Thread: Social Impact of Evolution

More from Edward Larson's Theory of Evolution: A History of Controversy. BTW, as I mentioned earlier, Larson is a supporter of evolution and a respected secular historian of science. So this is not the product of an anti-evolution effort.

Some of the more noteworthy influences (which Darwinism was expressly used to justify) were:

> Racism. Darwinism justified wide and open racism. Of course, the writers always presumed that they were of the most advanced race, which is humorous. There are some audacious statements floating around Darwinist works. They seem reasonable in the context of Darwinian thought, though.
> Eugenics. Darwinism in part supported Eugenics efforts, which involved allot of activites, from involuntary sterilization (about 60,000 people in America) to Eugenics contests, in which babies would be judged for being most fit (ugh!). Eugenics' association with Nazi Germany eventually discredited it to this day.
> Militarism. Biological evolution justified military aggression in Germany in WWI and WWII). One of the preeminent evolutionary proponents, Ernst Haeckel, was German and he activiely and successfully supported German military expansion, as Germans were in his opinion, the fittest race.
> Religion. The theory of evolution was applied to religion by higher critics, yielding an evolutionary view of religion. The idea is that religions evolved and adapted. Under this view, religion is essentially a sociological phenomenon that developed from primitive religion to more complex religion over time. The writers expressly appealed to biological evolution as a model.
> Economics / social aid. Biological evolution was used in part supported laissez faire economics and the idea that the strong survive in society and the weak drag us down. Herbet Spencer's views (and even earlier views, such as those of Malthus) actually preceded Darwin, but Spencer's views eventually came to be labeled Social Darwinism. Anyway, these kinds of views were used to dismiss help and charity for the weak. The idea was that it hurt broader society in the long run.
> Divide in religion and science. Darwinism in part has contributed to a large divide between religion and science to this day. A recent survey shows that half of Americans believe in some form of special creation, for example. In contrast, an evolutionist like Gould says that all "thinking people" believe in evolution. The controversies are, of course, legion, and range from church to courthouse.
> Scientists. Larson's comments on the religious practices of scientists was very interesting. Religious observance among scientists was high prior to Darwin but plummeted after Darwinism really caught hold. Larson noted that this makes it even harder for science and religion to have a dialogue. When Darwinism was introduced, most scientists were religious and they helped pave the way for acceptance of Darwinism into mainstream denominations. The American botanist Asa Gray is an example of this sort of fellow.

I can't think of any good social developments he mentioned, although I suppose might suggest that the above trends were good. Larson is not an anti-evolutionist writer and is in fact pro-evolution. So, understand that his above observations are not some attempt to discredit evolution.

Personally,

Scientists. Larson's comments on the religious practices of scientists was very interesting. Religious observance among scientists was high prior to Darwin but plummeted after Darwinism really caught hold. Larson noted that this makes it even harder for science and religion to have a dialogue. When Darwinism was introduced, most scientists were religious and they helped pave the way for acceptance of Darwinism into mainstream denominations. The American botanist Asa Gray is an example of this sort of fellow.

though this is true I wasn't necessarily highly religious but I did go to Darwinism as a scientist to justify my unbelief. That's pretty common. Stalin was in seminary when he first encountered darwin/evolution and is reported as saying, "They've been lying to us about God..." That's pretty much the thought of those, including myself at a young age, as the internal thinking goes.

But it does come from a legal view of religion. Though I didn't grow up in a legalistic environment per se but it occurs when the Law is not viewed for what it is in it's second use. It is interesting to read Fredrick N. on his move over to strict atheism. Interesting because he read the Law in Scripture in his studies, but like most thought it to be "what we are to do to be right with God some how". The interesting thing about FN is that he actually saw and admitted that this is not at all what man desires to do from inwardly. He actually saw more the "heart of man" than most Christians today, he just interpreted it in a wrong paradigm. Instead of saying, "Oh the Law must be a mirror in which I see my great sin nature and desires contra to it thus deserving wrath...I need a Savior", he assessed that since the inward workings of a man seeks not the good of the Law of God that the Law must be the wrong way to understand man and all things. It was then a small leap to "the Law is not true due to man's lack of desire to do it" to "there must be no God and something else, nature explains man and why we are here". He basically saw to some degree the true inward workings of the sinful nature, but interpreted that not as man fallen but rather natural man as he really was meant to be and that God must not be real.

Hence, legal preaching of all shades is fertile soil for atheism, always has been.

ldh

[Edited on 4-10-2006 by Larry Hughes]

Thanks, Larry. What sort of scientist are you and how did you go from atheism to Christianity?

Scott,

I'm a geologist, with a pretty strong chemistry background.


My progression, if you will, in short went from:

Raised in a home in which it was loosely Christian but pretty much the not much emphasis placed upon it. My parents background, I only found out a coupel of years ago was methodist. Dad was baptized in a river later in life just before entering the Marine corp. He never talks much about the faith and worries my soul a lot, weighs very heavy on me a lot. We talk but... Mom always went to church with high and low periods. Growing up we went to the local SBC until I hit around 10ish. I recall specifically arguing, "Dad doesn't go...why should I." (Dad's out there take notice!!! Please!!!).

Mom was re-baptized (baptized as a child in the methodist church/she and I discussed this just two months ago) about when I was 6ish at a "œrevival"�. It was your typical early 70s SBC finney special "“ four day revival"¦etc. I recall growing up in the church in that aspect, but it wasn´t really all that "œpushed"� or emphasized in our home.

My recollection of Sunday School and Vacation Bible School was very formative in a negative way. I always had a draw towards science and analytical type things and somewhat talented in that area, no Einstein but always had a decent passion for it and mind for it. As I began to approach junior high I began study the hard sciences and evolution came to the table. Crucial were my 7-9 grade years. Because I began weighing evidences in my head all the time. The formative Sunday school material, the what I call "œmilk and cookies"� theology that I had back then really painted for me that religion in general and Christianity specifically must be fake if that was all there was to it. On the other side science was offering real hard evidence and arguments, even though they were wrong they were at least arguments that "œmade sense"�.

Very early on I innately saw the Law of God = Love but that we did not desire inwardly to do it. How one assesses that will play out how one goes (later). It was a very powerful realization that inwardly I weighed in my mind this idea that "œhere is God´s Law but inwardly we/I really don´t desire to do it."� I actually saw the heart of the Law and that man doesn´t in the heart desire to do it, I saw past externals, but rather than understanding that as fallen man viewing the law by the second use, I saw it as the REAL natural man and ergo the law must be false since we cannot/don´t desire to do it. This led me to conclude, not unlike Fredrick N. (I had never read him mind you), rather than man is fallen and the Law is showing this "“ but since man doesn´t desire this the law must be false. This immediately translate into there must not be a God at all. I pretty much progressed from there all through my college years until 33. I was somewhere between a functioning atheist and agnostic given the day and given the arguments before me. But I´d say atheist for I fully embraced evolution and it is why in fact for the most part that I settled on geology as my degree.

I formulated a parallel table for a friend of mine showing the progression on this.

What is crucial to grasp here, and I realize that my brief history above may be hard to pick up on, conversation is hard to replace, but that a duel failure if you will occurred, so to speak, keeping in mind all men seek not after God.

Ironically, having been formerly atheistic then becoming Christian, my testimony is rather lengthy but entirely sovereign and gracious on God´s part "“ but this is in part why I so quickly embraced what we call Calvinism or sovereign grace. It really was not hard for me since I really never sought but ran and fought God all the way. Not at one point could I say "œI came or sought Him."� I was genuinely shocked when I ran into my first resistance and even anger over this among fellow Christains. I was kind of "œgreen"� and gullible so to speak and it shocked me to find others hated it"¦I thought it was wonderful for otherwise how would I have come to believe Christ!

(The table doesn't come out on the board so follow the headings in parallel: One is "The Natural Man" the other is "The Alarmed/Awakened Man" then each has sub headings with discussion underneath. If the table worked it would have each paralleling one under the first then the other under the main heading of the second). Sorry about that. LDH



The Natural Man:

The Law or moral law impressed upon us from creation can actually be seen as undesired from the heart.

The Alarmed/Awakened Man:

Again, the Law or moral law impressed upon us from creation can actually be seen as undesired from the heart.


The Natural Man - The Inward Assessment:

However, the natural man concludes rather than the second use of the Law, a terror to drive us to a Savior that since he/she doesn´t really internally desire to do it the Law and morality as in the Law must be false or wrong, and the natural man (we term the fallen man) is the truth or correct.

The Alarmed/Awakened Man - The Inward Assessment:

However, the alarmed/awakened man concludes rather than use of the Law or morals that makes him right with God or righteous. Begins to see his/her inward denial of the Law which is true and real and it is his/her fallen state (natural state to the rank unbeliever) as in rebellion. In a reversal of events since he/she doesn´t really internally desire to do the Law and morality it is the natural man that now must be false or wrong and fallen, and the holy Law immovable and perfect is the truth and correct.


The Natural Man - The Conclusion Drawn:

Hence, many such as Nietzsche conclude that the Law is false/wrong seeing natural man does not inwardly desire to obey its altruistic reality but rather is ultimately selfish or self surviving at all cost. This in logical progression leads to the denial of God Who is manifest as holy by the Law, the very Law now denied by the natural man. The natural man becomes increasingly in reality falsely secure but in his own imagination truly secure. The fool has said in his heart there is no God!

The Alarmed/Awakened Man - The Conclusion Drawn:

Hence, a man comes to see his depravity and need for the first time and at length rather than arrogance and pride leading to the conclusion that the Law is false and therefore there is not God, rather that it is he/she the afore mentioned natural man who is in reality fallen and NOW the Holy Law becomes a mirror in which this reality begins to show forth his/her depravity. The fallen man rather than increasingly falsely secure in reality and in his own imagination truly secure, becomes increasingly truly alarmed both in reality and in his own understanding. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom!


The Natural Man - The Internal Workings Of The Course Being Set:

Thus, the natural derives reality from himself as being truth and reality and necessarily at length denies God altogether.

The Alarmed/Awakened Man - The Internal Workings Of The Course Being Set

Thus, the fallen man begins to derive reality from the reality of God as being truth and authentic reality and necessarily at length begins to believe and fear in God.


The Natural Man - The Extension Of The Course

Hence, atheism is the end final extension of man´s self seeking religion and false view of the Law of God. The false view of the Law of God and length becomes nothing as man individually establishes his own unfixed and mutable version of righteousness and law. The head of the serpent grows.

The Alarmed/Awakened Man - The Extension Of The Course

Hence, man begins to flee from self and self seeking religion now having a true view of the Law of God. The Law of God is the Hammer of God which breaks the rock into pieces and reveals both rank sinners and false saints. The head of the serpent is slain.

LDH The Natural Man - Personal Account

In 1978, this is exactly the conclusion that I came to.

LDH The Alarmed/Awakened Man - Personal Account

In 1995, this is exactly the reversal that came to me. The Law´s reality and my condition overturned.


Summary

Vain are both secular men, teachers of other religion and so called teachers of Christianity who preach and teach the Law in any way that may lead men to God either before or after conversion.

[Edited on 4-16-2006 by Larry Hughes]

Thanks, Larry! I love stories like that.