The Anti-Humanity of Darwin's Theory
The Anti-Humanity of Darwin's Theory
A Sikkimese woman carries a British merchant on her back in West Bengal, 1903.
In my experience, many students of biology,
including professors and textbook authors,
have been so enthralled by the arguments for evolution
that they have not even questioned them. They preached it...
High standards of education and training have been lost.
Propaganda and the desire for power replaced
the desire for knowledge. Education has become a fraud.
George Kokan
There are two very important subjects in the school curriculum: history and biology. Both of them are about a person. What is a person, what does he consist of, how is he structured? What is the history of humanity? And here are the basics of the school curriculum: Man evolved from an animal ancestor through natural selection in the fight against creatures similar to himself. The two most important postulates of Darwinism become the basis of the worldview of children, who, as a rule, still know little about the world, about nature, and about themselves.
Those interested in the current state of science know that scientists have already refuted the basic provisions of the theory of evolution many times: they have shown the impossibility of the development of species from mutations and the absence of transitional stages between different species. University of Oregon professor John Wolfgang Smith states:
“We are dogmatically told that evolution is an established fact; but we have never been told who established it and in what ways... It can be said with the utmost severity that this doctrine is completely devoid of scientific confirmation"[1].
The famous Scandinavian researcher Soren Lovetrap characterized the theory of evolution as “the greatest deception in the history of science” [2].
But the problem of Charles Darwin’s theory in school education is not only a problem of anti-science, it is also a problem of anti-humanity.
Before the theory of the origin of one species from another, people knew that everything has its own essence. Plato and Aristotle also noticed that each phenomenon has its own distinctive features. And man, thus, also has his own human essence, precisely human, not a cow, not a chicken, not a monkey. Body structure, physiology, brain, and finally, spiritual traits. And in a certain sense, what is truly human in a person is not only the mind, consciousness, and will. This is also his body, the “temple of the soul.” But what is one to do with this heavy burden? After all, awareness of one’s humanity imposes on people the obligation not just to exist, but to exist as meaningfully as possible, to look for moral guidelines and bring them to life. And at the same time, it is not always possible to know for sure what the soul is and how, in fact, to achieve true happiness.
Alexander Sergeevich Khomenkov
So people tormented by these questions receive an unexpected and quick answer. It's simple. Man is highly organized matter, a cunning animal that was best at destroying its own kind and ultimately developed its arms, legs, back, and brain to the maximum. What a relief! The riddle of man is almost solved. This would mean, most likely, there is no special human destiny, no immortal soul and no eternal problem of choosing between good and evil. Modern biologist A.S. Khomenkov discusses the influence of the theory of evolution on the consciousness and subconscious of students:
“Against the background of such a 'natural science' explanation, further thoughts about any spiritual problems become meaningless. These problems will be associated in the consciousness (even more likely in the unconscious depths) of the student with something 'unreal,' secondary, derived from more fundamental physical and chemical laws, where no moral problems exist” [3].
Uri Andres noted the influence of Darwin's theory on the worldview of the infamous philosopher Nietzsche:
“The theory of evolution also made a strong impression on Nietzsche. Darwin's discovery, which showed that the evolution of plants, animals and humans is a natural process, free from any metaphysical influences and any external forces directing the process, inspired the philosopher. In Darwinism, Nietzsche saw confirmation that nature has no purpose, no morality, no mercy."[4]
Charles Darwin himself consistently pursues the idea of the need for a constant struggle for destruction, due to the fact that all living beings multiply in geometric progression.
“The struggle for existence,” he notes, “necessarily follows from the great speed with which all organic beings tend to increase their numbers. Every creature... must be destroyed at some age of its life, at some time of the year, or, finally, in certain years; otherwise, by virtue of the principle of increasing in geometric progression, its numbers would quickly reach such enormous proportions that no country could could accommodate his offspring."[5]
Further, Charles Darwin, contrary to most phenomena observed in nature, declares that
“the struggle will almost invariably be most fierce between individuals of the same species, since they live in the same area, need the same food, and are exposed to the same dangers.”[6]
According to the theory of evolution, a human-like animal had to destroy another human-like animal in order to finally acquire, in this struggle, its own human form. This is where the anti-humanity of the theory lies. Darwin, in fact, cannot explain where and how the mind and soul appear in a person. And do they, by and large, have a place in his theory? Wise nature, according to Darwin, pitting representatives of the same species against each other, leaves the strongest to survive, and thus improves. According to Darwin's theory, "every organic being... is forced to struggle for life and suffer considerable extermination." According to this scientist, consolation should be sought only in the fact that “collisions in nature have their breaks, that no fear is experienced, that death usually strikes quickly, and that the strong, healthy, and happy survive and multiply.”[7]
However, when man learned to deal with nature himself in a certain sense, his pity for it began to spoil the work of improvement. Man “does not allow the most energetic males to fight for the female” and “does not subject all unsatisfactory animals to merciless extermination, but on the contrary, protects, as far as is in his power, all his productions throughout all seasons.” That is, unlike wild nature, which is improved through intraspecific struggle, nature under the influence of man does not develop due to the fact that he does not destroy all “unsatisfactory” individuals. [8]
It's a little more complicated with the person himself. Here Darwin hints that for the future improvement of man, getting rid of the weaker would be the right way, but for the present it looks inhumane. Here is his reasoning:
“A surgeon can drown out compassion in himself during an operation, realizing that he is acting for the benefit of the patient, but if we deliberately left the weak and helpless without attention, we would do this only in view of the good that could come from here in the future, bought at the price of a great and true evil in the present. Therefore, we must endure without complaint the undoubtedly harmful consequences of the experience and reproduction of the weak.”[9]
Sri Aurobindo
But this does not mean that in the future the history of mankind should not turn into a constant struggle for “a place in the sun.” The scientist never said that evolution had stopped.
“Evolution is not complete; reason is not the last word of Nature, and the thinking animal is not its highest creation. Just as man once emerged from an animal, so now a superman emerges from a man,” argued the Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo[10].
This means that one day a new person must come, more perfect, at an even higher stage of evolution, and such a person will be formed as a result of a “fierce struggle.” Actually, this is precisely the conclusion that Charles Darwin comes to:
“Man, like every other animal, has evidently risen to his present high level by the struggle for existence resulting from his rapid reproduction: if he is to advance still further, he must remain under the influence of a fierce struggle.”[11]
Thus, the cult of violence follows from the theory of natural selection. It was the theory of natural selection that A. Hitler followed when he made his forecast for the future:
“A strong race will supplant a weak one... Humanity acquired greatness in an eternal struggle and can only be destroyed by an eternal peace.”[12]
The English scientist Malcolm Bowden rightly notes:
“The evolutionary basis of Nietzsche’s theories of the superman is well known, and their practical application by Hitler in realizing the plan of a 'master race' is also known. The chilling consequences of bringing evolutionary theory to its logical conclusion — that is, the destruction of 'weak' races — were realized in the horrors of the concentration camps: Belsen, Auschwitz, and others” [13].
Malcolm Bowden
Human nature, then, seems to be only temporarily too weak to suppress the “instinct of participation,” and thereby justifies and explains what unlearned people call mercy and compassion. Recognizing the temporary inevitability of the preservation of weak human individuals, Darwin, however, notes that man is stupider than nature, which regularly exterminated everything imperfect. Continuing similar reasoning, he writes:
“How fleeting are the desires and efforts of man! How short are his days! And, therefore, how pitiful its results are in comparison with those that Nature has accumulated over entire geological periods! Can we then be surprised that the works of Nature are distinguished by more 'correct' features compared to the works of man; that they are immeasurably better adapted to the infinitely complex conditions of life and clearly bear the stamp of higher skill?” [14]
What kind of high mastery of nature is this? It consists not only in the fact that stronger individuals destroy the weaker ones, and more perfect ones destroy the less perfect ones, but also in the fact that similar ones destroy those who are not similar and not themselves. Charles Darwin argues:
“And one should not think that the destruction from time to time of an animal that is colored in a special way would lead to insignificant consequences; let us remember how important it is to destroy a lamb with traces of black coloring in a flock of white sheep. We have seen how the color of pigs feeding on dye root in Virginia determines whether they survive or die out." .[15]
V.E. Baghdasaryan
As for man, in Darwin’s theory he, of course, is no exception either. The very title of one of his main works is eloquent — “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, London, 1859).[16] Charles Darwin, in particular, argues:
“Can races or species of people — no matter what name we choose — suppress and supplant each other, so that some eventually become extinct? We will see that all these questions, as is quite obvious in most cases, must receive an affirmative answer, in the same sense as for lower animals.”[17].
According to Darwin's theory, there are savage, primitive, superior, and even “greatest” races.[18] Accordingly, the outcome of their struggle will be predetermined:
“In the near future, perhaps within a few hundred years, civilized races will completely supplant or destroy all the barbarian races in the world,” the scientist predicts.[19]
Doctor of Historical Sciences V.E. Baghdasaryan states:
“Charles Darwin himself was without reservation a convinced racist. His theory of natural selection built not only an evolutionary hierarchy of species, but also a hierarchy of races. The book 'The Descent of Man and Sexual Selection' leaves no doubt on this score.”[20]
Following the logic of social Darwinism, while nature has not yet endowed people with the necessary composure to continue the fierce intraspecific struggle, it is still possible to follow natural selection at least through “correct” reproduction, that is, the reproduction of the most perfect individuals and the termination of the offspring of all inappropriate ones. This is how another wonderful “science” appeared - eugenics, and its founder was none other than Darwin’s cousin - Francis Galton.
Galton argued that a person's abilities are determined at birth and depend on what abilities the child's mother and father had. Consequently, with the correct selection of parental pairs, high intelligence can be transformed from an accidental quality into a permanent one. He justified the need for selection by the fact that civilization places ever higher demands on people's mental abilities, while in reality human nature is degenerating. Galton's idea was to create a better gene pool by interfering with the process of "crossbreeding" people. He also came up with criteria for comparing the natural abilities of different races, for example, “Niger” and Anglo-Saxon, and came to the conclusion about the undeniable innate superiority of white Anglo-Saxons over black Africans.[21] Darwin praised Galton's work. He wrote, in particular:
“I am inclined to agree with the opinion of Francis Galton that training and environment have but a slight influence on the mind of any person and that most of our qualities are innate.”[22]
Scientific theories, as in the case of the racial struggle, were followed by quite “scientific” practices. In Sweden, between 1935 and 1975, 60,000 sterilizations were performed on “feeble-minded” and “asocial” individuals.[23] In 1998, Maia Rucis's doctoral dissertation was published. In the secret archives of the Swedish Medical Administration, the researcher found documents indicating, for example, how in the suburbs of Gothenburg, in a school for difficult teenagers, all graduating students were sterilized in connection with graduation.[24]
From 1907 to 1920, fifteen additional states in America passed “statutes” authorizing or mandating the sterilization of the mentally retarded and certain categories of criminals. Until 1920, there were 3,233 cases of forced sterilization in America, often targeting so-called “moral criminals”.[25] In Virginia, representatives of the indigenous population who could not confirm their presence in the state before the arrival of the colonists, were castrated. Also, laws on forced sterilization were in force in Japan, Austria, and Switzerland.[26]
But most of all, of course, A. Hitler succeeded in this “scientific” practice, who argued:
“The sacred right of man, which is at the same time his sacred duty, is the preservation of the purity of blood, so that the creation of a better man may make possible the noble development of this being.”[27]
Modern researcher Yu.V. Hen provides the following information:
“The overall result of racial hygiene measures in Germany is as follows: from 300,000 to 400,000 people were forcibly sterilized under the 1934 law, many of them for racist reasons. About 100,000 psychiatric patients were shot or gassed as part of the so-called “T4 action” (euthanasia of the disabled), including thousands of children. After the official end of the action in 1942, until the end of the war, another 120,000 patients were starved to death because they, as “low-value” lives, were denied food.[28]
This is some kind of contradictory upbringing at school! The child knows that in nature, which has arranged everything so intelligently, it would be right to destroy a weaker or imperfect creature. Poor children are taught this kind of biology, and at the same time they are told that they should be kind, caring, and not even offend an overweight classmate, despite the fact that he looks “different”.
The situation with history is no less strange. Condemning Nazism, racism, and other manifestations of “natural selection,” children do not seem to know where these phenomena of inhumanity “come from.” American scientist Henry Morris rightly notes:
“In fact, although every schoolchild is aware of the evil that Hitler and his National Socialism brought to the world, children are not taught at all that the basis of all this is evolutionary theory. Such an obvious attempt to hide the truth is, in fact, nothing more than a rewriting of history."[29]
The danger of Charles Darwin's pseudoscientific and anti-human theory for the education and training of the younger generation should be obvious. So why does the evolutionary paradigm still remain in school textbooks as one of the main ideological postulates?
[1] Khomenkov A.S. Evolutionary myth and modern science // https://www.portal-slovo.ru/impressionism/36163.php
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Andres Uri. Darwinism, Nietzsche, Hitler and the Holocaust // http://www.berkovich-zametki.com/2016/Zametki/Nomer5_6/Andres1.php
[5] Darwin Ch. On the origin of species through natural selection // https://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Philos/darv_proish/03.php
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[10] Sri Aurobindo. Collected works. St. Petersburg, 2010. P. 13.
[11] Clark Gregory. Malthus and Darwin: survival of the rich // https://history.wikireading.ru/327175
[12] Hitler, A. Mein Kampf. London, 1969, p. 122, 124.
[14] Darwin Ch. On the origin of species through natural selection // https://www.gumer.info/bogoslov_Buks/Philos/darv_proish/04.php
[15] Ibid.
[16] On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London, 1859 // https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0015
[17] Darwin Ch. The origin of man and sexual selection // http://filosof.historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000882/st003.shtml
[18] Ibid.
[19] Bagdasaryan V. Darwinism and racism // http://vbagdasaryan.ru/darvinizm-i-rasizm/
[20] Ibid.
[21] Hen Yu.V. Eugenics: founders and successors // http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/PAPERS/MEN/EUGENICS.HTM
[22] Ibid.
[23] https://ru-history.livejournal.com/2624948.html
[24] https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2103&artikel=6391182
[25] Hen Y.V. Eugenics: founders and successors // http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/PAPERS/MEN/EUGENICS.HTM
[26] Eugenics: the horrors of Western civilization // https://www.kramola.info/vesti/novosti/evgenika-uzhasy-zapadnoy-civilizacii
[27] Heng Yu.V. Eugenics: founders and successors // http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/PAPERS/MEN/EUGENICS.HTM
[28] Ibid.
Comments
Post a Comment