Worldview Class #2 – Part 9 – Marxist Biology

While teaching a Sunday morning class on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

Three events occurred in the year 1859 which were critically interrelated to the subject of humanist thought on biology. Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in that year. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels began publishing their most concerted work on communist thought.

And Louis Pasteur proved that the concept of spontaneous generation was a falsehood (see The Slow Death of Spontaneous Generation (1668-1859)).


In prior posts, I have shown that spontaneous generation – the idea that all things came into existence from nothing – is a critical a priori assumption made by humanists. And yet, even in the face of Pasteur’s very convincing experiment, Engels said, “Pasteur’s attempts in this direction are useless; for those who believe in this possibility [of spontaneous generation], he will never be able to prove their impossibility by these experiments alone…” From my point of view, this is absolute proof that Marxists rely on the concept of faith at least as much as those who are Christians. In fact, it seems that the ability to trust in the “scientific” concept of “something from nothing” requires far more faith than to simply admit the possibility of a God and Creator of all.

When Marx read Darwin’s paper, he believed that he had finally found “the explanation” that he had been looking for as to how everything came into existence. Marxism relies primarily on the concept of atheism, and in the Marxist worldview there is simply no room for God. Thus, any explanation that can be created which denies God altogether is generally acceptable for the Marxist.

But Marx had a big problem with Darwin’s theory. Darwin himself had said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” This Darwinian concept is called gradualism, and is a pivotal element in teaching evolutionary thought. And yet, such a concept rails against the concept of Marxist dialectic – which says that history and society is formed by sudden and rapid changes. Georgi Plekhanov, a renowned Marxist in the early twentieth century said, “Many people confound dialectic with the theory of evolution. Dialectic is, in fact, a theory of evolution. But it differs profoundly from the vulgar [Darwinian] theory of evolution, which is based substantially upon the principle that neither in nature nor in history do sudden changes occur, and that all changes taking place in the world occur gradually.” For a very long time, Marxism struggled under the burden of this disconnect. Darwinian gradualism was generally accepted by the scientific community, but it disagreed fundamentally with the Marxist concept of sudden change.

All of that changed in 1972, when the concept of punctuated equilibrium was proposed. This handy theory completely explained away the annoying differences between Darwinian evolution and Marxist thought. But like many convenient solutions, it was founded on poor assumptions and bad science. Nevertheless, the idea of sudden changes between species is a generally accepted theory in today’s world. The quality of the science takes a back seat to a theory which confirms the Marxist worldview. Said differently – Marxists will believe anything that supports their viewpoint.

Isn’t it interesting that Christians are often the ones who are accused of establishing a conclusion and then finding facts to support it? But scientists who propose theories and then casually label them as facts are the ones who are lauded as “objective and unbiased”. Christians are made to feel that the idea of a God/Creator and the possibility of a young earth are silly, insubstantial science. But Christians should never forget these simple facts:

1. God created science

2. God made the laws of nature to be sensible and reliable

3. God has made these things plain to those who will but open their eyes to see what He has done

Psalm 19:1-3 tells us,

“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.”

In a world dominated by humanist thought and worldly thinkers, God has set forth evidence after evidence before us – in the skies of nature and in all of our surroundings – proclaiming his handiwork. Sadly, as foretold in Romans chapter 1, there are still some who will not see it.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 10 – New Age Biology
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class #2 – Part 5 – Marxist/Leninist Philosophy

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************
We have defined philosophy as the “rational investigation of the principles of knowledge.” Put more clearly – How do we know what we know?

Frederick Engels, a founder of Marxist thought, said, “The real unity of the world consists in its materiality, and this is proved…by a long and protracted development of philosophy and natural science…But if the…question is raised: what then are thought and consciousness, and whence they come, it becomes apparent that they are products of the human brain and that man himself is a product of nature, which has been developed in and along with its environment.” To the Marxist, everything is reduced to the material.

Marxists view matter as the thing that is indestructible and eternal, the same classification that Christians would give to God. In essence, this puts matter in the place of God for a Marxist. Marxism has been called a “godless theology” for this very reason. But this explanation of materialism is not quite enough to fully satisfy the proponents of this philosophy, and so they add one more element to the mix.

Marxists believe that matter is meant to be pitted constantly against other matter – with the result that things are ultimately and progressively improved (their scientists seem to overlook that this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics). This philosophical approach is called dialectical materialism. A dialectical conversation can be thought of as two people arguing opposite sides of an issue with the intent of ultimately establishing a higher truth. The same thought applies to dialectical materialism, with matter taking the place of conversation.

In dialectical materialism, a thesis is proposed (such as “all mankind should be treated justly”). An opposite anti-thesis is then offered (“all mankind is unequal and should be treated with various levels of justice”). The experiment is put into play, and the two sides oppose each other, using history as a lab, and involving real people and real occurrences. Ultimately, the result is a new synthesis (“some new form of justice is invented”). Then, the new synthesis is proposed as a thesis, and the process begins again. Marxists believe that this process repeats over and over throughout history, with the result being an increasingly improved society. This is precisely why they have invited the proletariat uprising against the bourgeoisie for so long. And should the proletariat classes eventually win this battle, they will just have to be pitted against the next “better” thing.

Marxists use this philosophy to create theories which support their beliefs. Evolution’s punctuated equilibrium is a good example of this – where evolution supposedly takes a huge leap over intermediary evolutionary steps and new species just “happen”. Just as they have written the possibility of God out of any of their thinking, they can create theories such as this to overcome facts – such as the lack of evidence of intermediate species in the fossil record.

Above all, Marxist thought absolutely rejects the existence of God as a possibility. All of their theories must be crafted and adjusted around this belief. And, like Secular Humanism, such a philosophy leaves little hope for those who long for something more after this life. After all, to a Marxist, we are just “matter”.

**********************
Next: Worldview #2 - Part 6 – Cosmic Humanist Philosophy
-- or –
Back to the start of this series
-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class – Part 10 –Marxist/Leninist Ethics

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Ethics are defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc." Specifically, the study of ethics attempts to answer the question “Who makes the rules – God or man?”

It is a frequent accusation by many that Marxists have no ethics. This is likely an extension of the premise that Marxists do not believe in God. But make no mistake – Marxist ethics are well-defined, far more than those of the Secular Humanist and New Age camps. They are rooted in two principles. The first is dialectical materialism, the theory that the universe is ever-changing, and everything changes with it, including society and the ethics that govern it. The second is class struggle, the idea that the working man’s class (the proletariat) must eventually overthrow the oppressive ruling class (the bourgeoisie). Marxists believe that the next phase of societal evolution is for this overthrow to occur, thus moving the world from a capitalist society to a socialist one (Hmmm….I think I’ve heard something about this recently…).

The current goal of the Marxist is to create a classless society. To do this, they propose a system where equality trumps individuality. The Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of individual freedoms such as ownership of property, child-rearing by parents, and home education. Under a Marxist rule, it is assumed that the state knows best, and so they dictate the rules of society, even to the point of encroaching on parent-child interactions and who owns property. Marxists hate the Bible and its commands such as “Thou shall not steal” precisely because it implies that someone owns property and someone does not. Their aim is to eliminate this inequity and return to a world where no one has more possessions than any other. This equality will eliminate jealousy and envy and the crimes that go along with these feelings. Nikita Krushchev summed it up when he said, “So long as classes exist on the earth, there will be no such thing in life as something good in the absolute sense. What is good for the bourgeoisie, for the imperialists, is disastrous for the working class, and, on the contrary, what is good for the working people is not admitted by the imperialists.”

Under a Marxist plan, the world will move toward such a society, but this move will necessitate a shift in morality, that is, the line between right and wrong will change. Karl Marx wrote these words in The Communist Manifesto – “Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?” This is the very nature of dialectical materialism – the world, society, and ethics are in constant flux. There is no possibility of a single truth for all time.

An excellent question to ask an average Marxist is this – “If we achieve a classless society in our lifetime, what is the next step in the Marxist plan?” I have done much research to ascertain this answer, but cannot find the next step in their plan. Were Marxism to take root globally, there would surely be a new initiative, and the ends and means would change with it. Curiously, it is a worldview without a clear final goal, other than world domination by Marxism.

Finally, it should be understood that the ethical code of Marxism includes hatred as an acceptable expression of the individual. If hatred, or an act of hate furthers the cause of Marxism, then it is perfectly fine. It is, in fact, demanded by their code. Krushchev said it best when he stated, “Our cause is sacred. He whose hand will tremble, who will stop midway, whose knees will shake before he destroys tens and hundreds of enemies, he will lead the revolution into danger. Whoever will spare a few lives of enemies will pay for it with hundreds and thousands of lives of the better sons of our fathers.” The rule of Marxism has left a trail of death, imprisonment, and slavery – all in the name of furthering the Marxist cause. It is estimated that 20 million Soviet citizens died at the hands of Stalin and his Marxist rule between 1924 and 1953. Rather than deny that these murders occurred, a good Marxist would admit to them and claim that they were necessary to win the fight for a classless society. Thus, murder is an acceptable ethic under Marxist rule.

As with other non-Christian worldviews, the Marxist ethic is disturbing in that it does not claim that there is a single moral truth on which we can depend. Living in such a world has disturbing and unpredictable consequences. It is this fact that we should reference to appeal to the Marxist. It is far better to live in a world where the rules are stable, known, fair and created not by man, but by the God of the universe.

To Worldview - Part 11 - Cosmic Humanist (New Age) Ethics

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 6 – Marxist Theology

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Theology is defined as “the study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions”. Every worldview takes a stand on God, whether it is to believe in one Creator of all, or to say that no God exists. A critical understanding of each worldview pivots around the position taken regarding the existence of God.

Like the secular humanist, those who proclaim themselves to follow Marxist/Leninist theology do not believe in the existence of God. In the words of Lenin himself, the Marxist “propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.” And like the secular humanist, man is exalted as the supreme divinity by Marxists. However, Marxism pivots on an additional item – the state. Under ideal Marxist circumstances, the state (or government) becomes the authority for all things. Parental authority in education, religion or even the family is removed, since it is believed that the state will supply an integrated, superior guidance. Indeed, the Communist Manifesto states that “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality”. Ostensibly, this statement is made because the common man’s class struggle against the oppressive bourgeoisie class will ultimately free him from their rules – and those rules include morality, religion, and law.

It’s interesting to note that the elimination of the bourgeoisie laws must be replaced by the new laws of the state, and there is very little difference between this and the original design (at least, in my mind). The state will eventually take control and provide mandates to the common man – and the state will certainly not stay true to the freedoms and rights of the individual, but will be corrupted by its own power. This was clearly in evidence during the rule of Stalin, Krushchev, and Breshnev. Communism eventually fell in the Soviet Union, but still lives today in places like China and Cuba. It remains to be seen if this model will outlast other models in place, such as democracy. In many ways, our own culture in America is displaying tendencies toward the Marxist model. For example, the Marxist tenet that the ruling class should be stripped of their power and wealth and then have it evenly distributed amongst the working man’s class sounds suspiciously like things I hear in our own presidential debates. This paradigm of “fairness” is attractive to those in the working class, and is increasingly pervasive in many democratic societies today.

Marxism relies heavily on the promise of science to save us, as increasing human knowledge is the goal to strive toward. This introduces the concept of scientific atheism, as opposed to just plain atheism. Under scientific atheism, man’s knowledge is the prize and it allows truth to “change” as man acquires new discoveries. The Atheist Handbook, published in 1959, says “Science has long since established that Jesus Christ never existed, that the figure of the alleged founder of Christianity is purely mythical.” Fortunately, the proof has gone wanting, as this is nothing more than a false statement made for propaganda purposes.

To sum up, Marxist theology can be presented in two statements – 1) God does not exist, and 2) Man is the supreme divinity. I find it distressing to think of the many millions of people who have lived under this philosophy, because it offers no eternal hope. The Marxist state can only offer up a few years on earth to enjoy (if it can really be called enjoyment), and then there is nothing to hope in beyond death. This seems like a natural place to begin the argument against Marxist theology. The Christian has an offering of hope, and a promise of eternal life spent with the Creator of the universe. A discussion along these lines has a good chance of producing fruit. I find it difficult to believe that a person can spend their whole life without wondering about the possibility of something that follows death.

Ludwig Feurbach, one of Karl Marx’s contemporaries, made the statement, “It is clear as the sun, and evident as the day that there is no God; and still more, that there can be no God.” It saddens me that he was not able to see the evidence that is overwhelmingly in favor of a Creator. Romans 1:20 tells us, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” The Christian’s hope, and testimony, pivot on this fact.

To Worldview - Part 7 - New Age (Cosmic Humanist) Theology

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***