Lincoln and Darwin, Part 2

^{Note: This article is reprinted with permission from As I See It, a monthly electronic magazine compiled and edited by Doug Kutilek. AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com.}

Parallel Lives, Divergent Legacies

^{Read Part 1.}

It has been justifiably stated that Darwin’s theory would have never been proposed had the modern knowledge of genetics and inheritance been current in Darwin’s day; they would have simply made his claims untenable. But Gregor Mendel did not begin his experiments until the 1860s, and his results were still not published until decades later; DNA was not discovered until a century after Darwin wrote.
Darwinism was immediately embraced by numerous philosophers and liberal theologians and opposed by many scientists, such as Louis Agassiz of Harvard, Lord Kelvin, and Louis Pasteur, on scientific grounds. Leading conservative theologians such as Charles Hodge of Princeton and Charles Spurgeon of London also voiced strong opposition. So, too, did Robert Fitzroy, captain of the H.M.S. Beagle, on which Darwin had sailed.

From Darwin’s limited hypothesis, which he applied in the realm of biology alone, this surmise of accidental, undirected yet progressive development from lower states to higher ones over time via unbridled competition was extended by others to sociology, the history of religion, economics (laissez-faire capitalism, with its crushing of all competition in the quest for dominance of an industry), chemistry (alleged building up—in stellar “furnaces”—of simple helium into the whole periodic table of elements), and astronomy. Mindless, soulless, purposeless development over time by nothing but pure chance—this soon became philosophically and presuppositionally the universal “solvent” for explaining everything naturally (as opposed to supernaturally). In short, it served as a very convenient way to dispose of God.

The fruit that has been borne on the tree of Darwinism in the past century and a half is abundant and altogether poisonous. (The late Henry M. Morris in his book The Long War Against God [Baker, 1989] chronicled how from Darwinism and ‘pre-Darwinism’ sprang a broad spectrum of societal and social evils). Biological Darwinism—which has yet to make a real contribution to genuine scientific advancement, or to serve any useful purpose in scientific research by making God unnecessary—is at its foundation essentially atheistic.

Religious Darwinism, the foundation of radical higher criticism of the Bible, which adopted a purely evolutionary view of Biblical teaching, theology and institutions is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Old Testament and New Testament, ascribing its doctrines and institutions to merely human developments, and denying expressly both the fact and even the possibility of divine revelations, genuine prophecy, or bona fide miracles.

From philosophical Darwinism has come Marxist communism. (Karl Marx wrote to Darwin, asking permission to dedicate his magnum opus, Das Kapital, to Darwin. Darwin wisely refused. Josef Stalin, while in seminary studying for the priesthood, read Darwin and adopted his views.) In the twentieth century, the death toll from Darwin-inspired Marxism approached one hundred million lives (if it did not actually exceed that number).

So, too, from applied social Darwinism came laissez-faire capitalism with its unbridled competition and an overriding design and intent to crush and destroy all opposition, regardless of the consequences to people or the planet.

Darwinism was expressly embraced by some military leaders of Germany prior to World War One, who (perhaps along with others) on the basis of the belief that competition for survival drives the human race forward biologically, actually welcomed the war as an opportunity to prove the superiority of the German people and to exterminate inferior groups. What human activity is more competitive than war? Therefore, war can serve to advance the superior races of mankind and is ultimately a good to be embraced, not a horror to be avoided.

Darwinism is inherently racist, though almost no Darwinists will openly admit it(the full title of Darwin’s book is “The Origin of Species: the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life” (emphasis added). Nazism developed its Aryan supremacy doctrine from Darwinism; it was no accident that Hitler’s book was called Mein Kampf—literally, “My Struggle,” an echo of the second line in the title of Darwin’s book.

Likewise, from the inherent racism and Malthusianism of Darwin’s philosophy come infanticide and euthanasia (extermination of the unfit), abortion on demand (extermination of the excess population), anarchy, and more. All these readily find full justification for themselves in the adoption of biological Darwinism.

It is no coincidence that the first century in human history where Darwinism dominated the philosophy and worldview of the controlling institutions of human existence (governments, educational institutions and businesses)—that is, the twentieth century—was also the most brutal, violent, bellicose and barbaric by far as regards to man’s inhumanity toward his fellow man. This is the natural fruit of the philosophy of Darwinism.

It is difficult enough to restrain and control human behavior with the threat of human punishment here and divine retribution hereafter. But eliminate God, His standards, and His promised day of judgment for humankind, and man is simply beastly in his conduct—not a remnant barbarism from some lower, more animal ancestry, but the appalling corruption of a once perfect but now utterly degraded nature originally created in the image of a holy God.

While Darwin laid the foundation for a world devoid of God consciousness, one cannot read Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, his second inaugural address, and much else that he wrote or spoke as president without seeing that the dominant philosophy of his worldview was that of accountability to a close and personal Creator and the imitation of His compassion and mercy toward us in our treatment of our fellow man, a choice part of His purposeful creation.

Lincoln’s legacy was chiefly in actions. He was elected with the lowest plurality of votes in American presidential history (39%) in a four-way race. He was immediately faced with the secession of eleven states and very soon a war he did not want or start. He had to endure repeated battlefield failures, setbacks, and defeats as he worked through a long series of marginally competent or outright incompetent general officers. (Only in the last year of the war did he finally find two first-rate commanders—Grant and Sherman.) Lincoln was a better strategist than any of his generals, though he had no military training or background. He frequently battled both parties in congress and experienced stern opposition from his own cabinet (nearly every member of which thought himself Lincoln’s superior). He was lambasted with unbridled, even brutal, criticism in the press. And along with the crushing burden of daily and often massive casualties, unprecedented expenditures, and difficult foreign relations, he endured unspeakable personal sorrow in the death of a favorite son and the subsequent derangement of his wife. Somehow through all these trials, he managed to save the Union (his first aim), to free the slaves, first by fiat and then by constitutional amendment, to defeat the Confederate armies, and to lay the groundwork for a reunification of the nation—a collective task almost certainly no other man then living could have or would have accomplished. An assassin’s bullet ended his life at age fifty-six, less than a week after the victory had been won. By almost universal acclamation, Lincoln has been hailed as America’s greatest president.

Such then are these parallels lives—beginning the same day but following highly divergent paths and attaining sharply contrasting results. Darwin’s legacy is one of progressively intensifying darkness and horror and all that is worst in man. Lincoln’s legacy is that of a conscious dependence on our Creator, who has revealed Himself to man and who will hold man accountable for his conduct, particularly his treatment of his fellow man. Darwin’s hypothesis and subsequent worldview are truly the major driving forces behind man’s descent into the abyss. Lincoln’s worldview sets man in his proper relationship to the Creator and to his fellow man “with malice toward none, with charity for all.”

Doug Kutilek is editor of www.kjvonly.org, a website dedicated to exposing and refuting the many errors of KJVOism, and has been researching and writing about Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a B.A. in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, MO), an M.A. in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College (Cincinnati), and a Th.M. in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). A professor in several Bible institutes, college, graduate schools, and seminaries, he edits a monthly cyber-journal, As I See It. The father of four grown children and four granddaughters, he and his wife, Naomi, live near Wichita, Kansas.