Evolution as Evil Illusion: How Darwinism Destroys Human Dignity with Illogic

With dispassionate nonchalance, Darwinists continue to describe us as glorified apes, and justify every vice. The consequences are not only disastrous, but illogical.

Teach children and young people they are evolved apes, and they will act like them. Doesn’t that seem intuitively obvious? Even if one believes it to be true, it would seem good policy to avoid saying it just for the societal consequences involved. But there’s an underlying fallacy to the belief: logically, it brings Darwin’s House of Cards crashing down. We begin by showing some of the things evolutionists have been saying recently about human origins and behavior.

Go ahead; swear like a chimpanzee. There are no taboos in Darwinism, because anything goes. Should we teach this to young people? Without shock, outrage or shame, National Geographic calmly endorses swearing openly in an article, “Science Says Swearing Is Good For You.” Notice that it doesn’t say evolution says, or Darwin thought, or leftist materialism says this. It says “Science Says” swearing is good for you. And why is it good for you? Because apes do it. Just ask an evolutionary expert who wrote a book about the ‘science’ of bad language:

Swearing is usually regarded as simply lazy language or an abusive lapse in civility. But as Emma Byrne shows in her book, Swearing Is Good for You: The Amazing Science of Bad Language, new research reveals that profanity has many positive virtues, from promoting trust and teamwork in the office to increasing our tolerance to pain.

When National Geographic caught up with Byrne at her home in London, she explained why humans aren’t the only primates that can curse and why, though women are swearing more today than before, it is still regarded by many as “unfeminine.”

Needless to say, human swearing often blasphemes the names of God and Jesus Christ. Byrne thinks nothing of that, comparing it to dung signalling in chimps that indicates ‘dirty’.

Go ahead, cheat on your spouse, because jealousy evolved. The breakup of the family, spousal abuse, sexual harassment and unfaithfulness are some of the biggest problems facing society today. Well, here come the Darwinists to pour fuel on the fire. In “What the evolution of jealousy tells us about online infidelity” on The Conversation, Michael Dunn not only justifies it, but glorifies it, all on the basis of evolution:

But is jealousy such a bad thing? Psychology professor David Buss compellingly argued that jealousy is a crucial emotion which evolved to help protect against relationship termination. According to Buss, jealousy motivates behaviour to either ensure sexual exclusivity, or to protect offspring against the loss of vital requirements, such as food, and against inclement weather and predators. These would have been critical prerequisites for the survival of our children during our evolutionary past.

He calls jealousy “the green eyed monster” in the end, but no amount of backtracking can undo what he said. Readers might actually feel more prone to be unfaithful and cheat, if evolution invented jealousy for good.

Image credit: Illustra Media

Self-control is a chimpy thing. To have self-control, one must first have a sense of self. Two Darwin Party hacks at Georgia State, according to Phys.org, studied experiments on chimpanzees testing the ability to delay gratification. Some chimps can “learn” to hold off for a bigger reward. That’s interesting, but the Darwin guys apply this to all animal life, making self-control merely an evolved behavior and a function of animal intelligence:

“The fact that this link between self-control and intelligence exists in species other than humans may demonstrate an evolutionary basis for the role that willpower plays in general intelligence,” said Beran, lead author of the study. “Future research could clarify whether the relationship also exists in other primates and even non-primate species.”

The Apostle Paul called self-control a fruit of the [Holy] Spirit (Galatians 5:22). That indicates something exceptional about the human ability (and need) to control impulses by acts of the will. It also indicates that humans need divine help to bear that kind of good fruit. Darwinians obliterate the distinction between human choice and the behavior of a chimpanzee learning to choose two marshmallows instead of one. This reduces self-control to nothing more than a form of moderated self-gratification that evolved in ape brains long, long ago.

Climate change made you what you are. Evolutionary shamans at Columbia University weave a tale of how our ape-like ancestors came out of the trees due to climate change, making us what we are today. They call it “The path to our evolution” at Phys.org. No one dares call this a stupid idea, because Darwinism is sacrosanct to the ‘intelligentsia’ of our culture: the scientists, who alone have the right to explain where we came from. In order to put up an appearance of science, every Darwin Party shaman needs to present some relics. These two used mammal teeth in Africa as divination tools. “The study gives substantial evidence that many human characteristics—such as free-ranging diets, large brains, and running on two legs—emerged due to the spread of open grasslands, which was influenced by climate change.”

Modern racist phrenology. If you thought phrenology and skull measurements to determine which races were superior went out of style at the turn of the 20th century, look at Mark Aldenderfer’s article in Science Magazine, America’s premiere science journal. In “Shaping of human brains and behavior,” he preaches that the mere shape of skulls led to what we are.

Although brain size at 300,000 years ago falls within the range of that of modern humans, more globular brains only emerged around 40,000 years ago. Combined with evidence from ancient DNA that indicates the fixing of genes critical to early brain development at the origin of the H. sapiens lineage, these findings support models of a more gradual appearance of behavioral modernity.

Dr Bergman’s book explains the rise of eugenics from Britain to America to Nazi Germany

What does this imply about the humans with less globular brains? Even if they had just as much brain matter, they just were out of it, dude. They weren’t “in” like white Europeans. For a truly disturbing account of the history of Darwinian racism all the way up to the present, including the racist views of David Duke, who turned from religion to Darwinian evolution based on what leading scientists said about differing intelligence in the so-called races, read Jerry Bergman’s well-documented and jarring book, The Darwin Effect.

Another recent book, Contested Bones by Rupe and Sanford, debunks the notion that skull shape or brain capacity have anything to do with intelligence or race. The capacity for fitting normal human intelligence and behavior into skulls of different shapes and sizes can be seen in many modern examples. According to Scientific American, the great French writer Anatole France had a brain capacity only 2/3 normal—right in the midrange for so-called ‘Homo erectus‘ (a hodgepodge grouping if there ever was one, as Rupe and Sanford document). Miniature humans can be just as smart as giants, despite having tiny skulls proportional to their short bodies. And some people do just fine with whole sections of their brains missing from developmental disorders or accidents. Only evolutionists are passionately consumed with linking intelligence to brain size and shape, and they’ve been doing it ever since Darwin.

Language, just another ape behavior. The habit of Darwinians to claim that language evolved by natural selection from ape gestures is old news. For a recent example, see “Speech, stone tool-making and the evolution of language” by three Darwin Party primates writing in PLoS One. Same theme, new variation:

For example, gestural language may have evolved to enable tool-making in earlier hominins, while speech may have later emerged as a response to increased trade and more complex inter- and intra-group interactions in Middle Pleistocene ancestors of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens; or gesture and speech may have evolved in parallel rather than in sequence.

This gesture may be a carry-over from the old ape sign language, ‘On the one hand this, on the other hand that, and on the one foot something else.’ Notice that evolved and emerged are used as synonyms in the storytelling game.

IQ Test: Why This Is All Bunk

The great Christian apologist C. S. Lewis often used the “argument from reason” to pull the rug out from evolution and expose its irrationality. One of the clearest, most incontrovertible explications of this argument can be found in his essay, “The Funeral of a Great Myth” (Christian Reflections, p. 111), written around 1945. The “myth” to which he refers is scientism, the picture of reality assumed by modernists who ascribe everything to natural causes. Basically, he’s talking about evolutionists like those writing in the above articles. What Lewis said over 70 years ago is still pertinent today, because reason is still pertinent to all humans, at all times and places. Here’s Lewis:

To reach the positions held by the real scientists — which are then taken over by the Myth —you must — in fact, treat reason as an absolute. But at the same time the Myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational — if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel — how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution? They say in effect ‘I will prove that what you call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity which results from bio-chemistry which results from physics.’ But this is the same as saying: ‘I will prove that proofs are irrational’: more succinctly, ‘I will prove that there are no proofs’. The fact that some people of scientific education cannot by any effort be taught to see the difficulty, confirms one’s suspicion that we here touch a radical disease in their whole style of thought. But the man who does see it, is compelled to reject as mythical the cosmology in which most of us were brought up. That it has embedded in it many true particulars I do not doubt: but in its entirety, it simply will not do. Whatever the real universe may turn out to be, it can’t be like that.

You may now ignore everything the evolutionists said in the above articles and scientific papers about the origins of human mental powers and behaviors. The IQ Test is understanding why.

This quote by Lewis (which, by the way, demonstrates that he was an anti-Darwinist) is worth reading, re-reading, memorizing, and printing out on slips of paper to give to evolutionists and the angry atheists on Twitter and Facebook who spread their vile hatred against God and creationists. Chances are, like Lewis said, and from my own experience, they won’t ‘get’ it. No matter how many times I try to get atheists to see this fundamental flaw in their worldview, they either cannot, or will not, understand the argument. Their minds have constructed an impenetrable shell around their belief in evolution that deflects every cruise missile capable of blowing it to bits. They won’t listen to the argument or even try to understand it. Instead, they sidestep it and do what they prefer doing: shouting out a blast of hot air that responds automatically, “Evolution is a fact!” and “God didn’t do it!” Still, it’s worth a try. It has worked to soften the hardpan in some atheist brains who do see the problem, including Thomas Nagel and others. For the wise and humble, once you ‘get’ Lewis’s argument from reason, it acts like a strong vaccine to forever inoculate you against the tricks of the Darwinian Mythmakers. “Whatever the real universe may turn out to be, it can’t be like that.” And once that realization is internalized, the whole origins debate changes. One must then construct a worldview that starts with absolute reason. Atheistic evolution isn’t one of the contenders.

Exercise: Write Lewis’s argument in your own words. Make it your own that you can explain to your peers in ordinary speech. Try it on various people to see if they understand it. Evaluate the comeback arguments of evolutionists, if any, and practice your responses. Hint: if they try to use reason against you, they undermine their own belief that reason evolved, because any argument against the argument from reason is necessarily self-refuting.