A Confusing Debate
There is much confusion in the evolution debate, as to who and what is debating who.
Is it Science vs. Creationism?
Is it Darwinian evolution vs. intelligent design?
Is it materialism vs. spiritualism? Is it Religion vs. Science.
Is it Democracy vs. Totalitarianism?
Is it US vs. Them ?
Above Left Image: Darwin gets a haircut.
Allow me to suggest that the real underlying debate when we get right down to the nitty gritty, is an age old philosophical conflict between two ideas which started at the dawn of written history thousands of years ago.
Idols and Idol Worship is Paganism
Years ago, the prevailing cultural religion was paganism, a primitive religion involved in the worship of idols, small little wooden statures that were imbued with godlike properties. Within this environment there arose a new idea called monotheism, that the wooden idols were only wood, and that a single supreme being, a single deity, is creator of the universe, man, and all life. This idea is called monotheism.
Left image: ancient idol from the middle east courtesy of wikimedia commons
A couple of things happened next. The first thing is that monotheism made human freedom possible because it undermines the absolute rulership of the reigning monarch. If there is a monotheistic deity, also known as the Creator of the Universe, then this monotheistic deity is the valid ruler, rather than the ancient king or tribal ruler.
Monotheism
Monotheism makes human freedom possible because human rights are granted by the monotheistic deity (the creator), and humans are subservient to the creator, not the king or monarch.
Paganism, which is a primitive religion involving various forms of idolatry, makes human slavery possible, since humans have no rights other than those granted by the ruling authority, king, or monarch. The subjects in such a society are in fact ruled by the whim of the reining monarch, which in the malevolent dictatorships approximate the state of slavery.
So this brings us to the evolution debate and what to make of it. Darwinian evolution is many things to many people. For our discussion, Darwinian evolution is a cultural expression of a primitive religion called paganism and idol worship, which in modern terminology, atheism. That explains why 90% of academic biologists embracing Darwinian evolution also embrace atheism. Dawkins was quoted as saying that Darwinian evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
As such, Darwinian evolution as an expression of atheism, is also an expression of primitive religion or paganism, and represents the philosophical underpinnings of authoritarian rulership, totalitarianism and human enslavement.
Left Above image : structure of DNA discovered in 1953, image courtesy of wikimedia commons. This DNA contains the genetic code of life. Darwinian evolution cannot explain the origin of this code.
Thomas Jefferson and Human Rights
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence it is self evident that "inalienable rights are granted by the Creator" . Thus monotheism provides the basis for freedom and democracy. Jeffersonian democracy is based on our inalienable human right not to be enslaved by a monarch (at that time it was King George of England).
Left image Thomas Jefferson Courtesy of wikimedia commons.
Read Stephen Meyer's quote in a Boston Globe OPEd :
Moreover, because the evidence of “Nature’s God’’ was publicly accessible to all and did not depend upon a special appeal to religious authority, Jefferson believed that it provided a basis in reason for the protection of individual liberty. Thus, the Declaration of Independence asserted that humans are “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.’’
Modern day 20th century examples of totalitarian government abound. As the world drifts towards a new world order, and a global totalitarian government, this trend towards atheism and paganism, and away from monotheism will continue. Religious persecution and abolition of the practice of monotheistic religion is the norm for totalitarian societies, and is to be expected anywhere this transformation from democracy to totalitarian government happens, as we have seen historically in many examples around the globe. Simply put, monotheism competes with totalitarian authority and cannot be tolerated.
This puts Darwinian Evolution into perspective as an expression of paganistic idolatry and atheism, and the philosophical underpinning of modern totalitarian authority. It also explains why overly heated debates go on, clearly out of proportion to the subject matter at hand. This is a political hot potato.
So, once these ideas are brought out, it becomes clear that the evolution debate, is a surrogate for a very deep seated political conflict between individual freedom and authoritarian rule, also between freedom and slavery, and finally monothesim and paganism, going back thousands of years to the beginning of human civilization.
All images courtesy of wikimedia commons.
jeffrey dach md
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Just Thinking...
Amy A
Jimmy Zuma
Jesse Mitchell
Frank Indiana
Lois Wickstrom
Salon.com
Comments
Creationism = Flat Earthism. The earth isn't flat. The earth isn't only 6600 years old.
Your path from idolism to monotheism is wrong. Ancient people has household gods because we didn't understand why things happened. Why does it rain? Why do plants grow? Why are there seasons? Why did my wife suddenly drop dead? The various gods became an outlet for answers to these questions.
As we've evolved and learned more, we've discovered the answers to these questions. As we've discovered the answers to these questions, our need for these 'gods' have disappeared. We don't need to worship the sun anymore. Every god is a response to an unanswered question. The more we discover and learn the less we need the gods we've created.
The gods that remain, do so because there are still some pretty big unanswered questions, like "why do we kill each other?" and "why do evil people prosper?" and "why am I not happy?". You can't point to a tyranny of dead words on the page and say "because the bible says so."
They are difficult questions and we don't like most of the answers so it's easier to cede our responsibility and control to a 'creator'.
Mankind created god, not the other way around.
Its hardly fair to label people who believe in creationism (or some form of it) as "flat earthers" Is there anyone still alive who thinks the earth is flat? No. lol
The deities "of old" were based on the cycles of nature and the elements. But I digress . . .
For the record, there are hundreds of texts regarding creation, not just the "bible" Collectively, there is no way every culture of the world suddenly "made up" the idea of a divine presence. JIMHO.
Have you read anything by Joseph Campbell?
The reality is far from what you suggested. Even a large number of faithful Christian ministers now accept that evolution and creationism can go hand-in-hand. Who's to say that Genesis was a literal interpretation of what actually happened "in the beginning"? Many Biblical scholars agree the early parts of Genesis are more allegorical than literal. So why can't evolution be a natural part of the "beginning"? And why can't one week, in God's eyes, last millions of years?
It seems to me that you're simply redefining words, here, to suit your purposes. It's fine to accuse atheists of "worshipping" something(s), if you can provide evidence. But any generalization is likely to fail. And whatever it is they worship, it ain't anything supernatural.
It is simply too complex a situation -- faith, political beliefs, evolution, etc. -- to say if you believe this, then you're this. A great many educated and legitimate Christians do indeed believe in evolution.
It's a spurrious connection at best, you try to make.
Freedom and justice would be preferable in a society without a creator. It makes sense to be a good person.
These terms you use: authoritarian, rulership, totalitarianism and human enslavement. These terms remind me of things advocated in the bible, not in the science books.
It was made pretty clear on another blog that your understanding of atheism is so totally off the mark as to not even be relevant.
I take it you're not familiar with the concept of The Divine Right of Kings®. Based in the Old Testament and the New, it was discarded less than three hundred years ago. Jefferson's concept of unalienable human rights was a radical break with the traditions of the past, in which the church considered the right of the monarch to rule to derive directly from the will of god, and subject to no earthly authority.
>
There was no conflict between monotheism and absolute monarchy for three thousand years, from Saul up to the French Revolution. Far from being antagonistic, authoritarian monarchy and monotheism had a very cozy relationship until quite recently in human history. The DRoK held that although god was supreme, *only* god had the right to remove the Ruler. A very cozy relationship indeed, enriching both the monarch and the church.
By your logic, then I guess I worship dogs. I still don't quite see how that is " some material thing that drives them that represents a form of idol worship." I think you'd like to believe that it's not possible for us to worship nothing and coexist peacefully with the world. That's your baggage then.
Also, I wish you'd drop the line about "National Idol" as well. I saw where you wrote the same thing as a comment to Michelle's post on misconceptions about atheists. 1) It's American Idol, not National Idol. Even though I don't watch it, I do know the name of the show. 2) I will bet you anything that the vast majority of people who watch that show self-identify as belonging to some religion or another. 3) Although I don't agree with you, I feel that you present a very cohesive and well written argument. That statement is gimmicky and disingenuous. While you may think it makes for a powerful closing, I feel it trivializes your argument.
I think the debate has something more fundamental at its core. If the God of the Bible is accepted as real, then the laws of Leviticus are also accepted as real. Belief in this God, a God who does allow slavery, comes with strict rules for how to live your life.
If on the other hand, you believe that life is a random accident, then there are no rules except the ones that you personally choose. You don't have to choose Leviticus. This is anarchy.
If you want to debate the value of anarchy, that's fine. But first, I'd like to point out that if the God of the Bible exists, He does not enforce His laws, so we have anarchy anyway.
Assertions do not count. Belief is not evidence.
You base your entire argument on something, offer some evidence for it.