Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once looked at Darwinism and it’s logical conclusions and did not like what he saw. In “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life” (1873), Nietzsche panged at the consequences he foresaw:
If the doctrines of sovereign Becoming, of the liquidity of all…species, of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal — doctrines which I consider true but deadly — are foisted on people for another generation with the frenzied instruction which is now customary, then it should take no one by surprise if people destroy themselves in egotistical trifles and misery, ossifying themselves in their self-absorption, initially falling apart and ceasing to be a people. Then, in place of this condition, perhaps systems of individual egotism, alliances for the systematic larcenous exploitation of those non-members of the alliance and similar creations of utilitarian nastiness will step forward onto the future scene.
While he may have correctly seen the inevitable consequences of Darwinian logic, taken to its logical conclusions, he nevertheless considered that doctrine ‘deadly’. And he was right. Every time in the last 150 years (since Darwin’s OOS) that someone has seen those logical conclusions and decided to put them into practice ‘deadly’ and disastrous results have been witnessed.
As we can easily see in Richard Weikart’s book, “From Darwin to Hitler” World Was II was started because some men, backed and supported by the scientific elite of their time, believed that man should put Darwin’s ideas into social practice. Not only did this result in the holocaust but in the systematic slaughter of tens of thousands of mentally ill and physically deformed persons in Germany.In the description of Weikart’s latest book Hitler’s ethic was also see that:
Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.
So Nietzsche’s “true but deadly” comment turns out to be true.
This necessarily requires of us that we answer the question – is it really true?
Thankfully, and in spite of the modern neo Darwinists persistent refusal to acknowledge these facts, we can now state with distinct, and yes scientific, authority that no, it isn’t true.
We know that evolution, as per “changes in allele frequencies over time” and as per “variation and adaptation” is true.
But over the time since Origin of Species, we still have no empirical evidence whatsoever that evolution is capable of doing anything more than the above, and that within the taxonomic family.
The only speciation events observable in the lab or the field are always within the family. There are no examples of speciation as per a radical new change from one family into a completely different family – and that in spite of the hysterical ravings of such fanatical atheists as Richard Dawkins et al.
We now have Lenski’s 40,0000 generations of E. coli. All that has been observed is minor adaptation. They are still E. coli and not jelly fish. Nor is there any reason to think they will ever become anything else.
Lenski’s experiments, if they demonstrate anything at all, show what Michael Behe calls the “edge of evolution” i.e. the limits of what random mutations and natural selection can accomplish.
The RNA world is a dead duck, mutations are notoriously negative in any organism and built-in error detection and correction mechanisms in the cell abound to assure as that neo Darwinism is also a dead duck. For, how can the very mechanisms which ensure a certain stability in cells and keep species in their respective families, also be the means by which they are mutated out of their own families!? It just doesn’t ring true.
So why do Darwinists persist in promoting it as though it were the ultimate truth? But in their ill reasoning view it HAS to be true even if it is deadly! As absolute materialists nothing else CAN be true!
As Harvard geneticist R. Lewontin stated so succinctly,
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Curiously Lewontin also admited another rather frightening view when he said,
Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.
-Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.
So he at least, and supposedly many other scientists, blatantly lies? Is this not a strange statement? Scientists lie to your face and Lewontin condescends to give you the benefit of the doubt of your stupidity by telling you that they lie? Yet are you still so willing to believe them!? Hard to believe. Why should anyone believe what the elite materialist scientists then tell us?
Thankfully not all scientists, and hopefully not all materialist (atheist) scientists lie to the public as easily as Lewontin.
But is this lying not also a part of the logic of Darwinism? Indeed is it is. For under Darwinism as Nietzsche saw clearly, there is no foundation for ethics, free will or morality of any kind other than a mere collective [or imposed] consent to any currently useful moral standard. A standard that can be changed upon any whim at all by the deciders.
Under such a baseless morality, anything goes. This is nihilism. The end of Darwinian thought is nihilism. And that means that you have no more value than a worm with whom you allegedly share a common evolutionary heritage.
So why did Nietzsche and so many others nevertheless accept this nihilistic world view? Well Nietzsche was in love with his own sister and that clearly doesn’t fly with Judeo/Christian values; so, to remove the sting of conscience from such desires and willings Nietzsche with many thousands of others saw (and see) in materialist Darwinism a clear road out of all traditional taboos and the guilt of conscience and self-restraint that comes with it.
In other words, the real underlying reasons why many Darwinist remain incapable of abandoning their view is religious [metaphysical] and not scientific at all.
Darwinism has become a cult for many. It MUST be true because there is no God or if there is he has nothing to care of his creation.
But Darwinism and its underlying, metaphysical materialist constructs are not true and can now be empirically demonstrated as such through legitimate design detection methods, statistical mechanics and the laws of probability, and indeed, lab and field experiments involving tens of thousands of generations wherein the opportunity for macro evolution abounds but none is ever observed.
However, as long as neo-Darwinism is continued to be promoted in public academia and the mass media, it will indeed remain deadly, no matter how untrue.