The Aped Crusaders
I have finished with Ann Coulter's Godless. It was very good. You should read this book! I could squabble with some of her characterizations of Christianity (e.g., I'd like clarification about the "spark of divinity in the human soul," but I think I know what she means). My favorite chapters were the last four or five on evolution, and the last chapter, "The Aped Crusader," was especially good. In it Ann shows how the godless ideology of evolution was celebrated and implemented by racist scientists, Nazis, communists, and, alas, today's liberals--aped crusaders all. The following is a selection from the chapter. (Ineluctable means "inevitable," by the way.)
The path between Darwinism and Nazism may not be ineluctable, but it is more ineluctable than the evolutionary path from monkey to man. Darwin's theory overturned every aspect of Biblical morality. Instead of honor thy mother and father, the Darwinian ethic was honor thy children. Instead of enshrining moral values, the Darwinian ethic enshrined biological instincts. Instead of transcendent moral values, the Darwinian ethic said all morals are relative. Instead of sanctifying life, the Darwinian ethic sanctified death.Buy it. Read it. Share it with a friend. My next read? Bennett's Last Best Hope.
So it should not be surprising that eugenicists, racists, and assorted psychopaths always gravitate to Darwinism. From the most evil dictators to today's antismoking crusaders, sexual profligates, and animal rights nuts, Darwinism has infected the whole culture. And yet small Schoolchildren who know that George Washington had slaves are never told of the centrality of Darwin's theory to Nazism, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, "racial hygiene" societies, genocide, and the Soviet gulags.
3 comments:
These statements about Darwin, or suggestions that Charles Darwin made these assertions, are completely erroneous!! Charles Darwin's writings and his work are scientific statements concerning the explanations for diversity of life on this planet. They have nothing to do with society or culture. Other people may say this kind of stuff but please omit Charles Darwin's name from it. He has nothing to do with it. It is simply ignorant and incorrect.
Perhaps if Chuck had written anonymously his name wouldn't be associated like it is with all the implications of his theory!
Anonymous,
They are not statements about Darwin the man; they are statements about the implications of his theory. Do you really believe, though, that "scientific statements . . . have nothing to do with society or culture" ? I assume that you would say that Darwin was trying to say something "true" about the world. So, wouldn't true statements about the world necessarily have something to do with society and culture? Likewise, would not false statements that nonetheless claimed to be true affect at the very least one's perception of society and culture? This was the tragedy of the "three-fifths" clause of the constitution; it made an ontological claim about the personhood of non-free persons. It claimed they were three-fifths of a person. Now, one could say that this was merely language that determined the apportionment of representatives and taxation, but the effect was to make a scientific statement which greatly affected, and still affects, society and culture. In the same way, Darwin's theory cannot exist in a vacuum. "Scientific statements" do not float in space without influencing society and culture.
Post a Comment