The emerging theology of liberalism

Ben W. writes:

I keep seeing this phrase appear in article after article—“that’s they way they evolved.” Humans, birds, horses, etc.

Question: why do humans feel compelled to tag any form of life with this phrase—“that’s the way it evolved?”

Putting aside the arguments of creation versus evolution, why this need to utter this phrase ad infinitum? When looking at a horse, why this need to label it as “that’s the way it evolved?”

It’s as if this phrase substitutes for some “elan vital,” becoming a proxy for motive power and energy in any organism. The horse runs through the field because “that’s the way it evolved.” Something in the horse causes it to behave this way or that way because “that’s the way it evolved.”

“That’s the way it evolved” has supplanted a phrase from earlier times “God willing.” Tomorrow we will do such and such, “God willing.” It was “God’s will” that he do that. Now we have “That’s the way it evolved.”

LA replies:

They speak this way because Darwinism is the ruling idea, or rather the ruling ideology, of our time. In an ideological society, the ruling ideology must be tacked onto every individual thing. No individual thing can be allowed to be, can be allowed to function, can be allowed to be seen, can be allowed to have value, apart from the ruling ideology.

So, with regard to your notion of “putting aside the arguments of creation versus evolution,” in fact we cannot put those arguments aside. This phenomenon cannot be understood apart from the question of Darwinism versus God, since that’s exactly what you’re talking about. It is a view of life that systematically substitutes Darwinian evolution for God.

But to continue the argument further, the ruling ideology of our age is not simply Darwinism. Instead, Darwinism is an intrinsic aspect of the ruling ideology of our age, which is liberalism, specifically the liberal belief in universal equality and non-discrimination.

Just as in the biological realm, no living thing, no marvel of life, can be discussed without reference to its having been brought into being by Darwinian evolution, so in the social and moral realm, no white person can be shown in a positive light without having a nonwhite attached to him symbolically at the hip, and no achievement by whites and Western civilization can be presented in a positive light without also being presented as the achievement of nonwhites and non-Westerners. It is nonwhiteness and non-Western-ness that make the world “right.”

Thus, under liberalism, Darwinian evolution has replaced God the Father, the invisible creator of the universe and of all things; and nonwhite diversity has replaced the God the Son, who enters the world in human form and saves it from its sins.

LA continues:

It has of course long been a truism that liberalism is a substitute religion and equality a substitute god. But by adding Darwinian evolution to the picture, we begin to articulate this liberal deity into its respective parts, just as early Christianity articulated God into the three Persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Also, as a passing observation or perhaps conceit, Charles Darwin, with his vast white beard and grim visage, would not be associated with the salvific Son, but with the stern, law-giving Father.

Ben W. replies:

LA: “Thus, under liberalism, Darwinian evolution has replaced God the Father, the invisible creator of the universe and of all things; and nonwhite diversity has replaced the God the Son, who enters the world in human form and saves it from its sins.”

That is a brilliant observation—the father and son aspect! With respect to the “non-white” son, isn’t Obama’s presidency seen as a redemption and fulfillment of American history? Will not the human family become whole once the non-white “joins” the family table (universalism)? Have there not been innumerable films lately showing the “healing” of the white person through the magical qualities of the black culture?

Is not the emergence of the black persona through civil rights seen as the promise of freedom realized in the flesh—a sort of divine incarnation of liberty. Is not the breaking down of borders a sort of incorporation of the Latino into our body—another type of divine incarnation?

Darwinian evolution lays the groundwork for other types of evolution—historical emergences and fulfillments, social incarnations and redemptions. All these “myths” converging in support of each other. No wonder the European community feels that to attack Darwinism is legal and political sacrilege! One is attacking one’s father, one’s origins.

Terry Morris writes:

And for the average reader of the kinds of articles Mr. Zarkov talks about at the beginning of this entry, which keep saying, “that’s the way it evolved,” it becomes one of those “when you repeat something often enough people begin to believe it” absurdities. The average person—even the average “Christian” I would contend—isn’t equipped to recognize and resist the inhuman propaganda in such statements.

Ben W. wrote:

No wonder the European community feels that to attack Darwinism is legal and political sacrilege! One is attacking one’s father, one’s origins.

Yeah. Kinda makes ya long for days gone by when uttering insults about Jesus Christ and God the Father would get you a stiff jail sentence.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 25, 2009 08:36 PM | Send