In 1861, upon reading the Origin of Species, he exclaimed: “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history.”

Who is he? Karl Marx (author of the Communist Manifesto and father of communism).

Nearly 2 thousand years before Origin of Species went into print, this man taught ideas that bear a striking resemblance to the assumptions underlying evolutionary principles. He taught the following:

- There is no need to believe in God (a theory of human existence devoid of deity)
- Every man fared in this life according to the natural “management of the creature” (a'la natural selection)
- Every man “conquered according to his strength” (a'la survival of the fittest)
- “Whatsoever a man did was no crime” (moral relativism)
- “When a man was dead, that was the end thereof” (atheism)

Who was this man? Korihor (ancient American atheist extraordinaire and deceiver of many). Sorry I couldn’t find his picture.

 

In 1891 in Gori, Georgia, a 13-year-old choirboy with dreams of becoming a priest, Iosef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, was discovered by his mother at dawn, having stayed awake through the night reading Darwin’s Origin of Species.

“I loved the book so much, Mummy, I couldn’t stop reading,” he explained. He later told a friend that God “doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived.”

“How can you say such a thing?” the friend exclaimed.  The boy responded by handing his friend a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species.

Who is the boy?  Joseph Stalin (orchestrator of the Great Purge or Soviet Holocaust which resulted in the deaths of millions of soviet citizens).

 


Comments

Jared*

Fri, 06 Feb 2009 7:54:28 pm

I'll give you marks for being inflammatory.

Your choice of Stalin is an interesting one. It turns out that the Soviets weren't all that fond of Darwinian natural selection because they didn't like what they thought were capitalist implications. They also thought that Mendelian genetics was too deterministic and would clash with their plans to improve human character. So instead they went for Lamarckism, which was incorporated into communist philosophy. With T.D. Lysenko promising to make improved varieties of wheat, "Stalin allowed Lysenko to begin a purge of the Russian geneticists, and all research in that area was forbidden. Geneticists were forced to recant their support for their 'bourgeois' science or were exiled to Siberia, where some simply disappeared." (Talk about being expelled--that's almost like what has happened to ID proponents.)

Anyway, don't let such complications get in the way of the roasting Darwin so richly deserves.

(Source: Peter Bowler, "Evolution: The History of an Idea.")

 

Dave C.

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 1:38:43 pm

Jared,
Thanks for the further enlightenment on the issue of the Soviets. I remember reading that they favored Lamarck.

 

Doc

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 9:57:17 pm

Wow, this is kind of like roasting the Book of Mormon because Ted Bundy, Jeff Lundgren, and William Jeffs may have had good words for it.

Which brings up the million dollar question, have you ever actually read the book?

 

Dave C.

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 2:37:01 pm

If they had patterned their life's work off of the doctrines contained in the BofM, they would have been much different individuals.

Marx, Stalin, and Korihor patterned their life's work after doctines akin to those found in Origin of Species, and we all know the outcomes of their work. By their fruits ye shall know them.

No, I have not actually read the book Origin of Species. But as any true scholar knows, most of us judge original works by secondary sources, which is where I got my information on evolution from. I may read it some day, perhaps during the same year that I read Dawkin's dreadful "The God Delusion."

 

Tim

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 6:52:51 pm

"Marx, Stalin, and Korihor patterned their life's work after doctines (sic) akin to those found in Origin of Species."

Do you dispute the "survival of the fittest" in nature? Do you dispute that those organisms best suited to their environment tend to survive and reproduce, while those not well-suited don't?
Darwin saw patterns in nature and made sense of them. His book was one of biology, not human behavior. He did not embrace social darwinism, nor did he see why evolution would need to clash with God. The greatest tragedy in his life was the death of his favorite daughter, who was not one of the "fittest."
Evil people often use excuses (religion, science, etc.) to justify their behavior. This does not mean that the religion/science/etc. is false.
"But as any true scholar knows, most of us judge original works by secondary sources, which is where I got my information on evolution from."
Funny. The antis on my mission told me the same thing. They insisted that they knew what we believed, and refused to listen when I told them we believed otherwise.

 

Dave C.

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 9:47:36 pm

Answers to Tim:

1. Do you dispute the "survival of the fittest" in nature?

--No, but I think it terrible that some people like Korihor and Stalin used it as a guidepost on how to treat other human beings. You are correct that Darwin was not a social darwinist. That dubious title goes to Herbert Spencer. Spencer's social darwinism is a logical extension of Darwin's principles of evolution, a logical extension supported by Darwin's later work The Descent of Man (a book connecting evolution and mankind).

2. Nor did [Darwin] see why evolution would need to clash with God.

--Sure, but he also said that “[He] would give absolutely nothing for [the] theory of natural selection if it required miraculous additions at any one stage of development.” His ideas did not need to clash with God because he had already thrown deity out of the picture all together.

3. The greatest tragedy in his life was the death of his favorite daughter, who was not one of the "fittest."

--Yes, I know. It was tragic for him. I learned of this while reading “Darwin, His Daughter & Human Evolution,” written by his own great grandson, Randall Keynes. I recommend this book - it is a very good read.

4. The antis on my mission told me the same thing. They insisted that they knew what we believed, and refused to listen when I told them we believed otherwise.

--Yes, I had this experience too. However, I did not acquire my information about neo-evolution from detractors. I learned it in biology class and from reading reputable sources. I have created my own criticisms of neo-darwinism, not as an anti-scientific nut job, but out of respect for science and in recognition of its tentative stance – the kind of respect that leads one to question dogmatic adherence to any theory. (I trust you are not equating people who question Darwinism with anti-mormons).

 

SteveP

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:35:11 am

Perfect! I've been looking for an example of the Guilt by Association Fallacy for my Philosophy of Biology Class. This will become standard reading.

"No, I have not actually read the book Origin of Species." No news there.

 

Dave C.

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:22:30 am

Have a good go at it, Steve. I am glad that I can contribute to the pedagogical success of the biology department.

Does anyone seriously think that my philosophical/epistemological concerns with the dogmatic truth claims put forth by advocates of neo-darwinism will change upon reading the Origin of Species? I have no concerns with the physical evidence. I have concerns with the type of assertions made based on the evidence. Perhaps this is a great topic for an upcoming post. Thanks.

 

SteveP

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:37:04 pm

Oh, never worry that I will be the one accuse you of letting the facts get in the way of what you already believe :)

Seriously though, Darwin constructed OofS as "One long argument" if you are going to attack the assertions made by evolution though natural selection you really should know what they are.

 

Jack

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 5:54:19 pm

SteveP,

Are you suggesting that OofS must be read in order to understand how evolution works? If not, what are you arguing?

 

Tim

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 4:15:25 am

Reading OofS is one way to understand a bit how evolution works.
There are other ways to understand it too. Those include reading an actual textbook, attending an evolution class, etc.
I think SteveP recommended reading OofS because he realized that many people commenting here have no idea what's actually in it, and they likewise don't have much understanding of how evolution actually works.
Ken Miller, a Catholic and a biologist, tells about reading it for the first time as a teenager...everyone keeps telling him that it's an evil book (although, of course, they've never read it), but as much as he wants to read something scandalous or evil, he just can't find it in OofS.

 

Doc

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:54:26 am

Dave,
First, before I say this, I want to state unequivocally that I believe the Book of Mormon to absolutely be the word of God, and it has definitely made me a better person.

However, Jeff Lundgren killed his wife, children and in-laws because he thought God told him too, using Nephi and Laban as a model. Isn't this patterning your life after principles of the book? Sometimes literalism results in behavior directly in opposition to God's purposes, even in regard to the most correct book on the Earth.

 

Ryan

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 9:22:56 am

Good post, Dave. Whether he meant to or not, I can't think of anyone who has contributed more to the spread of atheism and Godlessness than Darwin through his book and its implications. "By their fruits ye shall know them" is exactly right.

 

Dave C.

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:09:38 am

Thank you, Ryan.

Ditto!

 

Comments are closed.
Google Analytics