The fact that science and religion are two mutually excluding concepts has been clearly illustrated, throughout the history. After Christianity became an official religion in Rome, the ancient ideals of beauty and perfection, embodied in classical Greek and Roman sculptures, yielded to midgets, hunchbacks, lunatics and impotents. The same thing happened in the intellectual domain, as well. Ancient science, which was a veritable science, in most of its notions, was replaced by so many pseudo-sciences, that their brief survey would represent an encyclopaedic task.
It was very difficult for the science to break out of Christian imprisonment – intellectuals were burned at stake for suggesting that Earth revolves around the Sun, for pointing out at logical inconsistencies, found in “good book” and even for studying human anatomy.
Even the translation of Bible from Latin into secular languages was considered to be the major sin, simply because “holy fathers” were not interested in people gaining an independent knowledge about surrounding reality, as it would eventually cause these people to recognize Christian religious dogma for what it really is – a suicidal nonsense. Therefore, it is quite explainable why Bible thumpers consider evolutionary theory, formulated by Charles Darwin; as such, that represents clear danger to the parasitic existence of Christian clergy.
Evolutionary theory explains the “intelligent design” of living organisms as the result of natural selection over millions and millions of years. The organic life on this planet was not created – it evolved out of set of non-organic elements, and it took millions and millions of years, before the most perfected product of evolution, homo sapiens, was able to realise this fact for the first time.
As Richard Dawkins in his book “The Selfish Gene” suggests: “Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: ‘Have they discovered evolution yet?’ Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin” (Dawkins, p. 3).
Once people become aware of the fact that there is no God, in traditional sense of this word, they will be less willing to open up their wallets, while being approached by the “lambs of God”, who demand monetary donations for a variety of “good causes”, such as “helping needy children of Somalia”. This is the reason why evolutionary theory and religion cannot coexist by definition, despite numerous attempts to reconcile science with religious ignorance.
Homo Sapiens is the specie in the state of continuous evolutionary transition. Therefore, within a context of evolutionary theory, religion is being viewed as simply the part of evolving humans striving to attain a higher state of consciousness. However, under no circumstances can we suggest that religions have innate subtleties – their existence simply reflects the transitional essence of humankind as intermediary link between apes and super-men.
In his book “The Descent of Man”, Charles Darwin states: “There is no evidence that man was aboriginally endowed with the ennobling belief in the existence of an Omnipotent God. On the contrary there is ample evidence, derived not from hasty travelers, but from men who have long resided with savages, that numerous races have existed, and still exist, who have no idea of one or more gods” (Darwin, 1871).
We can say – apes do not need the religion “yet”, whereas super-men do not need religion “already”. Therefore, we can refer to religion as necessary, but counter-productive element of human evolution. Science might not have answers to all questions, but the answers it has are absolutely veritable. Religion does not contain even a single answer to any question of socio-political importance. “Holy fathers” understand this fact very well, which is why it is religion that resorts to science, in order to substantiate its own dogmas, and not the other way around.
Nothing illustrates the validity of this suggestion better then the emergence of so-called “scientific creationism”, which is nothing but one among many pseudo-sciences, spawned by Christianity. Creationists strive to avoid discussing such Bible’s “pearls” as the “historical” accounts of Sun standing still, up in the sky, or donkeys talking to people. However, once they heard of theory of “big bang”, they started to talk about it as such that prove the validity of Biblical story of creation.
There are countless “experts” with diplomas of “Christian universities”, who enjoy a considerable success, while dispelling the “myth of evolution” before the audience of housewives. Their main argument can be simplified to sound as follows: living creatures appear as being intelligently designed; therefore, it is Jewish tribal God Jehovah who had created them.
In his article “Creationist Viewpoints”, John W. Klotz provides us with the insight on the level of argumentation, utilized by Bible thumpers, when it comes to defending their point of view: “What about the hand of God in the natural world? Let us turn our attention to this. God has arranged it that the plant should turn toward the sun so that its leaves may receive an adequate amount of light. I know you can explain this on the basis of feedback mechanisms.
I know that you can develop a mechanical explanation involving the synthesis of auxins, but I believe that behind this process is the hand of God” (Klotz, 1968). In other words – Christians think of extensive scientific evidence that proves the validity of evolutionary theory as irrelevant, simply because they “choose to believe”. However, while being aware that such stance can hardly win them new supporters among intelligent people, they strive to add an artificial plausibility to their “theory”, by referring to science, in cases when new scientific discoveries seem to support the “good book”.
Still, as we have mentioned earlier, it is metaphysically impossible to combine science and religion into a stable compound, because – whereas science continues to open up new horizons for people, religion’s main task is to close these horizons, by referring to them as “immoral”. For example, Bible thumpers, on one hand, and Liberal “lefties”, on the other, had effectively prevented the legalization of human cloning in America, which is why it is Australia and not this country that now leads the scientific progress, in this respect.
However, even creationists themselves are now beginning to recognize the futile essence of their attempts to legitimize Biblical nonsense. In his article “Creation: The Only Reasonable Explanation of Natural Phenomena”, Hewitt Tier states that: “Theistic Evolutionists imagine that the evidences of evolution are overwhelming. This is partly due to ignorance concerning natural phenomena; partly due to their inability to meet the scientist on his own ground; and, we must add, not less to the profundity of the many questions involved, some of which a lifetime of study could not solve. In truth, difficulties multiply as efforts are made to reconcile the Judeo-Christian revelation with the Theory of Evolution” (Tier, 1970).
The reason we focused on the discussion of Christianity’s relation to science is that the adherents of other religions do not even try to incorporate scientific notions into the core of their beliefs. For example, the majority of Arabs still live by the “word of Allah”, without even attempting to adjust Koran to modern realities, unlike White people, who have been continuously trying to interpret Bible so that the “holy book” would make more sense in their eyes.
In its turn, this strengthens evolutionary thesis of people as specie that is being in the constant process of evolvement, during the course of which some races become “specialised”, without being able to progress further, just as it often happens in animal kingdom. For example, trilobites had stopped evolving 250 millions years ago, even though that they can still be found in ocean’s depths. Their specie represents the “dead end of evolution”. For scientists, it is only natural to draw a parallel between trilobites and
Australian aboregenees, for example, or even Chinese, who have been living for thousands of years in the same existential mode and continue to do so even now – with Communist ideology simply corresponding to Chinese psyche as people who “got stuck in time”. Christian “scientists”, of course, cannot do that, because Jesus used to promote the principle of “universal equality”, just as Karl Marx. We all know what happened as a result – the rivers of blood spilled by Christians and by Communists in the name of “love” and “brotherhood”.
What Christians cannot forgive evolutionary theorists is the fact that they view the representatives of advanced sub-specie of homo sapiens as people on the way of becoming semi-Gods and that their view of the process of evolution is actually more “theistic” then Christians’ own blabbering about the “kingdom of heaven”. The never-ending process of living organisms becoming increasingly complex is nothing but nature’s way of dealing with the spread of energetic entropy, which might lead to the eventual “energetic death” of universe, if left unopposed: “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved” (Darwin, 1872). Therefore, the most fundamental Christian principle of “equality” is nothing but euphemism for death, because equality implies the absence of flow of energy.
This is why it is the “intolerant” science that benefits humanity and not the “religion of peace”, which served as the single factor that prompted Europeans to indulge in bloody bacchanalia against each other, in time when Christianity was at its strongest. Christians act as agents of death and destruction, with their narrow-mindedness serving as metaphysical foundations for the emergence of degenerative political doctrines, such as Communism.
The reason why evolutionary theory is being hated by people not overburdened with intelligence, is that they lack the courage of admitting the fact that they are the subjects of natural selection, just as plants and animals. Had this theory been recognized in the way it deserves to be recognized, we would not have countless “assisted living facilities” and the hordes of “social workers” would not be allowed to take care of “people with special needs”, at the expense of taxpayers.
The reason why hysterical “lambs of God” continue to promote the concept of human life as such that has an empirical value, is because the negative effects, associated with violation of biological laws, do not become instantly apparent, as it is the case with violation of physical laws, for example. Yet, the price for violation of such laws is the same – degradation and death.
Nevertheless, we can look into the future with optimism, as the influence of Christianity continues to be undermined on ever-progressive scale. The majority of White people view it as simply the mean of attaining psychological comfort, rather then the real religion, which requires bloody sacrifices, as it used to be in time of Crusades and as it continues to be case with Islam today. Therefore, Christian Creationism can be described as such that weakens the tenets of Christian dogmas more then the outspoken critics if this religion, because by adopting a “scientific posture”, within a context of arguing for their point of view on evolution, Creationists declare their willingness to play by rules of science, thus proving the ideological inconsistency of their own beliefs.
Bibliography
Alvard, Michael “The Adaptive Nature of Culture”, 2007. Texas A&M Department of Anthropology. Web.
Ashby, William “Introduction to Cybernetics”. London: Routledge Kegan & Paul, 1964.
Barnett, Adrian “Racism and the Theory of Evolution”. 1998. Adrian Barnett’s Web Site. Web.
Cruz, Lawrence “Eugenics Yields Dark Past”. 2002. People First. Web.
Campolo, Tony “The Real Danger in Darwin is not Evolution, but Racism”. 2008. The Official Richard Dawkins Website. Web.
Darwin, Charles “The Descent of Man”. 1871. Internet Infidels. Web.
Darwin, Charles “On the Origins of Species”. 1872. Internet Infidels. Web.
Dawkins, Richard “The Selfish Gene”. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.
Menton, David “Making Monkeys out of Man”. 2000. Answers in Genesis. Web.
Morris, Henry “Evolution and Modern Racism”. 2008. Institute for Creation Research. Web.
Klotz, John “Creationist Viewpoints”. 1968. Creationism.Org. Web.
Lovejoy, Owen “The Origin of Man” 1981. Science, 211, 341-350.
Reich, Robert “Of Darwinism and Social Darwinism”. 2005. Common Dreams News Centre. Web.
O’Brien, James “Human Cloning in Australia”. 2001. ABC New South Wales. Web.
Leslie, Jones “Social Darwinism Revisited”. 1998. Bnet Business Network. Web.
Spencer, Lee “Apes, Apemen and Men”. 2004. Earth History Research Centre. Web.
Smith, Wesley “Politically Correct Eugenics”. 2008. Weekly Standard. Web.
Tier, Hewitt “Creation: The Only Reasonable Explanation of Natural Phenomena”. 1970. Creationism.Org. Web.
Wheeler, Peter “The Evolution of Bipedality and Loss of Functional Body Hair in Hominoids”. 1984. Journal of Human Evolution, 13, 91-98.
Weikart, Richard “Was It Immoral for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Racism?”. 2008. Centre for Science and Culture. Web.