A Reader's Guide to the Modern Religion of Evolution
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.
The argument is that "evolution" is
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.
Let's define the key terms.
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. 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
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 them.
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.
A
man dies in a motorcycle accident and the
doctor puts down "covid" as the cause of death because the doctor passionately hates Donald Trump, and wants to make him look bad.
Would the doctor admit that's why he put down "covid?" No.
Why did "the Science" so quickly and enthusiastically embrace a model which overstated covid deaths by a factor of 24x?
That's an astonishing magnitude of error when you think about it.
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.
Greg L. Bahnsen earned his Ph.D. in philosophy, in the field of epistemology: A Conditional
Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception :: University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
The desire to be as god (Genesis 3:5) motivates "science" as well as "theology."
Bad science is not always motivated by bad theology. Sometimes it's just the pressure of the "old boys'" guild.
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.
"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.
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 the world: 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 desanctify 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 desanctify 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:
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.
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). It 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 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 states the thesis of this website: that evolution is no longer dependent upon the impersonal laws of nature, but is being guided by archists.
“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.”
I haven't had time to find the best version of this speech on YouTube, but it has been brought to light by a comedian named J.P. Sears. His video is here:
What You Need to Know About the Transhumanist Agenda
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: