June 10, 2024 | David F. Coppedge

How to Be a Sapiens, Not Just a Homo

Darwinism cheapens human life,
making us pawns of
impersonal, uncaring forces

 

The contrast between creation and evolution is at its most extreme when it comes to human nature. Instead of being intelligently designed by an all-wise Creator, evolution makes our bodies and brains into material objects resulting from genetic accidents selected by an impersonal tinkerer. Instead of having logical minds, evolution makes us pawns of genes selected for survival. Instead of having consciences accountable to a holy God, “cultural evolution” taught us to behave selfishly under the thumb of whatever group has the most power. Instead of being sinners in need of a Savior, Darwinism says we are apes with somewhat bigger brains. Instead of being offered forgiveness and hope of eternal life by our Maker, being built up as living stones into a great temple to the glory of God, we are just bricks in a wall that will crumble to dust.

Worst of all, the teachers of human evolution are purveyors of disinformation (i.e., baloney). This will become apparent by the end of this article. First, look at how evolutionists teach their fellow creatures about human nature.

Human culture is changing too fast for evolution to catch up – here’s how it may affect you (3 June 2024, The Conversation). Darwin Party psychology guru Jose Yong says we hominids are in a bind. Our brains didn’t evolve to be changing so quickly. Notice how he compares us to insects. We are like walking moths and flies.

Research is showing that many of our contemporary problems, such as the rising prevalence of mental health issues, are emerging from rapid technological advancement and modernisation. A theory that can help explain why we respond poorly to modern conditions, despite the choices, safety and other benefits they bring, is evolutionary mismatch.

Mismatch happens when an evolved adaptation, either physical or psychological, becomes misaligned with the environment. Take moths and some species of nocturnal flies, for example. Because they have to navigate in the dark, they evolved to use the moon for direction. But due to the invention of artificial lighting, many moths and flies are drawn to street lamps and indoor lights instead.

The same happens for humans. A classic example is our “sweet tooth”, which motivated ancestral humans to search for calorie-rich foods in nutritionally scarce environments. This sweet tooth becomes mismatched to the modern world when food companies mass produce foods laden with refined sugars and fat, hijacking an otherwise useful trait. The result is tooth decay, obesity and diabetes.

On he goes, eventually getting into politics and economics of a strikingly Marxist flavor. “The evolutionary mismatch perspective doesn’t suggest that we return completely to an ancestral way of life,” the self-appointed Darwin shrink teaches, but by forest bathing, community gardening and sharing our resources we can cope: “appreciating the evolutionary basis of our problems and raising awareness of the mismatch perspective may give us a better chance of tackling them at the root.”

Neuroscience can explain why voting is so often driven by emotion (7 June 2024, The Conversation). A professor of applied political science at Coventry University, Matt Qvortrup applies evolution to one of the highest values in democratic societies: the right to vote. But our brains are mismatched to our emotions, he complains. Why? We can’t help our evolutionary past.

Politics is a bare-knuckle fight, and our brains reflect that. Evolution has conditioned us to be driven by fear when we are under threat. We want to survive above all.

Professor Qvortrup writes as if he is immune from the evolutionary forces that make everybody else vote emotionally. This is a common symptom of those afflicted with a Yoda Complex.

Look at me: new study unpacks male risk-taking (7 June 2024, University of Western Australia). In Darwinism, men have no dignity. They were not created with courage, duty and strength for the glory of God in their purpose as men, even if, tragically, many men misuse their gifts due to a sinful nature in a fallen world. No; men evolved to be risk-takers. It’s their nature. It’s in their genes.

The research published in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences investigated the age-old question, of why we associate risk-taking with males rather than females, from an evolutionary standpoint.

If you start from an evolutionary standpoint, where do you think you will end? Will you end up with the dignity of an intelligently designed human being, Homo sapiens, emphasis on the sapiens (wise)? No like GIGO, it’s Darwin in, Darwin out (DIDO).

Co-author Associate Professor Cyril Grueter from UWA’s School of Human Sciences said from an evolutionary perspective, risk-taking could be seen as a means for young men to display their qualities and skills competence which could make them more attractive to women.

This explanation, with a little contemplation, reduces all human behavior to sex, which (in Darwinism) reduces to selfish genes, which reduces to mindless actions of material substances.

Interspecies competition led to even more forms of ancient human – defying evolutionary trends in vertebrates (17 April 2024, University of Cambridge).

An ape skull staring at us begins this article. “Competition between species played a major role in the rise and fall of hominins,” pronounces the writer, “and produced a ‘bizarre’ evolutionary pattern for the Homo lineage.”

Will you be surprised when the press release from Christian physicist James Clerk Maxwell‘s distinguished university finds fault with Darwinism? You shouldn’t be. Universities that were long ago taken over by the Darwin Party allow for some controversy about evolution, as long as the “evolutionary perspective” never wavers from Darwinism. Behold, the press release announces something that is

  • almost unparalleled in evolutionary science
  • the findings were ‘bizarre’
  • a complete reversal of the trend seen in almost all other vertebrates
  • has been conventionally ignored
  • is “unparalleled in evolutionary science”

Are they saying that evolution is a theory in crisis? Oh, never. It’s just that hominids evolved in patterns more like island beetles than other mammals.

Van Holstein used Bayesian modelling and phylogenetic analyses to show that, like other vertebrates, most hominin species formed when competition for resources or space were low.

“The pattern we see across many early hominins is similar to all other mammals. Speciation rates increase and then flatline, at which point extinction rates start to increase. This suggests that interspecies competition was a major evolutionary factor.”

However, when van Holstein analysed our own group, Homo, the findings were ‘bizarre’.

For the Homo lineage that led to modern humans, evolutionary patterns suggest that competition between species actually resulted in the appearance of even more new species – a complete reversal of the trend seen in almost all other vertebrates.

“The more species of Homo there were, the higher the rate of speciation. So when those niches got filled, something drove even more species to emerge. This is almost unparalleled in evolutionary science.

All this sound and fury still fits within DIDO: Darwin in, Darwin out. In a way, it’s back to old Victorian Darwinism, where some mysterious urge in creatures forces them into competition for survival and a perpetual struggle for existence.

Here’s why these Darwinians are purveyors of misinformation— if not intentionally, effectually. They don’t really mean anything they just wrote. To mean it, they would have to act like human beings created in the image of God— beings with true consciences, who know that truth exists and that it is good to tell the truth. Their language would have to represent semantics, not just a set of sounds produced by lips and tongues.

We call our species Homo sapiens (man the wise), but our human bodies and brain sizes have nothing to do with our deepest human nature: we are souls with eternity in our hearts. Evolved hominids cannot access the realms of eternal (non-evolving) truth and morality. They could not even comprehend such a thing.

This implies that the writers of these evolutionary sagas leave us two options for interpreting their explanations: (1) by writing as if truth exists, they are plagiarists of Biblical worldview assumptions, or (2) they are material apes vocalizing grunts that have no meaning. When writing their views, they may have been hitting keys on a keyboard, but

    • Jose Yong was just trying to get a sweet snack to respond to urges from his selfish genes.
    • Matt Qvortrup was just displaying a conditioned response for survival.
    • Cyril Grueter was just trying to impress another female hominid.
    • Laura van Holstein was expressing surprise because her libido made her do that.

How do we know this is the case? Because their Darwinian worldview has no access to non-evolving truth and righteous morality. Their world is a material world in a constant state of flux. Their mental sensations are illusions. Since they cannot possibly mean anything they said, therefore, we can dismiss it all, except for a few bits and pieces of data that make sense in a Biblical worldview.

We can dismiss it, that is, unless— unless they wake up from their dogmatic slumbers, see themselves as God sees them, repent, and believe the Word of their Maker, who is there and who is not silent.

The Apostle Paul, like today’s evolutionists, was on a wrong path. He believed sincerely he was doing the right thing. When the risen Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus, not only did he begin to realize how wrong he had been; he was given a new assignment by Christ himself: “delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:17-18).

 

(Visited 216 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply