2025 marks the 100th Anniversary of a famous American court trial in 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee: "The Scopes Trial," also known as "The Monkey Trial" or "The Trial of the Century."
If you know anything about this trial (and most Americans in 2025 don't) you probably think about the clash between evolution and creation, or the clash between the Bible and "modern science."
If you are over 50, you may have seen the somewhat-fictionalized account of the Scopes Trial in the movie Inherit the Wind (1960) (imdb, trailer, full movie). The movie is pure anti-Bible propaganda. Spencer Tracy portrays the "courageous" liberal defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, Gene Kelly plays the role of reporter H.L. Mencken, who conspired with Darrow and the ACLU to challenge Tennessee's anti-evolution law, and Fredric March plays William Jennings Bryan, who opposed the teaching of Darwinism in public schools.
Regardless of your age, here is one of the central propositions of this website:
Hollywood, your schools, your government, have all conspired to keep you ignorant and powerless.
Let's consider a few of the famous facts of the trial . . . and not one of them is true. But today's public school graduates don't know the difference:
Darrow was a famous criminal defense attorney who denied knowing his duty to the God of the Bible, and defended assassins, murderers, and union mobsters. According to EBSCO Information Services,
In 1907, he won acquittal for William D. Haywood, of the Western Federation of Miners, who had been charged with complicity in the bombing death of a former governor of Idaho. In 1911, in another case involving union violence, Darrow defended James B. and John J. McNamara, who had planted dynamite in the Los Angeles Times building; the resulting explosion had killed twenty-one people. In 1924, [Darrow defended] Nathan F. Leopold, Jr., and Richard Loeb, who had carried out the wanton and senseless murder of a fourteen-year-old boy.
During his lifetime, Darrow served as defense attorney in nearly two thousand cases; more than one hundred of them were for charges of murder.
Much of his success derived neither from factual expertise nor from technical mastery of the law; rather, he was determined and generally able to sway juries and judges with deeply felt moral appeals.
Henry Louis Menken was a writer, journalist, essayist and "secretive racist." His parents were first-generation German-Americans, related to Otto von Bismarck. Mencken was a smart guy, but he was no fan of Christianity. He preferred Friedrich Nietzsche. He wrote The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (1907) and translated Nietzsche's book The Antichrist (1895) from German into English.
|
William Jennings Bryan is portrayed by Hollywood as a bigoted, narrow-minded fundamentalist buffoon. (Hollywood portrays all Christians this way.) Although Bryan defended some "fundamental" theological doctrines of Christianity (the virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc.), and especially the Jeffersonian doctrine that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, Bryan was a liberal Democrat. In fact, a progressive democrat. Some political experts say he was the most left-wing candidate for President ever put forward by the Democrat Party (including Joe "Crime Bill" Biden, and Kamala "Prison Packer" Harris. Even more progressive than so-called "socialist" Bernie Sanders. The Democrat Party nominated Bryan to be the Party's candidate for President three times: 1896, 1900, and 1908. At the 1896 Democratic convention in Chicago, his famous “Cross of Gold” speech won him the Democrat Party nomination for President at the age of 36, and is still considered one of the most important political speeches in American history.
Wikipedia says that "Because of his faith in the wisdom of the common people, Bryan was often called 'the Great Commoner.'"
But Bryan was not a six-day creationist. He believed the earth was millions if not billions of years old. Bryan wasn't challenging the geologists. He was challenging "progressives" who wanted to take control of education away from parents and local communities.
And he was challenging Darwinists, White Supremacists, and eugenicists who viewed common people with disgust and wanted to create a purer, stronger, smarter race of elites.
William Jennings Bryan was an opponent of racism, eugenics, and Nazism. He distrusted the Federal Government, and wanted his progressive policies put into effect by state and local governments. He was against elite control of education.
Bryan also wrote a book against Nietzsche. And for this, Mencken and Darrow agreed, Bryan had to be destroyed.
More and more people are becoming aware that secular progressive control of public schools has been a disaster. Homeschooling is growing. But when secular progressives cannot refute the statistics or the logic against their public policies, they resort to name-calling: "Fundamentalist!" "Theocrat!" Too many ignorant Americans genuflect before the ad hominem. Insults are easier to understand than syllogisms.
William Jennings Bryan was a victim of a secular progressive conspiracy based on personal attacks.
In the 21st century, "discrimination" and "racism" are big offences. So why isn't William Jennings Bryan resurrected in our day to persuade fundamentalists to oppose racism, which Bryan opposed? And "progressives" and "democratic socialists" want to advance their platform, but again, they don't target fundamentalist Christians to embrace progressive political policies by appealing to William Jennings Bryan? Why do secular progressives refer to Bryan (if they refer to him at all) as simply a clownish six-day creationist, when he wasn't a six-day creationist at all?
Because the secular left isn't based on facts.
The Scopes "Monkey Trial" was not really about monkeys. It was about who gets to control public schools:
Two years after the Scopes trial in Dayton, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the state of Virginia had the right to sterilize a mentally retarded woman, without her consent or knowledge that this was the operation being performed on her. While she had a daughter of normal intelligence, this had no bearing on the case in the joint opinion of eight of the nine members of the Court. In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the Court’s opinion: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
The Government has a right to prevent the births of imbeciles, according to the Supreme Court. This is because the goal of Progressive government is to create a master race. This idea, governing America in the 1920's, was adopted by Nazi Germany in the 1930's.
Gary North (after whom 90% of this website was plagiarized) writes,
Does this sound preposterous? Only because the textbooks have dropped this down the Orwellian memory hole. Doubt me? Read this: Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. This monstrous plan was validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927, two years after Bryan's death.
North's point is confirmed with footnotes by Thomas F. Cargill:
This is an introduction to his longer article about "scientific racism" in public schools:
This article does two things:
Extra Credit Reading:
Public schools after 1925 did nothing if not create a nation of imbeciles.
Here is the passage in the Tennessee textbook that William Jennings Bryan objected to:
“Although anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage, yet there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man. At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (pp. 195-196).“. . . if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways of preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.” (pp. 263-265).
"Savage" means blacks. It means non-whites. This was the wisdom of high school biology textbooks, circa 1925. The ACLU came to its defense. This information had to be brought to the children of Tennessee, the ACLU decided.
The Scopes "Monkey Trial" was not about monkeys, except those who graduate from public schools. The trial was about Democracy, Racism, Eugenics, and Nazism.
The Nazis won.
"Progressives" in 1925 claimed to be defenders of "progress." Progressives believed progress is made by the strong, not the weak; the rich, not the poor; the civilized, not the savages. Progressives in 1925 wanted to get rid of the weak. Hitler showed the world where progressivism leads. Progressives in 2025 now claim to be champions of the weak ("marginalized"), but under their government, the weak get weaker and the strong get stronger. Progressives put most of their abortion clinics in neighborhoods of "savages." Progressives control the schools where "savages" are forced to attend, and their educational attainment goes down year after year. These savages are not smart enough to resist progressive government.
Progressives today control America the way Calvinists controlled Puritan New England 400 years ago. In fact, the Jewish anarcho-capitalist writer Murray N. Rothbard shows how Calvinism devolved into Unitarianism and then Progressivism:
This website is not about rocks or monkeys. It's not about "savages" and "imbeciles."
It's about the fact that "scientific racism" led to "scientific socialism." Racism combined with political power = genocide/mass murder.
Here is the title of Charles Darwin's famous book from 1859:
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
1859 is one year before the U.S. Civil War began. Darwin was a White Supremacist. As was Abraham Lincoln. Details.
Darwin looked forward to the day when less-evolved races could be exterminated by Whites. Progressives added "white trash" to the less-evolved races: "imbeciles." Compulsory sterilization prevented these less-favored people from reproducing more people who would be a burden on society. But it was not enough to prevent the future creation of human weeds. Why not get rid of these people now, while they are presently draining society of its vigor? The public policy of sterilization leads to the public policy of euthanasia. Euthanasia on an ethnic scale is called "genocide."
Evolution was a theory justifying biological genocide, and creating the public machinery to carry that out.
Darwinism led to "The Administrative State" in America, which is a completely different system of government than the one formulated in the Constitution. But Americans who are ignorant of "scientific racism" in America in the 1920's are equally ignorant of the rise of the "Administrative State" and how we are no longer under the Constitution, according to legal scholars.
It will take a while to get through this website. It may take a commitment over a few weeks. There are a number of articles I recommend you read to get a handle on what the Scopes Trial represents. That trial is just the tip of the iceberg; one head of the hydra. Here's the list of the twenty or thirty articles. If you read only three, I recommend these:
This was the first article I ever published. It's short and to the point: people choose evolution over creation not because of "scientific facts," but because they want a new religion. Religion is more important than "science." "Facts" are marketing tools for a competing religion.
Many evolutionists have admitted that they hate God and the idea of a Creator. Eliminating a Creator means eliminating a Judge.
Since 1859, Evolution has grown in popularity as a scientific-sounding rationalization for being your own god.
2. Darwinism, Democracy, and the Public Schools by Gary North. Republished as The Road to Dayton (printable pdf).
This is the real story of the Scopes Trial.
If you don't like Gary North and the "Christian Reconstructionists," try an article by Thomas F. Cargill:
That's an introduction to his longer article: Eugenics in High School History: Failure to Confront the Past
"Scientific racism" is what the Scopes Trial was about. That was the broader cultural issue opposed by William Jennings Bryan.
The first half of Cargill's article is about "scientific racism" in "the progressive era." The second half is about today's high school history textbooks. Just read the first half.
3. "From Cosmic Purposelessness to Humanistic Sovereignty," by Gary North
This is the article that really motivated the creation of this website. It's not about the Scopes Trial directly, but more about the impact of the theory of evolution in the 1920's.
First we were told that there is no God, no Designer, no purpose. This was Darwin's job. This was "Cosmic Purposelessness."
Then we were told that man has now evolved to the point where he can control evolution and design his own future according to his own purpose. Man brings purpose to a cosmos without purpose.
Of course, in saying "Man can now control evolution," it is meant that some men can control other men. This is "Humanistic Sovereignty."
This is behind the "Progressive Era," which began around the 1880's and lasted through the 1930's.
These two articles by North are the foundation of this website. North earned his Ph.D. in history from the University of California, Riverside. These two articles are brilliant. They have the footnotes. They cannot be "refuted," they can only be suppressed or ignored.
I want to take you well beyond North's anti-evolutionism, but I can't take you beyond evolutionary genocide if you're ignorant of the true nature of evolutionary thinking.
You can't change the future if you don't know the past, because you'll think the present is normal. "That's the way it's always been."
It hasn't always been this way. It doesn't have to be this way.
This website is full of "conspiracy theories."
This website is about the most vast, elaborate, powerful, globe-stretching conspiracy theory in history.
The Bible is an elaborate "conspiracy theory." It alleges that man is in a conspiracy against God. The "conspiracy" began in the Garden of Eden, when Satan said man should conspire to be his own god (Genesis 3:5).
The Bible is full of "conspiracy theories."
The Bible says our Creator is our King (Isaiah 33:22), but there are numerous conspiracies throughout history to replace the Creator with a creature.
The Psalmist describes this vast political conspiracy:
Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the Lord and against His Christ, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.”
"The Bible is a shackle; we must free ourselves from it."
This vast conspiracy continues today, and consists of a number of smaller conspiracies.
The Scopes Trial of 1925 was not a particularly important conspiracy. Some writers have suggested that it was a "turning point," before which Christians were culturally dominant, after which Christians went into cultural retreat. Actually, this "turning point" was more gradual, and Christians had been retreating for many decades before the Scopes Trial.
There are lots of conspiracy theories making up this vast multi-headed conspiracy hydra.
You've been trained to reject anything the government calls a "conspiracy theory." But the government admits that conspiracies are real. Every one of the fifty states -- and virtually every nation on earth -- has laws against criminal "conspiracy." If two or more people talk about robbing a bank, and one of them commits an "overt act" (e.g., buys a bag to carry the loot, or rents a "getaway car,"), all participants can be convicted of "conspiracy" even if they never get around to actually robbing the bank. When charged and brought to trial, the government prosecutor will present a "conspiracy theory" to the jury. The jury may reject the "conspiracy theory" and acquit the defendant(s), or may agree with the "conspiracy theory" and vote to convict. Legal systems discourage conspiracies, because when two or more people conspire to commit a crime, it makes it more likely that the crime will actually be committed than when one lone individual "conspires" to commit a crime. ("con + spire" = "breathe together")
In popular conversation, the phrase "conspiracy theory" usually refers to a conspiracy of government agents to commit some nefarious act, or to cover up government wrongdoing or inefficiency, or to keep you from knowing something you should know.
A 1967 CIA document known as Dispatch #1035-960 expressed increasing concern that many Americans were questioning the government's "lone-gunman" conspiracy theory concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The CIA wanted to discredit rival "conspiracy theories" that impugned the competence or integrity of the government. The CIA had "assets" in mainstream media which could be used to cast aspersions on "conspiracy theorists." Those efforts have been largely successful, and most Americans will not listen to any research if the government and its media label the research as a "conspiracy theory."
The purpose of this website is to set forth the evidence of these "conspiracies." You be the jury.
This website is sponsored by a non-profit educational organization called "Vine & Fig Tree." The goal of this organization is to accelerate the fulfillment of this prophecy:
Micah 4:1-71 But it shall come to pass, |
Let me summarize this passage. Then I'll break it down into its component parts.
Micah says
| 1 it shall come to pass, |
Q.: How does Micah know what will come to pass?
A.: God told him. This is seen in verse 4:
| 4 for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. |
Q.: How does God know what will come to pass?
A.: God is in control.
Next, Micah says,
| the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established |
Q.: When will this come to pass?
A.:
| in the last days |
What is meant by the phrase "the last days?" Turn on the TV and the prophecy preachers will tell you we are now living in "the last days." They mean the last days before the Second Coming of Christ. Or the last days of planet earth.
They are mistaken. The have been mistaken for 2,000 years.
Perhaps Micah meant "in the distant future." The writers of the New Testament consistently affirmed that they were living in "the last days," and the best interpretation of this phrase is that they were living in the last days of the Old Covenant. Either way ("last days of the Old Covenant," or "distant future") the New Testament writers said they were living in "the last days." They were also living in the first days of the New Covenant. We are not living in the last days of the Old Covenant. We are not living in the last days of planet earth.
Some writers say we're living in a period called "the last days," and it represents the entire time between Christ's first coming and His second coming. "The Last Days" could be thousands or millions of years. But these scholars do not believe Christians have a moral obligation to beat "swords into plowshares."
Let's look at three components of that phrase:
| the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established |
First,
| that the mountain |
The original "mountain" was the Garden of Eden, from which flowed four rivers (downhill). The temple on Mt. Zion was a model of the Garden.
| the house of the LORD |
The "house" of the LORD is the temple. The temple of the LORD: Where is it today? It was destroyed in A.D. 70 by the Romans. This definitively ended the Old Covenant. The New Testament writers say that the new temple is made up of God's People.
| shall be established |
This "establishment" has already happened. The new temple (God's People) was being built even before the old temple had been destroyed. The virgin-born Jesus of Nazareth was seated in His new temple as the Messiah of Israel (Acts 2:36). Messiah = King. This Kingdom was established in past, not waiting for a second coming of the King in our future.
| in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; |
The nations around Israel built their own "high places" in an attempt to imitate God's Mountain-Garden. The neo-conservative woke regime in Washington D.C., as well as the UK, UN, EU, NWO, WEF, the "former" USSR, etc. are all rival "mountains." Christ has a superior jurisdiction over them all.
| and people shall flow unto it. 2 And many nations shall come, and say, |
This began happening in Acts 2, and has continued since, with ups and downs through history.
| Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for the Law shall go forth of Zion, and the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem. |
Notice the words of exhortation and education. That's our job.
Too many Christians today think there is a conflict between "Law" and "Gospel." Micah didn't think so.
| 3 And He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; |
| and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. |
Peace is a major theme in the Bible. Yes, there are many historical accounts of wars in the Bible, but what is the point of this history? What are we to learn from ancient Israel's wars and idolatry?
Jesus is "The Prince of Peace." Many (if not most) Christians today claim that wars must increase until the "Second Coming" of Christ, sometime in our future. This is based on an erroneous interpretation of Matthew 24:6. There are fewer wars today than there were in Micah's day. Christians have enough financial and electoral power to end all the wars currently taking place in the world today.
Q.: What would happen if Christians never voted for any politician who promised "Peace through Strength," that is, "peace" through killing millions of innocent people?
Q.: What would happen if Christians never voted for any politician who promised to use
the power of the sword (the State) to engage in extortion ("taxation") to fund mass murder by the military?
Q.: What would happen if "the Law shall go forth" out of the New Temple of God's People, and they never voted for any politician who promised to
violate the commands against murder and theft?
A.: All of today's politicians would have to resign from "the public sector" and get jobs in "the private sector."
The "Public Sector" ("the sword") would be abolished.
"Public Schools" exist to brainwash you into
believing that beating swords into plowshares would be a terrible thing.
| 4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: |
This was the most popular Bible verse in America 300 years ago. This was the original "American Dream."
| 2 for the Law shall go forth of Zion, and the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 5 Although all people will walk |
There is a contrast between the people of "Jerusalem" and those outside. The early church father Tertullian (c. 155 AD – c. 220 AD) spoke of the outsiders as "Athens."
|
What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?... Our instructions come from “the porch of Solomon”.... Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and
dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus...! |
Perhaps in his day Christians were being told to "Listen to the Academy!" just as Christians in our day are told "Listen to the Science!" But Micah says the temple of the living God will not be corrupted by the temple of man the would-be god.
Augustine wrote about the conflict between "The City of God" and the city of man. Where is your "citizenship?"
Next, Micah says,
| 6 In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; 7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: |
God rebukes unbelieving nations, but then restores them and gives them faithful obedience.
God's People are part of that process, by extending mercy to those God has rebuked (Matthew 25:31-46).
| and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever. |
The Kingdom that Christ inaugurated in "the last days" of the Old Covenant lasts forever.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end
Isaiah 9:6-7
That's the 30,000-foot view. Here are the individual parts. Each part is a separate website.
Verse 1:
- 0. The Bible is the Word of God:
- "for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it."
- 1. God is Sovereign:
- "it shall come to pass"
- 2. The Reign of Christ Began in the Past:
- "in the last days"
- 3. The Mountain is Eden:
- "the mountain"
Verse 2:
- 4. Global Conversion:
- "people shall flow unto it."
- 5. God's Law:
- "the Law shall go forth"
- 6.. Education:
- "He will teach us of His ways"
- 7. Spontaneous Obedience:
- "we will walk in His paths"
Verse 3:
- 8. The Messiah Reigns:
- "He shall judge"
- 9. Pax Christi, Not Pax Romana:
- "they shall beat their swords into plowshares"
Verse 4:
- 10. Freedom from Archists:
- "none shall make them afraid"
- 11: The Family:
- "every man under his Vine & Fig Tree
- 12: Service:
- [Genesis 1:26-28]
- 13: The Garden/Land:
- Vine & Fig Tree
- 14: The Fall of Man:
- [Genesis 3:5 - the desire to be as god, to make people fear you]
- 15: Salvation:
- "none shall make them afraid"
Verse 5:
- 16: Jerusalem versus Athens:
- "Although all people will walk every one in the name of his god,"
- 17: Community:
- "We will walk"
Verse 6:
- 18: Charity:
- "gathering the afflicted"
- 19: Gospel:
- Good news of a new kingdom
- 20: Justification:
- Allegiance to the New Kingdom
Verse 7:
- 21. Church:
- "House of the LORD" in "Mount Zion"
- 22: Eternity:
- "for ever and ever"
That's 23 books, some written before I was born, a couple not yet written.
The centenary of the Scopes Trial is just an excuse to look at two of those 23 "Vine & Fig Tree" Themes:
Here's the real title of this website:
Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
I realize that headline is about as attractive to most people as "An Islamic Terrorist Defense of a Flat Earth." You're not interested in either side of that equation. On a scale of 1-10, with "10" being "a really great idea which should be taught in our nation's public schools," and "1" being "a terrible idea which should be universally ignored, if not insulted, ridiculed, shamed, de-platformed, censored, and banned," you would rate "anarcho-creationism" at a "1," if not a "-5 below zero."
I guarantee that if you read this website, and the 19+ hours of supporting documents, you'll upgrade your rating to at least a "5," which means "I've never heard this information before, and I need to study it a little more."
This assumes you're an intellectually curious person.
If you are, you may be wondering,
The Scopes Trial was about two things:
"Evolution vs. Creation" is considered a "scientific" question, while "who gets to decide" is a "political" question. It turns out that "evolution vs. creation" is also very political. I would like to present the evidence that people embraced evolution because they wanted political power. I would like to present the evidence that the Bible is not only creationist, but anarchist.
If you're a high school graduate, you've been brainwashed for 13 years on the subjects of Evolution and The State. Add four years for college. That's about 17,000 hours of classroom schooling. Consuming this entire website will take about 25 hours -- or 18 hours if you were home-schooled. It will be a "paradigm shift." Nothing will come closer to converting you to anarcho-creationism. And if you become an anarcho-creationist, you and I may be the only two anarcho-creationists on the planet.
This "conspiracy theory" is a tangled web of conspiracies. It's difficult to track the workings of the larger conspiracy, because there are so many sub-conspiracies, some of which seem to be at odds with each other. "Anarcho-creationism" is a seemingly self-contradictory phrase, and you'll see a lot of this. I think communicating face-to-face is better than a passive, static website. Better to have a conversation, where the reader can ask questions at every step, and the writer can clarify on demand. We can come close to that experience on Facebook:
Leave a Comment or Question on Facebook
Gary North was a strong opponent of anarcho-capitalism. Which is curious, because North was 99% anarchist himself. No favorable comments about anarcho-capitalism on this website were plagiarized from North.
It's very difficult for me to do this, but it might be helpful for some people to see a summary of this website.
It's difficult for me to "summarize" anything, because I want to defend each topic with argument and evidence. I feel that if I don't provide a defense, you'll not be persuaded of the thesis.
We've already looked at
Next:
Is the world billions of years old? Or only thousands? What does "science" say?
Four Words You've Been Trained To Fear and Hate
"To be as gods"
asdf
"Psychosis" is defined as a belief which is not grounded in reality.
Some Evolutionists say Christianity is a psychosis.
I say evolution is a psychosis.
I also say evolution is a religion.
Paul Tillich was a professor of Religion at Harvard University, one of the five highest ranking professors at the University. He defined "religion" as "ultimate concern." In this sense everyone is religious, though some people live out their religion with passionate dedication, and other people are just duds. This fits well with the Biblical perspective, which sees everyone as religious, though some live out the true religion, while others suppress the truth and create their own religion; a false religion, from the Biblical perspective. There is an almost endless variety of false religions that oppose the religion of the Bible. The details of these false religions are unimportant compared to the true religion. It's very binary: Biblical religion vs. all the other religions.
St. Augustine alluded to this binary conflict in his book The City of God, which described the conflict between the "City of God" and the "City of Man." The City of God is the Kingdom of God, or Empire of God. Rushdoony called the "City of Man" "The Society of Satan." When Tertullian asked, "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" he was asking, What does the City of Man have to do with the City of God? Implied answer: nothing.
Individual people may not be entirely binary, that is, are not completely consistent with the religion of their choice. Atheists who claim there is no God find it difficult to live out a life with no morality or explanation for order. Even some Christians who claim to follow the true religion mix in elements of false religions to justify their own sin. But this binary categorization is still useful as a target: we should be shooting for the true religion in every area of life. Augustine's "City of God" is the "Religion of God," and the City of man is the religion of man, or the many false religions of man.
After Paul Tillich defined "religion" as "ultimate concern," Evolutionist high priest Theodosius Dobzhansky spoke of "The Biology of Ultimate Concern." I asked ChatGPT if Dobzhansky was admitting that the theory of evolution was a religion. The AI answer:
He was not advocating for evolution as a religious system with worship, sacred texts, or moral codes.
Of course not. Evolution is a religion against sacred texts and moral codes that purport to come from the Creator of the universe, and command us to worship this Creator by obeying His codes.
The Bible says the most religious person is an "antichrist." Or just as religious as the most religious Christian.
To say that "Evolution is a Religion" is "clickbait" in the sense that it tries to attract attention and start a conversation. But it's not really a controversial statement among well-educated and thoughtful people.
I don't mean "religion" in the sense of going to church or cathedral, lighting incense, repeating a chant, partaking of sacraments, wearing a backward collar, etc.
The "Theory of Evolution" is a religion in the sense that it is a "philosophy" or "worldview" which takes the place of a Biblical philosophy or worldview.
A previous iteration of this website was on the domain MassFormationScam.com. This website was created during the COVID hysteria. The term "Mass Formation Psychosis" was trending on social media after Dr. Robert Malone appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience discussing a theory by Mattias Desmet, professor of psychology at the University of Ghent. A "psychosis" is a belief which is not grounded in reality. My website claimed that there was a conspiracy to induce psychosis in the masses. This was a conspiracy to scam people. I claimed that the Theory of Evolution was a scam which induced people to believe a theory which was contrary to reality.
There are many "Mass Formation Scams."
That was a national psychosis. What most Americans don't realize is that this psychosis was invented by Americans and copied by the Germans. The State of Indiana passed a compulsory sterilization bill in 1907 that became a model for a majority of the states in America, and ultimately the 1935 Nuremberg Racial Hygiene Laws. A majority of the united states had such laws by 1924, one year before the Scopes Trial. In 1916, Scribner's published a book with the title The Passing of the Great Race, a wacked-out theory of White Supremacism, which Gary North notes "became a best-seller in the United States when Adolph Hitler was a corporal in the German Army. Chronology here is important."
The Nazis gave eugenics a bad name. It appears that Americans prefer the genocide of less-favored races to be carried out by men in white coats rather than by goose-stepping soldiers in military uniforms.
There are lots of myths that your government-approved schools taught you were "true facts." Public schools themselves are a large conspiracy to further lots of smaller conspiracies. Consider these myths being taught in public schools:
I also realize you're not on the verge of becoming an anarchist. Here are some more government-indoctrinated myths
Even though both church and state confirm that the Bible (especially the Old Testament) endorses "self-defense" and "national defense," "everybody knows" that Jesus taught a higher spirituality of "love your enemies," and that following Jesus would make you a "pacifist." That's no myth. But
Another myth:
How do we "know" that the earth is actually billions of years old, rather than thousands as the Bible claims?
This website is not going to marshal all the geological evidence on either side to prove this question. The basic issue is religious, not scientific.
After the fall of pagan Rome and before the rebirth of Greco-Roman paganism ("Renaissance"), geologists generally believed the Bible, and held that many of the earth's geological formations were the result of Noah's flood or lesser "catastrophes" (like the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington state in 1980). Today this geologic outlook is known as "Catastrophism."
James Hutton (1726-1797), who lived a century before Darwin, apprenticed as a lawyer, then became an MD (but never practiced medicine), and is today known as "the father of geology." He was one of the first modern writers to oppose "catastrophism" and champion "uniformitarianism." This is the belief that the geological world around us is not the product of Noah's global flood or local "catastrophic" events, but rather the slow accumulation of ordinary tiny processes over vast periods of time. "Uniformitarianism" was attractive to those who disliked the idea of a Creator ("In the beginning") and a Final Judgment. As Hutton put it, under a uniformitarianist worldview, “we find no vestige of a beginning – no prospect of an end.” No Creator, no Judge.
"Uniformitarianism" is a religion. It is a worldview. It is a conspiratorial attempt to escape the God of the Bible.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has an article on Hutton:
Notice that he "realized" that the Bible wasn't true. Not that he constructed a theory to evade his Creator. There were "facts" out there that others had ignored. He "realized" something nobody else had "realized." They were all dupes. He saw the truth. He admitted "the facts." (The BBC is part of the conspiracy.)
Hutton was influenced by a writer named Buffon (1707-1788). Hutton influenced a writer named Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Lyell had a great influence on Darwin. Without Lyell, Darwin's book would not have been published. Neither Buffon, Hutton, or Lyell actually "proved" in a "scientific" way that the earth was billions of years old, or that the world has never experienced a global flood as the Bible says. No geologist has "scientifically disproved" the Bible. They merely suggested that "it could be" that the earth is very old, and "it could be" that we don't have to believe the Bible, and "it's possible" that with long periods of time everything can be explained without reference to a Creator or a Lawgiver like the God of the Bible. Wouldn't that be nice.
Lyell deliberately sought to "free the science from Moses," meaning he wanted to remove biblical influence—particularly the Genesis account of creation and the flood—from geological science. His aim was not simply scientific objectivity, but a strategic undermining of the biblical framework that had undergirded much of early geological interpretation.
Lyell's Antipathy Toward the Bible
Did geologists scientifically disprove the Bible? Here is an AI chatbot answering my question about this.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. One head of the hydra.
Henry Morris has collected many undisputed admissions from Evolutionists that they hated the Bible and wanted to create a new religion to replace it.
1. Creationism
The world was created in six days, not more than 10,000 years ago. What kind of buffoon believes that? What kind of ignoramus takes the Bible seriously?
2. Theocracy
The word literally means "God governs," but we all know that it really means "Clergymen govern." We don't want to be ruled by priests. Better to be ruled by Washington D.C.
3. Pacifism
Jesus said "love your enemy." The prophets said "beat swords into plowshares." But if we followed the Bible, Muslims or communists would take over and enslave us. We better follow the Pentagon instead of Jesus.
4. Anarchism
"Anarchists" are violent bomb-throwing assassins who hate social order, and promote chaos, lawlessness, and mayhem.
Let's consider #3 and #4:
I consider myself a "Bible-believing Christian." I'm a "creationist" because I believe the first verse of the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). I want to defend my belief in the Creator by challenging belief in the creature (Romans 1:25; Isaiah 33:22; 1 Samuel 8:7). Most people seem to worship and serve the creature rather than the Creator. I agree with the Apostles, who said "We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). And when that idea is held consistently, without compromise, you'll be called an "anarchist." If you put God ahead of the government, then you're not "patriotic." You're in danger of violating the myth of "separation of church and state." I studied law and passed the California Bar Exam, but was denied a license to practice law because the Supreme Court of the United States has said that if your allegiance to God trumps your allegiance to the government, then you're not loyal enough to become an "officer of the court." You cannot qualify your allegiance to the government by saying "I am a law-abiding citizen, unless the government commands me to sin against God." The U.S. Supreme Court has said your allegiance to the State must be "unqualified."
"Everybody knows" that Jesus commanded His disciples to be "pacifists." He commands us to
I have been told "People who are willing to wear the uniform protect your right to be a pacifist." This is a psychotic belief, detached from reality. During my lifetime, the federal government of the United States has murdered, maimed, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent, non-combatant, non-white civilians around the world. Trillions of dollars have been stolen and wasted in this effort. Americans and Brits who believe they are more evolved than the rest of the world hear no alarms when someone suggests invading a nation full of brown people, and maybe killing a few million, and causing a few million more to die of starvation and disease. And it's always illegal to question war in a time of war. So, no, soldiers do not protect my freedoms.
People who want to be respected by Presidents, Generals, Political Science Professors, and Defense Industry CEOs claim Jesus -- especially in His "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5-7) -- was only talking about the "personal" or "spiritual" side of life, but His commandments are not to be followed by those who are in positions of "public responsibility." "Private" vs. "public." As a result, since I was born, the government of the United States has killed, crippled, or made homeless TENS of MILLIONS of innocent non-combatant civilians around the world. The prophets of the Old Testament would say that "The United States" is the modern parallel to Babylon or Assyria of old. The U.S. government is the enemy of God and humanity.
"The Public Sector" claims to be a "monopoly of violence." Believing that "a friend of the world is the enemy of God" (James 4:4), I don't care if I'm not respected by the “military-industrial-congressional complex” (as Dwight Eisenhower at one point called it).
The word "pacifism" comes from the Latin word for "peace" -- pax (genitive pacis). It does not come from the word "passive." When someone is attempting to commit an act of violence, I am active in overcoming violence, but I overcome evil with good (Romans 12:14-21), not with more violence.
Jesus commands us to love our enemies. Their "enemy-ness" is real, but they are enemies of Christians not because Christians threaten them with violence, but because we challenge their mythological claim to possess a right to violence. Christians want them to renounce their belief in the legitimacy of their violence. We want them to trust in the God of the Bible rather than the organized violence of The State.For those who are not Christians, The State (as Hegel said) "is god walking on the earth." This paper attempts to convert you from the worship of a false god to the worship of the True God: The God of the Bible.
Romans 1:25
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator
Unfortunately, too many who call themselves Christians worship and serve the same god as the military-industrial complex.
The reason I'm an "anarchist" is because I am a Bible-believing Christian even when the Bible teaches "pacifism."
So I am a Biblical "anarcho-pacifist." I oppose violence, lawlessness, and chaos. I believe "archists" are the greatest source of lawlessness, violence, and chaos on planet earth, not pacifist anarchists.
| “Private Sector” | “Public Sector” |
| Non-“Government” Sector | “Government” Sector |
| Competitive Sector | Monopoly Sector |
| Persuasive Sector | Coercive Sector |
| Peaceful Sector | Violent Sector |
| Productive Sector | Parasite Sector |
| Servant Sector | Archist Sector |
| "Economic Man" | "Political Man" |
How does Theonomic anarcho-pacifism relate to the Theory of Evolution?
That's what this website is all about.
What I want to prove to you is that the "Theory of Evolution" is actually a religion which was invented to justify archism.
When I say evolution is a religion, I mean it is not purely "scientific." It has never been the case that someone who believed the Bible discovered "facts" that made it "rationally" or "scientifically" impossible to believe that the world is as young as the Bible says it is, and was forced by the "facts" to reject the Bible. There are no such "facts."
"Facts" are always interpreted according to some "paradigm" or presupposition.
Rather, those who rejected the Bible did so because they didn't want God telling them what to do (law). So they invented a new history of the cosmos to replace the history recorded in the Bible. This revisionist history left God out of the picture, and left Man free to be his own god. Man became his own law-giver and salvation-bringer (messiah).
There are many people known as "scientists" who come very close to admitting what I just said. They unanimously agree that they don't believe the religion of the Bible.
The new religion did not emerge from Darwin's head full-blown out of nothing in 1859, when he published his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The ancient Greeks had a similar religion. The "Renaissance" meant a "re-birth" of pre-Christian ideas.
Darwin has become something of a mythic character. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the highest of Evolutionism's high priests, who ministered in the parish of Harvard University, has pontificated that Darwin
finally and definitely established evolution as a fact, no longer a speculation or an alternative hypothesis for scientific investigation.
Darwin did no such thing. Even Darwin himself would have denied that accomplishment. He had serious doubts about his own theory. In The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote that the idea of natural selection producing the eye “seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” Harvard paleontologist Stephen J Gould noted that Dawinism had flaw so significant that it had to be replaced by "Neo-Darwinianism," but even that must be replaced by some new theory, which Gould called "punctuated equilibrium, and declared in 1980 that neo-Darwinism is "effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."
"Orthodoxy" is just "peer pressure," the desire to be one of "the cool kids." Darwinian Orthodoxy is also the desire to find something -- anything -- to replace the Bible. Anything will do, but it's nice to be able to couch it with an aura of scientific respectability. Scientific "orthodoxy."
Bad science is not always motivated by bad theology. Sometimes it's just the pressure of the "old boys'" guild. There is scientific peer pressure as well as international/governmental peer pressure. Governments can force scientists to limit their inquiry or promote false theories, either as a self-conscious tool of political repression, or out of hysteria or self-deception:
Certain questions are considered legitimate in any given academic guild at any given point in history. Certain approaches to the solution of these circumscribed questions are also considered the only ones acceptable. The guild polices itself rather well. The ways in which guilds enforce their world-and-life views are catalogued effectively in Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, [1962] 1970). Kuhn concludes from a study of the history of physical science that the major intellectual breakthroughs are all too often made by young innovators who are not well established within the guild and by skilled amateurs who are self-taught and completely outside the guild. Guild members are seldom convinced by these scientific breakthroughs; they simply grow old and retire, or die, while the younger men establish the new "paradigm." Then a new series of questions and answers becomes the reign in orthodoxy, waiting for yet another innovator to revamp the operating presuppositions. Kuhn's analysis became a new paradigm for numerous academic disciplines during the late 1960's. Historians, political scientists, education professors, sociologists, and even a handful of natural scientists adopted Kuhn's open relativism. The idea of "objective science" was effectively removed from the classroom in those years of academic and campus turmoil. The confident technocratic neutralism of the Kennedy years disappeared, especially among the untenured younger professors. Kuhn's book itself launched a cross-disciplinary scientific revolution.
Gary North, Academic Compromise
"The Science" told Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) that Alternating Current (AC) was impossible because it violated the laws of physics. "Listen to The
Science," Tesla was told. "The Science" would have sentenced the human race to a battery-powered (DC) world.
Tesla said the speed of light was not a constant. That's a "scientific revolution" that has not yet been permitted by the Guild to happen.
"Darwinism," "Neo-Darwinism," "punctuated equilibrium" are all part of an on-going conspiracy to overthrow the government of God and the “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview.
"Scientific racism" is as goofy as "Biblical racism." There are Bible-believers who believe God does not want the races to mix. That's a goofy idea. What is dangerous is when people with goofy ideas get badges, guns, and government costumes. Racists are laughable until they become archists.
Darwinism, Badges, and Guns | Gary North
Genesis 3:1-5 (KJV)
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, ‘Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.’”
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
The word "knowing" has the force of "determining," as in "determine for yourself what constitutes good and evil."
Stealing and murdering are perhaps the chief marks of someone who wants to "be as gods." In the ancient world emperors were "gods." It was legal for them to steal, kidnap, and kill. It was legal for them to have hundreds of wives. It was legal for them to make slaves do the work for them.
This website is not just about a courtroom trial in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. It is about a vast centuries-long conspiracy to "be as gods."
If you're ready to pursue the entire website, and find out how "creationism" relates to "anarchism," here is an overview of the program.
2. The Supernatural Origin of the Bible
Many people think of the Bible as "primitive." They make an analogy with "The Telephone Game," and suggest that the Bible is full of mis-copied and mis-translated myths and legends. This picture is 180° opposite the facts.
3. Henning Graf Reventlow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World.
What makes "the modern world" "modern" is not "science," but secularism and materialism. Especially in the area of law: no longer do governments even pretend to be Christian. The modern secularist does not want a distant God telling him what to do, and especially doesn't want governments which are nearer and closer than God making laws that infringe on the ability of the modern secularist to be his own god. But God is not distant, and secularists are happy when "their" government is useful to them to impose secularism on Christians.
4. Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God || archive
The desire to be free from God and His Law goes back to the Garden of Eden, and continues through every human empire in history. All ancient empires and all their religions oppose the God of the Bible. All of them create revisionist histories of their own origin, histories which are evolutionary, that is, "natural" or materialistic. These origin stories may differ in some technical respects from Darwin's origin story, but all these stories claim that the creation -- the material world -- is ultimate. Not the Creator.
5. "Western Civilization"
Christianity brings civilization. Not the Greeks. Not the Romans.
6. Renaissance, Enlightenment, and "Classical culture."
After the fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity came to dominate "the West." Then artifacts of the fallen Empire were uncovered and explored. Greco-Roman "classical" culture was reborn ("renaissance"). This was a cancer on society, which has now metastasized ("Enlightenment").
7. Bahnsen, On Worshiping the Creature Rather than the Creator
Bahnsen earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at USC. This article surveys modern philosophy and shows that Darwin's materialistic creature-centered theory of origins was promulgated centuries before Darwin. Evolution is first a philosophy/worldview/religion, then it is dressed up in the "science" of the day.
8. Backgrounder on Fundamentalism
A project to promote the "fundamentals" of the Christian faith in the early part of the 20th century became a short-lived "movement," whose name ("fundamentalism") is better known than the actual fundamentals of the faith.
9. H.L. Mencken's obituary of J. Gresham Machen
Machen was an intelligent fundamentalist. Mencken respected Machen, while despising grifters on both the left and the right. The opponents of "fundamentalists" were known as "modernists" a century ago, and "liberals" more recently. Machen wrote a book entitled Christianity and Liberalism, in which he argued that "Christianity" without the fundamentals of Christianity is not just Christianity with some theological errors, but a completely different religion from Christianity. That means the mainstream Christian religions like United Methodists, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians are not Christian churches at all. Mencken agreed with Machen on this. Why do liberals pretend to be Christians when they hate Christianity?
10. Theocracy is the Only Path to Liberty
The word "Theocracy" comes from two Greek words meaning "God governs." Modern man says "theocracy" is a tyrannical threat to freedom. Of course, God is a threat to their freedom to be their own god. But if everyone in your society thinks they have the right to be their own god, then you have no freedom. You can have a piece of paper ("constitution," "bill of rights," etc.) that says you have freedom, but if all your neighbors and your government think they can be archists, and steal your property, rape your wife, lock you in a cage, or bomb you "back to the stone age," then you have no freedom. As John Adams put it, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." That is to say, it was made only for a theocracy in which God governs everyone.
11. The Messianic Character of American Education.
Darwin was by no means the first to propose evolution as a substitute for creation. And the Scopes Trial did not inaugurate a controversy between the two views. The controversy was centuries old.
Darwin's theory became popular in the 1800's because it justified racism, which was rampant in the de-Christianizing/secularizing West. Non-whites were just not as evolved as whites. A convenient "scientific" explanation.
13. John S. Haller, Jr., Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900
Secularists concluded that to advance "the common good," degenerate races must not be allowed to reproduce.
14. Road to Dayton
15. Darwinism, Democracy, and the Public Schools
16. Why Aren’t Textbooks Educating High Schoolers About America’s Shameful Era of Eugenics and “Scientific Racism” -- Introduction to: Eugenics in High School History: Failure to Confront the Past | Thomas F. Cargill
"Scientific racism."
In Mark 10:42-45, Jesus overhears His disciples arguing about who will be the greatest in the coming "kingdom" -- a military dictatorship by the Messiah after he conquers the imperial forces of Rome. (The disciples didn't understand the nature of the Kingdom or its King.) Jesus said that the kings of the gentiles love to be archists (the Greek word in Mark's gospel is the word from which we get the English word "anarchist"). An "archist" is someone who believes he has the moral right to impose his will on other people by force or threats of violence. For example, he thinks he has the right to compel other people's children to attend atheistic indoctrination camps by threatening violence against their parents. Jesus says His followers must not be archists like the kings of the gentiles, but must be willing to serve all, including their enemies.
In short, a Christian is not an "archist" and is therefore an "an-archist." A Christian/anarchist is a "pacifist." Every pacifist repudiates archism. Every Christian repudiates archism.
19. The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto
You were not taught this in Sunday School. All archists -- all "governments" -- eventually ban the teaching of the Bible, as the United States has done.
Man the controller and planner of evolution means secular archists must control fundamentalists.
18. "From Cosmic Purposelessness to Humanistic Sovereignty,"
First we were told that there is no God, no Designer, no purpose. Then we were told that man has now evolved to the point where he can control evolution and design his own future according to his own purpose. Of course, in saying "Man can now control evolution," it is meant that some men can control other men.
This is the product of progressivism. James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," said this was "the very essence of tyranny."
I was born in the year of Sputnik, the Soviet satellite that kicked off "The Space Race," which was part of "The Cold War." The Cold War should have ended in 1991, when the Communists cried "uncle" and decided they wanted to become "capitalists" so that Russians wouldn't starve. Well, they wanted to be "capitalists" as much as American oligarchs were "capitalists." But "The Cold War" could not be allowed to end. It was too profitable for the U.S. "Military-Industrial Complex." So "The Cold War" was replaced by a "War on Terror."
Fifty years ago Mao Tse-Tung died, and communism in China died with him.
Since then, hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty. Or more accurately, "lifted themselves" out of poverty. Mao's successor, Deng Xiaoping, would like to give credit to central planning by the Communist Party in China for China's economic turn-around, but prosperity was the work of the private sector. China's central government can be given credit to the extent it stood aside and let capitalism work its miracles.
But during my lifetime, in stark contrast, "my" government in Washington D.C. has murdered, maimed, or made homeless tens of millions of innocent non-combatant non-white civilians around the world. U.S. Wars and imperialism have made the U.S. the most evil and most dangerous government on planet earth. Some might say the government of North Korea is more evil, but it's not more dangerous. The average human being, especially the average non-white human being, is more likely to have her God-given rights to life, liberty, and property infringed by someone on the payroll of the U.S. government than any other government, drug cartel, terrorist group, or organized crime syndicate.
"Natural" is the heart of "evolution."
"Supernatural" is the heart of the Gospel
Consider this text:
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
Everything about this "gospel" is "unscientific" according to the modern way of thinking. A "resurrection" is just as "unscientific" as a global flood. God becoming man (John 1:1) is "unscientific."
Belief in "the Scriptures" is "unscientific":
If you think you can gain acceptance in the secular halls of academia and the R&D Labs of the Military-Industrial Complex by professing faith in long uniformitarian ages with a vague "god" behind it, while still professing belief in the Biblical Gospel, you are sadly mistaken. In the eyes of those who hold to "natural selection," your claim to believe the Scriptures and the Gospel therein makes you a buffoon, no matter how old you think the earth is.
Christians must reject the uniformitarian religion of natural selection in favor of the supernaturally punctuated religion of the Bible.
This website is about evolution, but it's not about "science" or "scientific facts." That's because evolution is not really about "the facts." What Americans believe about "The Bible and Modern Science" is not based on science. "Science" is based on religion. Isaac Newton's version of science was based on Christianity. Anthony Fauci's version of "science" is based on the religion of secular humanism.
If Isaac Newton, generally regarded as a "great scientist," could travel through time from 1700 to 2025, he would be horrified at what Americans say "science" is saying. He would be horrified at what public schools, the mainstream media, and government says "science" says.
If Isaac Newton were here today, he would be a six-day creationist. And he would be an anarcho-capitalist.
I think I can prove that to your satisfaction.
But it will take some time to read the evidence you've never read before.
And then combine that evidence with things you already know (or have been taught to believe that you know), and re-think everything.
Bishop Ussher was born 4 January 1581, and died 21 March 1656
Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day, December 25th 1642. Five years later, in 1647, the church-state of Massachusetts formed its public school system through a law which is known today as "The Old Deluder Satan Act." That same year, the Bishop Ussher began a work on the origin of the creeds. He the published a treatise on the calendar in 1648.
This was a warm-up for his most famous work, the Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world"), which appeared in 1650, and its continuation, Annalium pars posterior, published in 1654. In this work, he calculated the date of the Creation to have been 22 October 4004 BC. [Wikipedia]
Isaac Newton reviewed Ussher's calculations and concluded that the year of Creation was four years later, 4000 B.C. (Newton would say the word "later" is inappropriate, as there were no years before 4000 B.C.). Isaac Newton died on March 20th 1726. James Hutton was born six weeks later, on June 3. "The Great Awakening" began that year, and would influence the American Revolution, which John Adams said began in 1761.
At about this same time, around 1700 in the West, the Bible came under criticism. (Critics of the Bible will claim "Enlightenment.") Gregory L. Bahnsen, who earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy at USC, does a detailed survey of the literature before 1859 and concludes,
Therefore, on all sides—philosophy, science, and theology—the way had been paved for the arrival of Darwinism in 1859. It is more than evident that Darwin's ideas were not novel; he simply painted a common philosophical and anti-theistic position with a superficial cosmetic of scientific respectability. Charles Hodge was already aware, just a little over a decade after the appearance of Darwin's Origin of Species, that evolutionary speculation was surviving the critical attacks upon it because of its "essential harmony with the spirit of the age...." [Systematic Theology (1871), II, 15] The acceptance of the theory of evolution stemmed from the milieu created by philosophic opinion-speculation fostered by men like Spinoza, Kant, Fichte, Goethe, Krause, Hegel, Feuerbach, Engels, Diderot, LaMettrie, d'Holbach, Buchner, and Schleiermacher; Darwin's scientific surmises had been anticipated by men like Buffon, Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire, Chambers, Spencer, and his own grandfather. Men were living in the age of Darwinism prior to the publication of Darwin's book. And the philosophic developments which appeared subsequent to the acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution had already been manifested by 1859.
Note the names Bahnsen covers in philosophy and theology:
This is a philosophical and theological trend two hundred years before Darwin's book in 1859.
Darwin's scientific surmises had been anticipated by men who were not necessarily "scientists," any more than today's flat-earth bloggers are "scientists"; they are "dabblers" and propagandists. They might be very smart (high I.Q.), and they might have filing cabinets full of scientific-sounding factoids, but you might not consider them to be what you think of as a "scientist." Bahnsen mentions
These were the bloggers of their day. They had influence.
Darwin's grandfather was a hoot, known as "an apostle of sexual liberation," who was “fond of sacrificing to both Bacchus and Venus” (alcohol and sex).
An AI bot, gab.ai, gives this information:
Everyone agrees that "Lamarckism," the theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics, has been scientifically discredited
See also Evolutionary Thought Before Darwin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Consider the field of Geology. Charles Lyell {1797-1875} was a friend of Darwin. Before he published his famous book on geology in 1830, which championed the idea of "uniformitarianism" (rather than "catastrophism"), he was a lawyer. He was influenced by James Hutton {1726-1797}, who was in turn influenced by Buffon. All three were intelligent lawyers and business speculators. They promoted "uniformitarianism" rather than "catastrophism." They said in effect, "We don't have to believe the Bible, with its history of creation and global flood. We can put our faith in long eons of time." They didn't actually "prove" scientifically that long eons of time have actually occurred. They didn't "scientifically" prove that Noah's flood never occurred. Nor did they "prove" that catastrophic events like the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 could not possibly account for the world's geologic formations. None of them "proved" that the world was billions of years old; they just said "It's possible," and that was enough for them to hang their religious hat on.
Evolution cannot be "proven" "scientifically." Not by scientists. Not even by lawyers.
Today's dominant paradigm was created by "philosophers," lawyers, and other propagandists before it was adopted by "scientists."
None of the men listed above produced any evidence that would have compelled Isaac Newton to abandon his belief that the world was created in 4000 B.C. Evolution was adopted because it met a religious need -- or an anti-religious need -- not because they were forced by scientific facts to accept it.
James 1:27 says that true religion is protecting widows and orphans. Jesus and the prophets reject the idea that true religion is temple liturgies and sacraments; true religion is loving God and loving your neighbor. A false religion rejects God and seeks to rule over your neighbor. Evolution is a false religion.
You have been brainwashed for 13, 17, or 20+ years in evolutionist schools to say, "No, evolution is not a religion; evolution is science."
If you dig deeper than your public school indoctrination, you will gain a new perspective. You have never heard all of the arguments and historical evidence presented in this paper. I must ask you to suspend judgment for the time being, and internalize the evidence presented. I know I'm asking a lot. I'm trying to condense 17 years of learning (that you might have received in Christian schools) into an hour or two. I'm not expecting to completely persuade you, but simply plant a seed.
For example, I cannot persuade you that the Bible is the Word of God if you don't already believe that. But that's where I start, and that's the foundation of this paper.
So the first question should be,
For 1700 years, Christians believed that Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) taught that God created the universe in six 24-hour days, not more than 10,000 years ago.
Today, a lot of theologians and preachers will tell you that Genesis doesn't require us to believe that God created the world in six days. "Genesis is about religion, not science," they tell us. "It's poetry, not science."
Why do today's preachers tell us Genesis means something different than what the first 1700 years of Christians believed it said?
Because today's preachers do not want to be ridiculed by the dominant paradigm. They want to be accepted by "scientists" and the university-military-industrial complex.
Before the age of Darwin and Enlightenment, Christians believed in six-day creation. Let me cite two.
James Ussher, Bishop, (1581-1656) was head of the Church of Ireland. He is known (if he is known at all) for his Chronology of the Bible, which established a date for creation of 4004 B.C.
Amateur Evolutionists think of Ussher as a clown. The date of 4004 B.C. is both ridiculed and hated. The biologist Karl Pearson (1857-1936) recalled "the joy we young men then felt when we saw that wretched date BC 4004 replaced by a long vista of millions of years of development." "Wretched" is not a word used by "objective" and "dispassionate" scientists.
But some evolutionists are wiser. They recognize that Ussher was a great mind, a true scholar.
Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould, while totally disagreeing with Ussher's chronology, nevertheless wrote:
I shall be defending Ussher's chronology as an honorable effort for its time and arguing that our usual ridicule only records a lamentable small-mindedness based on mistaken use of present criteria to judge a distant and different past.
Ussher represented the best of scholarship in his time. He was part of a substantial research tradition, a large community of intellectuals working toward a common goal under an accepted methodology.[15]
I'm happy to give full credit to Gould the evolutionist for charging some critics of Ussher with "a lamentable small-mindedness." That charge is usually leveled at fundamentalists, but "lamentable small-mindedness" can be found on both sides of the creation-evolution debate.
Wikipedia notes:
While calculating the date of the Creation is today considered a fringe activity, in Ussher's time such a calculation was still regarded as an important task, one also attempted by many Post-Reformation scholars, such as Joseph Justus Scaliger and Isaac Newton.
Ussher's chronology represented a considerable feat of scholarship: it demanded great depth of learning in what was then known of ancient history, including the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, as well as expertise in the Bible, biblical languages, astronomy, ancient calendars and chronology. Ussher's account of historical events for which he had multiple sources other than the Bible is usually in close agreement with modern accounts – for example, he placed the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC.
Yes, Isaac Newton. THE Isaac Newton. Encyclopedia Britannica calls Newton "the culminating figure of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century." National Geographic notes that Newton "was born especially tiny [about 10 weeks premature -- should have been aborted?] but grew into a massive intellect and still looms large...." Did you watch the video linked above? Here it is:
Isaac Newton revised Ussher's chronology and concluded that the universe was created around 4000 years before Christ, not 4004. (Newton wrote more words about the Bible and Theology than he did on science. Most Christians don't know this.)
(Newton was also a candidate for Parliament in an anti-monarchic party.)
I am not a scientific genius like Isaac Newton, nor a brilliant Bible scholar like Bishop Ussher. My question is simple. Why should I believe evolutionists like Darwin and Pearson who felt that the worldview and work of Christians like Ussher and Newton was "wretched?" Why should I not stand on the shoulders of Bible-believing giants?
So I hold that the Bible teaches "six-day creationism."
And since I'm committed to the belief that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, I'm a six-day creationist.
I could write a few paragraphs on the many theories offered by "theistic evolutionists" to harmonize Genesis with "modern science." That is, harmonize Genesis with modern religions like "scientific racism" and "scientific socialism." All of these "interpretations" of Genesis presuppose that the modern form of ancient evolutionary/materialistic religion is basically true. The universe is billions of years old, despite what the Bible clearly says. These attempted harmonies have been debunked by James B. Jordan:
I'll mention one modern interpretation of Genesis made popular by a Professor at Wheaton College, an ostensibly Christian institution. This view holds that Genesis is just another example of myths and fables of the Ancient Near East (ANE).
I believe the Bible, especially the Old Testament, repeatedly condemns any attempt to synthesize Biblical teaching with the idolatrous teachings of the Gentiles (the other nations outside Israel).
But this modern "Christian" view claims that Moses (or the author of Genesis) violated these commands and imported pagan religious views into Genesis.
This theory tries to rescue Genesis from the uniformitarians by claiming that Genesis is not about the creation of the material universe, but only about the creation of "the covenant community" of Israel, or more specifically Israel's temple religion at the time of Moses.
The god of the Bible is just Israel's god, a local god, like the local gods of Babylon, Sumer, and Akkadia.
In my opinion, this view was constructed to appeal to Enlightenment minds who find the date BC 4004 to be "wretched." It is an attempt to harmonize the Bible and "modern science."
I would rather appeal to Isaac Newton and the Christians of his day.
Was the creation account in Genesis a propositional/verbal revelation from God to Adam? Did Adam pass this knowledge on to his son Seth? Did God directly reveal the creation account to Seth?
The true history of mankind was known to all mankind. God's supernatural activity in Israel was known to the nations outside of Israel. If YHWH = "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," then the Pharaoh of Egypt did not know less about the God of the Bible than Rahab the Canaanite prostitute, who told the Israeli spies:
I know that YHWH [the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] has given you this land and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. 10 We have heard how YHWH [the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob] dried up the water of the Red Sea for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. 11 When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for YHWH your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below. (Joshua 2)
Rahab used the name "YHWH" or "Jehovah," the specific name of the God of Abraham and Israel, not just a generic god. Non-Israelite religions were just the evolutionary product of human reason or human immorality. The religion of Israel was revealed to them by God.
These are historical propositions contained in the Bible.
The Big Question is whether God used human beings as "human penmen" to record the history of the world, or whether the history of the world is a vast cacophony of impersonal, meaningless factoids which can only be properly interpreted by those who feel that the Biblical account is "wretched." Which human beings -- which "experts" -- do you choose to believe?
Can we read the truth in the pages of the Bible, or must we get the truth from evolutionists like Darwin and Lyell and the bloggers listed above?
Now we come to the combination of Biblical Creationism and Anarchism. Why would an anarchist lean toward creationism?
Here is the answer in a nutshell:
Evolution is a religious view that justified archism.
That claim is strange because we (modern Americans) don't fully understand why evolution became so popular so quickly in the post-enlightenment age.
The Enlightenment was not just about "science," but also about "politics."
It was also the beginning of "the sexual revolution."
Evolution justifies rejecting God as Creator and Lord. Evolution justifies rejecting the pacifism of Jesus. It justifies rejecting monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Evolution means Man gets to be his own god.
This isn't just about "science." It's about The State.
The home page of this domain was written as a reaction to the covid-19 hysteria of 2020. The thesis is that just as COVID hysteria was a psychosis, it was also a scam. Scammers manipulated the masses, creating a mass psychosis.
Evolution is also a scam. But the scammers believe their own scam.
What follows is taken from that page, which begins to explain how so many respected doctors, scientists, journalists, and government officials could have prescribed public health policies which caused more economic, mental, and physical suffering than the disease they claimed to be fighting.
It will become obvious that I need the services of a competent editor.
I personally know some white supremacists. I've sat at a table with them for a Bible study. They treat non-white races the same way you do, assuming you treat them with some measure of dignity and justice. In 2025, there are only a handful of "white supremacists" in America, and they are no threat to anyone. They are not plotting nor could they execute a conspiracy to enslave blacks under their control. They have goofy views, e.g., that God wants the races to be separate, and therefore condemns miscegenation (marriage between two races). Today's "white supremacists" are quaint and powerless.
It was not always so. Consider two famous white supremacists and the influence they have had on our world. Both were born on the same day in 1809.
Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809. According to CNN,
Lincoln used the N-word and told racist jokes. He once said that Black people were inferior to Whites and he liked minstrel shows. He proposed ending slavery by shipping willing Black people back to Africa.
Lincoln also once floated an offer to the Confederates that would allow them to keep slaves until 1900 if they surrendered, according to a PBS film called "The Abolitionists." And at one White House meeting with Black ministers, Lincoln virtually blamed slaves for starting the Civil War.
If some of Lincoln's public utterances about Blacks were retweeted today, he would have been canceled on social media and likely run out of office.
During one of his famed senatorial debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858, Lincoln said:
"There is a physical difference between the White and Black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
Lincoln didn't even try to hide his racism. Why should he? His racist views were widely held in his day.
In his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln argued: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Lincoln declared, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races...."
In 1860, Lincoln's racial views were explicit in these words: "They say that between the nigger and the crocodile they go for the nigger. The proportion, therefore, is, that as the crocodile to the nigger so is the nigger to the white man." ["Lincoln's Legacy at 200" by Mark Alexander]
Lincoln also believed that hundreds of thousands of human beings -- of all races -- could be murdered in order for him to retain his political power over their state governments. But Lincoln himself did not kill all those people. They killed themselves, suffering from a form of "Mass Formation Psychosis" -- a belief in the reality of something that does not have a reality: the legitimate right of some people to rule over others. In a word, "civil government."
More about Lincoln and his worship of political power.
Political power -- archism -- transforms quaint, goofy racists into mass murderers.
Darwin was born across the pond in England on the same day as Lincoln: February 12, 1809. According to Uncommon Descent, Darwin, who not only "listened to the science," but helped create many of modern science's most cherished psychoses, said:
It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.
“The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind…. A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. … With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish conquest. … It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered as honourable.”
Darwin often referred to blacks and indians as "savages," and said
“As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity is an unknown virtue….. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, “Never, never trust an Indian.”
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
Only whites are truly civilized:
“We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
Of course, most people today recognize racism as a form of "mass formation psychosis." It is a belief that is not connected to reality. It is a belief that was widely held because of social pressure. It is a belief that was promoted by all the "smart" people. "Listen to the science" and recognize the superiority of the civilized whites over the uncivilized colored savages. Or so we were told.
So the kids in Dayton, Tennessee were told.
There are many delusional beliefs like those promoted by Lincoln and Darwin.
"Wait a minute; are you saying that Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, and Anthony Fauci could be mistaken?"
Yes. And millions -- even billions -- of people could believe things that aren't true.
But the rest of this article is mostly about one specific belief unconnected to reality, but a belief nevertheless held by the masses: it's called "statism." It is a religious belief in the legitimacy of those who claim to possess a monopoly on violence: "The State" or "civil government." All of the psychoses listed above are related to the concept of "The State" and the problem of Political Authority.
| The LORD will punish you by making you crazy. He will make you blind, make your mind confused. Deuteronomy 28:28 Thou hast made us to drink the wine of astonishment. 13 The princes of Zoan have become fools; |
This is not an "essay," it's a "Reader's Guide." An "essay" would write out the whole argument. This "Reader's Guide" just lists the resources one would have to read in order to understand the argument.
This Reader's Guide is primarily about mass belief in The State in an impersonal evolving universe, and not about mass belief in the government's "public health policy" regarding COVID-19.
|
I'm proud to say I was a friend of the late Greg L. Bahnsen. I recorded hundreds of his sermons onto cassettes which are now part of The Bahnsen Project. He tutored me one-on-one in the quixotic quest for ordination in the OPC. He earned his Ph.D. under Dallas Willard in philosophy, in the field of epistemology:
Bahnsen argued that the human mind has the amazing capacity to sincerely and truly believe something to be true even though one knows it is false.
This capacity is called self-deception. (That link is a
"Reader's Digest" presentation of the Thesis.)
The human mind is also capable of passionately believing something that one denies believing in at all.
This is a fascinating cross between the fields of ethics and epistemology.
This is an intensely Biblical thesis. The desire to be as god (Genesis 3:5) motivates "science" as well as "theology" as well as crime as well as "public health" as well as "political science."
COVID hysteria was generated by fear (on the part of the compliant) and the quest for power and profits (on the part of those "in charge").
Evolution is generated by a desire to rule over people deemed to be inferior.
Covid-19 is not the only example of mass psychosis.
Germany, a highly educated, technologically advanced, western nation, worships a dictator and murders millions. As Nicholas O’Shaughnessy writes in How Nazi Propaganda Encouraged the Masses to Co-produce a False Reality.
The idea of people willingly misled offends our notion of man as rational. A more accurate representation of the psychology of the Third Reich would be to conceive of a partnership in wishful thinking in which the masses were self-deluded as well as other-deluded. Persuasion in such cases offers an idea of solidarity and the target of that persuasion is more co-conspirator than victim, an invitation to share in the creation of a hyperbolic fiction.
Millions of Americans in 2020 were in self-deluded COVID lockdown "solidarity."
The term "mass formation" was trending in 2021-22: Mass Formation and Consequent Totalitarian Behavior in Homo Sapiens. "Mass psychosis," "mass hysteria," "mass delusion" and other terms are trending.
"We failed," reads the article's headline from tabloid Ekstra Bladet, which goes on to admit that "For ALMOST two years, we - the press and the population - have been almost hypnotically preoccupied with the authorities' daily coronavirus figures. "(translated).
"We Failed": Danish Newspaper Apologizes For Publishing Official COVID Narratives Without Questioning Them“‘mind control.’ That’s what we do… clearly we try and go about it in a positive way, but it has been used nefariously in the past.”
“The way we have used fear is dystopian. The use of fear has definitely been ethically questionable. It’s been like a weird experiment. Ultimately, it backfired because people became too scared.”
Use of Fear to Control Behaviour in Covid Crisis Was ‘Totalitarian,’ Admit Scientists“Virtually all of the scenario planning for pandemics employ technical assumptions and strategies familiar to anyone who has read the CIA’s notorious psychological warfare manuals for shattering indigenous societies, obliterating traditional economics and social bonds, for using imposed isolation and the demolition of traditional economies to crush resistance, to foster chaos, demoralization, dependence and fear, and for imposing centralized and autocratic governance.”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Can millions and millions of people all come to believe something that is false? They can, and they do. With a little help from our compassionate overlords and the little media-dog that sits obediently in the government's lap.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s best-selling book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, discusses this example of mass deception, although the extent of the "mass" deception was not as widespread at the time as COVID today or nazism 80 years ago. Powerful bureaucrats and crony capitalists can crush real science. They invent rumors to protect their profits and their political positions. Talking heads on TV can repeat rumors that destroy the careers of esteemed scientists like Peter Duesberg.
To say that HIV does not cause AIDS, and that Anthony Fauci killed homosexuals for profit, seems like a wild "conspiracy theory." During Senate confirmation hearings, however, nobody asked Robert Kennedy about this bizarre conspiracy theory. If the theory is so wrong, and Kennedy's opponents so strenuously objected to him taking control of the massive Health and Human Services bureaucracy (which they seemed to oppose), why didn't his opponents mock Kennedy for this outrageous "conspiracy theory?" They didn't touch it.
There are many sincere Christians who have doubts about whether the Bible can be trusted.
There are many people who hate Christianity who tell these sincere Christians that the Bible cannot be trusted.
People who say we can't trust the Bible live in a fantasy world.
They've been deceived, and now they try to deceive others to give themselves intellectual company.
Most of the arguments against the Bible share common traits with one of the most common: "The Telephone Game" argument.
At a party, the first participant in "the Telephone Game" will whisper a sentence to the person in the next chair, who whispers the message to the person in the next chair, and so on around the circle. The final person in the "phone chain" reveals the message, which is compared with the first participant's real message. The two are found to be totally different, and everybody laughs.
As the argument goes, this is like the transmission of the Bible over the centuries. Nobody involved in copying the Holy Scriptures took it all that seriously, they whimsically changed words, sentences, or paragraphs to suit their fancy, and the Bible we have today bears no resemblance whatsoever to what Moses, Isaiah, Matthew (or whoever started the chain) had in mind.
This argument can be made to sound very educated and sophisticated, but it is pathetic and juvenile. Millions of people believe it.
Here is some information on the actual transmission of the Biblical text.
In 1912, Frederic Kenyon was knighted Sir Frederic Kenyon for his service as Director and Head Librarian of the British Museum. He describes how the Jews meticulously copied the Old Testament:
Besides recording varieties of reading, tradition, or conjecture, the Massoretes undertook a number of calculations which do not enter into the ordinary sphere of textual criticism. They numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book. They calculated the middle word and the middle letter of each. The enumerated verses which contained all the letters of the alphabet, or a certain number of them; and so on. These trivialities, as we may rightly consider them, had yet the effect of securing minute attention to the precise transmission of the text; and they are but an excessive manifestation of a respect for the sacred Scriptures which in itself deserves nothing but praise. The Massoretes were indeed anxious that not one jot nor tittle, not one smallest letter nor one tiny part of a letter, of the Law should pass away or be lost.
In Kenyon's day, the oldest copy of the Old Testament was a copy from the 10th century after Christ. But in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and they contained a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, dating over one thousand years earlier than that 10th century copy. The results astonished the scholarly world. Gleason Archer, in comparing the manuscript variations of the Hebrew text with pre-Christian literature such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, states that it is amazing that the Hebrew text does not have the phenomenon of discrepancy and MS change of other literature of the same age: "Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A. D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible" with the exception of minor variations in spelling, on a par with the British "colour" and the American "color." "Even those Dead Sea fragments of Deuteronomy and Samuel which point to a different manuscript family from that which underlies our received Hebrew text do not indicate any differences in doctrine or teaching. They do not affect the message of revelation in the slightest."
In other words, the Old Testament we have today is virtually letter-for-letter the same Old Testament Jesus had in His day. And the copy of Isaiah that Jesus read from (Luke 4) was virtually letter-for-letter the same as the one Isaiah himself wrote. Ditto for the Proverbs of Solomon, the Psalms of David, and the books of Moses.
If you want to claim that Christianity is a psychosis, don't claim that Jews copied the Bible in a haphazard and inaccurate way. Better to allege that they all suffered from a form of OCD mental illness that caused them to painstakingly and accurately copy their Holy Book for centuries without error. That's closer to reality.
All this about the Bible being filled with corruptions and changes is the polar opposite of reality. There is no ancient manuscript evidence to support this view; all the evidence is against this view.
This proves that atheists live in a world of fantasy. Some atheists believe the Bible is unreliable because that's what they've been taught, and they want to be respected by those who told them. But there are some atheists who are bad people and are just making this stuff up. The ones who start these rumors about the Bible have a completely different conception of history than historical reality, and a completely different view of religious people than reality. If an atheist -- knowing even one-tenth as much about the Biblical manuscripts as the Director and Head Librarian of the British Museum -- makes up the story that the Bible is untrustworthy and unreliably transmitted through the centuries, then he is a liar who probably hates God and doesn't want to love his neighbor, refrain from stealing, or be faithful to his wife. You would be wise not to listen to such people.
There are 300 million people in America. How many of them accept the "telephone game" version of the history of the Bible? How many of them believe something that is 180° opposite reality?
4. The Bible as Conservative Blueprint
On the opposite side of the spectrum from Richard Dawkins and other atheists who contend that the Bible is an indecipherable mish-mash of repeatedly edited and mis-copied ancient texts are champions of the Bible, including Neo-conservatives, conservative "Constitutionalists," all the way to "Christian Reconstructionists," who say the Bible contains principles of Constitutional and Republican Civil Government. Atheists contend that the Bible (if it's possible at all to interpret it and discover a coherent message) endorses slavery, war, and "theocracy" (by which they mean some kind of tyranny by clergy). Some conservatives come close to agreeing with these atheists. But the Bible is actually opposed to war and slavery. Here is an example of an article from Forbes magazine that speaks of "
War is Nazism. "Survival of the fittest" means survival of the largest military-industrial complex.
Hitler was an evolutionist. World War II was a war of evolutionists.
Volume after volume has poured from the publishing houses describing every phase of the Hitler regime, but their writers are so timidly afraid of being classed as anti-evolutionary "fundamentalists" by the high-priests of Evolutionism that one may search through their books by the hundreds and scarcely find a mention of evolution or Charles Darwin.
Nevertheless, the rise of war and fascism in the 20th century is inescapably attributable to the rise of Evolutionism; and the rise of Evolutionism is attributable to the propaganda machines of the Emperors who loved the Theory of Evolution precisely because it was useful in justifying their total war against Eden.
But then, perhaps the connections are familiar enough: Richard Hofstadter's book, Social Darwinism and American Thought,[14] records the great chorus of voices which united in praising the word of Darwin for the light it bestows on how nations, businesses, and relations between economic classes should be governed. Wallbank and Taylor's text, Civilization Past and Present,[15] evidences their conclusion that Darwin's theory of the "survival of the fittest" "became a vogue that swept western thought in the late nineteenth century. It . . . became a convenient doctrine for justifying various economic and political theories." Nietzsche, for example,
ridiculed democracy and socialism for protecting the worthless and weak and hindering the strong. Social Darwinism and the antidemocratic cult of naked power, as preached by advocates like Nietzsche, were laying the foundations of fascism, which would one day plunge the world into the most terrible convulsion in its history.
Ashley Montagu comments on an inflammatory book by Freiderich von Bernhardi, Germany and the Next War:
"War," declared Bernhardi, "is a biological necessity;" it "is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of Nature;" it "gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things." "The whole idea of arbitration represents a presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development," for "what is right is decided by the arbitration of war." In proof thereof such notions of Darwin's as "The Struggle for Existence," "Natural Selection," and the "Survival of the Fittest" are invoked with sententiousness quite military both in logic and in sense. According to Bernhardi, it is plainly evident to anyone who makes a study of plant and animal life that "war is a universal law of nature." This declaration and fortification of Germany's will to war - for it had the highest official sanction and approval - was published in 1911. Three years later the greatest holocaust the world had ever known was launched. . . .
Mussolini was strengthened in his belief that violence was basic to social transformation by the philosophy of Nietzsche. Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by Evolutionism. In public utterances he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace: it would only hinder the evolutionary process.
Likewise Hitler based his politics on Darwin. Jews must be segregated, he urged in Mein Kampf, to avoid mixed marriages; were they to occur, all nature's efforts "to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile."
Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist, writing just after World War II, observed,
The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. . . .
To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. . . . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood. . . . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.
6. The "Theory of Evolution" is also an example of mass hysteria, mass self-deception. Or even better, mass psychosis, which is "a detachment from reality." In this case, a detachment from God's reality.
Most people believe that the textual record of the Bible is a "telephone game" of gaps and mistakes, but they also believe that the fossil record of the evolution of life is a robust and detailed history of the evolution of life on earth over billions of years. Their view of the Bible is psychotic, as is their view of evolution.
Charles Darwin moaned about the absence of fossil proof of his theory of evolution, hoping someday the proof would be found. It never has been.
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
The Origin of Species, Mentor edition, 1958, pp. 293-294
But not just in the fossil record -- all around us, throughout the world, life appears in various "kinds" as
described in the Bible, not a "finely-graduated organic chain" like Darwin's theory demands. Evolution should be visible everywhere. It should be next-to-impossible to identify different
"kinds" of animals. There should be a "finely-graduated organic chain" between all animals, because all of life is perpetually evolving. Continuously. Step by step, mutation by mutation. It didn't all stop
evolving when Adam and Eve finally came along.Think of the confusion evolution would have produced if it were actually happening:
It doesn't exist. It's all a myth. The GEICO caveman does not live in anyone's neighborhood.
If evolution were true, it would also be a lot easier to believe the people at PETA: "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
— Ingrid
Newkirk, President, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
But the lines are clearly drawn. Evolution is a lie.
But the purpose of this Reader's Guide is not to weigh "scientific evidence." This Guide is not about biology or archaeology. The purpose is to weigh the evidence showing that evolutionism is a religion or a mass deception. The evidence for this is overwhelming, but you certainly never heard this evidence during your government-regulated education.
Darwin and the early promoters of evolution recognized that science was not on their side. But they hated God (Theonomy) and worshiped self (autonomy). They deceived themselves as they deceived the masses.
Self-deception has many motivations. It is not our purpose here to breakdown all the psychological motivations that exist for promoting or believing in evolution. Every individual has a slightly different motivation. Fear of God's Judgment is certainly one motivation, as many evolutionists have openly admitted, though they wouldn't call it "fear" (for that would presuppose the reality of God's Judgment), but rather "revulsion" or some other term of derision or condemnation.
It's not about "science." Nobody was forced to abandon creationism and accept evolution by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence. It was a choice. It's been a Long War Against God.
What follows is an overview of the argument that "evolution" is a product of mass hysteria, mass psychosis, or mass self-deception. The theory of evolution is:
This guide is not primarily about Darwin, but about those who preceded him in their evolutionary speculations, as well as those who have followed him.
|
When I realized that in order to be "Bible-believing Christian" I had to be a six-day creationist, I quickly realized that in order to be a "Bible-believing Christian" I also had to be an anarchist. This is because I realized that the "theory of evolution" was a rationalization for those who wanted to be Archists. They wanted to impose an evolutionist theocracy on everyone. (The word "Theocracy" means "God Rules." The evolutionist wants to be his own god.)
So I realized that in order to be a "Bible-believing Christian," I had to believe in "Creationist Anarcho-Theocracy."
The argument against "evolution" on this page is based on a Christian "fundamentalist" and anarchist presupposition.
Most people don't expect an "anarchist" to be defending "fundamentalism" and "Theocracy," and opposing "evolution." That's because most people today -- even the most intelligent -- are victims of educational malpractice. They don't recognize the Theory of Evolution as a sacrament of statism, the worship of political power.
Let's define the key terms.
What is "liberty?" Libertarians define it as "freedom from aggression by others."
The "libertine" is not to be confused with the modern libertarian. The "libertine" believes that "freedom" is the power to aggress against others, and "nobody can tell me what to do."
"Liberty" cannot exist in a "libertine" society. If everyone believes he is his own god, nothing stops him from aggressing against you, stealing your property, stealing your wife, or even stealing your life. The "libertine" is FREE! He can do whatever he wants. Nobody can tell him what to do, or what not to do. (See Jean-Paul Sartre, below.)
Down below we will look at the concept of "Theocracy." The word means "God governs." The theory of evolution says there is no God. The Bible says this was Satan's temptation in the Garden of Eden: "You shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). Libertines love the theory of evolution, because in the absence of a Creator, the libertine gets to be his own god, "knowing" or determining "good" and "evil" for himself. The Apostle Paul described it as "worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25). This sums up the entire field of evolutionary thought.
The biggest threat to your liberty, as we will see, is the evolutionist who believes he is his own god, and nobody can tell him not to aggress against you. The modern evolutionist believes he ("Political Man," evolved man) now "guides" (controls) evolution. That means he controls you. Evolution is now no longer "natural" selection, but political selection, with the oligarchy-establishment in the driver's seat. [See "Davos and Transhumanism," below.]
I write as an "anarchist."
I could write as a "Christian," but that doesn't tell anyone as much about me as the label "anarchist" -- even though "anarchist" is somewhat confusing. "Christian" is a much bigger target. It
could mean anything. Joe Biden and Dorothy Day both claimed to be "Catholics." And "catholic" is a circle within "Christian."
"Anarchist" narrows it down: I'm anti-State. I'm anti-State because I'm anti-violence. I'm anti-violence
because I'm a follower of the Prince of Peace.
The first confusing aspect about "anarchism" is the widespread belief that "Christian Anarchist" is a contradiction in terms. This is easily clarified:
Resource #1: What is an "Archist?" "Anarchist" as Defined by Jesus
The word "anarchist" comes from two Greek words meaning "not an archist." What is an "archist?" Jesus says "the kings of the gentiles" love to be "archists," but followers of Christ are not to be. See Mark 10:42-45.
An "archist" is someone who likes to control and rule over others, imposing his own will on others by threats of violence. To be an "archist" is to violate God's Commandments, which can be summed up as:
The idea that "anarchists" are bad people while those who oppose "anarchists" (logically, the an-anarchists, or simply "archists") are good people, is the biggest lie in the history of human political thought.
Resource #2: The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto
You were not taught this in Sunday School. All archists -- all "governments" -- eventually ban the teaching of the Bible, as the United States has done.
"Fundamentalism" is the belief that the Bible is the Word of God the Creator, and we should just believe that whatever the Bible says is true, regardless of what any created being says.
"Whatever the Bible says" is a tricky phrase. But not too tricky. Jesus said "I am the door" (John 10:7-9). This does not mean that Jesus is a plank of wood that swings on brass hinges. There are literary devices used in the Bible, and no "fundamentalist" denies this.
The Bible was written by intelligent adults for intelligent adults.
"The Fundamentals" were a series of doctrinal booklets published around 1910. They were an apologetic response to "modernism," or "liberalism," which denied "fundamental" doctrines like the deity of Christ and His virgin birth; doctrines which "liberals" agree were taught and believed by the "pre-scientific" authors of the Bible, but cannot be believed by "modern man."
Someone who claims to be a "fundamentalist," or claims to believe that God wrote the Bible, may not agree that God wrote an "anarchist manifesto." So "fundamentalist" simply describes a formal commitment to the Bible as the Word of God. Among such people could be numbered: Augustine, Calvin, Gov. John Winthrop ("City on a hill"), Jonathan Edwards, Abraham Kuyper (Prime Minister of the Netherlands), and J. Gresham Machen.
H. L. Mencken -- no fan of fundies -- wrote an obituary for one of the leading "fundamentalists" of the day, J. Gresham Machen. In that obituary, Mencken disagrees with Machen's fundamentalism, but claims that fundamentalism is more logical than liberalism, which doesn't even have a claim at being a logical religion. Liberals claim to be Christian but don't even agree with all the fundamentals of the Christian religion. Why do they bother going to church or dressing up like clergymen? At least fundamentalists are trying to be consistent with principles with which Mencken and other liberals don't agree. Mencken's obituary, "Dr. Fundamentalis," appeared in the Baltimore Evening Sun (January 18, 1937), 2nd Section, p. 15, is
Resource #3: available online here, and is well worth reading.
When Princeton Theological Seminary (home of fundamentalists like B.B. Warfield) abandoned the fundamentals in favor of liberalism, Machen left Princeton and formed the Westminster Theological Seminary. Machen was booted out of the liberal Presbyterian church and founded the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. These events were front-page news in the New York Times, back in a day when Americans still cared a little about true religion and the press was not as frequently criticized for "liberal bias." It's a different world today.
Machen's book Christianity and Liberalism could have been titled, Liberalism vs. Fundamentalism.
The writers of the Bible were "fundamentalists." They believed what they wrote. Fundamentalists believe what the Bible teaches. Liberals don't.
If you want to be a "Christian," you have to be a "fundamentalist." Otherwise, you're just making up your own religion and cloaking it with the label "Christian."
Resource #4: Backgrounder on Fundamentalism
The issue is authority. Some people are willing to let the Word of God be their authority. Other people want to be their own authority. Some choose several authorities from the Authority Smörgåsbord, but it is still they themselves who decide which "authority" will be on their plate. Atheistic anarchists say allowing the God of the Bible to be one's ultimate Authority is inconsistent with the principle of being your own god. That's a logical position. The Christian Anarchist worships and serves the Creator as Ultimate Archist rather than any creature (Romans 1:25).
Jesus is the incarnate Word (John 1:1)
The Bible is the inscriptured Word.
Resource #5: The Supernatural Origin of the Bible
A popular argument against the authority of the Bible is the "Telephone Game" argument: that the text of the Bible has been repeatedly changed over the last few thousand years, and we really have no way of knowing what the Prophets or the Apostles actually wrote.
The truth is 180° in the opposite direction. The Bible is the most accurately transmitted document in human history. Biblical copyists were OCD about copying the Bible accurately. They did not have a "liberal" attitude toward the text. And the great irony is that they accurately copied a book which portrayed them as faithless rebellious sinners. They had every reason to change the text to make themselves (or their nation) look better, but the text has remained unchanged over the centuries.
These arguments against the Bible presuppose in advance that evolution is true, and the Bible is merely the product of evolutionary forces. Evolution is believed to be true because it relieves us of any obligation to obey the Bible.
"Higher Criticism" arose in England in the late seventeenth century as a reaction to the use of the Old Testament as a guide for civil law. Public schools were formed in America in order to teach the Bible, because the Bible was the basis of all colonial laws.
Fundamental Agreement of the Colony of New Haven, Connecticut, 1639
Agreement; We all agree that the scriptures hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in duties which they are to perform to God and to man, as well in families and commonwealth as in matters of the church; so likewise in all public officers which concern civil order, as choice of magistrates and officers, making and repealing laws, dividing allotments of inheritance, and all things of like nature, we will, all of us, be ordered by the rules which the scripture holds forth; and we agree that such persons may be entrusted with such matters of government as are described in Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13 with Deuteronomy 17:15 and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6 & 7….
Note: being an "archist" like "the kings of the gentiles" is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus (see above). America was founded by fundamentalist archists. The Puritans believed the Bible was the Word of God, but also believed that Aristotle and Plato should be followed in civil matters. This position is logically contradictory and politically unstable. Atheistic anarchists oppose Christian civilization based on antinomian depravity, but one can favor Christian civilization but oppose the coercive imposition of someone's version of Christian civilization by archists in "civil government."
Higher criticism of the Bible was an important tool in the humanists' war against Christian civilization. See
Resource #6: Henning Graf Reventlow, The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World.
That's a large tome. You can get the "reader's digest" version here: The Hoax of Higher Criticism.
We're told "theocracy" means "government by clergy." Wrong. That would be "ecclesiocracy." "Theocracy" means "God governs," or "God rules."
God "rules" over the society that obeys God's rules (commandments).
"Theocracy" is the flip-side of "Christian anarchism." To say "God governs" is to say "the Creator governs, not any created being." "Theocracy" in a Christian sense means "no mere man is an archist." From the evolutionary perspective, MAN is god. In an evolutionist Theocracy, the most powerful creature rules. And the most powerful creature usually is "The State."
Resource #1: Only the God of the Bible is an Archist. [same link as above, "What is an 'Archist?' 'Anarchist' as Defined by Jesus"]
The creature must obey the Creator. Jesus is the Creator.
All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
John 1:3; see also John 1:10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2,10
Our Creator is our only real Lord, our only real King, our only real God.
For the LORD is our Judge,
The LORD is our Lawgiver,
The LORD is our King;
He will save us
Isaiah 33:22
Jesus is the King of kings, the Lord of lords, and the God of gods. All creaturely kings and all creaturely lords and all creaturely gods (whether human or demonic) are false gods, false lords, and false kings. Trump is a false king. Moloch was a false god. ("Moloch" means "king.") No creature is a legitimate king or lord.
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
1 Corinthians 8:5
Our Creator, Jesus, is the only lord, god, king we should worship and serve. Not like evolutionists,
who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen
Romans 1:25
According to the Bible, "Civil Government" is a false god. Archism -- being a government, or voting for a government -- is idolatry.
"Fundamentalism" is the individual granting authority to God and His Word. "Theocracy" is a society coming under the authority of God and His Word. A Biblically consistent Theocracy is an "Anarcho-Theocracy."
The most common objection to Christian Anarcho-Theocracy is either
Nobody in 1776 believed in "secular [non-theistic] government." America's Founders tragically believed that God required human beings to form "civil governments," and forming and maintaining a civil government was a religious obligation.
Resource #2: A Theocratic Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto
Resource #7: Theocracy is the Only Path to Liberty
America was once a "Christocracy." Benjamin Rush signed the Declaration of Independence and served in the Presidential administrations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison -- each of whom came from a different political party. And of what party was Rush?
I have been alternately called an aristocrat and a democrat. I am now neither. I am a Christocrat. I believe all power. . . will always fail of producing order and happiness in the hands of man. He alone Who created and redeemed man is qualified to govern him.
The modern cult of Materialistic Scientism will not allow the Bible to be taught in state-run schools the way Benjamin Rush would teach it. The Declaration of Independence (America's "birth certificate") is a Theocratic document. It is currently illegal to teach students in a public school that the Declaration of Independence is actually true. America was a Christian nation. (If any "nation" can be "Christian.")
Nobody living through the Trump-Biden regime believes in Fundamentalist Anarcho-Christocracy (except me, it seems).
In this year of coronavirus, mask- and lockdown-dissidents are told to shut up, "listen to the Science" and get in line.
"Listen to the Science" actually means "Listen to my preferred or socially dominant cult of Scientism." There are many cults that make up the religion of Scientism, with one cult culturally dominant for a while, then another cult (or multiple cults) replacing it. In our day, the coronavirus cult is one of the dominant cults of Scientism. Also the environmentalist cult.
The vast majority of us attended parochial schools sponsored by the archist cult of Scientism.
We've been brainwashed to reject the Bible by atheist (Christocracy-denying) archist fundamentalists.
One of the biggest obstacles to a fundamentalist acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God is the issue of "Evolution vs. Creation." This is just "creature-ism vs. Creator-ism" (Romans 1:25).
Nobody in 1859 (when Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life was published) rejected Creator-ism and embraced evolutionary creature-ism because they were forced to by the overwhelming weight of "scientific facts."
Darwin's theory of evolution was the latest cult in the religion of Scientism.
There have been various theories of evolution for thousands of years. But in 1859, "Western Civilization" was largely Christian Civilization.
And evolutionists hated that.
No atheist in any university wanted to defend theories of evolution which were popular in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Greece, or China. They wanted something a little more "modern" and "scientific"-sounding.
Darwin's book filled the bill. At least for now. It would have to do. Everyone knew it was riddled with scientific holes. But nobody wanted to obey the Bible. There had to be a substitute.
Resource #8: "The Facts" vs. The Faith
Note especially the recollection of George Bernard Shaw: "The world jumped at Darwin."
"Jump" is not a verb one expects to find in the philosophy of science or any dispassionate discussion of "The Scientific Method."
"Jump" is the language of mass hysteria and delusion..
We need to learn the presuppositional nature of the conflict:
It's not a battle between "religion and science," but a battle between two religions: Christianity and Liberalism, or the Religion of Christ vs. The Religion of Secular Humanism.
In the early 1800's, anyone who advocated the abolition of slavery was told to "Listen to the Science!" There were "scientific" "experts" who said Negroes were inferior to whites and could never be assimilated into white society. Abraham Lincoln believed this. Charles Darwin believed this. A lot of white people believed this.
Resource #9: The Dark Side of Darwin
Some people say Darwin wasn't a racist because he advocated being kind to the help, and not mistreating inferior races.
Think about that.
In 1859, when Darwin's book was published -- one year before the beginning of the U.S. Civil War -- a lot of people believed in the inferiority of less-"Favoured Races."
|
|
Resource #10: John S. Haller, Jr., Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900
They weren't "outcasts" back then. Today, maybe.
A "scientific" justification for racial inferiority was a "scientific" justification for racial subordination.
Subordination is not just racism, it is archism.
Evolution was the quest for archist-hood. (We'll see this in detail below.)
Racism motivated acceptance of "The Science" of evolution the same way
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" motivates acceptance of "The Science" of lockdowns and covid "models" which inaccurately project millions of deaths.
Sentencing 130 million poor people around the world to starvation and justifying that by claiming to "protect" less than 1% of the population who were going to die later that same year anyway is not a rational "public health policy." That's not pure, dispassionate, objective epidemiology. That's the adrenaline rush that an archist gets when exercising political control and influencing an upcoming Presidential election.
The human mind has the amazing capacity to sincerely believe something one knows is false.
It is also capable of passionately believing something that one denies believing in at all.
This capacity is called self-deception,
as we observed above.
The desire to be as god (Genesis 3:5) motivates "science" as well as "theology."
The U.S. military invasion of the Philippines began in 1899. This was perhaps a watershed year in America's transition from a Theocratic Christian Republic into a Progressive Atheist Empire. Evolutionism + archism = imperialism. A Secular Empire is the opposite of a "City upon a Hill."
It has been said that "Ideas Have Consequences,"
to which has been added, "Bad
Ideas Have Victims."
The millions who starve because of a supply-chain destroyed by unwarranted COVID lockdowns are victims of the ideas entertained by quiet epidemiologists and exploited by power-hungry political archists. The tens of millions who have been killed, crippled, or made homeless during my lifetime by a thousand U.S. military bases around the world are victims of the ideas of evolutionary biologists appropriated by the Military-Industrial Complex. Consequential ideas are often lies. Human beings are complex, as are the societies they create. John Calvin began his Institutes of the Christian Religion by noting that the knowledge of God and the knowledge of man (self-knowledge) are intimately connected, and knowing ourselves and our motivations and deceptions is very hard work.
Some are more honest about their motivations than others.
Racism
Fascism
Adultery
Militarism
Thomas Henry Huxley was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" because of his vigorous public propagation of Darwin's theory. He was also the patriarch of one of the Great dynasties of Britan: The Huxleys. One of T.H. Huxley's grandsons was Aldous Huxley. He was sometimes honest about his motivations for accepting evolution. He said that evolution, which denied a Creator, and therefore denied design, and therefore denied meaning, provided atheists with a justification to "seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...." He went further:
For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy [worldview] of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.”
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, Chatto & Windus: London, 1946, pp. 270, 273)
I would argue that the desire to cheat on your wife is an archist desire to rule over a member of an inferior sex.
From the French Revolution to the Sexual Revolution, and well before that, evolution meant Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator throughout these centuries. It wasn't just Darwin and biology. It was Louis XIV (1638-1715) (“L’État, c’est moi” ), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814).
In addition to slavery, another form of racism is "eugenics." The evolutionary archist seeks to impose his own will (that inferior races not reproduce) on members of those un-Favoured Races. Margaret Sanger was Darwin's Killer Angel. Adolph Hitler was Darwin's Killer Angel.
From 1859 to 1938 (when the previously-lauded Hitler went out of fascion -- excuse me, fashion), evolutionism meant eugenics, and more importantly, Progressivism. Progressivism was Darwinism, racism, statism, fascism and archism all rolled up into a global cultural eugenics movement.
Most Christians are ignorant of this vast religious cult.
The Progressive Ideas That Fueled America’s Eugenics Movement - Foundation for Economic Education
The Dehumanizing Impact of Modern Thought: Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche, and Their Followers
A few modern thinkers specifically criticized the “anthropocentric” view that humans are special, made in the image of God. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the famous German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel, for example, blasted Christianity for advancing an “anthropocentric” and dualistic view of humanity.[2] Today the famous bioethicist Peter Singer, along with the atheistic Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins, argue that based on the Darwinian understanding of human origins, we need to de-sanctify human life, divesting ourselves of any notion that humans are created in the image of God and thus uniquely valuable.[3] An evolutionary ecologist at the University of Texas, Eric Pianka, fights overtly against anthropocentrism, even expressing the wish that 90% of the human population will be extinguished, perhaps by a pandemic.[4]
Archists need to de-sanctify human life in order to rule over it, and destroy it if necessary. But the Harvard-educated archists who are in control of these eugenic and imperialistic programs will live to enjoy their lives of domination.
In education, progressive Darwinist archism is seen in
Resource #11: The Messianic Character of American Education. Today's public schools are acknowledged even by liberals to be the established church. "Sidney E. Mead, in his important book, The Lively Experiment: The Shaping of Christianity in America (1963), has argued perceptively that the public school system is America’s only established church." Scientific secular education is utterly religious. It was messianic. This secular religion, inculcated in the youth, would save civilization. Educators were our Saviors. At least they thought so.
The "New Deal" was progressive. As Hegel might have put it, Progressivism was eugenics walking on the earth:
From Darwin To Hitler: The Origins of Scientific RacismCharles BurrisThe Origins of Scientific Racism Fascinating exploration of pseudo-scientific intellectual ideas from Darwinism and the problems of heredity, the impact of Francis Galton, the Teutonic Germ Theory, the rise of Nordicism and the supremacy of Nordics, Anglo-Saxon superiority, the rise of Eugenics and race in the United States, and how these ideas impacted National Socialist Germany. The Eugenics movement drew their greatest enthusiastic support and funding — extensive funding from America’s upper-most philanthropic sources such as from the Carnegie Institute and the Harriman railroad fortune. The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs, including the one that Dr. Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. Cereal magnate J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. Top tier social scientists, especially economists, gave their full sanction to the Eugenics project. Several feminist reformers advocated an agenda of eugenic legal reform. The National Federation of Women’s Clubs, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and the National League of Women Voters were among the variety of state and local feminist organizations that at some point lobbied for eugenic reforms. One of the most prominent feminists to champion the eugenics agenda was Margaret Sanger, the leader of the American birth control movement. Margaret Sanger saw birth control as a means to prevent unwanted children from being born into a disadvantaged life, and incorporated the language of eugenics to advance the movement. Sanger also sought to discourage the reproduction of persons who, it was believed, would pass on mental disease or serious physical defects. Ideas truly have consequences.
In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles.
War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, by Edwin Black Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era, by Thomas C. Leonard Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck, by Adam Cohen White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, by Nancy Isenberg Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, by James Q. Whitman The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought, by Richard Weikart Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and Constructions of Race in Nazi Germany: A Literary and Cultural Analysis of Darwin’s Works and Nazi Rhetoric, by Emily M. Wollmuth The Nazi Connection Eugenics, American Racism, And German National Socialism, by Stefan Kühl The Racial State: Germany 1933-1945, by Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann Nazi Nexus : America’s corporate connections to Hitler’s Holocaust, by Edwin Black Racism (Amazon book list) The Murdering State (Amazon book list) |
Most Christians -- and even most liberals -- are ignorant about the real issues in the 1925 Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. William Jennings Bryan, who opposed the teaching of evolution, was not what most folks today would call a fundamentalist. He was more of a liberal. In a narrow sense, Bryan was theologically conservative, and defended the deity of Christ, but he was politically liberal -- a Progressive. He opposed evolution because he believed it led to the oppression of the poor and the un-Favoured Races. He was, of course, completely correct about this, even though, from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, he was wrong about history and the creation of the world. William Jennings Bryan was not a six-day creationist. He was anti-eugenics. He was anti-genocide. He stood up for non-archists.
What was the Scopes trial really all about? This: a defense of democracy by Bryan and an attack on democracy by Clarence Darrow, the ACLU, and H. L. Mencken.
It was also about the government's plan to create a genetic master race -- an idea that Bryan was determined to stop.
If you want the proof, with 166 notes, I have provided it here, free of charge:www.garynorth.com/RoadtoDayton.pdf
Does this sound preposterous? Only because the textbooks have dropped this down the Orwellian memory hole. Doubt me? Read this: Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. This monstrous plan was validated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927, two years after Bryan's death. Paul A. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell.
The Real Scopes Trial, and My Free Book Exposing It
Must reading:
Resource #12: Road to Dayton
But William Jennings Bryan's progressive defense of the little guy was out-gunned by archists who saw Progressivism as their archist religion.
More must reading:
Resource #13: Appendix A of Gary North's commentary on Genesis, "From Cosmic Purposelessness to Humanistic Sovereignty," is a critique of the most important
sleight-of-mind, bait-and-switch scam in modern thought: Darwinism's transformation of "man, the unplanned speck" into "man, the planning god." It lies at the heart of modernism. Humanists use a two-step argument to get to their fundamental principle:
the sovereignty of archist man.
North's Appendix contains the names of Progressive Era scientific planners you've never heard of. They were famous and well-respected during The Progressive Era. Their progeny rule us today. North says this Appendix is
"the most important academic article of my career." It shows in great detail, with exhaustive footnotes, the real meaning of Darwinian Progressivism. Evolution is nothing less than the religion of archism. If you read nothing else in this "Reader's Guide," read that. If you lean "libertarian" and you're a "theistic evolutionist," this essay should "red pill" you.Progressivism gave rise to "The Administrative State." During the Progressive Era, which might be dated from 1887, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was formed, to 1930, liberal elites believed in "scientific socialism." The Administrative State
is best described in the 1983 book, Law and Revolution. The Introduction to that book is the most important single academic article I have ever read. In his Introduction, Harvard legal historian Harold Berman described the six revolutions in the history of Western legal theory: the Papal revolution of 1076, the English Puritan Revolution of 1643-58, the Glorious Revolution of 1688/89, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution. These six revolutions have shaped the West in ways that are barely understood by scholars or voters. They shaped the way in which the law applies to individuals.
Berman was convinced that a seventh revolution began in the early 20th century: administrative law. This revolution separates the courts from the executive and the legislative branch. It separates the idea of law as possessing a separate foundation and separate jurisdiction from the executive. This revolution centralizes power in the state, and crushes the earlier legal revolutions.
The legal revolution of administrative law is the greatest single threat to liberty in the world today, and it is firmly locked into the American social and legal order. People unthinkingly accept it. They are unaware of it. They do not understand the implications of the Federal Register, which now publishes 80,000 pages of fine print administrative law every year.
Politics is impotent to change this. Politics is unaware of it. Those few laws that get passed by Congress and signed into law by the President are then administered by the federal bureaucracy, and there is almost nothing that a President or Congress can do to stop it. Occasionally, the Supreme Court may hand down a ruling that will stop some minor aspect of the expansion of the federal bureaucracy, but this is rare. (Liberty's Greatest Enemy Today)
The French and Russian revolutions were explicitly religious revolutions. See the impressive work by the Librarian of Congress, James Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith (1980). See also Marx's Religion of Revolution. Billington begins with the French Revolution and ends with Lenin. It is by far the most detailed account of the conspiratorial and occult religious origins of revolution. The revolution of Administrative Law is the religion of science and rationalism, while violent revolution is the religion of chaos (irrationalism). Humanism/Autonomy is constantly fluctuating between rationalism and occult irrationalism. Cornelius Van Til spent his career exposing this humanist dialecticism. This is why the irrational occult chaos of BlackLivesMatter burning cities is supported by all the rational, Harvard-educated fancy-suit elites in the industrial "complexes" listed above.
The story is also told in North's book Crossed Fingers, the story of the Progressive take-over of the Presbyterian Church in Machen's day (Chapter 7, "Darwinism, Democracy, and the Public Schools"):
Conklin was a defender of what he called the religion of evolution.(97) As he said, "the greatest and most practical work of religion is to further the evolution of a better race."(98) "To a large extent mankind holds the power of controlling its destiny on this planet."(99) (Problem: when we say that man must control man's destiny, this means that some men must do the controlling, while others must be controlled.)
"Others must be controlled."
Evolution is the archist's religious wet dream.
"Listen to the Science," they tell you.
Don't believe the Bible.
Wear a mask.
Created: Thursday, November 12, 2020, 3:09:40 AM
Gary North published a couple of videos promoting his book Road to Dayton.
* * * * *
Most Americans have only the vaguest awareness of the Scopes trial. They do not know why it was important.
It has become known as the "monkey trial." But it was not about monkeys in the evolutionary chain that produced man. It was about control of the tax-funded schools by the voters.
In the early 1920's, William Jennings Bryan began a campaign to get Darwinian evolution out of tax-funded schools, grades 1 through 12. This challenged the crucial monopoly of humanists in America: control over the public schools. They mounted a campaign against Bryan's campaign against them.
The political conflict culminated in a five-day trial in tiny Dayton, Tennessee in July of 1925.
In this video, I cover the background of the trial: what was at stake and why.
Does all this seem incredible? I have written a mini-book on the Scopes trial. It has the footnotes to support my version of the story. Download it here.
This is Lesson 2. Lesson 1 is here: https://www.garynorth.com/public/21581.cfm.
The issue was representation: Bryan vs. Darrow. The trial was a major public event. It asked Americans: "Which side are you on?" It asked them to choose sides.
Forgotten is this fact: William Jennings Bryan's brother Charles had been the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice President in 1924. That was the influence of Bryan's name. Charles also controlled his brother's huge and profitable mailing list.
This was a showdown like no other in the 1920's: religious, cultural, social, political, and educational. It was a battle for political control over the academic content of the public schools, grades 1-12. It was therefore a battle for the future of America.
There were two well-known representatives doing battle. It was not like Prohibition, which had no representatives. People could hear this battle on the radio. This had never happened before . . . anywhere.
The battle still rages culturally. It was settled in the public schools only in the early 1980's. Evolution was not taught in biology courses in my day: the 1950's. Both sides in the 1925 showdown were in the shadows. Then the next showdown took place. The creationists lost.
This settled the political issue: the voters cannot legally determine what is taught in government schools. The educrats won. Democracy as a concept lost. That was the issue in 1925. It is still the issue today.
* * * * *
Why is that in the 1800's "liberal" Christians were more likely than "conservative" Christians to believe that racism was unChristian and Darwin's un-Favoured Races were entitled to the same ethical and legal treatment as whites?
Joel McDurmon has discussed the prevalence of racism among "conservative" theologians in the South. Oberlin College is an example of a Northern Presbyterianism that was more passionate about abolitionism than Calvinism. Calvinists, arguing more from Roman Law than Hebrew Law, were statists. Opponents of statism bought into (because they could not refute) the teaching of the Calvinists that the Bible -- particularly the Old Testament -- endorsed war, the State, and slavery. Those with libertarian leanings simply downplayed the Old Testament and became "New Testament Christians."
This would have been prevented had Christians in the 1700's and 1800's realized that the Protestant Reformers were wrong about the State, and that the Bible -- even the Old Testament -- in fact, especially the Old Testament -- is an Anarchist Manifesto.
A lot of conservative Christians in our day talk about the need for a "Biblical Worldview," but without anarchism in their worldview, Christians are copy-cats of Greco-Roman "classical" statism.
"Davos" is a group of archists, archist wanna-bes, and archist admirers, who meet regularly in Switzerland. "Transhumanism" means man taking control of evolution to bring about a synthesis between human beings and computers.
There was recently a speech at a Davos meeting in which the speaker succinctly stated the thesis of this website: that evolution is a religion which seeks to move archists from dependent spectators of the impersonal laws of nature, to active god-like creators. From unguided "natural" selection (as Darwin described) to archist-planned and guided selection.
“For four billion years, nothing fundamental changed in the basic rules of the game of life,” he said. “All of life was subject to the laws of natural selection and the laws of organic biochemistry. But this is now about to change.
Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design, not the intelligent design of some god in the clouds, [but] OUR intelligent design, and the design of our ‘clouds,’ the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud. These are the new driving forces of evolution.”
The speaker was Yuval Noah Harari. His book is titled Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. "Homo Deus": man as god. Here is the speech:
Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow with Yuval Noah Harari
Evolution is a religion. Man is the new god. And as Hegel noted, autonomous man tends to worship the most visible accomplishment of man, the State. "The State is god walking on the earth."
Davos plans have been brought to light by a comedian named J.P. Sears. His video is here:
What You Need to Know About the Transhumanist Agenda
"Human Life Has Absolutely No Meaning" - The American Vision
Gary North says the importance of the Scopes Trial was not evolution vs. creation, but populist control of public schools vs. control of schools by elites.
This certainly was an important issue, but not the most important lesson we can learn from the trial and the forces that orchestrated it.
The word "Populist" is used synonymously with "democratic." "Democracy" comes from two Greek words meaning "the people rule." In this case, "democratic" means "families get to determine how their children are educated." Un-democratic in this case means "experts" in distant bureaucratic agencies decide how your children will be educated. Thomas Jefferson contrasted "democratic" with "aristocratic."
On July 10, 1925, the culturally most important trial in American history began: Tennessee vs. John Scopes. It was the first trial to be covered on the radio. Hundreds of reporters showed up in Dayton, Tennessee, from all over the world. The monkey trial became a media circus.
The trial ended on July 24. William Jennings Bryan died in Dayton on July 26. With this, the American fundamentalist movement went into political hibernation for half a century, coming out of its sleep fifty-one years later in the Ford-Carter Presidential race.
There is a great deal of confusion about the details of the trial, but not its fundamental point: the legitimacy of teaching Darwinism in tax-funded schools, kindergarten through high school. On this point, all sides agree: the trial was a showdown between Darwinism and fundamentalism.
What is not recognized is the far greater importance of the far more important underlying agreement, an agreement that had steadily increased for half a century by 1925 and still prevails: the legitimacy of tax-supported education.
What I write here is a summary of a lengthy, heavily footnoted chapter in my 1996 book, Crossed Fingers: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church. That book is on-line for free. So is the chapter: “Darwinism, Democracy, and the Public Schools.”
THE ORIGINS
The origins of the trial are generally unknown. It was begun as a public relations stunt by a group of Dayton businessmen. They had heard of the challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) regarding a test case for the Tennessee law against teaching evolution in the public schools. They thought that if they could get someone in Dayton to confess to having taught evolution in the local high school, the town would get a lot of free publicity. We can hardly fault their assessment of the potential for free publicity — monetarily free, that is.
Scopes agreed to be the official victim. The irony is this: he was not sure that he had actually taught from the sections of the biology textbook that taught Darwinism. Had he been put on the witness stand and asked by the defense if he had taught evolution, he would have had to say he did not recall. He was never put on the stand.
Also forgotten is the content of the textbook in question. The Wikipedia encyclopedia entry has refreshed our memories. The textbook, like most evolution textbooks of the era, was committed to eugenics and a theory of racial superiority. The textbook declared:
“Although anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage, yet there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man. At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” (pp. 195—196).“. . . if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways of preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.” (pp. 263—265).
This was the wisdom of high school biology textbooks, circa 1925. The ACLU came to its defense. This information had to be brought to the children of Tennessee, the ACLU decided.
THE STRATEGY
The city’s merchants did very well from the influx of media people who could not resist seeing William Jennings Bryan take on Clarence Darrow.
The ACLU’s strategy was to lose the case, appeal it, get it confirmed at the appellate court level, and appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which they believed would overturn it. And why not? This was the Court that, two years later, determined that the state of Virginia had the right to sterilize a mentally retarded woman, without her knowledge or consent that this was the operation being performed on her. While she had a daughter of normal intelligence, this had no bearing on the case in the joint opinion of eight of the nine members of the Court. In the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the Court’s opinion: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Bryan offered to pay Scopes’ fine. Both sides wanted conviction. Darrow threw the case. He told the jury it had to convict, which it promptly did.
The ACLU hit an iceberg. The Dayton decision was overturned by the appellate court on a legal technicality. The case could not reach the Supreme Court’s docket. Sometimes judges are more clever than ACLU attorneys expect.
THE REAL CAUSE OF THE TRIAL
Beginning with the publication of his book, In His Image in 1921, Bryan began calling for state laws against the teaching of Darwinism in tax-funded schools. What is not widely understood was his motivation. It was ethical, not academic. Bryan understood what Darwin had written and what his cousin Francis Galton had written. Galton developed the “science” of eugenics. Darwin in The Descent of Man (1871) referred to Galton’s book favorably. Also, Bryan could read the full title of Darwin’s original book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Bryan was a populist. He was a radical. In terms of his political opinions, he was the most radical major party candidate for President in American history, i.e., further out on the fringes of political opinion compared with the views of his rivals. Clarence Darrow had no advantage with respect to championing far-left political causes.
Bryan had read what Darwin had written, and he was appalled. He recognized that a ruthless hostility to charity was the dark side of Darwinism. Had Darwin’s theory been irrelevant, he said, it would have been harmless. Bryan wrote: “This hypothesis, however, does incalculable harm. It teaches that Christianity impairs the race physically. That was the first implication at which I revolted. It led me to review the doctrine and reject it entirely.” In Chapter 4, Bryan went on the attack. He cited the notorious passage in Darwin’s Descent of Man:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.” (Modern Library edition, p. 501)
He could have continued to quote from the passage until the end of the paragraph: “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed” (p. 502). It is significant that Darwin at this point footnoted Galton’s 1865 Macmillan’s magazine article and his book, Hereditary Genius.
Beginning that year, Bryan began to campaign in favor of state laws against teaching evolution in tax-funded schools. He did not target universities. He knew better. That battle had been lost decades before. He targeted high schools. A dozen states had introduced such bills. Tennessee passed one.
The Establishment recognized the threat. It saw that its monopoly over the curriculum of the public schools was its single most important political lever. So did Bryan. Bryan was targeting the brain of the Beast. He had to be stopped.
Across America, newspapers and magazines of the intellectual classes began the attack. I survey this in my chapter, citing from them liberally — one of the few things liberal that I do. The invective was remarkable. They hated Bryan, and they hated his fundamentalist constituency even more.
Yet the Democrats had nominated his brother for Vice President less than a year earlier. His brother had developed the first political mailing list in history, and the Democrats wanted access to it.
Bryan wrote in a 1922 New York Times article (requested by the Times, so as to begin the attack in response):
The Bible has in many places been excluded from the schools on the ground that religion should not be taught by those paid by public taxation. If this doctrine is sound, what right have the enemies of religion to teach irreligion in the public schools? If the Bible cannot be taught, why should Christian taxpayers permit the teaching of guesses that make the Bible a lie?
This surely was a legitimate question, one which has yet to be answered in terms of a theory of strict academic neutrality. But Paxton Hibben, in his 1929 biography of Bryan (Introduction by Charles A. Beard), dismissed this argument as “a specious sort of logic. . . . [Tax-funded] schools, he reasoned, were the indirect creations of the mass of citizens. If this were true, those same citizens could control what was taught in them.” If this were true: the subjunctive mood announced Paxton’s rejection of Bryan’s premise.
Bryan had to be stopped. They stopped him.
The most famous reporter at the trial was H. L. Mencken. That Mencken was drawn to Dayton like a moth to a flame is not surprising. He hated fundamentalism. He also loved a good show, which the trial proved to be. But there was something else. He was a dedicated follower of Nietzsche. In 1920, Mencken’s translation of Nietzsche’s 1895 book, The Antichrist, was published. Bryan had specifically targeted Nietzsche in In His Image. “Darwinism leads to a denial of God. Nietzsche carried Darwinism to its logical conclusion.” Mencken was determined to get Bryan if he could.
Two months before the trial, Mencken approached Darrow to suggest that Darrow take the case. In a 2004 article posted on the University of Missouri (Kansas City) website, Douglas Linder describes this little-known background.
Mencken shaped, as well as reported, the Scopes trial. On May 14, 1925, he met Darrow in Richmond, and — according to one trial historian — urged him to offer his services to the defense. Hours after discussing the case with Mencken, Darrow telegraphed Scopes’s local attorney, John Randolph Neal, expressing his willingness to “help the defense of Professor Scopes in any way you may suggest or direct.” After Darrow joined the defense team, Mencken continued to offer advice. He told defense lawyers, for example, “Nobody gives a damn about that yap schoolteacher” and urged them instead to “make a fool out of Bryan.”
THE STAKES
Both sides accepted the legitimacy of the principle of tax-funded education. Both sides were determined to exercise power over the curriculum. But there was a fundamental difference in strategies. Bryan wanted a level playing field. The evolutionists wanted a monopoly. Bryan’s defeat did not get the laws changed in the three states that had passed anti-evolution laws. It did get the issue sealed in a tomb for the rest of the country.
The evolutionists made it clear during the war on Bryan that democracy did not involve the transfer of authority over public school curriculums to political representatives of the people.
The New York Times (Feb. 2, 1922) ran an editorial that did not shy away from the implications for democracy posed by an anti-evolution bill before the Kentucky legislature. The Times repudiated democracy. It invoked the ever-popular flat-earth analogy. “Kentucky Rivals Illinois” began with an attack on someone in Illinois named Wilbur G. Voliva, who did believe in the flat earth. Next, it switched to Kentucky. “Stern reason totters on her seat when asked to realize that in this day and country people with powers to decide educational questions should hold and enunciate opinions such as these.” To banish the teaching of evolution is the equivalent of banishing the teaching of the multiplication table.
Three days later, the Times followed with another editorial, appropriately titled, “Democracy and Evolution.” It began: “It has been recently argued by a distinguished educational authority that the successes of education in the United States are due, in part at least, ‘to its being kept in close and constant touch with the people themselves.’ What is happening in Kentucky does not give support to this view.” The Progressives’ rhetoric of democracy was nowhere to be found in the Times' articles on Bryan and creationism, for the editors suspected that Bryan had the votes. For the Progressives, democracy was a tool of social change, not an unbreakable principle of civil government; a slogan, not a moral imperative. Though often cloaked in religious terms, democracy was merely a means to an end. What was this end? Control over other people’s money and, if possible, the minds of their children.
In the Sunday supplement for February 5, John M. Clarke was given an opportunity to comment on the Kentucky case. He was the Director of the State Museum at Albany. His rhetoric returned to the important theme of the weakness of democracy in the face of ignorant voters. I cite the piece at length because readers are unlikely to have a copy of this article readily at hand, and when it comes to rhetoric, summaries rarely do justice to the power of words. It began:
Our sovereign sister Kentucky, where fourteen and one half men in every hundred can neither read nor write, is talking about adding to the mirth of the nation in these all too joyless days by initiating legislation to put a end to that “old bad devil” evolution. Luther threw an ink bottle at one of his kind; the Kentucky legislators are making ready to throw a statute which will drive this serpent of the poisoned sting once and for all beyond the confines of the State, and not a school wherein this mischiefmaker is harbored shall have 1 cent of public moneys.
The issue was democratic control over tax-funded education. Mr. Clark was against any such notion.
When the majority of the voters, of which fourteen and a half out of each hundred can neither read nor write, have settled this matter, if they are disposed to do the right thing they will not stop at evolution. There is a fiction going about through the schools that the earth is round and revolves around the sun, and if Frankfort [Kentucky] is to be and remain the palladium of reason and righteousness, this hideous heresay [heresy] must also be wiped out.
Here it was again: the flat earth. It has been a favorite rhetorical device used against biblical creationists for a long time. The claim that pre-Columbus medieval scholars regarded the earth as flat, it turns out, is entirely mythical — a myth fostered in modern times. Jeffrey Burton Russell, the distinguished medieval historian, has disposed of this beloved myth. The story was first promoted by American novelist Washington Irving. The modernists who have invoked this myth have not done their homework.
Because Bryan was a great believer in tax-funded education, he entered the fray as just one more politician trying to get his ideas fostered in the schools at the expense of other voters. He professed educational neutrality. His opponents professed science. He lost the case in the courtroom of public opinion.
THE AFTERMATH
Bryan won the case and lost the war. The international media buried him, as they had buried no other figure in his day. His death a few days later in Dayton sealed the burial.
A year later, liberals captured both the Northern Presbyterian Church and the Northern Baptists. Bryan had a leader in the Northern Presbyterian Church, running for moderator and barely losing in 1923. The tide turned in 1926. In the mainline denominations, the conservatives began to lose influence.
In a famous 1960 article in Church History, “The American Religious Depression, 1925-1935,” Robert Handy dated the beginning of the decline in church membership from the Scopes trial. Handy taught at liberal Union Theological Seminary in New York City. In 1980, Joel Carpenter wrote a very different article in the same journal: “Fundamentalist Institutions and the Rise of Evangelical Protestantism.” He pointed out that Handy had confined his study to the mainline denominations. In 1926, he said, an increase in membership and church growth began in the independent fundamentalist and charismatic churches. The fundamentalists began to withdraw from the mainline churches. What Handy saw as decline, Carpenter saw as growth. Both phenomena began in response to the Scopes trial.
Fundamentalists began to withdraw from national politics and mainstream culture. The roaring twenties were not favorable times for fundamentalists. Their alliance with the Progressives began to break down. This alliance had gotten the eighteenth amendment passed. By the time Prohibition was repealed in 1933, the fundamentalists had begun their Long March into the hinterlands. Only in the 1976 Presidential election did they begin to re-surface. In 1980, they came out in force for Reagan. Two events mark this transformation, neither of which receives any attention by historians: the “Washington for Jesus” rally in the spring of 1980 and the “National Affairs Briefing Conference” in Dallas in September.
CONCLUSION
The Scopes trial was a media circus. The play and movie that made it famous three decades later, Inherit the Wind, was an effective piece of propaganda. The website of the law school of the University of Missouri, Kansas City, offers a good introduction to the story of this trial. But this version has a hard time competing with the textbook versions and the documentaries.
The victors write the textbooks. These textbooks are not assigned in Bryan College, located in Dayton, Tennessee — or if they are, they are not believed.
There is no Darrow College.
Part 1 is here: https://www.garynorth.com/public/21581.cfm.
The issue was representation: Bryan vs. Darrow. The trial was a major public event. It asked Americans: "Which side are you on?" It asked them to choose sides.
Forgotten is this fact: William Jennings Bryan's brother Charles had been the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice President in 1924. That was the influence of Bryan's name. Charles also controlled his brother's huge and profitable mailing list.
This was a showdown like no other in the 1920's: religious, cultural, social, political, and educational. It was a battle for political control over the academic content of the public schools, grades 1-12. It was therefore a battle for the future of America.
There were two well-known representatives doing battle. It was not like Prohibition, which had no representatives. People could hear this battle on the radio. This had never happened before . . . anywhere.
The battle still rages culturally. It was settled in the public schools only in the early 1980's. Evolution was not taught in biology courses in my day: the 1950's. Both sides in the 1925 showdown were in the shadows. Then the next showdown took place. The creationists lost.
This settled the political issue: the voters cannot legally determine what is taught in government schools. The educrats won. Democracy as a concept lost. That was the issue in 1925. It is still the issue today.
My mini-book on the trial is here: https://www.garynorth.com/RoadtoDayton.pdf.
From: Evolution and Genocide | skip down to genocide as motivating impulse
In 1892 the Supreme Court of the United States proudly boasted the the U.S. was legally, officially, constitutionally, "organically," a "Christian nation." But today, a century later, the U.S. is thoroughly secular and evolutionist. And as a result. the U.S. is a genocidal empire.
Genocide is the murder of a race, or species. Genocide is built into the theory of evolution, especially when Man the Archist hijacks the evolutionary worldview and no longer relies on "natural" selection, but graduates to political selection.
The modern world laughs at the Bible. "Myths and legends." "Full of errors." The Biblical account of the creation of the universe in six days not more than 10,000 years ago is laughed at by most (but not all) scientists. In place of the Garden of Eden, modern scientists and politicians have given us smog and smut, Hiroshima and homelessness.
The 20th century saw the triumph of secularism. Three centuries ago, all the great nations of Western Civilization were openly Christian nations. Today these same nations are openly atheistic ("secular"). God and His Law have no authority. No longer is man seen as created in the Image of God. He is just a random mutation; a meaningless conglomeration of chemicals. Social customs -- even the once-scientific understanding that human beings are "male" and "female" -- are also seen as meaningless and arbitrary.
"But at least we are no longer oppressed by the Bible," some will still say.
They are on the road to death.
The existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre put it well: "If I am god, then my neighbor is the devil." Research led by Prof. R.J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii has calculated that nearly 200 million human beings have been deliberately killed by "their" (secular) governments in this century alone. An equal number of human beings have been murdered by the other guy's government ("war"). A greater percentage of the human race has been murdered - by governments - than any previous century.[1]
Followers of secularism have learned their lessons. They are not afraid to kill their families, their own children, even themselves. Drugs, sex, gangs, and alcohol bring escape from a meaningless, atheistic world.
Followers of Christ may not have learned their lessons, but at least they know Who the Teacher is. True Christians take the Bible seriously. They believe its record of human history; they obey its laws. They work for the full social embodiment of Biblical Creationism as seen in the words of the Prophet Micah:
And it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the House of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains
And it will be raised above the hills
And the peoples will stream to it.
And many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD
And to the House of the God of Jacob,
That He may teach us about His ways
And that we may walk in His paths."
For from Zion will go forth the Law
Even the Word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
And He will judge between many peoples
And render decisions for mighty, distant nations.
Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks;
Nation will not lift up sword against nation
And never again will they train for war.
And each of them will sit under his
Vine and under his fig tree,
With no one to make them afraid.
For the LORD of hosts has spoken.
Though all the peoples walk
Each in the name of his god,
As for us, we will walk
In the Name of the LORD our God
forever and ever.
In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth,
and I will gather her that is driven out,
and her that I have afflicted;
And I will make her that halted a remnant,
and her that was cast far off a strong nation:
and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion
from henceforth, even for ever.
Micah 4:1-4
We can call this the "Vine & Fig Tree" vision. "The Mountain of the Lord" is a reference to the Garden of Eden: Micah's use of it here speaks of the re-creation of the world into a Garden-Temple; a future age of peace, secure property, and restored Edenic conditions.
We can also call this perspective "Patriarchy." Feminists hate the word, but anyone who would believe in a literal Garden of Eden would probably also try to convince men to become sons of the Patriarch Abraham (Galatians 3:7,29) and to organize society Patriarchally (by families) rather than politically (by conquest). This is in fact the agenda of "Vine & Fig Tree." Patria vs. Polis.
In sharp contrast to this "Vine & Fig Tree" perspective which we find in the Bible, we have the "Survival of the Fittest," embraced by Fascism, Socialism, Communism, and the nationalism, militarism, materialism, and cutthroat, State-buttressed "competition" of what is sometimes called "capitalism."
Let's be consistent. If you believe something about the Bible, then be consistent. It's the Creator of the universe speaking, or it's a joke.
Some evolutionists have been honest and consistent with their evolutionary assumptions. They adopted the evolutionary religion because they wanted to commit adultery or seize political power, and they saw the religion of Christianity as a roadblock to their ambitions.
"Vine & Fig Tree" imagery pervades the Bible. Christianity is a religion of service, not conquest. Who can seriously maintain that the Ethical World-View of Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and Jesus is the same as that of Darwin, Hitler, Marx, Mussolini, or Rockefeller?
But Jesus says if we are not for Him, we are against Him (Matthew 12:30). If we are not seeking to establish a Biblical culture, we are unwittingly working for the establishment of a totalitarian, homosexual, racist genocidal empire. We are enemies of Jesus.
Many people do not think of themselves as being enemies of Jesus just because they believe in Evolutionism. They have been told that this theory is "scientific." Doesn't Jesus want us to be "scientific"?
Before the "Enlightenment," scientists were Christian. In fact, science can be said to exist only in Biblical cultures. Isaac Newton wrote more books about the Bible than he did on physics. They believed science was possible because the creation was a product of an orderly God. The question we ask for now is, Why did scientists all of a sudden abandon Biblical Creationism and embrace the theory of evolution?
Here's the answer in a nutshell: It wasn't "the facts." When evolution swept the world, there were no "facts" to support it.[2] It was supported by a faith - a faith against God; a desire to get out from under His Law as recorded in the Bible.
Fable: In 1831 a divinity school drop-out began formulating the tenets of a bizarre new religion that, playing on the hopes and fears of the post-Christian world, and embraced by dictators and industrialists around the world, would eventually become the largest pseudo-scientific religious cult in the modern age. Without his degree in theology, and lacking a degree in any natural science, he set sail to gather anecdotes from nature to illustrate his new religion.
His timing was perfect. Men and nations were rebelling against the Christianity of the Catholics and the Reformers. A "re-birth" of Greco-Roman Caesarism - a pagan view of nature, and an elitist, stratified view of social classes - left men and women panting for some new religion that would spell freedom from responsibility under God and yet still present an aura of "scientific respectability."
At last the creed was formulated. Drawing from various ancient religions - from that of the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Emperors of Babylon and China, the philosopher-kings of Greece, and the Caesars of Rome - our seminary drop-out finally published his Confession of Faith. On November 24, 1859, the first edition was released and by sundown every single copy had been zealously purchased by devoted throngs of pre-publication converts.
Fact: The Seminary drop-out was Charles Darwin; the book was The Origin of Species; the rest is history.
Sure, we took some liberties with the story - but only in that we presented the facts in a perspective somewhat unlike the one most of us are taught in the State's schools.
It is clear (and we have demonstrated it elsewhere) that - far from being "proven" - the difficulties in Darwin's thesis were - to use Joseph Hooker's word - "appalling"; the task of finding "evidence" to "prove" the theory was, to quote Dobzhansky, "the paramount task which biologists faced in the closing decades of the 19th century."[3] It is thus also clear that the devout fervor which surrounded the publication of Darwin's work was not "scientific," but religious to the core.
Or perhaps we might say, "anti-religious." For most men of the 19th century, "religion" was just another word for "Christianity."
Granted, many who embraced Darwin rejected much in the institutional church which is itself "anti-Christian." We join the Evolutionists in opposing "the Church." But many evolutionists also self-consciously opposed the Bible. They had knowledge - perhaps a vague premonition, perhaps a studied understanding - that the Bible was utterly opposed to the kind of lawless, self-centered, materialistic lives they wanted to lead. Darwin "liberated" them. We oppose them. We reject the hidden agenda of these "Social Darwinists."
It is not our purpose to prove that all who believe in Evolution are Nazis. As we said above, many reject "Christianity" because of what is done in the name of Christ by "christians" who do not really want Micah's prophecy to come true. What is important to understand is that the great majority of those who shouted "Hosanna" to Darwin were motivated by racism, greed, class hatred, militarism, and a thirst for political power - to say nothing of their "private" (sexual) lives. The broad cultural acceptance which Darwin received[4] was generated by people who hold ideas which are diametrically opposed to the Bible's "Vine & Fig Tree" imagery, and, hopefully, to the ideals which you yourself hold. Recognizing what motivated an acceptance of Evolutionism may help you see why you should reject Fascist Evolutionism and embrace Radical Creationism.
RACISM Few people are aware that one of the reasons William Jennings Bryan opposed the teaching of Evolution in public schools was that he feared the teaching of racism. This is because few people are aware of how racist non-Christian scientists had become by 1859.[5] John S. Haller, Jr., has demonstrated that virtually all 19th-century evolutionists believed in the evolutionary superiority of the white race and the inferiority of others, especially the Negro race.[6] There may have been some evolutionists who opposed the slave trade, but they generally held - with Darwin himself - that the Negro was a backward race, doomed to become extinct in future evolutionary competition with the more favored races.
Racism is an easy justification for war. We will see this below; we can see it in the words of Darwin himself:
I could show fight [sic] on natural selection having done more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is? The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.[7]
What a pleasant thought!
OK; so racism is no longer as trendy as it was a hundred years ago.[8]
Still, ostensibly non-racist Bible-bashers continue telling us that "Evolution was immediately accepted by scientists of the day as true" and that we too should reject Biblical Patriarchy and bow before the shrine of Darwin. But if scientists had not been motivated by racism, Evolutionism might not have been so unanimously acclaimed.
What else motivated the "universal acceptance of Evolution"?
ANTI-FAMILIAL SEX In the Bible, the Family is the central unit of social organization. The discipline and self-sacrifice required by Biblical Laws governing the Family produces competence, social energy, and an ability to deal with frustrations without resorting to violence.[9]
In stark contrast to this view of life, marriage, and the sexes, is a view which legitimizes and even extols the idea of immediate sexual gratification, using anyone[10] of either sex[11] to achieve desired pleasures. Prostitution, homosexuality, promiscuity, pedophilia, and incest are not forbidden in the modern world. And in a world which is evolving toward the unknown, empowered by the unthinking, there is no basis for forbidding anything. "All is permitted," as Dostoyevsky observed.
The Marquis de Sade declared that if sexual gratification could be obtained either by dominating and torturing another, or by being so abused, then it is good to do so. His writings preceded Darwin's by 50 years, but many who embraced Darwin found therein a "scientific" justification for sadism, masochism, and other forms of deviance from Christian Family forms. As Darwin noted,
A man who has no assured and no present belief in the existence of a personal God or a future existence with retribution and rewards, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.
What seemed best to the Marquis de Sade was power over others. Whips and chains excite some; still others, perhaps in a graphic and ritual display of the "truth" of Evolutionism, gain sexual gratification through intercourse with animals. As we move from Anti-Family Sex to a third motivation for rejecting the Bible and embracing Evolutionism, ask yourself the question, "What would my life be like if those practicing these kinds of 'alternative life styles' were to gain political power over me and my Family?" "What will the next generation act like if these people write their school text-books?"[12]
FASCISM The desire for sexual "liberation" and the quest for God-like power over others are admitted to be the prime motivations for belief in the non-Christian religion of Meaningless Cosmic Evolutionism. Aldous Huxley, grandson of "Darwin's bulldog," Sir Thomas Huxley, has frankly confessed,
I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. . . . For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.
Gertrude Himmelfarb, observing what we saw above under "Racism," has noted that
From the "preservation of favored races in the struggle for life," it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes, or nations - and from their preservation to their glorification. Social Darwinism has often been understood in this sense: as a philosophy exalting competition, power, and violence over convention, ethics, and religion. Thus it has become a portmanteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race.
Recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf, are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here. And it is by an obvious process of analogy and deduction that they are said to derive from Darwinism. Nietzsche predicted that this would be the consequence if the Darwinian theory gained general acceptance:
If the doctrines of sovereign Becoming, of the liquidity of all . . . species, of the lack of any cardinal distinction between man and animal - doctrines which I consider true but deadly - are hurled into the people for another generation . . . then nobody should be surprised when . . . brotherhoods with the aim of robbery and exploitation of the non-brothers . . . will appear on the arena of the future.
Himmelfarb is right in saying that such conclusions are arrived at by "an obvious process of analogy and deduction." In her lifetime it may have been true that the connections between Evolutionism and totalitarianism are "too familiar to require exposition here." They are not familiar in 2025.
The connections are suppressed.
The self-centered "ME-generation" of the late 20th century is utterly disconnected from the ideological movements of the early 20th century. The State's schools have sent Secular Humanism's voluminous failures[13] down the Orwellian "Memory Hole."
Volume after volume has poured from the publishing houses describing every phase of the Hitler regime, but their writers are so timidly afraid of being classed as anti-evolutionary "fundamentalists" by the high-priests of Evolutionism that one may search through their books by the hundreds and scarcely find a mention of evolution or Charles Darwin.
Nevertheless, the rise of war and fascism in the 20th century is inescapably attributable to the rise of Evolutionism; and the rise of Evolutionism is attributable to the propaganda machines of the Emperors who loved the Theory of Evolution precisely because it was useful in justifying their total war against Eden.
But then, perhaps the connections are familiar enough: Richard Hofstadter's book, Social Darwinism and American Thought,[14] records the great chorus of voices which united in praising the word of Darwin for the light it bestows on how nations, businesses, and relations between economic classes should be governed. Wallbank and Taylor's text, Civilization Past and Present,[15] evidences their conclusion that Darwin's theory of the "survival of the fittest" "became a vogue that swept western thought in the late nineteenth century. It . . . became a convenient doctrine for justifying various economic and political theories." Nietzsche, for example,
ridiculed democracy and socialism for protecting the worthless and weak and hindering the strong. Social Darwinism and the antidemocratic cult of naked power, as preached by advocates like Nietzsche, were laying the foundations of fascism, which would one day plunge the world into the most terrible convulsion in its history.
Ashley Montagu comments on an inflammatory book by Freiderich von Bernhardi, Germany and the Next War:
"War," declared Bernhardi, "is a biological necessity;" it "is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of Nature;" it "gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things." "The whole idea of arbitration represents a presumptuous encroachment on the natural laws of development," for "what is right is decided by the arbitration of war." In proof thereof such notions of Darwin's as "The Struggle for Existence," "Natural Selection," and the "Survival of the Fittest" are invoked with sententiousness quite military both in logic and in sense. According to Bernhardi, it is plainly evident to anyone who makes a study of plant and animal life that "war is a universal law of nature." This declaration and fortification of Germany's will to war - for it had the highest official sanction and approval - was published in 1911. Three years later the greatest holocaust the world had ever known was launched. . . .
Mussolini was strengthened in his belief that violence was basic to social transformation by the philosophy of Nietzsche. Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by Evolutionism. In public utterances he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace: it would only hinder the evolutionary process.
Likewise Hitler based his politics on Darwin. Jews must be segregated, he urged in Mein Kampf, to avoid mixed marriages; were they to occur, all nature's efforts "to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile."
Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist, writing just after World War II, observed,
The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. . . .
To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. . . . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood. . . . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.
If Marx was not "converted" by the preaching of Darwin, he was certainly "sanctified" by it. Jacques Barzun[16] notes that
In an age of social Darwinism, the combination of the ideas of struggle, of historical evolution, and of progress proved irresistible. The Marxists became merely a sect in the larger church . . . .
Marx wished to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin, but Darwin declined the offer, thinking it would have an adverse effect on the popularity of his own books.
He had little to worry about. While Modernism was sweeping the Bible under the rug, Evolutionism literally swept the globe. And its chief propagandists were Hitler, Mussolini, and their totalitarian ilk, who, early in their "careers," were well-respected by the United States aristocracy because they were "scientific" social reformers who defended "law and order."[17] Nazism may have been (temporarily) forced underground, but the anti-Christian world-and-life-view it so successfully propagated remains the centerpiece of the Dominant Culture.[18] The Christian Patriarch can have no part in it.[19]
"CAPITALISM" Social Darwinism in Economics is perhaps more familiar to some. Wrongly called "laissez-faire capitalism," it actually means using the State to put your competitors out of business; ethics must not stand in the way of the "Survival of the Fittest."
The railroad magnate James J. Hill, manipulating to get more railways under his control, said that "the fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of the survival of the fittest." (To his credit, Hill did not rely on government subsidies to build his rail empire.)
Andrew Carnegie, who made his fortune in the State-protected steel industry, describes his conversion to Evolutionism upon reading Darwin and Herbert Spencer:
I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution.
John D. Rockefeller, who, like so many, attempted to seduce Christians into Evolutionist harlotry, propagated his religion in Christian Sunday School classes. His "testimony" was inspiring:
The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest. . . . This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.
Needless to say, the "God" of John D. Rockefeller and Adolph Hitler is not the God of Micah and Jesus.
But these are the roots of corporate fascism in America.
They are also the roots of Racism
. . . and we are now seeing the fruit of this deadly tree.
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the highest of Evolutionism's high priests, who ministered in the parish of Harvard University, has pontificated that Darwin
finally and definitely established evolution as a fact, no longer a speculation or an alternative hypothesis for scientific investigation.
This is a lie. Many other evolutionists have admitted that Darwin did no such thing.
If we are "normal" or "average" Americans, then we have been taught this lie. We are continually bombarded with lies about Man as god and the State as Savior. And we believe these lies. Only if we are radical creationists are we cleansing our minds of lies and becoming effective in standing against the violence, fascism, and racism of the Modern World. We are surrounded by the dead and dying, victims of Darwin and the Secular Humanists, and yet we think that we will not be touched and that God will not hold us accountable.
And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2 Thessalonians 2:12
Cosmic meaninglessness is a lie.
Political totalitarianism is a lie.
Sexual "freedom" is a lie.
War is a lie.
"The Truth shall make you free."
We have noted the shift from "natural selection" to "political selection." But most politicians are sock-puppets and empty-headed bumps on logs. Instead of speaking of "political selection" we might speak of "Gatesian Selection" or "Sorosian Selection," because non-political figures like Bill Gates and George Soros exercise disproportionate power over ordinary politicians in deciding who will live and who will die -- far more power than is wielded by an "elected representative" who represents a typical congressional district of 700,000 people, and was elected by one-tenth that number.
Secular Humanists have deliberately killed an average of 10,000 or more people per day during the 20th century. Nearly half a billion people have been murdered by non-Christian governments in the 20th century. This number does not count the number of people who aren't allowed to see their first birthday. In America 4,000 pre-born people are killed every day, with possibly double that number in China and the "former" Soviet Union — each. Adding these murders, and the total approaches 10,000 murders per hour.[1]
But because Americans are so "heavenly-minded they are of no earthly good," Secular Humanists have decided to up the ante. They now are discussing possibilities for eliminating an additional fifteen thousand people per hour.
Here are the details from The New American magazine :
Cousteau the "Humanitarian"Item: In its front-page article on the passing of famed French oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, the June 26th [1997] New York Times stated that the "outspoken Mr. Cousteau was often at odds with other leaders of the environment movement. He not only lent a sympathetic ear to technological fixes for pollution problems, but he also refused to put the interests of animals above those of people. 'I'm not an ecologist for the animals,' he often said, 'I'm an ecologist for the people.'" Correction: Cousteau put the interests of people so high that he concluded many needed to be eliminated so that others could survive. In an interview appearing in the November 1991 UNESCO Courier, Cousteau bared his humanitarianism and his anxiety toward certain "technological fixes":
Cousteau, you see, viewed overpopulation as the greatest problem facing humanity. But even the fates of those fortunate enough to continue living on our crowded planet would be shaped by coercive utopians like Cousteau. In the 1980s, in order to prevent nuclear war, Cousteau proposed "the compulsory exchange of children at a relatively low age, 7 to 8 or 8 to 9" to live for one year in the enemy country. "I don't see how a nation could press the button . . . when they know that 3 million of their children are over there. I mean, the mothers would not tolerate that," he reasoned to the June 13, 1985 Los Angeles Times. What could be more humanitarian than that? THE NEW AMERICAN - Vol. 13, No. 16 — Copyright 1997, American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated |
Search: Bill Gates + pandemic + genocide
When the United Nations and other Secular Humanist organizations decide who will live and who has "the right to die," will you be the one whose "rights" are "protected?"
More comments on the UNESCO article.
Comments on "Cousteau the humanitarian eco-saint": 20,000 lies under the sea - The Fishy World of Jacques Cousteau The (London) Independent
Elite Depopulation Agenda Gains Ground
"Meeting Doctor Doom" - The Citizen Scientist
Democide:
The Secular State is the Killer State.Evolution and Secularism mean genocide
Another human hater: Finland's Pentti Linkola
"By sacrificing perhaps billions [we] might possibly save a million," he remarks.
As
one who believes another world war would be a "happy occasion for the planet," Linkola likens the current global situation to a sinking ship with only one remaining lifeboat. "Those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot." while
"those who love and respect life will take the ship’s ax and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat," he declares.
To chop the metaphorical hands from the gunwales, this outspoken opponent of Amnesty International and the Vatican advises an end
to third-world aid, the introduction of mandatory abortions, and the creation of a totalitarian state with strict environmental laws enforced by a ruthless "green police."
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
"May we live long and die out," is the rallying cry for this Oregon-based environmental faction dedicated to bringing the human experiment to an abrupt halt. However, unlike Linkola, these
"deep" ecologists suggest non-coercive means to eliminate our toxic presence from the planet.
The Antidote to Environmentalist Toxins: Vine & Fig Tree's "Global Warming is Cool!" Page. [2002]
A survey of several important recent books
According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), 50 million abortions are performed around the world every year. That's an average of 136,986.3 abortions every single day. That's 5707.7 pre-born children killed per hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Summary
- The State of World Population 2000
Jesus came to bring the "salvation" described by the Old Testament prophets, which preeminently meant a decentralized spread of peace and wholeness across the globe, free of secular militarism and Humanistic empires. God's will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. The Prophet Micah said people would one day put God's Law into practice, beat their swords into plowshares, and be free from the despotic genocidal tendencies of would-be gods, sitting peacefully under their "Vine & Fig Tree." Don't wait for heaven; The end of evolutionism is NOW! Check out
The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto
For Further Reading . . .
Off-site:
(1)
Death by Government, published by Rutgers University in 1995. The figure does not include murder by non-governmental agents. In the United States alone, over 30 million children have been murdered by their parents since 1973. The rates in China are higher. The average Russian woman has had nine abortions. [Back to Text](2) Even secularists admit this. Prof. Philip Johnson of the Law School at Berkeley argues that if the facts are put on trial (and the jury is not from Los Angeles!) Darwin would be convicted. See his book, Darwin on Trial, 1985. Or judge for yourself. Read just one Creationist book. Scientific Creationism is a good start. The facts simply do not support the anti-Biblical position. [Back to Text]
(3) Hooker was a famous scientist who lived in Darwin's day. Dobzhansky was a modern scientist, widely acknowledged as one of the leading defenders of Evolutionism. [Back to Text]
(4) and still maintains: "What? You believe in Genesis?! Everybody knows that Evolution is a scientific fact!!" [Back to Text]
(5) In the middle ages, scientists were Christians. Isaac Newton wrote more books about the Bible than he did about physics. But after the "Renaissance" (the re-birth of paganism among philosophers) and the "Enlightenment" (the acceptance of paganism by politicians), Christian influence declined. [Back to Text]
(6) Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971. [Back to Text]
(7) Have we forgotten the full title of Darwin's book [of course we have]: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Memory is so convenient. A diploma is bliss. [Back to Text]
(8) Or so we are led to believe by politicians who claim to solve social problems by their magic legislative wands. [Back to Text]
(9) J.D. Unwin, "Monogamy as a Condition of Social Energy," The Hibbert Journal, XXV:663-77; George Gilder, Sexual Suicide, NY: Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co., 1973. [Back to Text]
(10) or any thing, depending on how you classify animals. [Back to Text]
(11) of any age [Back to Text]
(12) Yes, ask this question quickly, for the next generation is already buying their guns. [Back to Text]
(13) Two World Wars head the list. [Back to Text]
(14) Boston: Beacon Press, 1955. [Back to Text]
(15) Scott, Foresman and Co., 1961. [Back to Text]
(16) Darwin, Marx, Wagner, Doubleday, 1958. [Back to Text]
(17) Catholics and Mormons have their theological differences, but they will work together against abortion. American "capitalists" and German "socialists" had their differences, but they could work together against the Authority of the Bible and for a "modern," "scientific" world. At the end of World War II, thousands of Nazi scientists were given false identities and brought into the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex. (Christopher Simpson, Blowback, 1987.) America has been characterized by a fascist economy fueled by a Darwinian ideology. As our ideology become sheer nihilism, it remains to be seen how our fascist state will evolve. [Back to Text]
(18) While Feminists bow before the altar of "Freedom from Biblical Patriarchy," Nazis hide behind it, snickering at these "weaker vessels." [Back to Text]
(19) Members of "mainstream" Christian denominations are bugged by the occasional presence of teams of Mormon missionaries at their door; at the turn of the century, missionaries for the religion of Evolution were in your face like pollen. Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted by most governments, barely tolerated by the rest; Darwin's witnesses are accredited and funded, because their doctrines buttress the power of the State. But perhaps a military metaphor is more appropriate than a religious one: these are soldiers, spies, and agents of disinformation. We cannot serve two captains (Matthew 6:24; Hebrews 2:10). [Back to Text]
For almost five decades I have been fascinated with the origins of ideas, particularly ideologies and cosmologies, both religious and secular. It is a theme I have elaborated upon numerous times at LRC:
And while I have had numerous guides in my quest through this linguistic labyrinth, perhaps the most insightful has been Murray N. Rothbard.
In the last decades of Rothbard’s life, he developed an important interpretative framework in understanding American history. This was prodded on by his careful study of the emerging “new political history” which was reinterpreting the dynamics of the ebb and flow of ethnocultural and ethnoreligious groups. This bold synthesis became the central focus of some of his greatest scholarly endeavors, particularly when it came to understanding progressivism as a secularized version of this postmillennial religious zeal.
In his brilliant book, The Progressive Era, (which I believe to be his greatest work) Rothbard provided the Rosetta Stone to understanding the origins of the welfare state in America: the role of postmillennial Protestant pietistic intellectuals and activists born in the crucial decade surrounding the Civil War who, because of the seductive allure and influence of the evolutionary naturalism of Darwinism, came of age increasingly secularized, but who did not forsake their faith in statism and elitist social control.
Interested LRC readers should further delve into the excellent authoritative text, Gnostic America: A Reading of Contemporary American Culture & Religion according to Christianity’s Oldest Heresy, by Peter M. Burfeind. The subject of gnosticism is one of the most important and impactful areas of study in world history, with tremendous consequences both ancient and modern few non-initiates can fathom. It has fascinated a wide range of dedicated scholars with which LRC readers are familiar such as:
My parents were "theistic evolutionists." They taught me to believe that scientists had "proven" that life on earth evolved over billions of years. But, they added, "God did it."
Then in high school I learned that evolutionists did not want God in the picture. They wanted us to believe that Mother Nature did it. And "Mother" is, like "Our Father who art in heaven," too personal. Evolutionists wanted the cold, impersonal, meaningless forces of physics and chemistry to have done it. With God out of the picture, it would be easier to rape and steal without a nagging conscience.
|
"Theistic evolution" is a contradiction in terms. "Evolution" was invented to get rid of God entirely. Gary North writes:
Believers in Darwinism in the United States have a major problem. Almost nobody thinks they are correct.
In 1982, a total of 9% of the people surveyed by the Gallup organization said that they believed that man evolved over millions of years, and that God had nothing to do with the process. This is straight Darwinism. It is the theory of evolution through natural selection. In 2012, 15% of those surveyed said they held to this view. In other words, 153 years after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, the Darwinists have failed to persuade 85% of the American population of the truth of their position.
This is the case, despite the fact that Darwinists have by law captured all of the public schools, the vast majority of the universities, and most of the media, which includes captured Hollywood, the news networks, the publishing industry, and cable television. This has been the most concerted effort in government-financed, government-regulated propaganda in the history of the United States, and it has come a cropper. The overwhelming majority of Americans think that the theory is nonsense.
Darwinists do not rejoice when somebody says that he believes in evolution, but an evolutionary process guided by God. This idea is anathema to the Darwinists. Darwin took his stand against exactly this position. In his day, intellectuals believed in an old earth. They believed in God-directed evolution. God imposes order on the universe, they argued. Darwin's idea of evolution through natural selection was the answer to this view. This is why the Darwinists are passionate in their rejection of the ideas promoted by a movement that calls itself "intelligent design." Darwinists reject intelligent design as being as unscientific as the six-day creation movement.
The main point of Darwinism is not the idea of evolution. That idea long preceded Darwinism. It goes back to classical Greece. The main point of Darwinism is to promote the idea of purposeless life prior to the advent of man. It promotes the idea that all life came out of a purposeless universe, and until the advent of man, there was no purpose in the universe.
The main motivation of Darwinists has always been to elevate man as a replacement of God. What God is not allowed to do, namely, shape history, including cosmic history, in terms of His purposes, man is now said to be able to do, and therefore he has a responsibility to do it. It is the elevation of man as the new God that is the essence of Darwinism, not the doctrine of evolution. This is why Darwinism is a religion.
Darwinism, Badges, and Guns
"No purpose" means "no morality."
Notice that little phrase, "by law." If a public school teacher teaches children what my parents taught me -- that "God did it" -- that teacher could lose her job. It is illegal to teach "theistic evolution" or "intelligent design" in government-controlled schools. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools cannot even present "both sides" and give atheism and theism "equal time."
Controlling Federal Court decisions even prohibit teaching a semi-secular concept of "intelligent design" in government-controlled schools. Not "God." Certainly not "Our Father." Just "Intelligence." Maybe with a capital "I."
The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover | American Civil Liberties Union
"Straight Darwinism" -- atheistic evolution -- is the only legal option in the once-Christian United States. Theistic evolution must be censored. Children must be shielded from this dangerous religious cult.
And yet most parents -- "insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists" -- defy the law and believe it anyway.
Evolutionists and secularists often claim that America's Founding Fathers and the authors of the U.S. Constitution were "deists." But today's thought-police say that teaching "deism" is "unconstitutional."
(Headline correction: As far as I know, I'm the only self-conscious "anarcho-creationist" on planet earth.)
Bryan Derangement Syndrome
This website was originally created by Gary North -- or at least it's advertised in The Road to Dayton, his booklet on the Scopes Trial:
No archive of North's website is available before 2025.
This website is now administered by Vine & Fig Tree. Our agenda runs counter to Gary North's, but not by much. We advocate 100% pure laissez-faire capitalism
The “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview is seen in Micah 4:1-7, where we beat our "swords into plowshares." "learn war no more," and everyone enjoys peace under his own "vine and fig tree."
"Learn war no more" means abolishing West Point and Annapolis.
"Swords into plowshares" means cutting the "defense" budget by 100%.
Our position may be described as "anarcho-pacifism."
Gary North was not an "anarchist," but insisted that human beings needed a "civil government," even though North advocated abolishing some 99.99% of the existing government. According to Martin Selbrede of the Chalcedon Foundation, North's father-in-law believed that the entire budget permitted by Biblical Law for all levels of government in the United States -- federal, state, and local combined -- was about $500 million. That's million with an "M," not billion with a "B." That puts Rushdoony and North on the farthest fringe of non-anarchist conservatism. It is only a peculiar commitment to a doctrinal position that keeps Rushdoony and North from embracing the position Murray N. Rothbard called "anarcho-capitalism." Rushdoony said that Biblical Theocracy was the closest humanity would ever get to Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism (which Rushdoony called "radical libertarianism").
The hidden agenda of this website is now to advocate for anarcho-pacifism. The Scopes Trial is just getting our foot in the door. Although six-day creationism is assumed by this website, converting you to that position is not the goal. The goal is simply to get you thinking outside the box.
Were there any notable atheists in the 16th century?
Yes, there were notable figures in the 16th century who expressed skepticism toward religion or were accused of atheism, though outright atheism (as defined today) was rare due to the severe consequences of such beliefs. Some key figures include:
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) – Though not an explicit atheist, his political writings (The Prince) were seen as amoral and secular, leading some to accuse him of irreligion.
Giordano Bruno (1548–1600) – A philosopher and former Dominican friar who rejected core Christian doctrines (e.g., the Trinity, transubstantiation) and embraced pantheism. He was burned at the stake for heresy.
Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) – His Essays displayed deep skepticism toward dogma, though he remained nominally Catholic.
Christopher Marlowe (1564–1593) – The playwright was accused of atheism (e.g., claiming “the first beginning of Religion was only to keep men in awe”). He died violently under suspicious circumstances.
Most skeptics framed doubts in terms of heterodoxy rather than outright atheism due to persecution. The term “atheist” was often used as a smear against freethinkers.
How about the 15th century?
In the 15th century, explicit atheism was virtually nonexistent due to the overwhelming dominance of the Church and the severe punishments for heresy. However, there were individuals who expressed skepticism or were accused of irreligion:
Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) – A humanist scholar who used textual criticism to expose the Donation of Constantine as a forgery, undermining papal authority. While not an atheist, his methods challenged religious dogma.
Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta (1417–1468) – A condottiero and ruler of Rimini, he was posthumously excommunicated and condemned as a “pagan” for his patronage of classical (rather than Christian) art and alleged mockery of the Church.
Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) – Though a devout Neoplatonist, his syncretic blending of pagan philosophy with Christianity led some to accuse him of heterodoxy.
The term “atheist” was rarely used accurately in this period; most accusations stemmed from political or personal vendettas. True philosophical atheism would not emerge until later centuries.
asdf
