4. Without God, Darwinian man has no higher authority than himself to establish moral values and concepts. He is answerable only to himself, which means he is really answerable to no one! Man becomes his own "God," thinking he can establish all moral norms, or change them to suit his whim. Effectively, no genuine morality remains.

5. If science is assumed to have proven Darwinian evolution true, then belief that God created man is irrational mythology. But this is circular reasoning, since Darwinism adopts philosophical naturalism. That is, it presupposes what it aims to prove, namely that no God exists to create and influence the natural world and living things, and that all of nature must be explained by merely natural, not supernatural, phenomena. Blind material evolution is accepted as a necessity, because there are no powers above nature to explain life and its forms. On the contrary, if God does exist, then God can create and direct and influence all living things and natural processes, and science no longer can be expected to explain all things. 

Dr Colin Brown who researched nineteenth-century theology stated that "By far the most potent single factor to undermine belief in the existence of God in modern times is the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin" (Ankerberg, 1998b).

Below are a couple of examples of how the theory of evolution can be so universally accepted that it begins to affect laws concerned with teaching about creation and the freedom to think differently:-

National Academy of Sciences:- "Teaching creation Science would be contrary to the Nation's need for a scientifically literate citizenry and for a large, well-informed pool of Scientific and technical personnel ..... Special Creation is neither a successful theory nor a testable hypothesis for the origin of the universe, the earth, or life thereon (The National Centre for Science Education)".

The National Committee for Public Education and religious liberties:- "Teaching Creationism is impermissible as a matter of law, either in lieu of scientific evolution or as a companion theory (The National Centre for Science Education)".

More interesting quotes related to the above are are on the Anti-Creation page 

To top

Darwin and Hitler

Galton and Ploetz as a link between Darwin and Hitler, by Andrew Sibley, author of 'Restoring the Ethics of Creation' (picture left)

Introduction

Darwinists often claim that there is no link of importance between Hitler’s fascism and Darwinism, but claim instead that Hitler’s fascism was motivated by time spent in Catholic Vienna, and by the influence of Luther on German thought. However, the evidence does reveal a link from Darwin to Hitler, especially through Darwin ’s cousin Francis Galton and the German eugenicist Alfred Ploetz.  

Hitler used religious language in Mein Kampf (my struggle) where Hitler claims for instance that he is acting within the will of the ‘Almighty Creator.’ [i] Although such use is different to that understood by orthodox Christianity. Hitler skillfully used Christian language to blind so many to his very un-Christian cause and together with a group called The German Christians (Deutsche Christen) forced protestant Christians into the unified, politically controlled Protestant Reich Church . However, a number of German protestant scholars were not taken in by the rhetoric and actions of Hitler. For instance Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Miemoller and Karl Barth and others of the Confessing Church (Bekennende Kirche) signed the Barmen Declaration, in 1934and rejected Hitler’s fascism and the compromise of the Protestant Reich Church . It became increasingly apparent that Hitler in fact hated Christianity, claiming that he wished to abolish it:-

‘I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later—once we hold power—Christianity will be overcome and the German church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing.’ [ii]  

Hitler and Darwinism

One notable scientist to acknowledge Hitler’s acceptance of Darwinism was Sir Arthur Keith. In his book Evolution and Ethics he comments:-

‘The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national “front” of Europe is also the evolutionary “front”; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany , the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.’ [iii]  

To understand Hitler it is necessary to look beyond the surface rhetoric, and note that Hitler was in fact pantheistic in his thinking having links with the occult Thule Society. For the pantheist, god and nature were one and the same. This belief can be seen in much enlightenment philosophy, for instance in Spinoza’s work, and also in the philosophy of Darwin ’s German supporter and acquaintance, the monist Ernst Haeckel. This pantheism can also be seen in Hitler’s comments where nature is said to possess creative power:-

‘No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow…When man attempts to rebel against the iron logic of Nature, he comes into struggle with the principles to which he himself owes his existence as a man. …No, there is only one holiest human right, and this right is at the same time the holiest obligation…to see to it that the blood is preserved pure and, to create the possibility of a nobler development of these beings. …and finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created.’ [iv]  

In other words, for Hitler, the ‘Iron logic of Nature’ was a principle that had given rise to mankind, and therefore provided a holy obligation that must be obeyed. As such mankind could only work with the process of natural selection by the racial cleansing of society. For Hitler, nature, through the process of evolution was one and the same as ‘Almighty God,’ because he believed nature had creative power over herself.  

Galton and Darwinism

There are likely a number of links from Darwinism to Hitler’s fascism and ideas do not exist in a vacuum of thought, but within a wide social and cultural milieu. Ideas are also often caught up in a general zeitgeist, (spirit of the times), although perhaps the most notable human link can be traced through Charles Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton. It was Galton who developed eugenics and claimed in a letter to Darwin following publication of Darwin ’s Origins book that:-  

‘I have laid it down in the full enjoyment of a feeling that one rarely experiences after boyish days, of having been initiated into an entirely new province of knowledge, which, nevertheless, connects itself with other things in a thousand ways.’ [v]

Later Galton (picture left) would write that Origins turned him towards atheism, commenting that:-

‘Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science.’ [vi]   

Darwin responded in kind by praising Galton’s book Heredity Genius, commenting that he found it interesting and original and found himself being partly converted to Galton’s idea that there was a genetic difference between the intellect of different classes of people, although Darwin’s response was typically equivocal.

'You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think this is an eminently important difference.’ [vii]  

Weikart has also argued that in his latter life Charles Darwin increasingly entertained thoughts of social Darwinism, [viii] seemingly influenced by the direction Galton was taking evolutionary theory. This is also the view of Peter Quinn who argued that Darwin embraced some of Galton’s ideas in the second edition of The Descent of Man published in 1874.[ix] However, Darwin’s ‘bulldog’ T.H.Huxley (picture right) was more reticent about the ethical implications of evolutionary theory than Galton. Huxley comments:-  

‘There is another fallacy which appears to me to pervade the so-called “ethics of evolution.” It is the notion that because, on the whole, animals and plants have advanced in perfection of organization by means of the struggle for existence and the consequent 'survival of the fittest'; therefore men in society, men as ethical beings, must look to the same process to help them towards perfection.’ [x]  

Huxley argued that there should be a discontinuity between biological and social Darwinism, although when pressed on the logical basis for this he could only reply that ‘the fact is so’ and he was ‘sorry for logic.’ [xi] It is noteworthy that vested capitalist interests influenced Darwin . Sources included work by Malthus on population growth, Adam Smith on free economics and a general Victorian attitude to laissez-faire economics. Darwin ’s theory also influenced the social Darwinist Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ and justified the exploitation of workers. The assertion that Darwin ’s theory was a purely scientific theory is therefore not entirely plausible. Himmelfarb for instance noted that ‘the Origin [was] “the application of economics to biology”…[and] was a perfect expression of Victorian “greed-philosophy”, of the capitalist ethic and Manchester economics.’ [xii] Quinn also quotes from a biography of Darwin noting that ‘…Darwinism was invented to explain human society.’ [xiii]  

Galton wanted to improve the human race believing that this was what nature determined, and it is interesting to note from the following passage how closely Galton’s comments are later reflected in Hitler’s writing, where natural selection is viewed as a religious duty that must be obeyed and followed. Galton didn’t have much respect for democracy either:-  

‘It is the obvious course of intelligent men – and I venture to say it should be their religious duty – to advance in the direction whither Nature is determined they shall go, that is towards the improvement of the race….But it [Democracy] goes farther than this, for it asserts than men are of equal value as social units, equally capable of voting, and the rest. This feeling is undeniably wrong and cannot last.’ [xiv]  

However, while Darwin praised Galton’s book, Brookes noted that the central thesis of Galton’s statistical eugenics in Heredity Genius, was ‘deeply flawed’ and notable for ‘its lack of objectivity.’ [xv] Galton argued that the ruling classes were biologically superior to the working classes, but Brookes suggests that the objectivity was so poor that Galton seemed to be working to an alternative non-scientific agenda.  

Galton, Ploetz and Hitler

Alfred Ploetz was one of Galton’s leading German supporters, and eugenics became well established in Germany . In 1904 Galton received a letter from Alfred Ploetz commenting that ‘We take the highest interest in your eminent and important Eugenics.’ [xvi] In 1905 Ploetz established the German Society for Race Hygiene in Berlin , and also founded a journal of eugenics in Germany entitled Archiv fǘr Rassen – und Gesellschaftesbiologie. Weikart shows that as early as 1892 Darwinism had influenced Ploetz in developing his eugenic ideas. This evidence comes through a letter that Ploetz wrote to a friend, and Weikart notes that Ploetz also wrote to Haeckel that his Journal ‘will stand on the side of Darwinism,’ recruiting Haeckel as an honorary member of his Society for Race Hygiene. [xvii]  

According to Weikart, time spent in Munich was a more important part in Hitler’s thinking than the time spent in Catholic Vienna. [xviii] Ploetz was active in Munich at the same time as Hitler, and although there is no clear evidence that Hitler met Ploetz, both were close friends of Julius Lehmann who published racist and eugenic material, for instance through the German nationalistic journal Deutschlands Erneuerung. Lehmann was a leading member of Ploetz’s organisation, joining the German Society for Race Hygiene prior to 1914, and like Ploetz his interest in eugenics stemmed from the 1890s. During the 1920s Lehmann had regular contact with Hitler while publishing his racist and eugenic material. [xix] According to Brookes, Heinrich Himmler also publicly embraced the eugenics of Alfred Ploetz. [xx]

Summary

A link can be established between Darwinism and Hitler’s fascism, especially through the writings of Francis Galton, Ernst Haeckel and Alfred Ploetz. Hitler’s words in fact resonate very closely with those of Galton. In later life Darwin became increasingly influenced by Galton’s eugenic programme and Spencer’s social Darwinism, as can be seen for instance from the second edition of The Descent of Man, although Darwin was less enthusiastic and more equivocal than his cousin in expressing his views, and Darwin seemed to struggle with the ethical conflict in his mind. Darwinism was not a purely scientific concept, but was a theory of its time embedded within Victorian economic, political and social thought that lent itself well to fascism. Huxley was concerned to some extent about the ethics of evolution and argued that there should be a discontinuity between social and biological evolution, but failed to provide a logical reason why this was the case.

Eugenics(The material below in brown on Eugenics is taken directly from another website, see also above article).

Eugenics involves notions of racial purity, racial superiority, and the habitability of intelligence, virtue, or vice. Although Hitler is its most notorious proponent, eugenic thinking has held a prominent place in Western intellectual history since the 1860's, when Darwin's disciple, Francis Galton, began to put about the idea that the governing classes of England should consciously guide the development of the human genetic heritage. 
A comprehensive history of early eugenic thinking can be found in The Legacy of Malthus by Allen Chase. And additional background of a historical sort can be found in Aristotle to Zoos by Peter Medawar, himself a member of the English Eugenics Society. Medawar quotes Galton, as follows:

"I do not see why any insolence of caste should prevent the gifted class, when they had the power, from treating their compatriots with all kindness, so long as they maintained celibacy. But if these continued to procreate children inferior in moral, intellectual and physical qualities, it is easy to believe the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies to the State, and to have forfeited all claims to kindness." (Fraser's Magazine 7 [1873] quoted in Aristotle to Zoos, Peter and Jean Medawar, 1983 p. 87).

By the turn of the 20th century, such ideas were commonplace. Margaret Sanger, a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society, is a particularly well-known proponent of eugenics. This is but one of many similar comments by Sanger,

"Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly ... Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born." (from The Pivot of Civilization quoted in Margaret Sanger. by Elsah Droghin).

To top

Abortion(below was mainly written by Joe Baker).

"On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating...The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he's going to fall." Brenda Pratt Shafer (nurse), 1996, Testimony before Senate Committee.

“Through sonograms and other technology, we can clearly see that unborn children are members of the human family as well. They reflect our image, and they are created in Gods own image”. (President George W. Bush).  

To see a moving five minute visual (+ audio) presentation from Mother Theresa on abortion and other issues (not directly related to the theory of evolution) please click on her picture on the left. 

Background. Most Christians have long stood for the life of a human foetus but many believers and unbelievers could not tell you why. In this article, I hope to share my belief that the pro-life position is true, and hopefully to help you form your own reasons.

Sometimes the reasons we believe what we believe about life’s most important issues never get clarified. Our parents have told us that things like abortion is wrong and most of us have just assumed it was wrong but often the reasons why aren't ever spoken of because the inflexibleness of the pro-life position is dogmatically assumed. This leaves many Christians standing for a position they cannot defend when they have met up with a well-versed pro-abortionist.

The great abortion debate pivots on the great question of::-

When did we become a human being?

What makes you and me a human being?

Something inside each one of us tells us that the taking of innocent human life is categorically wrong. I have been defending the pro-life position since I was a small fourth grade boy. After talking to many people about the issue I have found that there are four categories that pro-choice advocates use to persuade people into believing that a person is not a person until birth. The Categories are: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence (making the acronym SLED). Let us discuss each one.

Size. Is size what makes you and me a human being? If this were true the NBA would rule the world. There are numerous diseases and genetic defects that cause some people to never grow larger than a small toddler and yet they are just as much human and have the right to freedom and life as you and me. Men are generally larger then women but no pro-choice advocate that I have ever met would suggest that women have less right to life. Personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence. Scales or rulers are no measurement of human value or worth. Intuitively we all understand the truth put so simply by Dr. Sues in Horton Hears a Who: Because, after all, a person is a person no matter how small.

Level of dependence. Advocates of the Pro-abortion position will often say, The unborn embryo or a foetus - is just a blob of tissue, not a baby. Abortion is terminating an unwanted pregnancy, not killing a child. A sunset would be just as special and beautiful if you gave it another poetic name. A person is still a person no matter what you call their stage in development. The word foetus was once an elegant way of speaking about a very young human being. foetus is now used as a subhuman connotation. The Pro-choice advocates are very careful not to use the B-word, because anyone who is arguing for the right to kill babies is fighting an uphill battle. Language is not just the expression of minds, but also the moulder of minds. Abortionists will say things like: “The termination of a pregnancy is a women's right or: we will just scrape the lining of the uterus or: we will empty the uterus” rather than saying: suck out the baby or: scrape away the child.

Hitler’s command to send the Jews to their death in the camps was couched in the phrase: empty the ghettos. The way that words are used can tremendously influence someone’s receptivity to an idea - even an idea that communicated in straightforward terms would be abhorrent.

The word foetus is used to define the developmental stage of a human being just like the word toddler or adolescent. To be consistent in arguing that level of development has something to do with being human one would have to suggest that a toddler is more human than a newborn and has more right to life. A four-year-old girl does not have a developed reproductive system like a fourteen-year-old girl and yet I have never met a pro-choice advocate that would say that the fourteen year old is more human than the four year old. There are many cases where children are born undeveloped in one form or another and these children are currently regarded as persons in America. So should the not completely developed child yet in the mother’s womb. Full personhood begins at conception and requires full protection.

Environment. In America abortion is defended under the disguise of freedom or choice because Pro-abortionists want the public to believe that a developing child is part of the mother’s body making it her arbitrary right to have it removed or not, just like her tonsils or her appendix. Scientifically this is as false as a statement can be. Every cell of the mother’s tonsils, appendix, heart, and lungs share the same genetic code. A body part by definition must have the same genetic code as the rest of the body, but the genetic code of the unborn differs from that of the mother. If one body is inside another, but each has its very own unique genetic code, then there is not one person, but two separate people. A Chinese zygote placed inside a Swedish woman will always be Chinese.

John Jefferson Davis stated that: "It is a well-established fact that a genetically distinct human being is brought into existence at conception. Once fertilization takes place, the zygote is its own entity, genetically distinct from both mother and father. The newly conceived individual possesses all the necessary information for a self-directed development and will proceed to grow in the usual human fashion, given time and nourishment. It is simply untrue that the unborn child is merely part of the mother’s body. In addition to being genetically distinct from the time of conception, the unborn possesses separate circulatory, nervous, and endocrine systems".

Our human value has nothing to do with where we are. I have been to three different continents and felt just as human on all three. Where you are has nothing to do with who you are or where your value comes from. An eight-inch journey down the birth canal has absolutely nothing to do with being human. A person is a person no matter where. The mother’s womb needs to be the safest place to live in America, not the most dangerous.

Degree of Dependence. Pro-Abortionists will argue that because a human foetus is dependent on its mother it is therefore not a person. However many humans are dependent on insulin or prescription drugs for survival, and they are not considered less human. Also, we are all dependant on mother earth and the air we breath. Newborn babies are completely dependent on their mothers for survival, along with toddlers. Thirty-five percent of babies born at five and a half months survive. In the last three decades viability has been reduced from 30 weeks to less than 20 weeks. 

Viability depends not only on the child but also the technology that we have to save her life. Someday technology may be advanced enough that babies will be able to survive and grow up healthy outside the womb just a few weeks after conception. Can we honestly believe that children at twenty-one weeks were not human thirty years ago but are human now because of improved technology? Or can we believe that the unborn at eighteen weeks, who is just barely nonviable, is not a human being, but ten years from now he will be because hospitals will have better equipment? Technology will constantly change; but babies do not. Surely we cannot believe that the sophistication of life support systems determines the reality or worth of human life!

So what does make us Human? And when do we become human after all? The pro-abortion position defines life pragmatically, meaning that your value is determined by what you can do, what you look like, or where you are. I believe that you and I have been given great value in this universe and it has nothing to do with your personal performance. You and me have value my friend because of the image that we bear. Contrary to the world’s definition the scriptures define human life essentially meaning that your value is determined by who you are. And you my friend are a creature made in the image of God with a soul and an eternal spirit.

If evolution is true. Then there is no need for a Creator then you can define life however you want. You can choose to dispose of life however you want, and since there are no absolutes in the naturalistic paradigm you will in essence never do anything wrong since there is no such thing as right or wrong. If evolution is true we can justify the killing of some for the preservation of others, and natural selection can validate any kind of genocide that you want. If evolution is true you and I have no value to preserve or fight for. If evolution is true The Blood Hound Gang said it right when they stated that: “You and me baby, we ain’t nothing but mammals”.

Don’t be deceived. Please don't be deceived, God made you and he loves you. You have value and your life is sacred. Your life and the life of unborn children is more valuable than anything in this entire material world.

You can make a difference. You can change this world and take a stand against this heinous act of infanticide in your own town by talking about the subject with your friends. Remember that Jesus died for our sins and can even forgive those who have murdered their children. If you speak out on abortion make sure to treat your opponents as though they are made in the image of God, love them as God would as you present the truth. Do not compromise, do not give in, and do not surrender until Human life is treated with the dignity that it deserves.

Never underestimate the power of one individual. I believe in you, if you have read this far you definitely have what it takes to help end this great crime. Joe Baker.

To top

 Suggested reading

 Books - These do not all focus specifically on the contents of this page, but all will have some content of direct relevance to this page. 
 

Defeating Darwinism with open minds, by Philip E. Johnson.

Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism, by Phillip E. Johnson

 Restoring the Ethics of Creation, by Andrew M. Sibley

The long war against God, by H. Morris and D. Jeremiah.

On-line

Abortion

Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust

Darwin versus Compassion

How Religiously Neutral are the Anti-Creationist Organisations?

Is evolution 'anti-religion'? It depends.

Morality and Ethics Questions and Answers.

Those ignorant, stupid, insane, wicked creationists.

To top

References for Darwin and Hitler article:-