{"id":166705,"date":"2018-03-04T09:59:28","date_gmt":"2018-03-04T09:59:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=166705"},"modified":"2018-03-08T07:36:13","modified_gmt":"2018-03-08T07:36:13","slug":"darwins-dangerous-disciples","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=166705","title":{"rendered":"Darwin\u2019s Dangerous Disciples"},"content":{"rendered":"

Lasha Darkmoon — Darkmoon March 4, 2018<\/h1>\n

In response to Jonas Alexis\u2019\u00a0A Challenge to Lasha Darkmoon<\/a>
\n<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span>and How Lasha Darkmoon Misreads Darwin<\/a><\/span><\/h4>\n

The greatest threat to world peace is godless nihilism: world war is the evil child of world despair.<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n

\"Darwin<\/a><\/p>\n

CHARLES DARWIN and RICHARD DAWKINS<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Don\u2019t confuse Darwinism with pseudo-Darwinism; <\/em><\/strong>
\ndon\u2019t conflate Darwinism with Dawkinism.<\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n
Darwin remains remarkably fit for a man who\u2019s been dead almost 136 years. The UK\u2019s Channel 4 aired Richard Dawkins\u2019 three part series \u201cThe Genius of Darwin\u201d a few years ago, demonstrating clearly that Dawkins (popularly known as \u201cDarwin\u2019s rottweiler<\/span>\u201d<\/a>) is a devout disciple of Darwin. Yet it is a mistake to confuse Darwin with Darwin\u2019s rottweiler. And it is wrong to blame Darwin for things he never said, but which Dawkins was to say over a hundred years later.\u00a0<\/strong><\/h5>\n
This is the mistake that the anti-Darwinians keep making: they keep confusing Darwinism with Dawkinism<\/em>.<\/h5>\n
This is a monstrous logical error.<\/h5>\n
Just as you must avoid making the mistake of attacking Jesus Christ for things said in his name by St Paul and a long line of Christian spin merchants, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin and the Rev Billy Graham, so you must do your best not to confuse Charles Darwin with Richard Dawkins and his like.<\/h5>\n
Don\u2019t confuse the Master with the Disciple. Don\u2019t get Darwin mixed up with his spin merchants. Don\u2019t attack X for the ideas of Y.<\/h5>\n
In a recent article called Demonizing Darwin<\/a><\/strong>, I drew attention to the fact that there are many types of Darwinism to which Darwin himself would not have subscribed. These arguments are so important that they need repeating:<\/h5>\n
\u201cThere are more types of Darwinism than there are colors in the rainbow. Failure to understand this, that there is a broad spectrum of views on what Darwinism actually means, will lead invariably to strident denunciations of Darwinism. Understanding Darwin is not easy, because there were times when Darwin hardly understood himself. He was modest enough to admit it.\u00a0Nuance<\/em>. That is the operative word here.<\/h5>\n
Getting to grips with Darwin is like getting to grips with an eel.<\/h5>\n
The sad truth is, no one has been more misunderstood than Darwin. Paradoxically, the\u00a0Darwinism of Darwin bears no resemblance to the Darwinism of his more dangerous disciples. He would have rejected their interpretations of Darwinism as distasteful. Richard Dawkins would have been an unwelcome guest at Darwin\u2019s dinner table at Downe House in Kent. He would have had to watch his manners. The chances of Dawkins coming to blows with some of the other dinner guests, and of giving grave offense to Darwin\u2019s beloved wife Emma, a devout Unitarian Christian, would have been pretty substantial. So Dawkins would have had to be on his best behavior in Darwin\u2019s house.<\/h5>\n
The same applies in spades,\u00a0a fortiori, to some of the more disreputable Darwinists preaching natural selection, or the Survival of the Fittest, without checks or balances. Social Darwinists like the mysterious Ragnar Redbeard, author of\u00a0Might is Right<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, would have been given the boot almost at once if he had somehow managed to gatecrash one of Darwin\u2019s dinner parties. So it is a mistake, a monstrous ideological error, to conflate the moderate and delicately nuanced Darwinism of Charles Darwin with the harsh, dog-eat-dog Darwinism of his more extreme and, in some cases, mentally deranged disciples.\u201d<\/h5>\n
I am not saying that Dawkins is mentally deranged, though many others have said so. I think Dawkins is a genius in his own right. But Dawkins is Dawkins, and Darwin is Darwin, and never the twain shall meet<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span>.<\/h5>\n
\u2014\u00a0 \u00a7\u00a0 \u2014<\/h5>\n
Having read through Jonas Alexis\u2019 recent 2-part article (here<\/a><\/strong><\/span> and here<\/a><\/strong><\/span>), challenging my pro-Darwinian views, I was impressed by his verbal restraint and dexterity. I felt that his tone throughout was refreshingly polite and civilized, considering he was challenging my views and pointing out how mistaken and confused I was.<\/h5>\n
I wish to state categorically here, however, that I am in no way \u201cdebating\u201d Darwin with Jonas though he appears to be debating Darwin with me!<\/em>\u00a0Whereas he is offering an exhaustive point-by-point critique of my article Demonizing Darwin<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, I am not doing the same for his two articles linked above. Indeed, I hadn\u2019t even read Part 2 of his article (published yesterday on Veterans Today) before writing this article of my own several days ago. My sole concern is to present my own pro-Darwinian views, without any attempt to refute Jonas\u2019s thesis or launch a counter-attack on him for saying how erroneous and confused I am.<\/h5>\n
I admit to being confused \u2014 who isn\u2019t? \u2014 and as to having erroneous opinions on Darwin, it would be extremely presumptuous of me to maintain that my opinions on this subject are the correct ones and that anyone who dares to contradict me is wrong. I am only too happy to admit that I \u201csee through a glass darkly\u201d, though seeing through a glass darkly is not something to be happy about.<\/h5>\n
I was particularly struck by this comment in Part 1 of Jonas\u2019s article:<\/h5>\n
\u201cNow tell me, Lasha: If Darwinists say that objective morality does not exist\u2014and I can guarantee you that the vast majority of Neo-Darwinists do say that\u2014and then appeal to \u201cmoral clarity\u201d or even morality to build their system, don\u2019t you think that they are living in contradiction?\u201d<\/h5>\n
That\u2019s a good point. I happen to agree here with Jonas. So there\u2019s no argument between us.<\/h5>\n
But Jonas misses my point.<\/h5>\n
I am defending Darwin<\/em><\/strong>, not \u201cthe vast majority of neo-Darwinists\u201d who profess to speak in Darwin\u2019s name. As I pointed out in my article in defense of Darwin, there are as many types of Darwinism as there are colors in the rainbow. No two Darwinists think alike. Some are at opposite ends of the Darwinian spectrum, and Darwin is somewhere slapbang in the middle. The mistake Jonas keeps making is his assumption that there is only one<\/em><\/strong> type of Darwinism. As a consequence, he falls into the trap of believing that all Darwinists think alike \u2014 or, at any rate, that they ought<\/strong><\/em> to think alike since they are all grouped under the one banner of \u201cDarwinism\u201d.\u00a0 Jonas therefore, it seems to me, has the unfortunate tendency of\u00a0 holding Darwin responsible for every single statement made by the dangerous disciples and spin merchants of Darwin. I am surprised that a man so intelligent and scholarly as Jonas should fall prey to such a hideous logical fallacy. I expected better of him.<\/h5>\n
Jonas quotes Richard Dawkins as saying:<\/h5>\n
\u201cIt is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I\u2019d rather not consider that).\u201d<\/h5>\n
This statement annoys Jonas. Nay more, it outrages him! Since he doesn\u2019t believe in the theory of evolution himself, he resents the implication that he is ignorant, stupid and insane. But his blood positively boils at the thought that he is being called \u201cwicked\u201d. Speaking for myself, I would be flattered if the renowned Richard Dawkins were to take notice of my existence and call me \u201cwicked\u201d. I would be tickled pink. And I would at once forgive him for calling me ignorant, stupid and insane.<\/h5>\n
But Dawkins is not going to do that in my case, since I happen to believe in the theory of evolution. It makes sense to me. In no way does it threaten my deeply intrenched religious beliefs. God may be a delusion. But only to Dawkins and his disciples. Not to me. I can accept Darwin without kicking God into the bushes.<\/h5>\n
I think Dawkins is to be forgiven for his little rhetorical flourish and commended for his facility of language. Anyone who can produce such scintillating quotable quotes cannot be all that bad.<\/h5>\n

\u00a0\"dawkins<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a7\u00a0 \u00a0\u2014<\/h5>\n
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that Darwinism and Dawkinism are two entirely different animals. For my part, I accept Darwin. I do not accept Dawkins. What is the main difference between Darwinism and Dawkinism? Answer: the God Question<\/em>.<\/h5>\n
Darwin is an agnostic with theistic inclinations. He accepts the possibility of God<\/em>. He is like someone who says, \u201cLook, I\u2019m not going to say I believe in God right now. Don\u2019t rush me! Maybe I\u2019ll say I believe in God tomorrow. All I\u2019ll say right now is that I believe God is a distinct possibility.<\/em>\u00a0And I wouldn\u2019t be surprised if God should turn out to be the ultimate explanation for the universe.\u201d<\/h5>\n
I\u2019ve lived with Darwin a long time now and absorbed the man\u2019s\u00a0 essence, and I know in my bones that this is how Darwin thought and felt. He had a veneration for life. He had seen its beauty and majesty. He had looked into the heart of things and heard \u201cthe still, sad music of humanity\u201d.<\/h5>\n
Darwin\u2019s religious views were full of \u201cfluctuations\u201d \u2014 his own words \u2014\u00a0 changing by the day and mellowing with the years. In 1859, after the publication of\u00a0The Origin of Species<\/em>, Darwin was still pretty atheistical in some of his pronouncements. For example, this:<\/h5>\n
\u201cI cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonid\u00e6 [parasitical wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.\u201d<\/h5>\n
But then he adds elsewhere, far less atheistically and more agnostically, with that characteristic modesty of his that is one of his most endearing features: \u201cI feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of\u00a0Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.\u201d<\/h5>\n
That\u2019s Darwin for you. So beautifully measured. So honest and down to earth. For my part, it\u2019s hard for me not to respect\u00a0 and admire such a man.<\/h5>\n
To hate Darwin is to misunderstand him; not to love him is to have missed the way.<\/h5>\n
He is thinking on our behalf. He is reaching out, like neolithic man looking up at the starry heavens, for the Unknown God \u2014 the Hidden God who is so stunningly beautiful that he needs to hide behind a veil.<\/h5>\n

\u00a0\"Charles<\/a><\/p>\n

CHARLES DARWIN (1809-1882)<\/strong>
\n\u201cI am not the least afraid to die.\u201d \u2014 <\/strong><\/strong>Last words<\/em><\/h3>\n
Last sentence of <\/strong>The Origin of Species<\/strong><\/em> :\u00a0 \u201cThere is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.\u201d<\/strong><\/h5>\n
Note.<\/em> The significant words \u201cby the Creator\u201d did not appear in the the first edition of The Origin of Species,<\/em>\u00a0but this omission was corrected by Darwin himself in the second edition of 1860 where the words appeared for the first time. This important emendation was then added to all subsequent editions during Darwin\u2019s lifetime, the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh editions. It is hard to see how Darwin could have been an \u201catheist\u201d, as is often falsely claimed, if he insisted on using the word \u201cCreator\u201d so many times. (Scroll down to end of this Wikiquotes List<\/a><\/strong><\/span>)<\/h5>\n
Jonas is factually wrong<\/em> to say, in Part 2 of his article, that I had \u201cmisread Darwin\u2019s views<\/a><\/strong><\/span>\u201c, when he himself is guilty of the glaring mistake of maintaining the very opposite of the truth here:<\/h5>\n
Yes, Darwin did say at the end of the\u00a0Origin of Species\u00a0that life was \u201coriginally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.\u201d[39]\u00a0But subsequent editions tell us something very different. This is what Darwin later said: \u201cThere is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.\u201d[40]<\/h5>\n
Jonas, I regret to say, has got it back to front.<\/h5>\n
Darwin didn\u2019t change his mind, as Jonas erroneously suggests, by dropping the phrase \u201cBY THE CREATOR\u201d in subsequent editions<\/a><\/strong><\/span> of The Origin of Species<\/em> and settling for atheism.<\/h5>\n
On the contrary, the quote Jonas gives above, where the words \u201cby the creator\u201d are omitted, is the correct version only for the first edition<\/em><\/strong> of The Origin of Species,\u00a0<\/em>published in November 1859.\u00a0 To all subsequent editions of the book during his lifetime \u2014 from the second edition of 1860 to the sixth edition of 1871 \u2014 Darwin had added<\/strong><\/em> the significant words \u201cBY THE CREATOR\u201d.<\/h5>\n
Contrary therefore to the false impression Jonas gives, Darwin had moved into theism, not lapsed into atheism!\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/h5>\n
\u2014\u00a0 \u00a7\u00a0 \u2014<\/h5>\n
Richard Dawkins, however, is the inhabitant of different mental universe and you must not blame Darwin for Dawkins\u2019 profoundly pessimistic, quasi-nihilistic pronouncements. The negative quotes about Dawkins that Jonas provides in his recent anti-Darwin article \u2014 \u201cmuch of the philosophy he [Dawkins] purveys is at best jejune\u201d, \u201cbadly flawed\u201d, \u201can amateur\u201d, \u201cat best sophomoric \u2026 unfair to sophomores\u201d \u2014 sadly miss the mark. The people who say these bad things about Dawkins are who exactly? Nonentities. Second raters. Relatively untalented ranters probably a bit jealous of Dawkins\u2019 outstanding achievements and accomplishments: his scientific expertise, his genuinely religious awe for the mysteries and marvels of our universe, and his rare gift for rhetoric.<\/h5>\n
You may not wish to believe a word of this, but it\u2019s so eloquently expressed that you cannot but admire its brilliance:<\/h5>\n
\u201cNatural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind\u2019s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is\u00a0the blind watchmaker.\u201d<\/h5>\n
This is just the kind of comment bound to anger devout Christians and all who believe in some kind of God. But why not let the sad bird sing? Why shoot the pretty songster because its script annoys you? Remember Shelley: \u201cOur sweetest songs are those \/ that tell of saddest thought.\u201d<\/h5>\n
Here is Dawkins again. Though I do not like what he says, I can\u2019t help admiring the way he says it. Such lapidary prose, such brilliant use of language, dazzles me with delight and makes me feel I am in the presence of a virtuoso:<\/h5>\n
\u201cThe total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won\u2019t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.\u00a0The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but\u00a0blind, pitiless indifference.\u201d<\/h5>\n
What we have here is a Godless universe. The Well of Despair. The ultimate expression of nihilism.<\/h5>\n
NEXT STOP \u2014 SUICIDE!<\/em><\/h5>\n
So where do we go from here? Don\u2019t ask me!<\/h5>\n
I\u2019m just an ant on the window ledge.<\/h5>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The greatest threat to world peace is godless nihilism: world war is the evil child of world despair.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":133,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-166705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-Commentary"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166705","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/133"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=166705"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166705\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":166710,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/166705\/revisions\/166710"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=166705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=166705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=166705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}