“A Venerable Orang-outang”, a caricature of Charles Darwin as an ape published in The Hornet, a satirical magazine (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I’ve recently made contact with several people with whom I went to high school. I haven’t seen or talked to any of them in most of 50 years. Hard to believe. 50 years?! How th’ hell did that happen?!
One of them (John S.) actually took the time to read a couple of my blog entries. I was delighted.
John then sent an email asking for my opinion on an article about a particular anthropologist. I started to read the article—and I’d like to have responded to the contents of that article—but I was quickly diverted by descriptions of the anthropologist’s dedication to Darwin’s theory of Evolution.
Well, I felt compelled to explain my notions on Evolution and Creationism to John. It wasn’t the subject matter he’d asked for, but he did ask for my opinion on “something”. In doing so, he provided me with a bit of a “soapbox”. For me, that’s an almost irresistible temptation. (In fact, when it comes to soapboxes, I’m kinda like Will Rogers. I never met a soapbox that I didn’t like. I have a little of Archimedes in me, too: “Give me a soapbox big enough and a place to stand, and I could move the world.)
In any case, once I got rolling, I wound up writing over 2,500 words on my notions concerning Evolution and Creationism. That’s too many words to present to just one man by email. Some of that text might be of interest or even insightful for some readers, so I’m reposting here:
Mr. Chagnon (the anthropologist) appears to subscribe to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
I do not. I’m a “creationist”. Don’t laugh. It’s actually the most rational choice.
I recognize the seemingly powerful logic behind Evolution, but I also recognize its fundamental flaw. “Evolution” essentially means “change”. I.e., “A” changes or evolves into “B”. Then “B” changes or evolves into “C,” and so on. That makes enormous sense except for one question: Where’d you get the original “A” that was subsequently changed or evolved?
Evolution can explain how “A” changes, but it can’t explain how the ultimate “A” came to exist. Evolution can’t explain the “creation” of “A”.
• Virtually all life relies on DNA. So far as I know, DNA can’t exist outside of a cellular structure. This implies that the first strand of DNA could not have existed and survived without a cellular structure that protected the DNA. But the cellular structure cannot exist except as a consequence and product of some initial DNA. So we are left with chicken/egg-shell question—which came first? The DNA or the cell wall?
I’m sure none of this is news to you, John.
I’d expect any evolutionist worth his salt to point out that while Evolution can explain how “A” changed to “B”—but can’t explain how “A” came to exist in the first place—Creationism is every bit as flawed.
While Creationism can explain that “A” was created by God, it does not explain where God came from. As every evolutionist wants to know, who or what created God? If Creationists can’t explain how God came to be, why should evolutionists have to explain how “A” came to be? Both theories postulate but cannot prove that some thing (“A”) or some God originally existed. Neither theory can prove their fundamental postulate.
Thus, Evolution cannot explain the creation of life.
But, Creationism cannot explain the creation of God.
Neither theory can convincingly explain the original act of creation. Both theories’ primary postulates are beyond our capacity to test and prove.
We believe in one theory or the other as an act of faith.
More, insofar as both theories can’t be proved, belief in either theory is a matter of choice.
• However, if I can’t prove which of the two fundamental theories is true, I can prove which of the two theories will have consequences that are most conducive (or adverse) to my well-being. In other words, when it comes to believing in one theory or the other, what’s in it for me? Which of the two theories provides more positive benefits for me or even my fellow man?
The answer, hands down, is Creationism.
If you, and I and society choose to believe in Evolution, then we should consider the possibility that the primary distinction between ourselves and all other species may be our ability to create and use sophisticated weapons. Insofar as evolution is based on survival of the fittest, it is necessarily conducive to violence. If you want to mate with a particular female and you’re very strong, you can fight off your rivals. Or, if you’re not so strong but you have a gun, you can simply kill them and still get the girl.
And why not? What intrinsic difference exists under the theory of Evolution that makes the murder of a man any more cause for concern that the killing (and subsequent roasting) of a chicken? The chicken is meat; we’re meat—what’s the problem?
We can follow the logic of Evolution to justify a government killing another nation with nuclear weapons, or killing a large number of its own people to wipe out the government’s creditors. (If the creditors die, so does the national debt.)
When it comes to survival of the fittest, what’s more important—survival of the people or survival of the government? I’ll guarantee that the entity we call “government” views its own survival as far more important than the survival of its old-time creditors or the people at large.
So, why not kill ‘em all? Why not kill all those old farts who are now collecting So-So Security? If gov-co could cause the elderly to die at a younger age, the government’s debt for SS would be hugely reduced. Unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Medicaid might disappear. Obamacare could even turn out to be affordable.
From an evolutionary point of view, it’s just good economics to whack the old timers—as well as anyone else who is non-productive and (as Henry Kissinger once observed) a “useless eater”. From an evolutionary perspective, why should we subsidize all those non-productive, “useless eaters”? Why allow our gene pool to be polluted and even dominated by the DNA of misfits and morons? Why not kill ‘em all? Those arguments made perfect sense to Adolph Hitler.
Under Evolution, those arguments not only make sense but appear to be inescapable conclusions. As a people or a nation, to the extent we believe in Evolution, we must inevitably believe in murder, mass murder and even genocide. Survival of the fittest. Dog eat dog. Violence.
• But, under Creationism, I see a different world view and an entirely different set of values.
The most important principle in the Bible is seen at Genesis 1:1—”In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Most people read that line as a mere introduction to a fable—something like “Once upon a time, there was a beautiful fairy princess who was held captive by an evil witch.”
But, in fact, Genesis 1:1 is a statement of legal title. Just as modern inventors can claim patents on whatever new invention they’ve created, and a writer can claim a copyright to whatever articles he’s written, God is also entitled to legal title to whatever He has created. Insofar as He created the “heavens and the earth,” by virtue of that act of creation, he owns perfect title the entire universe and can do whatever he sees fit with His property. If the Bible is true, you, I, the earth and the sky are all property of the Good LORD.
Second most important principle in the Bible: Genesis 1:26-28—”On the 6th day, God created man in His image and gave man dominion over the animals.” In those two verses, the Bible explained the legal distinction between man and animals and laid the foundation for allowing the killing of chickens, goats and cows—but not men and women. We are made in God’s image; the chickens, goats and cows are not.
The consequence of Genesis 1:26-28 is seen in Genesis 9:6 which explains that, under God’s law, we’re prohibited from murdering another man or woman precisely because that man or woman is “made in God’s image”. This principle laid the foundation for the prohibition against murder in some or all of the western world for several thousand years.
I certainly don’t argue that recognition that man is made in God’s image has stopped murder. But, it has inhibited our tendency to kill each other.
I think that’s a good thing. Therefore, I want people to view me as a “man made in God’s image” as a matter of self-defense. So long as they see me as “made in God’s image” (and understand what that means) they’re less likely to kill me, assault me, rob me or even overtax me. Creationism provides me with that line of self-defense.
However, I see no such line of defense in the theory of Evolution. In a survival-of-the-fittest, dog-eat-dog world where I am deemed to be a mere, evolved “animal,” there’s no fundamental reason not to kill, assault or rob me other than even at my advanced age, I might still be sufficiently accurate with a pistol to kill any young predator who views me as just an old, weakened animal fit to be slaughtered and/or exploited.
• So far, my observations may sound silly to most, but the Powers That Be recognize and employ the underlying principles.
Every time the Hutus decide to chop the Tutsi’s into chunks, they first declare the Tutsi’s to be “animals”. As animals, the Tutsi’s have no more right to live than chickens, pigs or goats. Therefore, as “animals” every Tutsi—women, children, old men, non-combatants—can be slaughtered just like a nest of rats. Kill ‘em all, boys—they’re just animals! Even primitive people understand this principle.
You can kill “animals” with abandon. But you can’t easily murder “men” and “women”—even if they are of an adversarial tribe. (Odd, isn’t it? Even primitive people understand the importance of definitions. Define your adversary one way, and you can kill him. Define him another way, and you must respect his right to life.)
Of course, primitive people like the Hutu’s don’t understand Genesis 1:26-28 and 9:6, but they nevertheless know in their gut that it takes special “justification” to kill all of the members of some other tribe. That justification is found in the belief that the other tribe is composed of “animals”.
Evolution presumes us all to be “animals”.
As such, Evolution provides much of the justification needed to rape or murder even innocent children. After all, they’re just “animals”—right?
• Just a few years before you and I were born (which, as you know, John, isn’t really so long ago), Adolph Hitler’s regime allegedly exterminated several million Jews.
But I’m told that before the camps were built or gas chambers used, Hitler first passed laws to declare the Jews to be “untermenschen” (“under-men”; subhumans; animals). Once the Jews were legally degraded to the status of “animals,” there was no more reason to not kill them than there was to avoid killing all of the babies, mothers and adult males in a nest of rats.
Thus, less than a century ago, a civilized nation recognized the need to pass laws that declared even Jews to be animals before that nation could begin to exterminate Jews. This illustrates that even governments like Nazi Germany understand and have some respect for the legitimacy of Creationism. They had to pass laws to get around it.
Of course, Nazi Germany only needed those laws because the Bible—and the theory of Creationism—taught that even Jews are made in God’s image and thus not subject to being arbitrarily murdered.
However, man’s laws were passed to supersede God’s law (that we are all made in God’s image) and several million innocent men, women and children were therefore slaughtered. What do you think Hitler was talking about when we referred to Germany as the “master race”? What was the concept of “Aryan Superman” all about? How ’bout racial purity and ethnic cleansing? They are all about Evolution. Those concepts the Nazi regime and even the death camps are all the logical consequences of the theory of Evolution.
Under the theory of Evolution, since we’re all declared to be “animals,” no such law might be needed. Government could kill the niggers, wetbacks, po’ white trash and even dissidents with impunity. If we’re all only animals and we’re weaker than the government, then why not kill us? Survival of the fittest, right?
But, in fact, our government has already passed laws to expressly declare the people to be “animals”. As I’ve reported in a series of articles under the category “Man or Other Animals” and especially at, “Man or Other Animals” #1, the federal and state legislatures have have defined the words “drug” and “medical devices” to apply only to “animals”. The war on drugs–and the resulting police state and prison-industrial complex–are based on a definition of “drug” that presumes us all to be “animals”. That “war” is being waged against you me and our neighbors, under the same pretext that allows the Hutu’s to chop the Tutsi’s into chunks and allowed Hitler to murder millions.
This is no small thing. It’s cause for great alarm. The legal principles are in place to treat you, me and our families just like Hitler treated the Jews.
And it’s not a recent development. The earliest instance of laws that define the people to be “animals” (as per Evolution and contrary to Creationism) that I’ve been able to find is the A.D. 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. The government that claims to be here to help us has been treating us like animals at law for over a century.
• But it wasn’t always that way. Here, within The United States of America, we started with a pair principles never before seen in the western world. Those principles are found in the second and third sentences of the “Declaration of Independence”. They are the basis for “American Exceptionalism”. Those principles are:
1) “. . . 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.”
Note the references to “created” and “Creator”. The Founders were declaring the existence of rights that were granted to men made (created) in God’s image—but no such rights accrued to “animals” including men who were evolved rather than “created” by God. There are no unalienable Rights for evolved animal-men—only for men who are “created” rather than evolved.
There was no theory of evolution in A.D. 1776, but it’s apparent that the unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration” would only be available under a theory of Creationism, but not Evolution.
2) “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . . .”
The Founders were telling us that they deemed the first and primary objective for all State governments to be to secure every God-given, unalienable Right to every man, woman and even unborn (but already “created”) child—even if they were too young, ignorant, old or disabled to claim those God-given rights for themselves.
These two principles (that all “created” men are equally endowed with certain unalienable rights from God; and government’s primary duty is to secure those God-given rights) comprise the spiritual foundation on which this nation was built.
Today, these principle are completely unappreciated. We’ve all heard the second sentence (“All men are created equal,” etc.) repeatedly during our lives, but who has understood it? How many people recognize that second sentence as the most radical statement in 2,000 years of western history?
Not many.
Why radical? Because, prior to the “Declaration of Independence” only one man in each western country was deemed to be the king or “sovereign”. One king of France, one king of England, etc. One sovereign for each country. All others were subjects. One sovereign and millions of subjects.
Why? What made one man “sovereign” and all others subjects?
A: The king alone, enjoyed the “divine right of kings”. The king, alone, received his rights from God. He became king/sovereign in a coronation ceremony in a church. He wasn’t elected or appointed by some secular body. He became the one-and-only sovereign within his nation because he, and he alone, received his rights from God. All else were subjects because they did not get any rights directly from God.
So, when the “Declaration of Independence” came along in A.D. 1776 and declared that all men—not just one man per country, but all men—were each equally endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, it elevated all men from the status of “subjects” to the status of “sovereigns”. Government (which always serves the sovereign(s)) became the people’s “public servant” rather than master.
Under these spiritual principles, we lived within the “Land of the Free”.
Why “free”? Because we were each a sovereign rather than a subject. Even though we might be weak and in many ways “unfit,” we were still each sovereign and thus entitled to government’s protection rather than oppression.
There’s no such proviso for our protection to be found in the theory of Evolution. I’m sure arguments to the contrary could be made and those arguments might be interesting, but they’d have no legal weight or authority. People like myself would be left to fight for our lives in a dog-eat-dog world dominated by the survival of the fittest. Might would make right. The world would be a violent, primitive, and frightening (much as it is today).
• On the other hand, if the world embraced the spiritual principles found in the “Declaration of Independence,” people like me would still have a legitimate claim on “freedom” and “liberty”. Government would really be here to help me (a “sovereign”) rather than exploit or oppress me. Under the principles seen in the “Declaration,” government would be a public servant rather than a public master. A police state would be legally and politically impossible. (Under the theory of Evolution, a police state is virtually inevitable.)
Of course, you can’t really embrace the principles of the “Declaration” (that men are created by God and endowed as an attribute of their creation with certain unalienable Rights and governments’ primary job is to secure those God-given rights) without first embracing the theory of Creationism.
If I’m not a man made (created) in God’s image, I’m only an “animal” who has no standing to claim the God-given, unalienable Rights declared in the “Declaration”. If I’m not a man made (created) in God’s image, I’m just an animal who has no defense against a government that might like to jail me, assault me or even kill me. In an “evolutionary” world dominated by survival of the fittest, so long as those government thugs are more physically fit or better armed than I am, my survival is in a constant state of peril.
• So—lessee—if I choose to embrace the theory of Evolution, I will have increased the chances that I’ll be jailed, assaulted or even killed by my own government. Genocide and thermonuclear war are completely rational choices under the theory of Evolution.
On the other hand, if I choose to embrace the theory of Creationism, I have a good chance to enjoy freedom, liberty, and a long life. Genocide and thermonuclear war could only be viewed as the acts or madmen or satanists.
Therefore, given that neither theory can be proven, which theory—and its consequences—makes more sense for me to embrace?
The answer is obvious. Creationism.
The answer is also amusing in this regard: the theory of Evolution is advanced by a lot of scientists and intellectuals who are deemed to be extremely rational, logical, and reasonable. And yet, they advance a theory that just might get them, their families, maybe their nation, maybe even the world, killed.
How rational, logical and reasonable is it to advocate a theory (Evolution) that just might get us all killed?
I’m reminded of Romans 1:22: “Thinking themselves wise, they became fools . . . .”
Conversely, how stupid, ignorant and silly is it for people like myself to advocate another theory (Creationism) that might help us to not only survive but survive with some measure of dignity and security from governmental abuse?
• I choose to believe in Creationism. Not because of the logic of the theory, but because of the logic of that theory’s consequences.
Evolution (which I can’t prove) could get me killed.
Creationism (which I can’t prove) might keep me alive.
How ignorant, and even self-destructive, do you have to be to believe in Evolution?
How smart do you have to be to believe in Creationism?
To believe in Creationism is not simply an act of faith or religious fanaticism. Properly understood, the choice to believe in Creationism is an act of rational self-interest and self-defense. Even atheists and anthropologists (if they have any sense and want to survive) should advocate the the Theory of Creationism.
