and the solace of our old age: she must have known how we loved her; oh that she could now know how deeply, how tenderly we do still & shall ever love her dear joyous face. Blessings on her.”

In her diary during the next year Emma Darwin recorded some of her daughter Henrietta’s reactions to her sister’s death. The little eight-year-old “Etta” told her mother of her concern about being good enough to go to heaven: “I am afraid of going to hell.” Emma wrote, “I told her that I thought Annie was safe in Heaven.” On another occasion Etty asked, “Do you think I have done anything wrong today?” Emma recorded: “We consulted a little over her prayers. I repeated ‘Suffer little children etc. It did not seem to be Pilgrims Progress as I had suspected which had alarmed her.” Etty asked, “Do you think you shall come to Heaven with me?” Em- ma responded: “Yes I hope so & we shall have Annie.” Six months later Etty said: “Mamma I used to be a very naughty girl when Annie was alive do you think God will forgive me. I used to be very unkind to Annie.” The important point of a Christian analysis here is not that Emma had no concept of an afterlife in heaven. Perhaps she did, although her responses to her little daughter may have been influenced by her desire to calm Etty’s fears. The important fact to observe is that nowhere is there any reference to the Lord Jesus as the Saviour, the One who can forgive sins. Her ideas and reactions accord with a pious Unitarian theology, not with biblical Christian faith.

Publicly Charles Darwin studiously avoided any statements about religion, never publicly expressing his religious views. Further, he never engaged in public controversy with those members of the clergy who criticized the anti-Christian implications of his theory. This he left to his scientific friends and associates. In later years, however, in correspondence with his intimate friends, he expressed his intense animosity against the clergy who rejected his theory and against those in the scientific community who criticized his ideas.

In his scientific notebooks Darwin clearly revealed his early antagonism toward the biblical Christian faith, in particular his rejection of the biblical view God and of man. His Note- books, published more than a century after his death, were written mostly in the years from 1837 to 1839. They constitute a kind of free-wheeling private brain storming. He was reading widely and constantly speculating, attempting to construct arguments for total evolution and to develop materialistic explanations for the origin and all attributes of every species, including man. In the Notebooks man is repeatedly treated as an animal species and a product of evolution from anthropoid apes, including mind, thoughts, belief in God, emotions, facial expressions, etc. Several times he expressed the idea of divine creation by natural law through natural processes. This fits into a type of Deism, but he actually meant not divine design, but random effects of natural law which could supposedly originate what looked like intelligent designs but were in fact the result of random chance. Darwin in his Notebooks makes thought a product of brain structure and writes, “…love of the deity effect of organization [i.e., brain structure], oh you Materialist!…Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter? It is our arrogance, it our admiration of ourselves.” Darwin asserts that a God who would perpetrate special creation of a species is “cramped” and that it would be “beneath the dignity of him” and “bad taste.” He thus presumes to fashion a God after his own taste. His espousal of materialism incorporated the rejection of free will, which he equated with chance.

In this period Darwin discovered the writings ofAuguste LeCornte, a French philosopher who advocated a positivist philosophy for science. Positivism is grounded in the assumption that the only true knowledge, the only reality, is what can be observed with the natural senses in the natural, the physical universe. No causes other than such natural, materialistic causes exist. Positivism is, therefore, a restatement of the philosophy of pure Materialism. Darwin was entranced with LeCornte and made his Positivism the philosophical base of his science. The logical connection with atheism is obvious, or with a Deism that postulates God as a cosmic wimp. Darwin in his 1876 Autobiography desired to be considered an agnostic, but he continually drifted toward all-out atheism until his death. From the Christian biblical perspective, of course, the distinction is unimportant. Darwin denied to God any responsibility or control over the world and, thus, over Charles Darwin. One thing that seems quite clear is that he never embraced the gospel of the grace of God in Christ through His substitutionary atonement.

In his Autobiography written in 1876 but not published until after his death, Darwin wrote about his religious beliefs. His rejection of biblical Christian faith was stated in such gross terms that his wife required that the following words be edited out:

…I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.

But Darwin knew all of his life that the gospel teaches that all who remain outside of Christ are lost. In all of his published books and correspondence there is no evidence that he or any of his extended family actually embraced the gospel of grace. And the above quotation from his Autobiography shows us that six years before his death in 1882 he recorded his final rejection of Jesus Christ. The widely circulated story of his alleged conversion six months before his death finds no support in any of his publications or correspondence to the close of his life.

Darwin’s Developing Theory As Revealed In His Notebooks

Darwin’s first recorded espousal of evolution appears in the Red Notebook about March, 1837, only three or four months after his debarking from the Beagle. Early in Notebook A(8/l 837-9/1839) he speculated on evolution of animal species. Throughout Notebook B(8/l 837-I/I 838) he made many dogmatic assertions about evolution. At least ten times in this notebook he treated man as just another evolved animal. On page 169 he wrote, “…monkeys make men.” He sometimes referred to God as “Creator,” but attempted to man- date how God had to create. He was still of mixed opinions, but his mind was drawn magnetically toward materialistic evolution. In Notebook 0(3/1838-7/1839) at least twelve times he treated man as an evolved animal species. In this Notebook Darwin recognizes the apparent absurdity of the spontaneous origin of design, but he reasons with himself on how to over- come the logical difficulty. In Notebook D (7-10/1838) he three times treats man as another evolved animal, as he also does in Notebook E(10/l 838-7/1839). The point of these facts and their placement in time is that Darwin’s thinking had to have roots going back some years before he actually wrote anything about evolution. We have seen that his two years in Edinburgh immersed young Darwin in a radical intellectual atmosphere in which evolutionary speculations were popular. Even in orthodox Cambridge University he observed that both the Anglican Church and the University were well along the road to compromising Christianity with some form of evolutionism. Thus it is not unlikely that his active mind harbored the beginnings of an agenda and a philosophical base even before he boarded the Beagle.

Darwin’s Duplicity and Opportunism

We have already seen how Darwin was willing to sign on to the 39 Articles of the Church England as an orthodox believer in order to gain entrance into Cambridge University. Thus he cooperated with his atheist father’s “plan B” for financing his education to be an Anglican minister to qualify him for a government guaranteed income for life. Just months after his graduation he was on board the Beagle serving as the official naturalist, but also as the gentleman associate of very orthodox Captain Robert FitzRoy. FitzRoy could tolerate no slightest breach of orthodox Christian theology, and Charles was his companion at the captain’s mess for some five years. The two men got on famously, and this could be possible only if Charles openly adopted the stance of a biblical literalist which he was not. The idea that he could have in a mere six months changed from a biblical literalist to a confirmed believer in evolution, including the animal ancestry of man, is beyond belief. His social skills were a key to much of his accomplishment, and he applied them on board the Beagle. For Captain FitzRoy he was a biblical literalist, but once off the ship and on the soil of England, Charles was free from the biblical opinions of the captain. He no longer had to mouth the words of a biblical literalist. But he was still a slave to orthodox opinion in British society, so he studiously avoided public discussion of his radical theories about evolution.

For a few years following his voyage, Darwin was very busy writing several books reporting his observations and experiences and arranging for the proper classification and display of his specimens. It was necessary for him to gain the assistance of a number of scientists expert in various scientific disciplines. Here his network of friends became of inestimable value. He was also rising in stature in the scientific community. During this period his social life revolved around family, several scientific and literary societies, and gatherings with a set of chique intellectuals who were enthralled by evolutionary thought and impressed also with the anti-biblical Higher Criticism coming out of German universities. He needed to be accepted and active in several prestigious scientific societies. But these were in general dominated by and presided over by scientists who were professing orthodox Christians and who rejected evolutionary speculations. Prof. Adam Sedgwick, his mentor at Cambridge, was foremost among these, and he worked successfully to advance Charles in scientific circles. But at the same time Charles was accepting Sedgwick’s help, he was building his anti-Christian theory which he knew Sedgwick would abhor. He must assiduously conceal from Sedgwick and from the public his true ambition, his real goals. In other words, Darwin was using people who unknowingly were promoting what they despised.

Dying to talk with other scientists about his dream of explaining evolutionary process, Charles waited a few years before he ventured discreetly to open the subject with one of his closer scientific associates. It was the young botanist, Joseph Dalton Hooker. Hooker reacted in a cautious, non-committal manner, and Darwin proceeded carefully and patiently to persuade him toward acceptance of evolution. But for many years he hid his project from such men as Adam Sedgwick. In his Notebook M, around August, 1838, he laid down a verbal tactic for concealing his commitment to materialism: “To avoid staling how far, I believe, in Materialism, say only that emotions, instincts degrees of talent, which are hereditary are so because brain of child resemble, parent stock.” Perhaps it is significant that during this period of great stress involving very hard work promoting his career, while hiding his true views from influential people on whom his career depended, he experienced his first severe headaches and digestive problems. For over four decades to the end of his life these and other debilitating symptoms caused him much suffering.

The information from Darwin’s Notebooks reveals that by 1839 he was thoroughly committed to a total materialistic evolution from microbe to man. In 1842 he wrote a detailed exposition of his theory of evolution. Yet he did not publish his theory until forced to in 1859. Nor did he publish his theory of human evolution from anthropoid apes until 1871. He was driven by zeal for his theory and for the goals which he expected to achieve with it, as well as by personal ambition, the desire to be the scientist who explained evolutionary process. Above all things he feared being rejected by his peers in the scientific community, but also he feared for decades the consequences of public exposure of the anti-Christian implications of his theory. To deal with these fears and escape the dire results to his career and reputation which they threatened, Charles Darwin became a consummate practitioner of the twin arts of duplicity and manipulation.
The Publication of The Origin of Species

In the publication of his Origin, and his later books, Charles Darwin combined all of the influences which had united during his life to make Darwin the man. His Notebooks penned in mostly in 1837-1839 and his preliminary exposition of 1842 contained the seeds of all of his later work. In this writer’s opinion the prime motivation for all that Darwin did was his animosity toward the biblical gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ, the crucified, buried and risen Saviour who is Lord over all His creation. In the Origin he refers to and specifically argues against creation and the biblical God of creation at least 35 times. In these and a half dozen or so additional places he uses essentially theological argumentation grounded in his personal anti-biblical opinions of what God ought or ought not to do or be. And it is significant that his arguments against Christianity in his Autobiography have been standards for atheists and skeptics for centuries. His early embrace of LeComte’s materialistic philosophy known as positivism controlled his science and therefore his entire career and life.

Through the years prior to the publication of the Origin Darwin assembled a cadry of close friends and associates whose unorthodox religious and philosophical views substantially harmonized with his own. Notable among these were Thomas Huxley, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker. With these men Darwin confided his developing theory, while concealing it from his original orthodox benefactors such as Adam Sedgwick. With the publication of the Origin, a storm of criticism and controversy burst into the public consciousness. Sedgwick and many others broke openly with him, but his radical associates rallied to his support and launched an all-out campaign to dominate and revolutionize British science. It was their intention to use Darwinism as the means for the radical reform of science and of society. The more zealous of them aimed to remove Christian believers from places of leadership in the scientific community. More than this, they would have all Christian believers driven out of the scientific enterprise. They were themselves all men who had jettisoned confidence in the veracity of the Bible as divinely revealed truth. Darwin’s “Bulldog,” Thomas Henry Huxley, was virulent in his animosity toward the Church. When the reactions to the Origin began, Huxley promised to deal harshly with especially the ecclesiastical critics, and that he was sharpening his “beak and claws,” ready to disembowel “the curs which will bark and yelp.” Darwin was always conveniently “too ill” to engage personally in the public disputation, but he from time to time prodded his partisan troops from the safety of his home in rural Downe.

Is it not significant that during the fifteen hectic months of the crash writing of the Origin Darwin suffered intensely from his chronic illness? He experienced severe vomiting and dizziness, and during that period he only rarely could write for twenty minutes without experiencing stomach pains. On October 2nd he began two months of treatment at the spa in Ilkley while his book was being printed. Ten days before the proofs for his book were bound he de- scribed his condition to J.D. Hooker in a letter: “I have been very bad lately; having had an awful ‘crisis’ one leg swelled like elephantiasis–eyes almost closed up–covered with a rash & fiery Boils…it was like living in Hell.” Was God trying to tell him something? Was he being warned of the payoff for serving Satan? Perhaps. It is certainly evidence of his intense commitment to his agenda, of his motivation, and the force of his iron will set against the God of creation. Was he empowered by demons?

Conclusion: the Triumph of Darwin’s Hidden Agenda for Science

Charles Darwin was never a Christian. The influences which made him what he became– family, religious, educational, social–combined to turn him against biblical Christian faith and to open his mind to the secular materialistic understanding of the world. Brought up as a gentleman of the well-to-do upper middle class, trained to value reputation and respectability, naturally a likable person with an innate ability for making friends, and possessed of a keen mind and natural curiosity, Charles had the attributes needed for success in the scientific establishment of 19th century England. Naturally bent toward skepticism by two generations of family practice and belief, and for the most part experiencing only the formal religiosity of a degenerating Anglican Church, he was repelled by the gospel of Christ. The principal counter- influence was that of his pious sisters and later on his wife, but these sincere women apparently did not comprehend the biblical faith. Young Darwin with his college diploma realized that to argue against the gospel required the discrediting of the God of creation who is sovereign Lord over all His creatures. Aware of the force of the evidence for an intelligent, purposeful God to be found in the complex designs of living things, Darwin had to find another explanation for those designs. Evolution was the means for disposing of the evidence and for making the God of creation either non-existent or an irrelevant cosmic wimp in the “real world” that science investigates.

Charles Darwin’s hidden agenda for science, pure and simple, was to drive from the thinking of all scientists any conception of divine special creation, divine intervention in the world, or divine purpose, plan or goal in the universe. He and his associates desired to expel from science anybody who believed in a God who had any power or influence in the natural world. Their chief enemy was the biblical Christian God of Creation and Redemption. They believed and his followers today continue to believe and teach that the definition of science requires all scientists to believe that everything in the universe can be explained without God. Darwin’s theory of evolution has had its ups and downs and is to this day subjected to much criticism, even in some secular scientific circles. But his hidden agenda for science has achieved global success. The positivist, atheistic definition of science today reigns supreme, taught by every secular university and most church related universities. It is the standard of judgment for all of the professional science journals and is promoted officially by the National Academy of Sciences in America and by other such institutions around the world.

This false definition of science wrongly transforms science and science education into a powerful automatic weapon against Christian faith and against Christians who wish to partici- pate in any field of science or other scholarly endeavor. Furthermore, modern science usurped by ungodly scientists and philosophers has given us today’s meaningless universe and fuels the nihilism of the modern savages who are threatening to incinerate our society. As long as our Lord Jesus Christ delays His return, it is up to Christians to counterattack for the glory of God.

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Psalm 11:3)

So long as the Lord Jesus delays His return in glory, the only right response to this question is, “Labor with the help of God to rebuild the foundations for the honor and glory of His Son and our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. (2 Timothy 4:3)

Testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. (Acts 20:21)

Bibliography

Paul H. Barrett, et al., Charles Darwin’s Notebooks, 1836-1844 (Cornell University Press, lthaca,N.Y 1987).

lan Bradley, The Call to SeriousnessThe Evangelical Impact of the Victorians (Jonathan Cape Ltd., London, 1976).

Frederick Burkhardt and Sydney Smith, Editors, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volumes 1-8, 1821-1860 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985-1993).

Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, with original omissions restored, edited by his grand-daughter, Nora Barlow (Collins, St. Place, London, 1958).

Adrian Desmond and James Moore, DarwinThe Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (Warner Books, New York, 1991).

—————————————————————————————————————————————

This passage reportedly from Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, as quoted in John Daniel’s book Scarlet and the Beast Volume II, discusses the Darwin-Masonic connection:

Before coming to Derby in 1788, Dr. [Erasmus] Darwin had been made a Mason in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland. Sir Francis Darwin, one of the Doctor’s sons, was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge, No. 253, at Derby, in 1807 or 1808. His son Reginald was made a Mason in Tyrian Lodge in 1804. The name of Charles Darwin does not appear on the rolls of the Lodge but it is very possible that he, like Francis, was a Mason.

Link to download .pdf here.

Sir Francis Galton – Father of Eugenics, cousin of Darwin decided to experiment on twins just as Nazi Joseph Mengele experimented on three thousand sets of twins at Auschwitz-Birkenau. We can safely say that Joseph Mengele was just following and continuing the work of his fellow brother and father of Eugenics – Sir Francis Galton.
http://www.webspawner.com/users/luciferslodge/freemasonfather.html

http://www.webspawner.com/users/luciferslodge/ivyleagueeugeni.html
It is interesting to note that Sir Francis Galton was a Freemason. Here’s the proof:

Francis Galton was initiated into Freemasonry on February 5, 1844, into the Scientific Lodge No. 105 of the Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons, held at the Red Lion Hotel, Cambridge, and on March 12, 1845, he was registered on the books of the Grand Lodge, London.

“Darwin’s grandfather Erasmus Darwin himself was initiated at the St David’s Lodge No 36, Edinburgh in 1754 at a time when Edinburgh was a center for enlightenment and medical knowledge. He was also a member of the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge No 2.”
http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/public/index-09.php

Charles Darwin obviously embellished grandfather Erasmus Darwin’s book ‘Zoonomia’ when he wrote his infamous book of eugenics: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

As we can see the Darwins where busy at work, first in the Masonic lodge laying the foundations for the ‘theory of evolution’
That’s a fact!
It is also possible that Charles Darwin was a freemason, as suggested by the freemasons themselves!
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/darwin_e/darwin_e.html

As requested, here is T.H. Huxley confirming that he is a freemason in his own writings!!!
http://www.webspawner.com/users/luciferslodge/thhuxleydarwins.html

—————————————————————————————————————————————

http://www.religionofdarwinism.com/erasmus.html

—————————————————————————————————————————————

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Nazi eugenics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics

Nazi eugenics were Nazi Germany’s racially-based social policies that placed the improvement of the Aryan race through eugenics at the center of their concerns. Those humans were targeted that they identified as “life unworthy of life” (German: Lebensunwertes Leben), including but not limited to the criminal, degenerate, dissident, feeble-minded, homosexual, idle, insane and the weak, for elimination from the chain of heredity. More than 400,000 people were sterilized against their will, while 70,000 were killed in the Action T4.[1]

Hitler’s views on eugenics

Adolf Hitler read racial hygiene tracts during his imprisonment in Landsberg Prison. He thought that Germany could only become strong again if the state applied to German society the principles of racial hygiene and eugenics.

Hitler believed the nation had become weak, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream.[citation needed] These had to be removed quickly. He also believed that the strong and the racially pure had to be encouraged to have more children, and the weak and the racially impure had to be neutralized by one means or another.

The racialism and idea of competition, termed social Darwinism or neo-Darwinism in 1944, were discussed by European scientists and also in the Vienna press during the 1920s. Where Hitler picked up the ideas is uncertain. The theory of evolution had been generally accepted in Germany at the time but this sort of extremism was rare.[2] In 1876, Ernst Haeckel had discussed the selective infanticide policy of the Greek city of ancient Sparta.[3]

In his Second Book, which was unpublished during the Nazi era, Hitler praised Sparta, adding that he considered Sparta to be the first “Völkisch State”. He endorsed what he perceived to be an early eugenics treatment of deformed children:

Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.[4][5]

Nazi eugenics program

The Nazis based their eugenics program on the United States’ programs of forced sterilization, especially on the eugenics laws that had been enacted in California.[6]

The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, proclaimed on July 14, 1933, required physicians to register every case of hereditary illness known to them, except in women over forty-five years of age.[7] Physicians could be fined for failing to comply.

In 1934 the first year of the Law’s operation, nearly 4,000 people appealed against the decisions of sterilization authorities. 3,559 of the appeals failed. By the end of the Nazi regime, over 200 Hereditary Health Courts (Erbgesundheitsgerichte) were created, and under their rulings over 400,000 people were sterilized against their will.[8]
[edit]

Nazi eugenics institutions

The Hadamar Clinic was a mental hospital in the German town of Hadamar, which was used by the Nazi-controlled German government as the site of their T-4 Euthanasia Program. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927.

In its early years, and during the Nazi era, it was strongly associated with theories of eugenics and racial hygiene advocated by its leading theorists Fritz Lenz and Eugen Fischer, and by its director Otmar von Verschuer. Under Fischer, the sterilization of so-called Rhineland Bastards was undertaken. Grafeneck Castle was one of Nazi Germany’s killing centers during the Euthanasia, today it is a memorial place dedicated to the victims of the Action T4.

Nazi eugenics policies regarding marriage

Nazi Germany had strict marriage laws in which marriage partners had to be tested for any hereditary diseases. Everyone was encouraged to carefully evaluate their prospective marriage partners eugenically during courtship. Members of the SS were cautioned to carefully interview prospective marriage partners to make sure they had no family history of hereditary disease or insanity, but to do this carefully so as not to hurt the feelings of the prospective fiance and, if it became necessary to reject her for eugenic reasons, to do it tactfully and not cause her any offense.[9]

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5


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

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers

%d bloggers like this: