home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

  

 

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

 

Augros & Stanciu's
The New Story Of Science

George Stanciu, PhD, theoretical physics
Robert Augros, PhD, philosophy

Darwinism Undermines Itself and Leads to Its Own Destruction
 

return to "Evolution" main-page

 

 

Robert M. Augros George N. Stanciu

 

 

Editor's prefatory comments:

This article, of necessity, is offered with brevity. I say “of necessity,” not because content here is unworthy of discussion, but, rather, the subject matter is so important that volumes could be tendered but without adequate treatment.

And what is this most important subject? Just this: The history of science since the Renaissance has led humanity toward increasingly materialistic views of life, nature, and reality. This errant view, at the end, among its true believers, has produced the bitter fruit of despair, pessimism, and hopelessness.

Radical materialism, as we will note, affects all aspects of science, the arts, and academia; however, our focus at hand will primarily direct us to implications concerning biological evolution.

But allow me to state the conclusion of matter: Darwinism purports to offer a theory of species’ growth and advancement. This forward momentum, which propels toward higher levels of being, is assumed to exist as part of the developmental machinery. And yet, we will find that, at the apex of the tree of life, highly educated homo sapiens, if led by radical materialism, will, paradoxically, undo themselves, undermine themselves, and cause themselves to destruct. We will discuss this.

Do you see the irony? Materialistic Darwinism is said to be the mechanism by which all of life steadily marches forward toward greater expressions of complexity – and yet, down the line, it creates its own nemesis of self-destruction, thereby undoing the purported progress of Darwinism. For this reason, along with many others, materialistic Darwinism cannot possibly reflect the means by which life advances on planet Earth.

Concerning the history of science and quotations from its luminaries, The New Story Of Science is offered as basis; primarily, chapter six.

 

 

Beginning in the High Middle Ages and then proceeding to the Renaissance, we find men such as Adelard of Bath, Galileo, Francis Bacon, and Descartes formulating new theories of, new methods to attain, knowledge. Editor’s note: See Dr. Steven Goldman for more on this.

So, why did we need new theories of knowledge all of a sudden in history?

The push for new ways of thinking about knowledge production was catalyzed by the heavy-handed and stultifying effect of the RCC’s policies. Certain men, who would change the course of history, began to wake up intellectually and throw off the Church’s theory of knowledge; which was, God offers knowledge by revelation; however, not just to anyone, not to the laity, but only to the black-robed hierarchy as God’s appointed agents on Earth.

But things were about to change which would overturn this elitism. Eyes began to open among thinking people that the Church’s fear-based and cultish theory of knowledge had produced the Dark Ages.

The ensuing Renaissance, which means “re-birth” of knowledge, would advocate a new approach to knowledge production. But those promoting a new method wanted nothing to do with the old ways of “revelation.” Who could blame them? – after the Church had “poisoned the well” on this subject.

'I have no need for that theory'

At the beginning of the movement, some or many of the leading figures attempted to retain belief in God while pursuing knowledge of the material world. As time went on, however, the rising tide of materialism swept away considerations of God; as Laplace famously responded to General Napoleon, “Sir, I have no need for that theory.”

dismantling and dissecting reality

The desire to dissociate science from religion – which would result in a “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” – caused the natural-philosopher revolutionaries to split reality in two.

For a while, it was thought that human beings are constructed with two irreconcilable domains: mind and body; this would be interpreted as spirit and machine. It was agreed that the area of mind, the inner human nature, should be relegated to the realm of the religious, while the material body would be addressed by science.

they went too far

Later, as materialism gathered momentum and much speed, science claimed for itself the ability to speak for the mind, as well; further, all of religion would now be deemed as superstitious and not worthy of the attention of science. In this final divorce, science went too far: it admitted to no distinction between illegitimate religion and authentic spirituality, an unfortunate mistaken identity and amalgamation persisting to the present day.

the most important information I’d like to convey on this topic

Much could be said here. You may want to review Augros and Stanciu’s book for a full treatment of the subject, but allow me to summarize and distill the essence.

Radical materialism has infected all major areas of scientific and academic enquiry: philosophy, physics, biology, literature, history, and even painting, music, and mathematics. Augros and Stanciu offer quotations from leading materialistic spokespersons in many of these areas, but I will not reproduce the comments here.

Essentially, from all of these disciplines, we are treated to a farrago of meaninglessness. The quotations could be summarized in this way:

“There’s nothing special about humankind. Homo sapiens merely reflect their environment, their particular culture, their time in history. They are acted upon and do not hold dominion over anything. There is no free will. There are no heroes; people do things, 'good' or 'bad,' because the spirit of the times leads them to act in a certain way. As Camus put it, ‘All thought is anthropomorphic.’ That is, we think we’re inventing something, but we’re just speaking about ourselves, we're just reflecting the larger culture. There's no true creativity. The mind is acted upon just as matter is acted upon. It’s all deterministic. There is no objective truth, it’s all subjective opinion. There’s nothing ‘out there.’ There’s no meaning or purpose to the world and the universe. There is no God. What we see around us is just Newtonian cause-and-effect of subatomic particles in reactive orchestration. There is no future, no hope, no love. It’s all bleak and dark landscape, as far as the eye can see. There’s no profound significance to anything. The purpose of science and the arts is utilitarian, nothing more; maybe we’ll find something or make something that will offer a few moments of happiness. But, in any case, we’re here for a short miserable existence, during which hapless episode we try to capture whatever fleeting pleasure we might - and then it’s over, with no encore. End of tragic story.”

This article might serve as commentary concerning many discussions. However, I have included it as part of the review of the Evolution debate. But do you see the irony?

Materialistic Darwinism has appointed itself as rightful mouthpiece to proclaim how life on planet Earth moves from simplicity to complexity. And yet, at the end of the road of radical materialism we find dispiriting pessimism, eviscerating despair, and profound hopelessness.

We shall not do so, but we could easily make a long list of adherents to the aforementioned dystopia who, in consequence of their own misguidedness, have, at worst, taken their own lives, or, more typically, find themselves engulfed by a generalized purposelessness.

radical materialism eventually undermines and then destroys itself

In this tragic result of the true essence of their philosophy, they inadvertently present evidence that their creed could not possibly reveal the motivating force propelling the evolution of life on this planet.

Far from leading to greater complexity, their dismal and disheartening belief-system leads to self-destruction, with no good reason, no impetus, at the end, to do anything, least of all, to move forward in self-enhancement.

What's the point in improving oneself if there's no grander significance to the universe, if there's no future? In such sorry case, we're reduced to the eloquent lamenting phrase of Elizabeth and her "wrestling for dust."

Radical materialism leads us to the logical, steep-precipice conclusion, "Why should I trouble myself with any effort of betterment if this is all there is?" Materialistic philosophers like Hobbes concur.

Editor’s note: To see the universe laced with meaning and purpose is not wishful thinking by soft brains who insist on believing in fairytales. See “the scientific evidence for the afterlife.” It’s been said that there are two ways to deceive oneself: accepting an idea for which there is no evidence, and not accepting when there is ample substantiation.

 

for better or worse, everyone is a teacher

The "Course In Miracles" teaches that "all things are lessons God would have us learn." Our very lives become didactic placards to everyone concerning what works or what doesn't.

The bitter fruit of radical materialism also offers lesson concerning how life in Summerland must be lived. It is "the joy," the search for the beautiful, and the love of all, but especially that of one particular person, which give meaning to life; even, to eternal life.

In the article "500 tape-recorded messages from the other side" we discover an entire class of people in Summerland who, while seeming to be whole and coherent, are actually closet materialists. As such, until they change their materialistic orientation, we find them drifting into greater degrees of insanity.

 

 

Editor's last word:

As footnote to the comment on life in Summerland, I would encourage you to see my article concerning "how to endure the terror of living forever."