A TREATISE ON:
TOXIC DARWINISM, SECULAR HUMANISM, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS
Darwinism is the foundation of godlessness and godlessness destroys nations. Today we sit helplessly by and lament America’s moral decline. We watch the decadence of Hollywood, endure the activism of our judicial system, fall prey to the manipulation of tech giants, cringe as our politicians push the boundaries of hypocrisy and relativism, and suffer the assault of academia upon our children. What is going on? Why are these institutions, formerly institutions we were proud of, now instruments of civil decay? The answer to that question is found in the one thing they share—godlessness.
As society extracts God from our society, the inevitable vacuum is filled with secular humanism and Darwinism. As a physician, it is Darwinism that most disturbs me because Darwinism claims to be a scientific theory. But no other scientific theory has been created to deny the existence of God. Ironically, this denial is a perversion of science itself.
Darwinism is an 1800’s theory that can and has led to the moral, economic, and physical destruction of societies in which it takes hold. Darwinism becomes toxic when it is used as proof that God does not exist or used to postulate the origin of life. When Darwinism becomes toxic, consequences naturally follow and there is no better example of what can happen than World War II Nazi Germany. But how can a scientific theory bring about such disaster?
As a baby boomer born a mere eight years after the end of World War II, I was surely affected by and certainly fascinated with that great war. I have been haunted by a question as persistent as a recurring nightmare, how did it happen? Thomas Childers describes the conundrum in Germany as Hitler gained power. Professor Childers notes that Germany was then as it is now an integral part of Western civilization. It was a country that had the highest literacy rates in the world and one of the most highly developed industrial economies of the time. Germany stood at the forefront of scientific research and development with an educational system that was the envy of the world. Childers asks, “How could Adolf Hitler and the Nazis come to power in such a highly educated, industrially developed country at the very heart of Western culture and civilization?”
The answer to my and Professor Childers’ question is provided by a Hitler youth and World War II German tank gunner. It is alarmingly succinct and serves as a warning for America in the 21st century. Hilmar Von Campe who was there, survived the horror, and has been troubled by that same question states, “Godlessness was the principle reason for crimes of the Nazi leaders.” I argue godlessness is not only responsible for the crimes, but for creating the incubator in which the power structure was born and grew into the monstrosity we know as the Nazi party.
How you ask does this have anything to do with Darwin? The Nazi leadership were firm believers in social Darwinism our most familiar example of Toxic Darwinism. As such, Nazi Germany is a perfect example of the inevitable consequences that Toxic Darwinism commands. I write this essay to explain how Toxic Darwinism inevitably replaces God in a godless society, and why we must pay attention to the pathologic philosophy masquerading as a scientific theory known as Darwinism. America’s secular, atheistic society is at war with Christianity. Fortunately, Christianity’s survival can be assured by invalidating Darwinism, which thereby invalidates atheism.
When Barack Obama and Joe Biden ran for president and vice president of the United States in 2008, they promised to “fundamentally change America.” But they were not forthcoming in telling Americans what we were changing from and what we were going to become. It is now clear what the philosophical ideology that Obama and Biden wished to abandon. It is also frighteningly clear what the philosophical ideology of Obama, Biden, and like-minded party members are even now forcing Americans to become. America was founded on Judeo-Christian philosophy. But in 2022 Americans are now seeing the fundamental shift to secular humanism and ultimately Marxism. There is an insatiable ambition to remove a providential God from American society. But to accomplish this goal they must have some semblance of a scientific theory to fall back on.
Make no mistake, the secular state is currently seeking to abolish Christianity. God’s role as provider of ethics and morals is being replaced by the state. God’s role as creator of life is being replaced by Darwinism. Hence Darwinism is the lynchpin of secular philosophy. As such, Darwinism is inseparable from the secular state. A perfect example of the fear that Christianity strikes in the heart of secularists is seen in The Atlantic August 14, 2022. Daniel Pannerton claims, “Just as the AR-15 rifle has become a sacred object for Christian nationalists in general, the rosary has acquired a militaristic meaning for radical-traditional (or ‘rad trad’) Catholics.” This is significant not because it espouses any kind of reality, but rather because it demonstrates the paranoia secularists have of Christianity. Secularists may fear that Christianity is destroying society, but they are projecting. The reality is that Godlessness is leading to the destruction of our country just as it did in WW II Germany. Interestingly, the secular agenda cannot exist as a cogent theory were it not for Toxic Darwinism. This paper will expose what Toxic Darwinism is, how it works, what it does, and why it is pushing society to the precipice of collapse.
This essay is divided into four sections, each a question: I What is Toxic Darwinism, II How does Toxic Darwinism operate, III Who are Toxic Darwinists, and IV What are the consequences of removing God from societal consciousness?
I WHAT IS TOXIC DARWINISM?
- DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION, NATURAL SELECTION, AND DARWINISM.
It should come as no surprise that Darwinism has several definitions, especially today when the meaning of a word morphs at the speed of a changing political environment. This is a major problem. If you are engaged in a conversation, even listening to a lecture, you may very well be talking or listening past each other. The words Darwinism, evolution and natural selection are often used interchangeably, but their differences are significant and must be clarified. My issue with Darwinian evolution is that the natural selection of random mutations cannot explain the creation of complex life. Darwinian evolution is nothing more than the change of existing life over time.
Speaking as a purist, “evolution” means nothing more than “change in living organisms over time.” Darwin’s original theory of evolution is not concerned with life’s creation. In a course called “Introduction to Genetics and Evolution” Duke University geneticist Mohamed Noor states that Darwin’s theory of evolution does not explain life’s origin. Noor goes on to say that evolution does not deny the existence of God. Any reference to God is an inference. So, what exactly does Darwin say?
For Darwin, the change of evolution occurs by the natural selection of random mutations over imperceptible periods of time. But this change occurs within living organisms capable of reproduction. Darwin described this change within living organisms and had this to say about the validity of his theory, “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. But I can find no such case.” Clearly, Darwin was concerned with changes that could occur only within living, actively reproducing organisms. We now know these are all organisms with functioning DNA. In short, Darwin’s evolution is the theory of changes within established life controlled by DNA and the “numerous, successive, slight modifications” must occur within DNA.
Darwin did not and could not breach the subject of the molecular origin of life as he had no knowledge of molecular biology or the existence of DNA. Darwin was admittedly mute about the origin of life, “Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.” In his book, On the Origin of Species, Darwin clearly avoids the issue of life’s origin. Offering an analogy as he does above is inappropriate science. Later in his writings he does superficially breach the subject of some “primordial soup” with no evidence or any knowledge of the hard science we now know is involved. Unfortunately, many people do breach the subject of evolution as the origin of life.
In his book The Blind Watchmaker (Norton, 1996), Richard Dawkins provides a classic example of an inappropriate inference of evolution. In Dawkins’ own words, “This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it . . .” Clearly Dawkins is stating that all life was created by the process of evolution through natural selection. As a committed atheist he believes that because of Darwinian evolution there is no need for God and thus God does not exist. This is a philosophical definition that is in direct opposition to the scientific definition of evolution as change over time within living organisms.
These two definitions could not be more disparate. Unfortunately, natural selection has the same problem.
- NATURAL SELECTION.
The term natural selection suffers from ambiguity because it possesses disparate meanings. The true meaning of natural selection is that certain reproducing species will carry on beneficial inherited traits, but the Toxic Darwinists will extrapolate this process to creation itself. Natural selection then is frequently used as a synonym of evolution. Natural selection is not evolution. Long before Charles Darwin existed. Natural selection has been observed and utilized for millennia. In Genesis, the story of Jacob breeding speckled and spotted sheep thus increasing his flock is a perfect example of natural selection not evolution. Let’s examine two examples of recent natural selection misconstrued as evolution – peppered moths and Darwin’s finches.
While in the Galapagos, Darwin collected specimens of different finches and noted variations of their morphology, including beak morphology. Darwin did not specifically present the finches as stand-alone proof of evolution. He used the finch data as support for his evolutionary theory just as he used all other data presented in On the Origin of Species. Neo-Darwinists, however, have elevated finch data from the status of supporting evidence to supposed unequivocal proof by inappropriate extrapolation implying creation.
Do finch beak sizes, different types of seeds available, and feeding behavior merely demonstrate a correlation, or are they evidence of evolution as some authors contend? David Lack, an ornithologist, coined the term “Darwin’s finches” when he wrote the book titled Darwin’s Finches in 1947. In his book Lack “summarized the evidence correlating variations in finch beaks with different food sources and argued that the beaks were adaptations caused by natural selection.” Arthur Wallace presents this as evidence of evolution from a developmental perspective and notes, “Whereas in the case of Darwin’s finches, we are looking at the result of accumulated directional selection in the past, which has indeed contributed … to the divergence of different species.”
Recent studies have been published that allegedly support the supposition that Darwin’s finches provide evidence for evolution. In the 1970’s, Peter and Rosemary Grant noted a 5 percent increase in beak size after a severe drought, which was conjectured to have occurred because only hard-to-crack seeds were available. Therefore, they believed nature selected larger beak size. Amazingly, this data was sufficient to stand as proof of Darwinian evolution for true believers. As Wells notes, “A 1999 booklet published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences describes Darwin’s finches as “a particularly compelling example’ of the origin of species.” But there is a problem.
The Grants did further investigation, much of which we don’t hear about, and lo and behold, “The finches’ beak size returned to normal after the rains returned. No net evolution occurred.” This is terribly bad news for Darwinists. What the Grants’ entire study demonstrates is that changes occurred and then were immediately lost. Claiming this all happened because of random mutations within DNA is completely unsubstantiated and claiming it was all reversed by random mutations is unbelievable. Unfortunately, we continue to read about Darwin’s finches being good evidence supporting Darwinian evolution—Darwinian evolution defined as the creation of life.
Wells provides two examples of this continued repetition of the “Darwin’s finches” fallacy. First, Wells notes, “Jonathan Weiner’s 1994 book, The Beak of the Finch, which called the observed change in beak depth “the best and most detailed demonstration to date of the power of Darwin’s process.” Because of this, according to Weiner, the beak of the finch is “an icon of evolution.”
Another example Wells provides occurs in Mark Ridley’s 1996 college textbook, Evolution. Like the Grants, Ridley states that Darwin’s finches, “Illustrates how we can extrapolate from natural selection operating within a species to explain the diversification of the finches from a single common ancestor.” Ridley has inadvertently explained why evolution is a failed scientific theory—it is an invalid extrapolation from natural selection.
It is bad enough that partial data is presented as scientific proof but there are also logical consequences and questions that arise if one believes that Darwin’s finches are evidence of evolution. The first logical question is: Are mutations occurring so rapidly that evolutionary change can occur in only one year? If so, how many mutations must be occurring concurrently for nature to select a different beak size after only one drought? Beaks do not mutate in only one dimension. Beaks must mutate in length, height, width, and strength to name just a few. Furthermore, the facial bones that hold the beak must mutate otherwise a strong beak is useless. This is an incredible number of mutations all occurring extremely quickly. For every one mutation that is selected as a beneficial mutation, there must be hundreds or even thousands of neutral, non-beneficial, or even lethal mutations that occur. Are other parts of the body mutating this rapidly? If so, how does a finch survive all the random mutations? And remember the beak size returned to pre-drought size after the drought. Did this all occur within DNA in one year?
The next example of evolution being inappropriately extrapolated from natural selection is the peppered moth. In the 1950’s the Oxford zoologist Bernard Kettlewell performed an experiment to establish evidence that natural selection operated in nature. Peppered moths in England had changed from a lighter to a darker color over the previous century. It was thought that the change occurred because dark moths were better camouflaged on the pollution-stained darker trees. It was hypothesized that these darker moths were now protected from predatory birds when they sat on the polluted, darker tree trunks. Kettlewell tested this hypothesis.
Kettlewell released light and dark colored moths onto the tree trunks and watched as the birds ate the more conspicuous light-colored moths. Thus, the dark-colored moths survived. This seems to be a straightforward experiment supporting natural selection. Unfortunately, Darwinists began to extend the boundaries of the experiment from natural selection to evolution as in Darwin’s finches. But there is a problem. As Wells notes, “In the 1980’s, however, researchers discovered evidence that the official story was flawed—including the pertinent fact that peppered moths don’t normally rest on tree trunks. Instead, they fly by night and apparently hide under upper branches during the day.” As if this is not bad enough, Wells informs us, “So where did all those textbook photos of peppered moths on tree trunks come from? They were all staged. To expedite things, some photographers even glued dead moths to trees.” But things get even worse. Just like people who commit unethical or criminal acts and then worsen the act by trying to cover up, Darwinists make things worse by ignoring this scientific malpractice to protect and advance Darwinism.
Wells describes a 1999 Canadian textbook writer who justified the unethical behavior. Bob Ritter wrote, “High school students are still very concrete in the way they learn, we want to get across the idea of selective adaptation. Later on, they can look at the work critically.” I find this hypocritical and inconsistent with current grade-school teachers who are hell bent on educating kindergartners through third graders whose reproductive organs are not yet developed all about transgender identification. Nonetheless Kettlewell calls the peppered moths, “Darwin’s missing evidence.” He goes on to state that industrial melanism is “the most striking evolutionary change ever actually witnessed in any organism.” Truly the worst example of an invalid extrapolation from natural selection. Nowhere does he even hint which nucleotides mutated from what to what in the moths’ DNA. This is not even proof of natural selection let alone creation of life.
Amazingly other Darwinists are not to be outdone by Kettlewell. In 1975 the British geneticist P. M. Sheppard called the peppered moth experiment “the most spectacular evolutionary change ever witnessed and recorded by man.” Similarly the evolutionary biologist Sewall Wright called the experiment “the clearest case in which a conspicuous evolutionary process has actually been observed.” I once again remind the reader that Jacob already demonstrated the process of natural selection, which was not synonymous with evolution in the time of Genesis and is still not synonymous.
Darwinists have a terrible conundrum. Evolution arises as an emergent observation if and only if enough natural selection via random mutations can take place. But the number and type of DNA mutations are not known. In fact, nucleotide mutations are never mentioned in evolutionary biology circles. Can astronomically complex DNA withstand that amount and type of random mutation? Because the answer to that question is not known, evolution paradoxically suffers the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance, which Darwinists accuse the religious of using as they cry “God of the Gaps.”
The word “Darwinism” suffers the same maladies that “evolution” suffers. It is commonly used with a variety of meanings. Darwinism is used synonymously with evolution, which can mean nothing more than change over time. Or it is used synonymously with natural selection, which has been present since the days of Genesis. Many people infer from either usage “survival of the fittest” or “only the strong survive” as a description of Darwin’s mechanism. Whichever term is used, the implication is that humans and everything else were created by the natural selection of random mutations and thus evolution conveniently repudiates the existence of God. But there is another destructive use of Darwinism— “social Darwinism.”
The true scientific definition of Darwinism is too often inappropriately extrapolated to mean the creation of all life, including human beings. The reasons for the invalid extrapolations lie within the holding of Darwinism as a philosophy of life and go beyond the bounds of science. Darwinism fails at the level of science. But true Toxic Darwinists—professional atheists—are obligated to use Darwinism as a tool for their cause.
Social Darwinism is a loose set of ideologies in which “survival of the fittest” is applied to sociology, economics, and politics, and is used to justify imperialism, racism, eugenics, etc. The important point here is that Darwinism is an “ideology,” which means it is not a science. There is no better explanation of Darwinism than that given by Hannah Arendt in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harcourt, 1976). Arendt realized that the most dangerous aspect of Darwinism arises from the inescapable conclusion that the existence of lower races shows that gradual differences alone separate man and beast and that the struggle for existence dominates all living things. She states, “Darwinism was especially strengthened by the fact that it followed the path of the old might-right doctrine.” Arendt goes on to say, “Darwinism offered two important concepts: the struggle for existence with optimistic assertion of the necessary and automatic ‘survival of the fittest,’ and the indefinite possibilities which seemed to lie in the evolution of man out of animal life and which started the new ‘science’ of eugenics.”
Darwinists today are sparkling-eyed utopianists who believe we have evolved to be more intelligent and morally superior to our ancestors and especially our founding fathers. Arendt address this issue clearly, “All the early evolutionists and Darwinists ‘had as strong a faith in humanity’s angelic future as in man’s simian origin.’ Selected inheritance was believed to result in ‘hereditary genius.’” The new geniuses of today are dragging America to the edge of a cliff just as the Nazi geniuses led Germany to destruction. With the help of Arendt, it becomes clear that Darwinism has strayed from a scientific theory into an ideology. The question then becomes, how scientific is Darwin’s theory of evolution?
- HOW SCIENTIFIC IS DARWIN’S THEORY?
This section begins with the question one should always ask, are we talking about natural selection or evolution? Darwinists attempt to consolidate natural selection with evolution because natural selection is without a doubt a valid scientific theory. As we saw earlier Jacob proved that in the time of Genesis. But one cannot use natural selection and then extrapolate to evolution without examining random mutations. Random mutations must occur in the nucleotides of DNA, which means natural selection occurs only within organisms that already contain DNA. Darwinists who use evolution to mean the creation of life must explain the creation of and sequence of every nucleotide within DNA.
Evolution has never addressed the creation of DNA in a manner that explains the information coded within the sequences of nucleotides. In this respect evolution is not scientific, it is conjecture at best and magical thinking at its worst. Therefore, evolution that is used to mean anything other than change in living organisms over time is invalid.
According to Karl Popper, the way to demarcate science from non-science is the falsification principle i.e., a scientific theory must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. This is the weakness of Darwin’s evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution is non-falsifiable—it answers every question one puts to it. Because evolution requires random mutations over eons, all questions of biology become possible. Why do humans not have fur? Because of evolution. Why do humans not have sonar capabilities? Because of evolution. Why do we have two lungs, two kidneys, one four-chambered heart? The questions could go on. But the real questions to which evolution cannot respond appropriately are: could evolution have happened differently and is it predictable? A good scientific theory is predictable and repeatable—evolution is neither. Defining evolution as change is not a scientific theory because all things change.
Toxic Darwinists commit three sins of omission. No Darwinist has described which nucleotide mutated from what to what to produce what anatomic or physiologic change. And no Darwinist takes into consideration the significance of embryology. Each nucleotide mutation must occur within the egg or sperm cells before the egg is fertilized. Once fertilize and about 5 to 6 days in the blastocyst stage before becoming an embryo the human anatomy and physiology has been designed. The function of every nucleotide must be considered and carried through: a growing cell, an embryo, fetus, infant, adolescent and finally an adult. Lastly, Darwinists cannot account for and do not address the astronomically complex information found within DNA. Darwin’s theory of evolution is sorely lacking. The only reason is it considered science is because it does not invoke a supernatural element, however this is a negative attribute. Not invoking a supernatural force does not make Darwinism a legitimate science. The next question becomes, how ideological is Darwin’s theory of evolution?
- DARWINISM AS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY AND SECULAR HUMANISM
Since Darwinism is not a scientific theory, what then is it? In the 21st century in the era of DNA, molecular biology and information science Darwinism is clearly a political ideology. Two authors catalogue the ideological nature of Darwinism.
According to Egnor, Marx and Engels credit Darwin with insights essential to Marxism, “The great and positive interest Marx took in Darwin’s theories; Engels could not think of a greater compliment to Marx’s scholarly achievements then to call him the ‘Darwin of history’ . . . the movement of history and the movement of nature are one and the same.”
Once again Arendt demonstrates the political and totalitarian aspects of Darwinism, “Darwinism met with such overwhelming success because it provided, on the basis of inheritance, the ideological weapons for race as well as class rule and could be used for, as well as against, race discrimination. Politically speaking, Darwinism as such was neutral, and it has led, indeed, to all kinds of pacifism and cosmopolitanism as well as to the sharpest forms of imperialistic ideologies.”
Darwinism is a vessel for political ideology. What other “science” is loaded with such political and ideological names and inherently ideological characteristics just supplied by Egnor and Arendt? The believer in Toxic Darwinism must be an adherent of secular humanism because the goal of Toxic Darwinism is to expel God from public discourse. In no other “science” is it mandatory for the practicing scientist to proclaim a political ideology,
The major interpreters of events today are the media and the universities that interpret a shared conduct and morality. Already America’s civil society holds the values of secular humanism, which sprang from Enlightenment naturalism and Darwinian evolutionary theory. Therefore, civil society has its own ideology that it will impose, or it will take on an ideology of one interest group, which it will then impose. Civil society has accepted secular humanism as its ideology despite the existence of different interest groups and it now has all the responsibilities of that power. It therefore has a constructive mandate i.e., it interprets events. Civil society is an arbitrator, but it is not neutral and has its own ideology—liberalism or progressivism. We see this clearly today as the woke agenda is being force upon the public.
Cardinal Ratzinger, before he was Pope Benedict, describes the paranoia of secular humanists. He argues that Western society is ruled by a hedonistic elite. Hedonistic elites mock the church and promote the fear that the church would like to reverse the current trend to regain its old power. Therefore, the church is a “suspected” interest group that is constantly accused. When the church expresses an opinion on pertinent social issues, it is attacked, unlike other interest groups that are free to express their opinions (take abortion and transgenderism as examples). Now the church is discriminated against and is thus an interest group that has a lesser standing than other interest groups.
Webster defines secularism as the “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.” However, when religion is removed from society it will be replaced by one thing—the state. And with a secular state inevitably comes egocentrism, relativism, and a capricious foundation from which ethics and morals are derived. Christianity realizes that power proceeds from God. There is no greater threat to Darwinian relativism of today’s secular humanists than Christianity. Today men are to render to God what is God’s only in a non-public environment and in a manner that does not offend the state. The state is endeavoring to define virtue from a secular worldview, and redemption will only come from the civil society.
But what are the consequences of civil society possessing a philosophy of secular humanism and being in power? First and formost, public schools are being converted into institutions for the advancement of the new state religion—secular humanism. Atheism, agnosticism, and humanism are accepted in public schools while religion is forbidden. This acceptance is being forced onto society through our courts. But as our elites reject biblical axioms, they are not creating a society without axioms; rather, they are substituting axioms that are pagan—the old gods are returning. There is always the presence of religion in any society; therefore, which religion shall we favor?
Another means of determining the non-scientific nature of Darwinism is to see how our courts have treated Darwinism and religion. The next section describes the journey to obtain total secularism via judicial activism.
- JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO DARWINISM.
As noted in the previous section, Darwinism is undeniably bound to secular humanism, atheism, relativism, and egocentrism. Relativism is an integral characteristic of our legal system. Relativism empowers the judicial system to ban religion from civil society. This has occurred because science is attributed to Darwinism while God is attributed to Intelligent Design and is legally banned. Therefore, anything that contradicts Darwinism supports God and is thus disallowed.
But how did it come to this? Christian philosophy of law came to fruition in England with the seminal work of Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law of England. Historically the law of nature was the foundation of our society and was merely common sense. This is what Blackstone had to say about the law of nature, “Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the law of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. . . [A] state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will.” If Christianity was the basis of American law, then what happened to push us so far from this foundation?
The Anglo-American concept of law that had prevailed into the early twentieth century came under attack by the new “enlightened” philosophies. Darwinian concepts began replacing God as the central focus of all the sciences, including the law. Activists such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., John Gray, and Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell, all associated with Harvard, began to replace God’s revelation as the foundation and framework of the common law. Dean Langdell developed the “case method” of teaching that is used in all law schools today.
But Langdell did more than establish a teaching method. He recast the science of law in evolutionary terms. As a consequence, he necessarily discarded the revelation of God as the source of law. This was no accident. The shift from a common-law system founded and framed by God’s revelation to a common laws system determined solely by a judge’s opinions was by design. Harvard president Charles William Eliot chose Christopher Columbus Langdell for the specific purpose of incorporating the Darwinian revolution into a new teaching method that would ultimately replace the God-centric philosophy of law with a relativistic system.
Judicial activism has an unquenchable thirst for secular humanism.
II HOW DOES TOXIC DARWINISM OPERATE?
- As Scientific Theory.
The focus of Toxic Darwinism is the removal of God from societal consciousness. This is an absolute necessity because secular humanists cannot tolerate ultimate authority that is beyond their control. To accomplish this goal Darwinism must be perceived as a science. And to do this Darwinists merge the well-known phenomena of natural selection with the science of genetics, then extrapolate a theory of evolution which they believe somehow magically emerges from the two legitimate precursors.
As clever as this sounds, Darwinists ultimately fail for three reasons. First, like Darwin himself, they are only concerned with gross morphology and simple function. Darwin used the example of an eye to explain his theory in which numerous, successive, slight modifications might change a light sensitive pit into a complex eye. But the eye is not vision. Darwin and Darwinists ignore the complex and incompletely understood neurovisual pathways and brain structures that create vision, and without which make an eye useless. Secondly, Darwinists ignore the information contained within DNA and the very poorly understood process whereby information is converted into three dimensional interactive molecules that function as nanomachines. They cannot answer how a complex interdependent feedback system is created by numerous successive slight modifications, and frankly don’t try. Thirdly, Darwin and Darwinists neglect to consider embryology in their explanations of adult-from-embryo morphology. Take for example the creation of fetal cardiopulmonary system, which is formed in a high-pressure fluid environment but is ultimately designed to function in a low-pressure gas environment at the moment of delivery. No Darwinist can site what nucleotides mutated from what to what to create this, or any other anatomical structure or physiologic system, nor do they attempt to do so hoping that one day science will hand them the answers they lack. But that is a faith argument.
- Judicially Inspired Secular Humanism.
One consequence of the Enlightenment was that secular humanism invaded our legal system. Enlightenment humanism sought to elevate humanity’s importance by denying the relevance and existence of God It eradicated all norms, rules, and morals that are rooted in a Christian worldview. C. B. MacPherson wrote The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism in 1962, which dealt with rights theory and asserted the assumption that the philosophical roots of the Declaration of Independence were based on seventeenth-century rights-theory foundation provided by Locke, Hobbes, and Grotius, who were Enlightenment rationalists with a humanist worldview. MacPherson, along with his thesis, is typical of the dominant secular approach to the philosophy upon which the Declaration of Independence was created. MacPherson’s thesis was respected because it built upon imposing precedents of the time.
One of the most significant precedents was the seminal work on the Declaration of Independence written by Carl Becker in 1922. Becker was a darling of a leading intellectual movement of his time. That movement, which emanated from Harvard, Columbia, and Yale, promoted the Darwinian evolutionary revisionism of every aspect of American history and culture. Besides being a committed Darwinian revisionist, Becker embraced the Marxist application of philosophy. The Becker thesis has been unassailable for seventy years. Amos summarizes the Becker thesis, “Stripped to its essentials, the Becker thesis is simply that Jefferson and the founders were secular and rationalist in their philosophy of law and rights, they were self-consciously Deists and Enlightenment humanists. They longed for the day when the masses would be enlightened and not be prone to thinking in religious and biblical terms all the time.”
This secular worldview produced an intolerable conflict with religion. Today, men are to render to God what is God’s only in a non-public environment and in a manner that does not offend the state. The state is endeavoring to define virtue from a secular worldview, and redemption will come from the civil society. This transformation is currently the major philosophical conflict in our society. Christianity realizes that power and rights proceed from God. There is no greater threat to Darwinian relativism then Christianity. The shift of power to secular humanism began in earnest with the doctrine of separation of church and state. Clearly, we already see Marxism competing with Christianity for power.
As a reminder for those of us who have fallen prey to the rewriting of history, there is no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Separation of church and state is a new concept invented by an anti-Catholic Supreme Court justice in 1947. Separation of church and state is not equivalent to church-state relations. That having been said, the organic relationship between church and state in the United States is disintegrating in large part due to judge-made doctrine.
There are three very harmful consequences of this doctrine. First, both church and state are isolated form reduced cooperation. Second, the civil society has filled the void that a more robust church and state relationship once occupied, and now civil society has all the power, influence, presence, and intolerance that church and state once shared. Thirdly, civil society has become everything: universities, media, political parties, economic transactions, and cultural life. Remember, whoever rules, whether it is church or state, must fulfill the following roles: must be a sponsor of culture, impose values and visions, and define conduct and morality.
One result of unrestrained state power is summarized by Cardinal Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI. He explains that Western society is ruled by a hedonistic elite. Hedonistic elites mock the church and promote the fear that the church would like to reverse the current trend to regain its old power, and therefore, it’s a suspected interest group that is constantly accused. When the church expresses an opinion on pertinent social issues, it is attacked, unlike other interest groups that are free to express their opinions (take abortion as an example). Now the church is discriminated against and is thus an interest group that has a lesser standing than other interest groups.
In 1947 the United States began to retreat from its Judeo-Christian foundation to a new secular humanism philosophy with the doctrine of separation of church and state at its center. The First Amendment was thus completely disregarded and replaced with the separation of church and state. Ironically, the First Amendment is now perversely used to prohibit the very religious freedoms that the founding fathers encouraged under that same document.
Government interference with religion was relatively modest until 1947, when the Supreme Court ended the long-standing balance between the government and religion in the case Everson v. Board of Education. Justice Hugo Black morphed an obscure metaphor from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson wrote to the Baptist community of Danbury, Connecticut, who expressed their fears that because the protection for religion had been written into the laws and Constitution, it would inappropriately suggest that the government viewed freedom of religion as a government-granted right rather than a God-granted right. In 1807 the Danbury Baptists were apprehensive that the government might someday wrongly believe that it had the power to regulate public religious activities—how prescient. The Danbury Baptists expressed a fear that has since come to pass. Ironically, Jefferson attempted to assuage the fears of the Danbury Baptists by reassuring them that the government would and could not interfere with their religious freedom. Jefferson wrote, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. The wall of separation was clearly meant to be a wall of non-interference. But Justice Black succeeded in creating a new definition of “wall of separation” and then mandated that this new definition would forever more be applied to all cases dealing with religion. (Today we see numerous examples of changing the definition of words to fit a political agenda, for example: the concept of gender is expanding more rapidly than the growing list of pronouns, racism has devolved to mean someone who does not agree with Marxists democrats, and we literally have a Supreme Court Justice who does not know what a woman is.)
The court in Everson interpreted the “separation” phrase as requiring the federal government remove religious expressions from the public arena. This is the complete opposite of the First Amendment’s meaning. The First Amendment is no longer a limitation on government interference, it is now a limitation on religious expression and principles. Justice Rehnquist summarizes the terrible consequences of Everson, “The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history. As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter and will only lead to the type of unprincipled decision-making that has plagued our Establishment Clause cases since Everson.
The strategic goal of Judicial activism is to achieve complete secularism. Tactically, there have been many court battles. But one court case established the template demonstrating how Darwinism can be used to silence religion—Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist. (2005). Here is District Judge Jones’ reasoning, “Defendants presented no convincing evidence that they were motivated by any valid secular purpose. Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether Intelligent Design is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationists, and thus religious antecedents.” There you have it. When addressing creation, Darwinism is the only “science” allowed in the court. Any other theory will be coupled with religion and thus be forbidden in the United States.
Next, who are some Toxic Darwinists?
III WHO ARE TOXIC DARWINISTS?
When Darwinism fails as a science, it can only survive if it functions as a philosophy. I must mention at least one philosophical aspect of Darwinism that supports this thesis. There is no scientist other than Charles Darwin or science other than Darwinism that has been used as a philosophical foundation for a political party that eventually launched a world war. Of course, I am referring to Nazism and social Darwinism.
The toxic Darwinist will, of course, cry foul and proclaim that the Nazis misused Darwinian theory, and that is partially correct. But their underlying argument fails for several reasons. No other science or scientist has ever been misused to create an evil that resulted in the deaths of more than fifty-five million people.
Before mentioning a few Toxic Darwinism practitioners, it is important to note that it is only the “science” of Darwinism that produces “social Darwinism.” There is no such thing as “social Einsteinism,” “social Newtonianism,” “social quantum mechanics,” et. cetera. Social Darwinism exists only because Darwinism is fundamentally a philosophy or metaphysic, not a science. That being said, here is a sad list of who they are and what they have achieved.
In his book Hitler and the Nazi Worldview (Joshua Press, 2012), Bergman notes, “Hitler scholar and Yale University Professor Emeritus Fritz Redlich, when asked what the centerpiece of Hitler’s worldview was, answered, ‘His social Darwinism and his anti-Semitism, both which flowed from his Darwinian worldview.” But Hitler was not the lone Darwinist in the Nazi regime. As Himmelfarb observes, “Almost all Nazi leaders were enslaved to Darwinian ideas and ideals, and almost all were strongly opposed to Christianity to the degree that they eventually wanted to eradicate it from Europe.”
I have always been puzzled how the most intellectual nation in Europe could fall so completely under the spell of a megalomaniac. The answer is obviously complex, but it is best answered from a philosophical perspective because it was a philosophical phenomenon. Kershaw summarized the phenomenon, “Even though Germany had been the leader in both the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, Darwinian ideas advocated by its leading scientists rapidly replaced the Christian worldview, beginning only a few years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. German society rapidly adopted a thoroughly secular worldview, relying on science and materialistic philosophy for its values and morals.”
Hitler enjoyed the support of academic elites, including scientists and physicians too numerous to discuss. I will, however, mention a few of the notorious names with which we are all familiar.
Dr. Josef Mengele, MD, PhD. While in college, “Mengele abandoned his religion due to his secular studies. He also became more and more receptive to Hitler’s goals of a ‘New Germany’ and producing a superior race.” Mengele studied under Darwinist professor Ernst Rudin at the University of Munich “who taught his students that some lives were not worth living and doctors had a responsibility to destroy such lives for the good of society as a whole.”
Martin Bormann. Bormann was considered Hitler’s right-hand man. Bormann held the position of party treasurer and then was appointed deputy Fuhrer. Bormann had a profound hatred of Christianity and held a Darwinist worldview. Professor Steinberg wrote that a major source of this Darwinist worldview came from his mentor, Hitler, and that the “basic argument behind Hitler’s madness was pure social Darwinism.”
Heinrich Himmler. This quote demonstrates much about Darwinism and its role in Nazism. The quote mentions Ernst Haeckel, who was a significant and infamous contributor to Charles Darwin and Darwinists today as well. Berman states, “A diligent student, Himmler attended the University of Munich where, as an agriculture science student, he studied Darwinism. In college, his doubts would eventually result in abandoning both his creationism and his Catholic faith. He also probably learned about Darwinism and racism either directly, or most likely indirectly through the writings of people such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain and the famous German professor Dr. Ernst Haeckel who had transformed Darwinian evolution into the science of race.’”
Dr. Josef Goebbels. Joseph Goebbels was the Nazi propaganda minister and also the person we have to thank for what we call the “big lie” as well as the propaganda technique of direct mail. Unfortunately, our politicians today continue to use the concept of the big lie. If something is repeated often enough people will believe it no matter how false it is. As Bergman states, “He [Goebbels] lost his Catholic faith during his university days and replaced it with his new heroes: Nietzsche, Hitler and Darwin.”
Hermann Goring. Rhodes provides a succinct summary of Darwinism and how it became the fundamental ideology of Nazism. Speaking of Goring Bergman states, “When Goring was a young follower of Hitler Darwinism was the greatest intellectual fad in Europe,” and in this vein Bergman cites Rhodes, “Many intellectuals applied the catchwords ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ to human affairs, and a loosely defined movement known as ‘social Darwinism’ arose In Germany. Social Darwinism was promoted by an accomplished scientist and voklkisch ideologue named Ernst Haeckel. The enormously popular Haeckel argued that peoples were involved in the struggle for survival.”
Reinhard Heydrich. Heydrich is considered to be the mastermind of the Holocaust. Heydrich was reared as a Catholic, and like so many other Nazi elites he lost his religion and replaced it with secular philosophies. Darwinism was a part of Heydrich’s repertoire. As noted by Manwell, “He [Heydrich] worked within the system, conforming to the Nazi culture to the extent of heading the Wannsee Conference that ‘resolved the Jewish problem’ by planning their extermination.’” Bergman continues the Darwinian connection. “The critical influence of eugenics and the influence of the prevailing Darwinist culture on his belief is well documented.”
Dr. Alfred Rosenberg. Alfred Rosenberg is curiously a name that is not well known, considering his critical importance. Rosenberg authored a two-volume set titled The Myth of the Twentieth Century. In this highly documented and footnoted book, Rosenberg “imported into Hitler’s original program … the doctrine of racial value, that is the superiority of German Aryan blood.” Rosenberg became the “scribe of the new gospel,” the philosophy of Nazism based on social Darwinism. Whisker notes that Rosenberg’s “racism was based on Darwinism and the best science of the day supported by the leading German scientists.” The best science of the day—sound familiar?
I could go on and on, but the similarities are significant; atheism, Darwinism, totalitarianism, whether it is Nazism, fascism, communism, or Marxism the results are the same—destruction.
Richard Dawkins is probably the most well-known and quoted atheist and Darwin apologist in current times. I will use him as a good example of Toxic Darwinism in society today. His book, The Blind Watchmaker, is a response to William Paley’s argument that upon finding a watch while walking in the woods one can reasonably infer the existence of a designer and thus God. Dawkins spends his entire book conjecturing how extreme complexity of the human body can have occurred via random mutations and that intelligent design is not necessary.
But a paradox exists within the scientific community. While the unimaginably complex information in DNA is not sufficient to conclude intelligent design exists, SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) has concluded that a message received from space that contains a series of prime numbers (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, etc.) is sufficient to infer intelligence from the sender. This is incongruent.
Dawkins is an atheist and as such portrays the worldview of naturalism and secular humanism. In his book, Dawkins has a specific goal of proving there is no design in the universe. In his own words, “This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it . . .” Quite a bold statement Dawkins and Darwin solved the mystery of life! (For an in-depth examination of Dawkins’ book the reader may go to my website darwinscollapse.com for a thorough examination of his failed logic.)
Dawkins exclaims that, “Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered . . . has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all.” Those words should be remembered because they become confused with words that seem to imply that a biologic function arose because of its need to arise. And this is the invalid reasoning that Toxic Darwinists use—an improved physiologic function benefiting an organism is the cause of evolution. (Remember the drought that caused immediate beak changes, then when the drought resolved the beak sizes returned immediately to pre-drought size. All this demonstrates is birds leave when things get bad, and they come back when things are better. If this were evidence of evolution it would be that the environment causes evolution immediately.)
Dawkins sets up Darwinism in a circular argument, “My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right, it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” So there you have it from the atheist and Darwinian apologist, no matter what the facts are, Darwin’s theory and all its implications must be correct.
Toxic Darwinism is ubiquitous in academia. Countless examples exist but I will only give a few. Pennsylvania State University anthropologist Pat Shipman calls intelligent design “horribly frightening” and writes, “I know that I and my colleagues in science are being stalked with careful and deadly deliberation. I fear my days are numbered.” Not to be out done, Marshall Berman, past president of the New Mexico Academy of Science states that intelligent design, “threatens all of science and society.” And most outlandishly, Kenneth R. Miller Professor at Brown University says, “What is at stake is, literally, everything.” We could literally write an encyclopedia of anti-Christian paranoia but the importance of this anti-Christian philosophy rests in its consequences.
- WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF REMOVING GOD FROM SOCIETAL CONSCIOUSNESS?
To summarize the answer to this question we need look no further than a WW II German tank gunner, Hilmar Von Campe. When asked how Germany could have fallen off the precipice of civilization and descend into Nazism his answer was succinct, “Godlessness was the principle reason for the crimes of the Nazi leaders.” The following elements describe how it happened and may happen again.
Egocentrism is the excessive or total interest in oneself with disregard for others or being inconsiderate of others. Judeo-Christianity derives its morals, ethics, and laws from God. This is stated in our founding documents. In a society that lacks a god, where do morals, ethics, and laws arise? The only other place from which they can arise—individuals or the state, which is nothing more than a group of like-minded individuals. Because no two individuals are alike, the definition of morals, ethics, and laws will be forever changing to fit the current need of individuals. This leads to relativism.
Relativism is the belief that all knowledge, truth, morals, ethics, and laws exist only in relation to current cultural or individual needs—nothing is absolute. We see relativism exercised daily in our media, legal system, and political class. What is good today may not be good or useful tomorrow. Relativism is the twin brother to hypocrisy. Egocentrism and relativism lead to moral decay.
- Moral Decay.
Moral decay is more difficult to identify because it may start quite subtly. Society becomes weak in upholding its founding standards: law breakers are not pursued or punished, societal norms erode, language fluctuates and becomes a tool for egocentrism and relativism rather than an expression of reality, respect for one another becomes a quaint memory of days gone by, etc., I’m sure you can add to the list. But from moral decay comes anarchy and chaos.
- Anarchy and Chaos.
Anarchy and chaos are not necessarily one in the same. Anarchy is merely the natural result of the absence or non-recognition of authority. In a godless society, respect for authority may or may not be given by the people, and if given may easily be withdrawn. Anarchy is a lack of rules, laws and even a government. And from this anarchy ultimately springs chaos—the complete loss of order and a state of total confusion. With the existence of anarchy and chaos we are now inserted into the Anacyclosis cycle.
- Anacyclosis Cycle.
The Anacyclosis cycle is the culmination of ancient Greek political philosophy regarding the evolution of political communities, which explains the evolution and dissolution of major regime types. The cycle is usually presented as beginning with a Monarchy that degenerates into a Tyranny. The aristocrats react and depose the tyrant creating an Aristocracy, which itself degenerates into an Oligarchy. The people displace the oligarchs and thus create a Democracy. Unfortunately, the democracy declines into an Ochlocracy (Mob Rule). But mob rule is anarchy and chaos which opens the door for seizure of power by a new monarch. Inevitably we once again arrive at a Monarchy. And the cycle repeats. This may be a dreary way to look at our society, but it is evident that America is now in the throes of mob rule waiting to anoint a new monarch.
So how do we get out of this mess? By inserting the one thing that is missing from the Anacyclosis cycle—God. Hilmar von Campe knew this, and tens of millions would not have been killed had the German voters listened. The relationship between secular humanism, Toxic Darwinism and Nazism are not coincidental.
Examination of what is frequently referred to as Darwin’s theory of evolution reveals numerous errors. The most glaring error is the use of Darwin’s theory to mean the mechanism by which all of life was created. This is a subtle but ubiquitous implication. This is accomplished by equating evolution with natural selection. However, we have seen that natural selection as a tool, such as livestock breeding, has been in use since the time of Genesis. It has only been since 1859 that natural selection became wedded to the concepts of evolution and the creation of all life.
Scientifically speaking we have seen that evolution merely means change occurring within living organisms over time. This purely scientific definition is not evidence for God’s nonexistence, nor does it explain the origin of life. Those who attempt to use it for those purposes must inappropriately extrapolate natural selection to the term evolution, which they then misconstrue as the creation of life. [For an essay describing the molecular origin of life please see my essay, “Origin of Life by Natural Processes is a Crucial Component of Darwinism and as Implausible as Darwinism,” found on my website Darwinscollapse.com.]
We have seen several examples of scientists and educators using natural selection as evidence to prove evolution implying a mechanism for the creation of life. The most glaring examples I noted were Darwin’s finches and peppered moths. Other than exhibiting fallacious logic, scientists and educators also commit a sin of omission by ignoring the astronomically complex information within DNA.
Scientists and academia ignore the origin of information contained in DNA. There is no cogent Darwinian theory that explains not only how DNA information originates but more astoundingly how that information is processed into human anatomy and physiology through the rapidly changing embryologic life to the more stable anatomy and physiology of adulthood. Toxic Darwinists do not explain how random mutations create the astronomically complex three-dimensional molecular biology that performs as nanotechnology in the macro-system of human anatomy and physiology. [For medical evidence that the human body is far too complex to have been created by the natural selection of random mutations please see my book, The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory, (WestBow Press, 2016); or read my essay, “Changes in Circulation at Birth” on my website at Darwinscollapse.com.]
We have seen that Toxic Darwinism is a philosophical construct. In our current media and political climate, the meanings of words are in constant flux. “Social Darwinism” became a lethal construct that led to the death of tens of millions. Social Darwinism is strongly associated with totalitarianism. This coupled with the fact that Darwinism is non-falsifiable means of course that Darwinism is a philosophy, or at best a pseudo-science.
We have seen how our judicial system with the assistance of Toxic Darwinism has become anti-Christian by judicial fiat, and our Judeo-Christian foundations are being replaced by secular humanism and American Marxism, reminiscent of Nazism in the 1920’s and 30’s.
Lastly, we have seen the consequences of allowing Toxic Darwinism and evolution to replace God in our society. Those consequences are the flourishing of egocentrism, relativism, moral decay, anarchy, and chaos.
In short, we have concluded that the relationship between secular humanism, Toxic Darwinism, and all forms of totalitarianism (with Nazism being the best example) leads to the destruction of society. America is on the path of destruction by a philosophy masquerading as a pseudo-science called Darwinism, or what I more accurately call Toxic Darwinism. Finally, it is clear that Toxic Darwinism is the foundation of godlessness, and godlessness is destroying America as it destroyed Germany.
 Thomas Childers, “A History of Hitler’s Empire.” 2nd ed. Course Guidebook, Lecture 1 (Chantilly: The Great Courses, 2001), 1.
 Hilmar Von Campe, How Was it Possible? (United States: Hilmar Von Campe, 2006), 220.
 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: The Illustrated Edition, David Quammen (New York: Sterling Publishing, 2011), 191.
 Id., 504.
 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1996), p xiii.
 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science of Myth? (Washington, DC: Regenery, 2000), 162.
 Arthur Wallace, Evolution a Developmental Approach (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2011), 188.
 Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator 33, no. 10 (Dec 2000/Jan 2001), 6.
 Wells, Icons, 167.
 Id., 174.
 Wells, Survival, 6.
 Id., 5.
 Wells, Icons, 143.
 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, (New York: Harcourt, 1976), 178.
 Id., 179.
 Michael Egnor, “Totalitarianism is Darwinism Applied to Politics,” Evolution News and Science Today, July 20, 2020.
 Arendt, 178.
 Thomas Molinar, “The Separation of Church and Society.” From lecture series What Wall? Religion, Law and the Constitution. Hillsdale College (7 October 1987).
 M. Stanton Evans. “Religious Roots of Freedom. “ From lecture series The Religious Roots of Freedom. Hillsdale College (9 November 1994).
 Gary Amos, “The Philosophical and biblical Perspectives that Shaped the Declaration of Independence.” The Christian and American Law: Christianity’s Impact on America’s Founding Documents and Future Direction. Gen. Ed H. Wayne House (Grand Rapids, MI; Kregel, 1998), 50.
 Amos, 51.
 Thomas Molinar, “The Separation of Church and Society,” from lecture series What Wall? Religion, Law and the Constitution, Hillsdale College (7 October 1987).
 Mark Levin, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America (Washington: Regnery, 2004), 36.
 David Barton, Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant (Aledo: Wallbuilders, 2007), 5.
 Levin, 41.
 Barton, 14.
 Frank S. Ravitch, Law and Religion, a Reader: Cases, Concepts and Theory, 2 ed., (St. Paul: Thomson/West, 2008), 29.
 Jerry Bergman, Hitler, and the Nazi Worldview: How the Nazi Eugenic Crusade for a Superior Race Caused the Greatest Holocaust in World History (Ontario: Joshua Press, 2012), 1. Here Bergman cites Fritz Redlich, Hitler Diagnosis of a Destructive Prophet (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), 340.
 Id., 2. Here Bergman cites Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin, and the Darwinian Revolution ((New York: Doubleday, 1959).
 Id., 123. Here Bergman cites Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1936-45: Nemesis (New York: W. W. Norton, 2000).
 Id., 150. Here Bergman cites John Grabowski, Josef Mengele (Farmington Hills: Lucent Books, 2004), 19.
 Id. Here Bergman cites Claire Welch, Rise & Fall of the Nazis (London: Magpie Books, 2008). 310.
 Id., 169. Here Bergman cites Jonathan Steinberg, All or Nothing: The Axis and the Holocaust, 1941-1943 (New York: Routledge, 1990), 195.
 Id., 178 Final quote from Christopher Hale, Himmler’s Crusade: The Nazi Expedition to Find the Origins of the Aryan Race (New York: Wiley, 2003), 102.
 Id., 199.
 Id., 208.
 Id., 208. Here Bergman cites James M. Rhodes, The Hitler Movement: A Modern Millenarian Revolution (Stanford: Hoover Intuition Press, 1980), 123.
 Id., 228. Here Bergman, cites Roger Manwell and Heinrich Fraenkel, Dr. Goebbels: His Life and Death (London: Greenhill, 2006).
 Id., 232. Here Bergman cites Oswald Dutch, Hitler’s 12 Apostles (New York: Robert M. McBride & Co., 1940), 26.
 James Whisker, The Philosophy of Alfred Rosenberg: Origins of the National Socialist Myth (Torrance: The Noontide Press, 1990), 202. Cited in Bergman, 236.
 Richard Dawkins, the Blind Watchmaker (Norton, 1996) p xiii.
 Id., 5.
 Id., 287.
 Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Washington: Regenery, 2006), 1. Here Wells quotes Pat Shipman, “Being Stalked by Intelligent Design,” American Scientist, November/December 2005.
 Id. Here Wells quotes Marshall Berman, “Intelligent Design Creationism: A Threat to Society, Not Just Biology.” American Biology Teacher, 65 (November/December 2003).
 Id. Here Wells quotes Ken Miller Lectures on Evolution, Intelligent Design: The Future of Science Is at Stake, Hamilton College, (June 2006).
 Hilmar Von Campe, How was it Possible? The Story of a Hitler Youth and a Vital Analysis for Today’s Times (United States: Hilmar Von Campe, 2006), 220.