Evidence for The Creator: Reproductive Isolation

Reproductive isolation is where a population becomes isolated and narrows it's diversity to a homogeneous morphology.  It loses the ability to reproduce with other 'cousin' populations,  even when they are clearly descended from the same ancestral clade.

It is generally trumpeted as 'Proof of Evolution!', and declared a 'speciation event!'.  But if we examine what is really taking place,  it conflicts with the common ancestry model,  and fits better in the creation model.

Let's look at equus, as an example.   Caballus and Asinus are the horse and donkey, respectively.  They share a mitochondrial Most Recent Common Ancestor  (mt-MRCA).  This is hard evidence of ancestry, not just assumption and speculation. 

Sometime in the past, as the ancestral equid began to display it's INHERENT  diversity, the traits in the horse AND the donkey split off, and became isolated from each other, due to environmental pressures.

There is also a phenomenon in the animal kingdom of creatures choosing a mate based on morphological similarity.  They tend to gravitate to animals that look like themselves.  Bigotry is a natural phenomenon in the animal world.

Here is a good explanation of the differences and reasons that some of the equus descendants became isolated:

http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/equus.html

*The hybrids are viable because their genes--housed on chromosomes that appear to have undergone major physical rearrangement (evident in the synteny of their chromosomes) during the adaptive radiation of Equus species--are largely homologous. They have all the necessary genetic information encoding normal devlopment and body function. This can be shown via chromosomal hybridization in which chromosomes from different species are allowed to pair as if during metaphase.

However, because the chromosomes have changed so much during Equus evolution, the chromosomes cannot pair properly during meiosis to allow crossing over and successful segretation of homologs into new daughter cells. Hence, the hybrids are almost always sterile, as they cannot produce viable gametes.*

The chromosomes can split (or join) at the telomere level, and sometimes the resultant populations become reproductively isolated from cousin populations from the same ancestors. 

It is ASSUMED, by believers in common ancestry,  that this is a macro evolution event, and a 'new!' Species has just formed.  Here are the flaws in that assumption:

1. The variability in the parent stock has REDUCED, as the strains settle into homogeneous morphology.  They have DEVOLVED, and have lost diversity.  Many isolated populations have gone extinct,  as they were unable to adapt to environmental conditions with their limited gene pool to draw from.

2. Not all animal groups/clades/families/kinds exhibit the phenomenon of reproductive isolation.   Felids do, but canidae and homo sapiens do not.  Lions and tigers isolated, but wolves, dogs, and coyotes have not.  Humans of all races, across the globe,  can still reproduce.   Even those with diverse morphology,  like African pygmies and tall white Russians, have not isolated reproductively. 

3. Some caballus haplogroups can still interbreed, even though their chromosome count has changed, and their morphology has narrowed.   Here is a good example of that:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/148/3668/382

*The chromosome number of the domestic horse is 2n = 64; different races have the same complement. The chromosomes of two Przewalski's horses (at Catskill Game Farm, New York), presumably ancestral wild horses from Mongolia, are identical: 2n = 66, with more acrocentric and fewer metacentric elements than the chromosomes of the domestic horse. This apparent difference in karyotype may help resolve the questions of "purity" in the relatively few remaining Przewalski's horses. Moreover, these findings are of interest in relation to the apparent fertility of hybrids between these species.*

Even though they can reproduce, they are classified as 'different species!'  But it is only cosmetic differences,  and arbitrary definitions, that differentiate them.

So, how does reproductive isolation provide evidence for creation?

1. The ancestral  groups/clades/families/kinds, had the diversity needed to produce each morphological clade, in each group's  phylogenetic tree.  
2. As the 'tree' branched out, *some* haplogroups became isolated,  and lost the ability to interbreed with its cousin clades.
3. Some diversity was lost, as traits in the ORIGINAL  group/clade/family/kind are/were (apparently) lost to extinction. Sabre toothed cats and wooly mammoths are examples of that. 
4. Reproductive isolation is a DEVOLVING process, where less diversity is observed, not increasing complexity or more diversification. 
5. The tips of the phylogenetic tree, in each  group/clade/family/kind, are dead ends, not beginnings of a 'New!' phenotype.
6. Genomic  entropy, not increasing complexity,  is the observed condition and result of reproductive isolation.  Organisms DEVOLVE, when isolated, to a homogeneous morphology., unless diversity from cousin clades can reinvigorate the depleted gene pool.

7. The gene pool at the tips is shallow and stagnant. It stinks of death and extinction, not vibrant diversity. 

This is EXACTLY  what we would expect, in the creation model,  where the parent organism started at 'full', in their gene pool, and depleted  as it branched out.  It is NOT a 'speciation!' event, but a path to extinction,  as the diversity levels lower.  They cannot be infused with 'fresh genes', from cousin clades, but are stuck in morphological monotony,  unable to produce anything but dead ends.

Reproductive Isolation is evidence of The Creator,  not godless naturalism. 

Conflicts with the Belief in Common Ancestry: Mutation

Is mutation the mechanism for gene creation, speciation, and common ancestry?

Mutation.  This is the Great White Hope, that the belief in common ancestry rides on.

The belief:
Random mutations have produced all the variety and complexity we see today, beginning with a single cell.

This phenomenon has never been observed, cannot be repeated in rigorous laboratory conditions, flies in the face of observable science, yet is pitched as 'settled science!'

Does mutation 'create' genes?

No. It alters them, some neutral, and others deleteriously.   But there is no way a mutated gene can be called a 'New!' gene.  This is like wrecking your car, and calling it a 'New Car!'

E Coli

I reviewed the groundbreaking study that allegedly 'proves!' common ancestry here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/debatecreation/comments/ei3l8x/ecoli_proves_common_ancestry_studies_reviewed/

The ability to digest citrates, and mutate, does NOT indicate speciation, nor macro evolution.  It is an adaptation that ecoli was able to do, from inherent genetic abilities.  There is no indication of 'new genes!', or structural changes in the genome.   Ecoli remained ecoli, after over 66,000 generations, only adapting to micro climate conditions.   It is not proof, or evidence of, common ancestry.

Mutation is not the engine of gene creation like so many believe.  It is a deleterious process, that creates nothing.  The complex  features in living things cannot be explained by mutation..  the leap from a single celled amoeba to even a bacteria is untraceable and unexplainable by mutation.  The eye, flight, warm blood..  and countless variety in living organisms have no indication or evidence of being *caused* by mutation. There is nothing observable or repeatable, to compel a conclusion of mutation as an engine of increasing complexity.   It is a belief, with no empirical evidence.

The unbased belief in 'Mutation!' could not be the engine for common ancestry. There is no evidence that mutation caused legs, eyes, hearing, wings, warm bloodedness, or any trait or feature in living things. That is believed, only. Observation tells us that mutations are neutral, at best, or deleterious to the organism. It is not a creative power for complexity.

The sci fi imaginations of x-men, or other mutation based themes, project the possibility of this as an explanation for complexity, but there is no evidence that it can, much less did, happen.

An adaptation, or variety, is something that is ALREADY THERE, in the parent stock, and is 'selected', by human or natural means, to survive.

A mutation only alters an existing trait, (or gene, exactly). It is not a selective process, but a deleterious one, that degrades the organism in almost every case.

Ecoli, adapting to digest citrates, is not evidence for common ancestry. It only shows the adaptability of this unique organism. It is not becoming anything else, or changing its genomic architecture.  It is still ecoli.

The belief in common ancestry completely relies on the wishful thinking of mutation,  as the engine for complexity and variability.  There is  no credible evidence of 'gene creation!' in any study to date. Mutations are not, 'new genes!' Selection, acting on existing variability, does not indicate new genes. Traits, variability, fantastically complex features.. hearing, seeing, flight, intelligence.. almost every trait known in the animal and plant kingdom have no empirical source. The belief in mutation, as a mechanism of increasing complexity has no scientific basis.   It is a religious belief, only.

Fallacies in the Origins Debate: Gish Gallop

This is a peculiar kind of fallacy,  combining poison the well, ad hominem, and red herring all together in a cutesy deflection.

It is specifically used in origins debate, to dismiss points made by crestionists. Some origins subreddits even use the term in their rules.

What is it?  It was coined by Eugenie Scott, a common ancestry defender, atheist, and vocal opponent of creationism.

From her article in the the talk.origins faq, on How to debate a creationist.

"I think they recognize that they have a lot to lose in any other than the "Gish Gallop" format. Tough luck. I can't see any reason why evolutionists should make it easier for them to rally their troops.

If after all of this, you still think you want to debate a creationist, then let me give you some suggestions. First, don't bother defending evolution. Evolution is state of the art science, taught at every decent college and university in this country, including Brigham Young, Notre Dame, and Baylor. So why should you defend it? Tell your audience that there is plenty of information on evolution in the library, in university courses, and in scores of science journals. Creation "science" is the new kid on the block. Let's see if it fits the criteria of science, and secondly, if its claims and predictions stand up to scrutiny.

And then show the audience how creation science is a bust. Don't bother trying to explain something as complicated as evolution, although during your rebuttal you can straighten the audience out on the creationist's stupider claims."

She coined the phrase to dismiss the presentations  of  Duane Gish, an early promoter of creationism from the last century.  He would list multiple points in a debate format, and the complaint is that the evolutionist was overwhelmed with points, unable to give a cogent response to any.

From wiki:

The Gish gallop is a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish

I personally met Duane Gish, and attended several debates, when academia still allowed that sort of thing (they use censorship,  now..).  He did have a wealth of scientific material and knowledge,  and conveyed it with sound logic.  I see the 'Gish Gallop!' accusation as an unfair and demeaning deflection, with no rational basis.  Here is why:

1. The debate formats are the real complaint.  Duane Gish would present as much facts and arguments as possible, in the allotted time.  The evolutionist debater would (allegedly) feel unable to rebut so many points in the shorter rebuttal time allotment.
2. Rather than deal with the ARGUMENTS and FACTS, the evolutionist debater found it much easier to dismiss it all, as a 'Gish Gallop!'
3. The irony i see is in the hypocrisy among 'Gish Gallop!' accusers, who often employ a similar tactic of flooding a 'debate' with irrelevant cut and pastes & off topic deflections.
4. Not every point can be made in a bumper  sticker soundbite. To dismiss everything, and complain of being overwhelmed by arguments,  is an admission that the rebuttal is impotent in it's response.

Duane Gish died in 2013, at 92 years of age.  The deflective smear that bears his name is a testament to his convincing, rational, and scientific arguments,  that elicited terror and dismissal from his opponents.

A personal note:
I became a creationist after attending debates with Duane Gish and Henry Morris,  in 1974.  Coming from a diverse scientific background in physics,  chemistry, and mathematics,  i was impressed with the facts and arguments that these debaters displayed.  I continued in origins, even joining the 'debate' on talk.origins in the 90s.  When i am accused of 'Gish Gallop!' (and anyone who engages in this debate will be) , i am reminded  of the warmth, wit, humor, and crushing rationality of this great father of modern scientific creationism.

Theistic Evolution: Science or Heresy?

It is my observation that theistic evolution is the most common belief in America,  and i suspect, most of western civilization. It is an attempt to blend, or hybridize the pop belief of common ancestry,  with the inner felt sense of a universe with a Higher Power.

But it only mixes bad science with bad theology, to arrive at a flawed view of reality.

There are many things you can conclude, if you assume God used abiogenesis and common ancestry to bring man into being:

Theological 
1. Man was not created as a complete being, with a soul.
2. Death and suffering were the means God used, to 'create' man.
3. Mankind is not equal, as there would be different levels of advancement among the evolving human tribes.
4. The biblical account of man's creation and subsequent fall, bringing death into the world, is false.
5. Morality is relative.. as man evolved, so did his instincts about morals. Early man could have brutal animal instincts, but they might change.
6. God is fickle and changing.. there are no absolutes.

Social
1. The more highly evolved, among the human collective, should manage and control the lower forms.
2. Aspiring to evolve the Perfect Man is a logical step, in the evolution of man.
3. Eliminating inferior stock is a necessary step, in any selective breeding process.

Scriptural conflicts with theistic evolution: 

Acts17:24“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

John1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.

Genesis1:1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Acts4:18So they called them and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” 21So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way of punishing them, because of the people, since they all glorified God for what had been done. 22For the man was over forty years old on whom this miracle of healing had been performed. 23And being let go, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24So when they heard that, they raised their voice to God with one accord and said: “Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them

Deut32:6Is this the way you repay the Lord,

you foolish and unwise people?

Is he not your Father, your Creator,

who made you and formed you?

Rom1:25They exchanged God’s truth for a lie and worshipped and served the creation rather than the Creator

Other logical problems with theistic evolution: 

1. If you premise an All Powerful Being, able to create a universe from nothing, why limit Him to naturalistic processes, that cannot even be established as valid scientific mechanisms?   Neither abiogenesis nor common descent has any scientific evidence.  They are conflicting RELIGIOUS beliefs, that have their root in atheistic naturalism. 

2. Attempting to 'spiritualize' the biblical creation account just emasculates it, as a historical event.   Dream and allegory render any biblical or historical event as meaningless and illusory. 

3. The prophets and biblical writers bore false witness, and were liars, relaying events that did not happen. 

Theistic evolution is a lame, irrational attempt to blend State sponsored Indoctrination of atheistic naturalism,  to the inner sense of God.  It tries to hybridize bad science with bad theology, and arrives at a useless, corrupt view of both.  It denies the Ability of God, and ignores the deception and duplicity of man.  It is a deadly poison, that leads people away from their Creator,  to a man made delusion.

Angst

I've touched on the subject of angst in other articles,  but i thought perhaps this concept deserves a more thorough examination.  Angst is the common, universal, & very uniquely human condition of panic, fear, or dread about the abstract ideas of eternity, infinity, & existence. Human beings for all of history have exhibited it, explained it, rationalized it, & fled from it. It is the realization of our mortality.. coming to grips with the fact of our existence, impending death, solitude, or anything else we might imagine. We realize we are on a path that we did not make, & there is nothing we can do about it.

This might be a good place to make fun of ourselves, & angst filled, existential gloom. Existentialist philosophers have grappled a lot with angst, but it is a common concept, going back as far as we have records of man's thoughts. It is a very serious subject, but is faced better with a little self deprecating humor..



Here are some possibilities, regarding the afterlife:

1. Death is the end. No soul. No purpose other than immediate existence. A naturalistic view of the universe.
2. There is a unique soul, and eternal consequences for its words & actions. Individual accountability.
3. There is a unique soul, but no consequences for words or actions. Amoral relativity.
4. There is a life force, but no individuality. Your 'spark' returns to the pool & your individuality is gone.

I can't really think of any other possibilities, from a philosophical POV. If there is not an individual soul.. a unique spark of life that continues in some kind of afterlife, then the result of either #1 or #4 is the same. Your essence, whatever it is, will be lost, & your uniqueness will dissipate into the nether regions of eternity.

But, if there is an eternal soul, that will continue on in another dimension, then the choices we make in this life take on eternal significance.

If we got to choose the above 'reality', i'm not sure any of the choices are very comforting. I've always like Clarke's quote about the supernatural:

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ~Arthur C. Clarke
Some people believe in the naturalistic/atheistic worldview. Others believe in a supernatural/theistic ideology. Many others admit to not knowing. I can't really see that any of the common beliefs has much comfort to the angst filled person, wondering what the meaning of his life is. On the one hand, there is eternal nothingness.. end of story. Life is over, & there is no memory, no future, no purpose or significance to our lives, at all. We are a cosmic accident, with no explanation, no hope, no meaning. Not much comfort there, but at least the pain only lasts a short time, while we are alive.

On the other hand, there is eternal existence. A Supernatural Being (or Beings) hold us accountable for our brief lives in this existence, & we will face consequences for our thoughts, words, & actions. There is a possibility that this Supreme Being is very strict &/or ruthless in His standards, & that the 'sins' that we might consider to be small potatoes, relative to other people, are major issues in the Presence of a Holy God. Not much comfort there, either, if there is a possibility of eternal torment, or continued pain from the actions in this life.

And then of course, there is not knowing. That is hardly comforting, either.

And the other unfortunate thing about Reality, is that we don't really get to choose it, regardless of the fantasy illusions of the left, & their identity politics, where you can choose your gender, race, self image, & eternal destiny. Actual reality is not so accommodating. It IS, & we have to live with it. So hoping that our BELIEFS about the afterlife or the soul is the one that Really Is, might lead to a rude shock.

Humans for millennia have searched for Truth. Angst is a very real thing, in the human experience, & IMO, it is the ONE clear evidence that we are here for Something More. Angst has no naturalistic explanation. But, it has been recognized by wise men & seekers of Truth throughout history.

“What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.” - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

And the famous quote by Augustine (354-430)
“I took a test in Existentialism. I left all the answers blank and got 100.” ~Woody Allen

So what is the conclusion? Pick the one you like best? Pretend you are at a philosophical buffet, pick & choose the things you like? That does not seem very wise, since there MIGHT be so much at stake. I submit that the words of Jesus & Jeremiah are good advice, for the human seeking clarity of Reality.

Jeremiah 29:12. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
John 8:31. “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
If there is something i note from these quotes, it is the necessity of sincerity & honesty, which stands to reason. If there is an afterlife, & eternal consequences for our words, thoughts, & actions here on earth, then a genuine search would let go of any bias or preconceived notions about God or the afterlife, and sincerely seek Reality. Truth is the goal, not validation, or comfort, or justification. The seeker of Truth must be willing to set aside all of their beliefs, opinions, notions, and indoctrinations, if they are truly seeking Truth. If there is a God, He is no fool, & will not be deceived by games or manipulations.

“To love truth for truth's sake is the principal part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all other virtues.” ~John Locke

And of course, you can just ignore it all & hope for the best. But, if there is an afterlife, and an eternal soul, & a Supreme Being, to whom we must answer for our lives, it seems to me at some point we should make a concerted effort to discover the true nature of Reality, rather than piddle our lives away with temporal distractions. What could be more important than discovering the nature of our soul & eternal welfare?

Evidence for The Creator: Extinction

Extinction is evidence of The Creator.

The wide diversity within each family/type/clade/kind reflects the parent stock being full, and then slowly losing diversity, via genomic entropy.

Felidae, for example, HAD much more diversity in the past, and the big cats are dwindling and going extinct, not increasing in diversity and traits, like common ancestry predicts.

https://m.ranker.com/list/list-of-extinct-big-cats/ranker-science

One of the biggest concerns conservationists have these days is the ever-decreasing population of big cats across the planet. Their concerns are certainly warranted as a large number of big cats have gone extinct since the animals first began appearing some two million years ago. While most people are familiar with the likes of the famed sabre-toothed cats, there are recent examples of tigers, the Barbary lion, and other familiar animals that have disappeared in the 20th century.

Starting with the most recently extinct animals, this list of extinct big cats includes many that went extinct thousands of years ago, but there are a few examples of animals that disappeared in the 1900s. Protecting the remaining lions, tigers, panthers, jaguars, and others is imperative if we want to keep lists like this one of extinct cats as short as possible.

Observation:

The variability within the felidae family has decreased, and there are fewer traits in that family than in times past. Many cat varieties have gone extinct, in the last 200 years, and more before that.

Prediction of Models:

Creationism:
The ancestral felid contained all the variability, from current and extinct cats. Over time, traits can be lost, as isolation and adaptation 'selects' the winners and losers.

Common Ancestry:
The ancestral felid would be simpler, with fewer traits, and would have increased in complexity and variability over time.

The prediction of increasing complexity, added traits, and wider diversity is not observed. There is no mechanism to do this and it has never been observed. It is a belief that scientific observation does not support.

There was MORE diversity in times past, than now. Felidae is DEVOLVING, not adding traits and increasing in complexity. We observe genetic entropy and extinction, for organisms that do not have the traits to adapt to environmental conditions.

The observable reality of MORE diversity in the various families, devolving over time.. at times to extinction.. is evidence of a creation event, and conflicts with the belief in common ancestry.

Creation is religion! Atheism is science!

Re: The false narrative:

Creation is religion! Atheism is science!

My rebuttal:
1. There is a Reality.. either,

• The universe is God made
• The universe is godless

2. Science is a method of discovery, to see which of these possibilities is most likely. It can only sort facts. It cannot conclude opinions.
3. Science is NOT anti-God, or anti-creation, like the pseudoscience ideologues like to portray it.
4. Opinions and beliefs, about these possibilities are not facts, or 'settled science!' They are personal conclusions, based on the information (or lack thereof) on hand.
5. Dogmatically declaring YOUR beliefs as 'proven fact!', only reveals indoctrination and/or bigotry. They are not facts, but beliefs.
6. ANY belief/opinion about origins is inherently a religio/philosophical issue. Science can only plug the facts into either model, to see which fits better.
7. Excluding the possibility of creation by labeling it 'religion!', while labeling atheistic naturalism. 'Science!' is just progressive propaganda.
8. Lobbying to censor creationism as 'religion!', while pushing atheistic naturalism as 'science!', is just religious bigotry, promoting YOUR beliefs, and censoring the competition.

The Ideological Consequence of Belief

People often ask me:

'What's the big deal about evolution? What difference does it make, whether you believe that God created everything, or if He used evolution to do it? Or, if life is just a cosmic accident, with no God?'

A person's core beliefs about origins provides the basis for many other subsequent beliefs and conclusions about God, man, and the universe. It is not an irrelevant or frivolous opinion, but is the foundation for almost all other beliefs, and is the Foundation for their worldview. 

This is not a treatise about the science of universal common ancestry, aka evolution, but is an analysis of the logical conclusions that this belief system implies.

The assumption here is that the THEORY of universal common descent is just a theory.. It is not a proven fact, or even a workable hypothesis. I have addressed the science of universal common descent in other articles. This is about the RESULTANT ideology that UCA produces.

Theological
There are many things you can conclude about God, if you assume He used evolution to bring man into being:
1. Man was not created as a complete being, with a soul.
2. Death and suffering were the means God used, to finish man.
3. Mankind is not equal, as there would be different levels of advancement among the evolving human tribes.
4. The biblical account of man's creation and subsequent fall, bringing death into the world, is false.
5. Morality is relative.. as man evolved, so did his instincts about morals. Early man could have brutal animal instincts, but they might change.
6. God is fickle and changing.. there are no absolutes.

Social
1. The more highly evolved, among the human collective, should manage and control the lower forms.
2. Aspiring to evolve the Perfect Man is a logical step, in the evolution of man.
3. Eliminating inferior stock is a necessary step, in any selective breeding process.

Joseph Stalin was one of the most significant historical figures in the 20th century. He was instrumental in defeating Hitler, and expanded the influence of communism in his time. Here are some facts about Joseph Stalin:
1. He began as a student in a theological seminary.
2. He became an atheist after reading Origin of Species, by Darwin.
3. He became a devoted communist, and was inspired by Marx.
4. He was responsible for 20 - 25 million deaths, during his reign.
5. He engaged in armed robbery, to support the Bolshevik cause.
6. He impregnated a 13 yr old girl, while exiled in Siberia, c. 1914.

It is impossible to ignore the connection between Stalin's actions, and the core ideology that drove him. Much of the genocide that drove Stalin was to help 'create' the New Soviet Man.. a highly evolved superhuman, much like Hitler's goal for the Aryan nation.

In 1940, a book was published in Moscow entitled “Landmarks in the Life of Stalin.” In it we read:

At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates:

“I began to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said:

“‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. …’“

I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before.“‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed.

“‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said.

“‘What book is that?’ I enquired.

“‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”

Another quote, from a contemporary Russian:
Seventy years ago communists easily (and, as it turned out, for a long time) seized power in Russia. Without hesitation they undertook to build a new society, hitherto unprecedented in the history of mankind, and announced the construction of Communism throughout the whole world to be their final goal.
In this society there was to be no private property, it was to be a-religious: denying God, denying the existence of the immortal soul and recognizing only the material aspect of life as real. The society was to be free of ethnic affiliations, and communists were to have unlimited power over that society.
Unprecedented methods were used to build this unprecedented society. It was decided to create a new man. This man was to be free from ethnic affiliations, see no sense in private property, be always ready to sacrifice himself for the benefit of society, have no doubts that he originated from an ape or something like it (certainly from a beast) and that nothing will remain of him after his death. In other words, he was to be a one-hundred percent materialist and atheist and must know that the meaning of life is in the person's usefulness to society and the supreme goal is in a better, wealthy and happy life of future generations. Recognizing this, he would necessarily be happy.
It was obvious to initiators of the new society and creators of the new man that several existing classes of people would delay the implementation of this task. So, it was decided to destroy millions of these people "as a class ," i.e., to kill them. To "destroy as a class" is not just a reckless cynical phrase; in fact, it is a guide to practical action. This was done in Russia, and in this way began construction of the new society in every country as soon as the communists seized power. ~Sergei Khodorovich, 1987

The New Man, as a goal of the controlling elite, is widely referenced in the writings of the Marx/Darwin based ideologies.  Most of the notable despots in the 20th century were driven to help evolution create a New Man. Pol pot, Mao, Chavez, Stalin, Hitler, and almost all Marxist based ideologies included the Darwinist theme of favoring desired traits, and breeding.. helping evolution.. breed a New Man.

Woodrow Wilson was one of the leading figures in the progressive movement, early last century.

The influence from Darwin and the theory of universal common descent cannot be missed, and it was a major factor in his worldview.

"..government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton." Woodrow Wilson.

'Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All the progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when “development:... “evolution,” is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle…' Woodrow Wilson

There is a lot than can be said about Wilson, as one of the founding fathers of progressive ideology, but I'll stop here to make the point: the influence of Darwinism, as a shaper of ideology.

...
It seems to me we are in a 'post enlightenment' era, where human equality is assumed.. at least in most of the west, & especially America. But if the Majority Opinion slowly morphs back into one of Entitled Elitism, where certain humans are assumed to be equipped with some kind of Special Dispensation, then we are drifting backwards.

And, IMO, that is what is happening. A few people in this generation, still coasting along under the nostalgia of the Enlightenment & the Age of Reason, have this 'ideal' firmly embedded in their psyche. But newer ones do not. They are being taught that some people have special gifts. They are more evolved, or have secret superpowers that give them an edge over the common man. Natural Law is replaced with moral relativity & the decrees of elites. Human equality is dying, as special snowflakes are indoctrinated into believing they are superior & better than anyone else.

For this reason, i can see a slow drift, that may pick up as the old fossils of Enlightenment ideals are lost & forgotten (that would be you, dear reader!). Elitism is in our future, if we as a society/culture do not emphasize, with sound reasoning & solid foundations: human equality.

Christianity to Progressivism

This is an outline that chronicles the transition of American ideology and culture from the last century. Each point may be expanded upon, supported with data, and demonstrated to be the vehicle of change in American society. The transition is nearly complete, as the Christian era draws to a close, and the Progressive era dominates the social and individual climate.

Definitions
Christianity: the historical worldview that believes Jesus to be the Divine Savior of mankind; the literal bible as the authority of orthodoxy; absolute morality & natural law; a spiritual, inner focus of personal enlightenment with emphasis on positive interpersonal relationships; God is central, acknowledged, and engaged; human equality; individual freedom, responsibility, freedom of conscience, and self control; self rule.

Progressivism: a worldview that blends Marxist collectivism & Darwinian evolution; moral relativity or amorality; political activism; outward focus on others and society; exclusive materialism emphasis; control of all aocial institutions; social justice; state power to control all aspects of society; opposition to capitalism, the American experiment, and Christianity; the State is central; atheistic/naturalistic basis, God is irrelevant, unengaged, ridiculed, denied, or ignored.

These 2 worldviews are polar opposites in almost every area of social and individual life. They are competing worldviews for the soul/defining character of America. Both are religious and/or philosophical beliefs.

1. Indoctrination.
All education consists of and includes, philosophical and/or religious indoctrination.
A. Both Christianity and Progressivism have been indoctrinated/taught as the preferred worldview in their time.
B. The decline of church attendance & orthodox belief, with the growth of atheistic naturalism, collectivist beliefs, and nanny state controls, reflects this transition in worldviews.
C. The state and all social institutions are dominated/controlled by progressive ideology, and exclusively indoctrinate the progressive worldview.

2. Timeline
B. Progressivism.
The shift began early 20th century; was interrupted by world wars against totalitarian aggression; continued in the 60s; became the dominant religious belief by the 21st century and continues to this day.
1. Progressivism dominates all social institutions: academia, entertainment, the press/media, government.
2. Progressive ideals and beliefs have been mandated by legislation and judicial activism, not majority vote: Abortion, global warming, atheistic/ naturalistic beliefs in origins, and socialist ideals.
3. Alternate views are censored, bullied, or shouted down. Legislation and courts are used to establish Progressivism as the exclusive belief system.
4. Legislation, the courts, academia, and all progressive institutions continue to strip any history of acknowledging God and Christianity as a social influence, in favor of a naturalistic/secular revision.

C. Christianity.
The worldview of the American founders. Emphasis on biblical themes of freedom, personal responsibility, self improvement, human equality, absolute morality.
1. It was the dominant worldview for the first 100-150 years of America.
2. Bibles were printed by the early congress for education of the citizens in social and moral interaction.
3. Religious tolerance was emphasized and different beliefs accepted, in general.

D. Points of transition.
Christianity as a social influence peaked in the 1950s. Progressivism grew steadily from the 60s until now.
1. 'In God We Trust' was added to currency.
2. 'Under God' added to pledge of allegiance, and recited by school children.
3. Prayer was common and encouraged in school, govt, and other social gatherings.
4. 'Godless Commies!' were exposed, sought out, and prosecuted for unamerican activities and treason.
5. By the 60s, evolution was allowed to be taught, then grew through judicial activism until it became the exclusive taught belief about origins.
6. Abortion was legalized by judicial activism in 1972, opening the floodgates of amoral relativity.
7. Crime rates were historically low during the Christian era, but have steadily grown in the progressive era.

Christianity, as a belief system, will not go away, imo. Its demise has been predicted constantly... by people nobody remembers... over the millennia. But it remains a significant, life changing worldview, with a spiritual connection with the Almighty as a powerful draw for understanding the meaning and purpose of life.

But its influence and importance as THE defining worldview in America is, and has been waning.. for decades.





It is ironic that some progressives are jumping on the 'Christianity is dead!' bandwagon. It seems that every 40-50 years, for as far back as you look, someone is predicting, 'The End of Christianity!' Huffpo has tossed their hat in the ring, and will eventually join the forgotten list of fools who have made this prediction.

Atheism to Defeat Religion By 2038 | HuffPost

Of course, what they mean by 'Religion!', is Christianity. It is no surprise that the progressives see Christianity as an enemy to defeat. It is contrary, in almost every area of human existence, to Progressivism.



Older folks die off, who were taught under the dominant Christian worldview, with belief in God, esteem for America, natural law and moral absolutes. The upcoming generations have been increasingly indoctrinated into progressive ideology.

From a cultural, objective viewpoint, ideological beliefs are indoctrinated, by every society.

Islam indoctrinated by muslims.
Christianity indoctrinated by Christians.
Progressivism indoctrinated by progressives.

This observation of the source of human ideology should be self evident. I am making no judgment about the truth or falsehood of the ideology, just the way it becomes the majority view.

Progressivism and atheism is no different. It is an indoctrinated worldview, promoted by the True Believers of the Faith. It is one religion taking over another, as the majority opinion.

Communism in Russia did it 100 yrs ago. The nazis did it later. Christianity did it in the middle ages. Muslims have always done it, and still are. But now, progressives are taking over as the majority belief, religion, or worldview, however you label it. Its been growing as a worldview for over 100 yrs, but has taken off as the exclusive State religion, for the last 30-40.



There is also the dilution of historical Christianity, into a new age, hodge podge of pop beliefs, that have no resemblance to historical, biblical Christianity, as defined by its Founder. If those mislabeled 'Christians' were categorized more accurately as hybrids of Christianity and Progressivism, the transition is even clearer, and the decline of true Christianity is more evident.

What makes an ideological shift possible is based on 3 major factors:
1. Control of the instruction/information outlets by the new ideologues.
2. Consistent, constant promotion/Indoctrination of the new ideology.
3. Censorship of the old ideology; caricatures and false narratives about it replacing the previous belief.

All 3 of these have been increasing, over the decades, making this ideological shift complete. Progressivism is currently the majority belief, though there is still a vocal minority of those with Christian based ideals.

It is not a 'straight up' battle for the soul of America. It is a slow creeping.. an infestation done on the sly, by deception, false narratives, propaganda, subversion, and court mandates. Due process is bipassed, as are open, transparent debates or discussions ABOUT the direction of society, and the worldview that drives it.

Progressivism does not even present itself honestly, as a religio/philosophical belief system, but as 'science!', to pretend absolute Truth for the core beliefs of Progressivism. All the tenets of Progressivism are shrouded in pseudoscientific terms, obfuscation, and derision for any opposition. 'Deniers!' 'Haters!' and other progressive terms of endearment fill the public discourse, and open bigotry is not only tolerated, it is encouraged.

The reality of Indoctrination cannot, and should not be ignored. Deception is rampant in this world, and failing to recognize our own, be it labelled, 'instruction', or 'training', or 'education', is a deadly mistake for a thoughtful, circumspective individual. Individual thought and critical thinking were once esteemed and pursued as an enlightened perspective, but now memorized dogma, conformity, and groupthink loyalty are the emphases.

Freedom certainly is a casualty in this climate, but so is knowledge and understanding.

Without taking the first step, and admitting that Indoctrination is possible in our own knowledge base, we can only be dupes for manipulators.. useful idiots for despotic controllers.

Core beliefs in Christianity that were once mainstream, have become a minority view for outliers.

Biblical authority and/or inerrancy
Creation
The Divinity of Christ
Gender identity
Moral absolutes
Equality
Salvation

..and many other tenets of the historical Christian faith have been diluted, disparaged, and distorted, to promote a caricature of biblical Christian beliefs. Followers of the cultural pop religion have a hybridized blend of beliefs, to keep the nostalgic remembrance of Christianity, but remove the offending points that upset the incoming ideology.

Of course, this new hybrid bears no resemblance to historical Christianity, and is nothing but a departure.. an embrace of historical heresies. But the labels are kept, to promote revisionism and to destroy the original.

It is easy to spot in 'liberal' denominations, where the pop views are embraced, and the historical, scholarly views are revised, distorted, and ridiculed.

Progressive run and controlled institutions rely heavily on Indoctrination. We see the results of that all the time, in public expressions from progressive indoctrinees.

Socialism? Global warming? Gender identity? Origins? White privilege? Anti gun memes? Abortion?

Pick ANY pet doctrine from progressive ideology, and you will find it dogmatically indoctrinated by academia AND the rest of the institutions dominated and controlled by this worldview.

Try to debate ANY of them rationally, and you will just get dogmatic assertions, fallacies, ridicule, and dismissal.

Progressive indoctrinees, especially younger ones, can recite ALL the talking points in the progressive tenets of faith, but they have no concept of history, arithmetic, spelling, grammar, science, or critical thinking. Memorized dogma, is the order of the day , not understanding of the world.

Progressives ESPECIALLY avoid the ideals and history of America, the Enlightenment, and freedom, in favor of revisionism and lies to promote their collectivist fantasies. Caricatures and smears of Christianity are also common, and dominate the propaganda megaphones.

Truth and freedom are casualties in this transition, probably never to be recovered, once it is complete.

...

It makes a difference, what you believe about the Universe, humanity, life, & eternity. Western civilization was built upon principles based on a belief in a Supreme Being, or some kind of Higher Power, over the affairs of men. From that belief, sprang several world & culture changing movements.

1. The Reformation. 'Sola Scriptura' was the cry, as well as the concept of of ALL men being equal, no aristocracy, no divine right of kings, nor a holy priesthood, with special endowments from God. This was humanity's ticket out of the dark ages, & the ideological basis for most of what followed.
2. The Scientific Revolution. Instead of science being a mandate from Religious Professionals, it became a process.. a methodology that was based on the uniformity of nature, & order in the universe. The printing press & a common language in scientific inquiry built a knowledge base, & many added to it. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, & many others sparked this revolution, which had at its root the concept of an orderly Creator, whose Laws were immutable & consistent.
3. The Age of Reason. This was closely tied with science, & had the same roots. These were the enlightenment philosophers, who promoted the concept of Natural Law, an overriding moral law that was over everyone, & the ruling elite were not exempt. It has been summarized as the right to life, liberty, & property, & was codified as a mission statement for governance in the American declaration of independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These 'movement's were foundational for western civilization, & resulted in an ideology that found its purist expression in the American Experiment in self rule. Natural Law, human equality, and an acknowledgment of a Supreme Being were the foundation upon which America was founded, & were the core beliefs that influenced most of western civilization for over 100 years.

It began in the mid 1500s, when the reformation blew apart the status quo of the religious elite. Concurrently, Copernicus promoted scientific thinking, refuted a geocentric view of the universe, & laid the foundation for further scientific discovery. The ruling elite became fallible, & the illusion of them as 'speaking for God' was shattered. Truth was not a monopoly of the elite, but was a process of discovery. The printing press contributed to this as well, making the knowledge base available to a wider audience, & breaking the monopoly that the elite had over information.

Then, as human minds became free to think, unfettered by superstition & dark ages mandates, the CONSEQUENCES of this scientific enlightenment spread to the philosophical concepts of governance & human freedom. This was the spark that began the abolitionist movement, & from there led to women's suffrage, & even addressed the social evils of intemperate drunkenness.

By the 1800s, aristocracies were ending.. by peaceful or revolutionary means. Slavery was abolished in all of the 'civilized' countries. Women were getting the vote. Morality & human equality were elevated over the decrees of divinely appointed elites. Science was explaining the universe. Technology was building upon the scientific discoveries. Superstition was dying. The former belief in a naturalistic 'cause' for life for centuries, was debunked by Pasteur, as his experiments refuted the notion of 'spontaneous generation'. But at its peak, the winds of ideology began to change. In the late 1800s, 2 major events began a new movement in human ideology. Marx & Darwin represented a new ideological basis for a growing philosophical view:

Naturalistic Atheism
Two major works laid much of the foundation for the growing view of naturalistic atheism.
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, 1859
Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto, 1848
Darwin laid the foundation for a naturalistic explanation of origins. There was no need for a Creator, as everything happened by some cosmic accident, then evolved to where we are today. Life is constantly evolving, & humans are just advanced animals. Some are more advanced than others, & they should manage & oversee the universe, based on their superior evolved intellect.

Marx had a social elite, and needed an atheistic world view to crush the evils of religious elitism, whom he saw as the opiate of the masses. But he only substituted a different elite, same as the old ones, but with different hats. His was a rule by altruistic elites, who could control the evolution of man, producing a New Man, who would live in harmony in their collective utopia.

So the result of this blend of new ideologies were many fold:

1. Keep the elite. Manifest destiny, eugenics, & a superior ruling class grew from this ideology, based on evolved superiority instead of divine appointment. Human equality can be ignored, as well as Natural Law, for the expediency of 'evolving' a New Man.
2. Science is no longer a process of discovery, or an inquiry into 'what God hath wrought', but became a god itself. The methodology was ignored, & the mandate of elitist superiority took precedence over scientific inquiry. Naturalistic Atheism became a mandated belief, not dispassionate scientific inquiry.
3. Return to dark ages practices of mandates for Truth, instead of open inquiry.

Many movements in the late 19th & early 20th centuries built upon these new foundational ideologies. Russia found itself in a great civil war, & substituted the oppression from the Czars & the ruling aristocracy for oppression from the Bolsheviks & their new ruling aristocracy. Hitler's National Socialism built upon both marxism & darwinism, promoting an elite based on superior evolved strength, intelligence, & state control of everything. American eugenics was foundational in the progressive movement early in the 20th century, & darwinistic beliefs became the monopoly of thought through judicial decree. Other forms of socialism, despotism, & communism, all had at their root a naturalistic atheism basis. It is the foundational belief system for most of the revolutionary movements in the 20th century. Only Islam, with its similar elitist control, provided any competition for an ideological basis for human governance. The American Ideal became corrupted with progressive thought, & seized control of all the institutions in America, distorting the original intent, & slowly morphed the enlightenment principles it was based on, into collectivist elitism, with only an illusion of self rule.

The Great Deception of the 20th century: Naturalism is fact. God is dead.

1. Naturalistic Atheism is a return to the animal ideal, where the stronger rule over the weak, & power is esteemed over morality. 'Might makes right', is the only rule.
2. Its foundations are not built on Scientific Truth, but mandated beliefs, just like the dark ages.
3. It is a move away from the enlightenment principles of human equality, freedom, & Natural Law, & back toward dark ages principles of elitist rule & Truth by Decree.
4. Indoctrination & propaganda, not open inquiry, are the methods used for imposing the ideology upon the people. Lies & beliefs are presented as proven scientific principles, when there is no scientific methodology to support it.
5. Information is controlled & censored. Open inquiry is not allowed, but conformity to the ideology is required.

This is the result of naturalistic atheism, as a controlling worldview. It is not based on enlightenment principles of human equality, freedom, & self autonomy, but the dark ages views of control, elitism, & oppression. This is the root of progressive ideology, as it usurps the American Ideal. This ideology is in control of almost all of the institutions in America, & they dominate every facet of governance, law, & justice.

Dark Ages --->>> Oppression, control, elitism, Truth by decree.

Reformation, Enlightenment, Reason, & Science --->>> Freedom, natural law, open inquiry, self rule & autonomy.

Marxist/Darwinist elitism-->>> Elitism, state control, Truth by decree, oppression --->>> Back to the Dark Ages, & the circle is complete.

“I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.” ~William F. Buckley Jr