Belief in “Evolution” is not Necessary for the Dissident Right

Understand the terms used here. This is about evolution in the Darwinian sense: That purely material forces drive all biological change and therefore God is not the creator of the species and the human race. As a Christian I reject Darwinian evolution; the Bible says that God created the living beings, including mankind, and therefore Darwin contradicts Christianity. I do affirm evolution in the other senses, including microevolution, minor variation in already-existing forms caused either by natural selection or by deliberate human interference. I believe it because we see it happening now. But Darwinian evolution, which goes far beyond the observable evidence to postulate that all biological change was non-theistic, is doubtful and unnecessary.

And by “dissident right” I mean the non-mainstream yet non-insane right. Others may try to define the term more narrowly, but since the mainstream right is not helping to restoring a sane society, we need a term for rightists who are on the right path. At the moment, “dissident right” is the best candidate.

*

The dissident right generally regards evolution—meaning Darwinian evolution—as a sine qua non. These rightists see evolution as the true explanation of human biodiversity, including the biological differences between the races and the sexes. And the Darwinian dissident right sees these biological differences as one of the foundations of their critique of modernity: Modernity defines human beings as biologically equal entities who are born blank slates which are shaped through both environmental forces (e.g., “sex roles”) and individual acts of self-definition and self-identification. (e.g., “I self-identify as a woman.”). From this primal understanding, all the tomfoolery of the left’s radical equality and multiculturalism follows. To the dissident right, biodiversity rooted in evolution shatters this blank-slate equalist theory.

As a non-Darwinian dissident rightist I agree with the Darwinian Right that humans are not metaphysically equal tabulae rasae. But as a Christian I also disagree with Darwinian evolution because—aside from contradicting God’s Word—belief in Darwinism is not necessary for being a dissident rightist. To prove it, simply note that before Darwin’s theory, nobody believed in Darwinian evolution and everybody believed (correctly) that the races and the sexes are different, both biologically and spiritually. Therefore (Darwinian) evolution is not a necessary belief for the dissident rightist.

*

It’s true that many evangelical Christians (and probably other Christians, but Evangelicalism is the group I know best) believe the left’s blank-slate equalist doctrine. These people often couple their liberalism with opposition to evolution in the sense that they believe God created mankind equal whereas Darwin evolved people to be different. Since Darwin is already an enemy because he denies God’s role (just a small step from denying His existence), Evangelicals are naturally suspicious of the allegedly Darwinian idea that the races and the sexes are different. Couple this suspicion with the overwhelming cultural and political power of the equalists, and it’s no wonder that Evangelicals generally deny human biodiversity.

[Note to the neophyte: The phrase “human biodiversity” is highly loaded, containing a world of meaning both for those on the Darwinian right, and for the haters of the right. Basically, HBD means that the races and the sexes are biologically different, and that biology influences behavior and therefore society.]

But these Christians are worldly, that is, more influenced by the beliefs of the world than biblical teaching. The Bible endorses commonsense observations about human differences, and the obvious implication is that God made people to be different. Equally human, yes, but biologically different. It also seems clear that minor variations in human populations have arisen from Darwinian processes, such as changes in skin pigmentation in response to the amount of sunlight present in the regions where the populations lived. Belief in Darwinian evolution is not necessary for the dissident right, and therefore Bible-believing Christians such as yours truly can be dissident rightists in good standing.

43 thoughts on “Belief in “Evolution” is not Necessary for the Dissident Right

  1. I don’t think that “God created the living beings” necessarily entails “Darwin contradicts Christianity”.

    Why do I say so? Because the idea of a “supernatural” God suggests that the natural world, i.e., the universe and everything in it, including its laws, is a construct of some kind, behind which lies an inaccessible supernatural realm, within which the natural realm was created, by means that are (probably) unknowable to any of us living within it. This idea has been posited in many forms by philosophers, ancient and modern, as well as mystics of various religions. In Western philosophy, we have Plato’s parable of the cave, Descarte’s “evil demon” concept, Gilbert Harman’s “brain in a vat” postulate, and Nick Bostrom’s “simulation hypothesis”. All these notions are very respectable, and seem to be undisprovable, and if they are accepted as sound, then it is perfectly possible that Darwinian evolution is completely true, yet things were set up at the beginning so that particular organisms would appear at certain times according to a plan by whoever it was (God, we might presume) that set the wheels of the simulation (or dream, or whatever it is) going. The interesting thing is, accepting this hypothesis requires faith, because it is both unprovable and undisprovable, though Nick Bostrom has argued that the probability that the hypothesis is true is high.

    • What you’re saying is true in some sense, but it misses an an important point. When the contemporary man refers to “Evolution” without clarifying what he means, he means a construct that excludes divine action. “Evolution” which concedes that God may have been involved is not “Evolution” as most people today mean it.

      • Yes, it does seem that a great many people who profess to believe in evolution only do so because they find it a convenient stick with which to beat Pentecostal Christians. When interrogated, they often turn out to have little real understanding of the theory, and, moreover, reject its implications for human society (e.g., that as the self-domesticated cousins of chimps, we are instinctively, and irredeemably, tribal, that “gender” differences are really evolved sex differences, written in our genes, that inequalities within and between populations are pretty much inevitable, and that I.Q. differences between individuals are largely genetic, and I.Q. differences between groups are probably largely genetic, also, etc., etc.).
        John Stuart Mill did this, also. He reviewed Darwin’s Origin of Species approvingly, but then got into an argument with Darwin over human abilities, in which he took a blank-slatist position.

        The simulation hypothesis enables theists to deftly sidestep the Left’s favorite attack on theism, so even if one doesn’t really believe it, it may be worth pretending to.

  2. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    159. Faith and science: “… methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” (Vatican II GS 36:1)

    283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers….

    284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin….

  3. I think there is a tendency for men to take an overly temporal view of things, which is quite understandable, as we are ourselves temporal beings. However, God ‘is’, in an eternal now. As Saint Augustine put it, God did not create the world ‘in time’, but ‘with time’. Therefore, the perception of sequences of successive life-forms over eons of geological time might not rule out creation of all in the same Divine moment. It’s excruciatingly difficult to get one’s head around these matters, because we don’t, yet, have an eternal nature for it, but I think Augustine was on to something.

    • Amen, Amen. The orthogony of Genesis to the story that we now read through a glass darkly in the geological and paleontological record is another of those damnably persistent and bedeviling perplexities that a due consideration of eternity resolves completely, and satisfactorily. It can bear all sorts of fruit.

      E.g., right off the top of my head: The story of the Fall is a story told in eternity about the dicey and tragic predicament of rational embodied creatures in our cosmos. It literally happens in that man – in each of his instances, in every age – finds himself waking up in a Garden and then almost immediately Falling. It happens to us, and it happened to our First Parents.

      Eternity is how Scripture can be at once literal, anagogical, allegorical, moral, and so forth.

      Ditto for all great literature. Eternity then is how LOTR can be literally true. In some cosmogony it is literally true; in all cosmogoniai is it morally, anagogically, and allegorically true of creatures like men and hobbits.

      Or again, e.g., and again right off the top of my head: Eternal Providence can see the entire history of a suite of mutations, and arrange for all of them to come about at one moment in time and in two organisms, in a way that, to their fellow creatures, would have to appear random and wildly improbable. Eternal Providence could influence the entire causal series arising from those mutations at one fell swoop, so as to achieve his purposes.

      In the mutations that made Adam and Eve man, Mary was then teleologically implicit, and as concretely apparent to Omniscience as Eve.

  4. Darwinism treats biology as though it were physics or mechanics. It relies on the notion of randomness, which has always struck me as a nonsensical. Another Darwinian notion — that of the survival of the fittest — is simply a tautology, which explains nothing. Darwinism, finally, cannot explain biogenesis. The image of the lightning bolt striking the pool of primordial soup is simply a borrowing from the most primitive of myths.

    • The whole idea of randomness is about how much we know about something, not how something really is. Same with probability, which is inherently linked to randomness. If 70% of patients react well to a new medicine, it does not imply rolling dice, it is really all about 70% of patients with similar symptoms have the same exact underlying causes of their illness that the medicine is able to causally change, and the rest have merely similar symptoms with different causes.

      What is the problem with tautologies? After all, they are true. They just don’t say much in themselves. Mathemathical proof, or at least the ones I saw at school, reduced statements to tautologies, hence showing they are true. The only issue with tautologies is if they are seen as the last step of investigation, not first. Of course they are the first. Starting with a usefully formed tautology is a very good first step. Such as, assuming that fittest giraffes survived, let’s go and figure out how those long necks made them the fittest.

      You are right about the origin of life. People used to believe in all kinds of abiogenesis processes like ponds somehow automatically producing insects through history. It was a great achievement of biology to prove that life only comes from life, and breaking this just because we have no idea where life originally came from is not a good idea.

      It is true it treats biology as it was physics. Is that a bad thing? It seems very much like that chemistry is applied physics, biology is applied chemistry and so on, why should they be non-reducible to each other?

  5. There’s really no such thing as “Darwinism”. The theory of natural selection is extremely well established and goes far beyond Darwin’s own writings (he had no knowledge of genetics, for instance). The term “Darwinism” is only used by people desperate to keep themselves ignorant of this stunningly powerful set of ideas.

    If it conflicts with religion, then your religion is in trouble. I’d suggest taking the stance of the Dalai Lama who wrote:

    I have often said that if science proves facts that conflict with Buddhist understanding, Buddhism must change accordingly. We should always adopt a view that accords with the facts. If upon investigation we find that there is reason and proof for a point, then we should accept it.

    • Since abiogenesis and the purely random generation of new body forms have not been observed, I’m not required to believe them. I should only adopt a view that accords with the facts.

      It’s ultimately a matter of loyalty. I’m loyal to Jesus Christ.

      • The other thing is that if we were somehow to observe life coming from an inanimate object or new body parts/organs evolving in the wild, it could never be proven that it was done without God’s help (unless He tells us as much).

      • Conjectures as to how life could have appeared from non life under earthlike conditions have failed experiment. Which does prove that life could not have appeared from nonlife, but no one has a plausible account of how that could have happened.

        Although it is obvious that DNA/protein based life is descended from RNA life, it does not appear that RNA life can appear spontaneously. Maybe RNA life was itself descended from something else, but no one has any plausible conjectures as to what that might have been.

        That the earth is very old, and that species are mutable, is well supported by empirical evidence. Life from nonlife is not supported by anything – which does not prove it cannot happen.

        I interpret Adam as the first priest patriarch, discovering that the transition from hunting and gathering to gardening and herding requires extended cooperation, that extended cooperation is hard at scale, and struggling with the black pill, and Nimrod as the first priest emperor, but not the first king or priest king.

        The rise of Kings corresponds to the end of the Y Chromosome bottleneck, but the bible does not track the rise of Kings, for the social order of Abraham, whose patrilineal clan fought kings with some success, was a survival of the social order of the Y Chromosome bottleneck, and the bible goes directly from a social order of the Y Chromosome bottleneck where the patriarch is the priest, to a social order where Moses separates state church from the state. The high priest is high priest, but not the ruler.

        Since the social order of Kings and priest Kings such as Pharaoh was falling apart at the seams in the collapse of Bronze age civilizations, Moses was restoring the old social technology of priest patriarchs.

      • “Which does prove that life could not have appeared from nonlife, but no one has a plausible account of how that could have happened.”

        That statement presupposes atheism: With no God, spontaneous abiogenesis is the only possibility, even though we have no plausible mechanism. This is why evolution in the full Darwinian sense is antithetical to Christianity. Its foundations are non-Christian.

      • Jesus Christ has never said anything to the contrary. Darwinism does not require abiogenesis, it just requires that similar selection processes exist in nature as how breeders select the animals they breed. That is, random generation of new body forms was observed before Darwin, was a basic part of animal breeding. How else are there so many and so wildly different breeds of dogs? Some dude wanted long-nosed dogs so found some dogs whom random mutation gave a longer nose and bred them. Repeat. It may be that by form you mean not something like the length of the nose, but form as essence. But in that case you are not defending Jesus Christ, but Aristotle. It was Aristotle’s idea that some kind of fundamental essence of doghood exists that you cannot change by breeding one dog with the other. I think that is just semantics. What makes all the animals we call dogs actually dogs, members of one category? That they can interbreed? That is the definition of species, not essence or form.

      • I wasn’t referring to “form” in the Aristotelian sense, but in the everyday sense: The appearance of eyes or wings, for example. We have never observed eyeless beings leaving eyed descendants, for example. The biologists believe these forms arose by random mutation plus natural selection, but that has never been observed happening.

      • > We have never observed eyeless beings leaving eyed descendants, for example.

        We see families of creatures that look like the result of eyeless beings leaving eyed descendants.

        As Charles Darwin argued in “The origin of species”:

        In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely
        coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low
        stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two
        fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a
        moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance,
        there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each
        of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the
        transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only
        by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and
        must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an
        imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and
        imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in
        the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number
        of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I
        can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other
        structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple
        apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by
        transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is
        possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

        He who will go thus far, if he find on finishing this treatise that large
        bodies of facts, otherwise inexplicable, can be explained by the theory of
        descent, ought not to hesitate to go further, and to admit that a
        structure even as perfect as the eye of an eagle might be formed by
        natural selection, although in this case he does not know any of the
        transitional grades. His reason ought to conquer his imagination; though I
        have felt the difficulty far too keenly to be surprised at any degree of
        hesitation in extending the principle of natural selection to such
        startling lengths.

        It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye to a telescope. We know
        that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of
        the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been
        formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be
        presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by
        intellectual powers like those of man? If we must compare the eye to an
        optical instrument, we ought in imagination to take a thick layer of
        transparent tissue, with a nerve sensitive to light beneath, and then
        suppose every part of this layer to be continually changing slowly in
        density, so as to separate into layers of different densities and
        thicknesses, placed at different distances from each other, and with the
        surfaces of each layer slowly changing in form. Further we must suppose
        that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental
        alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each
        alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any
        degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state
        of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be
        preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be
        destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations,
        generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection
        will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on
        for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of
        individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical
        instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works
        of the Creator are to those of man?

      • The eye might be formed by natural selection. But we have not seen it happen, and there are arguments against it, too.

      • “Ultimately a matter of loyalty” — a very postmodern sentiment that belies the previous sentence’s devotion to facts. Apparently Team Jesus has one set of facts, Team Darwin another.

        That might be the case for “Darwinism”, which sounds like an ideology, but evolution by natural selection is as much a scientific fact as the law of gravity.

      • “…evolution by natural selection is as much a scientific fact as the law of gravity.”

        Except that the law of gravity is empirically verified, whereas Evolution is mostly inferred.

        Also, Team Evolution requires that you renounce God as your creator. Since there are many facts which support Christianity, and Evolution s based on the dubious, empirically-unprovable assumption that God did not do it, and since most of the science of biology (the parts that are actually verified) are in full accord with the biblical worldview, I’m sticking to my position.

      • Except that the law of gravity is empirically verified, whereas Evolution is mostly inferred.

        I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. In both cases, abstract theories are constructed to explain empirical observations, an obviously inferential process (you can՚t observe the law of gravity, just particular instances of its operation).

        Also, Team Evolution requires that you renounce God as your creator

        I dunno, the Pope seems cool with it so maybe you are wrong?

        And what a strange way to put it. Evolution doesn՚t “require” anybody to “renounce” anything. Either you understand it or you don՚t. And if you understand it, and want to be religious, you must find some way to reconcile your religious beliefs with it, or modify them.

      • Evolution is based on metaphysics, as is every non trivial theory. The metaphysics of evolution requires either that God hides behind secondary causes that are empirically indistinguishable from mindless material forces, or that God is not involved.

        The Bible clearly says that God did it. Any theory that says or implies that God did not do it is contrary to Christianity.

    • Darwinism isn’t a theory of natural selection. It is a theory of the origin of species through the process of random mutation, acted upon by natural selection. Few would quibble with natural selection, it is in the mutation part that the theory breaks down, yet neo-Darwinists persist.

      The Dalai Lama is merely making a religion of science. He’s been around long enough to have possibly been alive when the Steady State theory of the origin of the Universe was predominant. That ‘fact’ is now considered to be untrue. Science doesn’t settle, whereas religion deals with those truths that are always settled.

    • People who talk about “evolution” don’t like the idea of natural selection. They are big fans of common descent, because that is a stick to beat Christians with, but hate Darwin and Darwinism, because Darwin tells us that we are evolving right now.

      Thus our fallen nature reflects a world of defect/defect equilibrium. Further, the races of man are evolving right now, and races are the origin of species. Some races are necessarily going to be more evolved than others, and chances are that those that spent the last ten thousand years in an environment that requires forethought, cooperation, and preparation for the harsh winter are going to be more evolved towards the human evolutionary niche than those that spent the last ten thousand year in an environment similar to that of chimpanzees and the common ancestor of man, gorilla, and chimpanzee.

      Progressives therefore love evolution, but they hate Darwin and Darwinism.

      • Mostly agree. The races and the animal species are always microevolving. But man does not have a common ancestor with the primates. According to God, He created man separately.

  6. The Darwinian, “blank-slatist” left and the Darwinian, race-real HBD “right” established a vicious pincer-move on racist Christianity. Shove the spear of anti-Darwinian, anti-racist “Christianity” through its middle and any notion of a white race’s desire for (S)upremacy, ie., for that which is truly evolutionary, is nearly dead.

    • Blank slatists are not Darwinists, but anti Darwinists. They approve of common descent, hate natural selection.

      And Christian who reject the Darwinist atheist right invariably turn out to be blue pilled on the woman question, rejecting not only Darwin, but Saint Paul.

      • “And Christian who reject the Darwinist atheist right invariably turn out to be blue pilled on the woman question, rejecting not only Darwin, but Saint Paul.”

        Because most (American, at any rate) Christians are worldly. On all the secondary issues, they take up the thinking of the world system, which right now is feminist.

      • No… Racist Christian isn’t blue-pilled on anti-racist “white” female.

        “Blank statist” falls under the purview of Darwinian left despite his disdain for “natural selection.” And his embrace of “common descent” provides no identifiable marker per blank slate. A “blank slater” is just a particular type of radical autonomist.

        The reality is that racist Christianity (read: white (S)upremacy) is being attacked by the usual anti-Christian suspects and by anti-racist “Christians” PLUS “racist” anti-Christians. That the vast majority of deracinated “white” females (and “white” males) fall in submission to one of these various attack groups seeking to annihilate racist Christianity is, quite predictably, lost on nearly all.

        The most current scapegoat at this juncture in time is, generally-speaking. the racist Christian, ie., the white (S)upremacist.

  7. The trouble is that if you reject evolution by natural selection, you are apt to swallow the blue pill on women.

    If all souls are equal in heaven, if there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither man nor woman in the next world, one is apt to conclude the same is true in this world.

    Female behavior makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren.

    For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

    Absent adequate male authority, men and women get stuck in defect/defect equilibrium, hence the female search for bad guys.

    • If all souls are equal in heaven, if there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither man nor woman in the next world, one is apt to conclude the same is true in this world.

      If one were stupid, yeah, one could conclude that. Granted that most people are rather stupid when it comes to this sort of thing. But then, to such folks, the notion of equality in heaven – indeed, heaven as such, and so a fortiori the salient differences between heaven and earth – are all incomprehensible, compared to what they can get right now in this world.

      Such folks are more likely to be based sexual realists than are the clever sillies. They are more likely to be unreflectively, simply, either male or female.

      Does it say somewhere in Scripture that there shall be no men or women in Heaven? I think not. Job 19:26 implies that – should I ever arrive there – I shall have a penis in Heaven, and the woman now my wife shall not: in my flesh, and not in the flesh of some other being alien to humanity, and thus to my sex, shall I see God.

      The passage you quote from Galatians is not about the next world, but about the Christian’s relationship to Jesus – here and now and in the world to come – who is Head of the Body of which the Christian’s own body is as it were a cell. That all Christians are alike in respect to their basic relation to Jesus does not entail that they are alike in respect to each other.

    • If all souls are equal in heaven, if there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither man nor woman in the next world,…

      I have it on good authority that when one parts this life and enters into the next, (s)he is instantly transported to a sort of holding area before the pearly gates where St. Peter presides over the entry process. Seems that certain “egalitarians” and the like defiantly retain their worldly principles at the gates of the celestial city, making all sorts of accusations and demands against the Lord and His annointed, as they were apt to do in their former earthly existences. At which point St. Peter determines such persons to possess … undesirable characteristics utterly alien to the notion of equally sharing, with those of a more favorable temperament, in heavenly bliss. Thusly, St. Peter exercises discrimination, denying them entry and sending them to another place more suitable to their personal characteristics, and where other such persons share their sentiments and characteristics more or less equally.

  8. The dissident right generally regards evolution—meaning Darwinian evolution—as a sine qua non. …

    If the dissident right is full of God-hating biological reductionists – which I take to be implied by the above quotation – perhaps the lesson is that we theocrats ought not to consider ourselves part of the dissident right?

    • Some dissident rightists are God-hating biological reductionists; many are not. Many of them have a tendency to think in Darwinian terms without necessarily endorsing all that it implies. But they and we all dissent from the ruling leftist system, so we’re on something like the same team.

      It all depends on how hostile they are to us and we are to them. I’m willing to view them as teammates as long as they acknowledge that a Christian can reject the blank-slate equalist doctrine just as firmly as they do. I’m not hostile to them as long as they’re not hostile to me.

  9. But as a Christian I also disagree with Darwinian evolution because-

    No need to disagree with it (macro-evolution) “as a Christian”; it is perfectly disagreeable on purely secular grounds.

    Where does it say all are equal in heaven? Aren’t there seven choirs of angels, each of different rank? Is Mary not Queen? Seems to me it is hierarchical, not equal (in the sense of democratically equal). The main problem we seem to have in our current society is this false assumption that having an equal right to certain process before the sovereign means we should have equal outcomes in all facets of society. A large part of the dissident right is a reaction against this notion, but they do seem to take HBD a bit far – it explains much, and perhaps across a large number of a given group it can be descriptive, but there are always outliers – the proverbial exception that proves the rule. To some extent we are blank slates, but we are different pieces of slate: different sizes, different textures, with varying ability and capacity for the chalk to do its work.

    • “No need to disagree with it (macro-evolution) ‘as a Christian’ .”

      True. It’s just easier to do the right thing and disagree when you see that Evolution doesn’t just contradict the facts, but also God’s Word.

  10. > Evolution doesn’t just contradict the facts, but also God’s Word.

    Depends on how you interpret God’s word. Old earth and macro evolution does not contradict Saint Augustine’s take on Genesis, and evolutionary psychology support’s Saint Paul’s take on the fall and the nature of man.

    As for the facts: Micro evolution is obviously true, and no one can deny it.

    Given enough time, micro evolution becomes macro evolution. Consider how far corn has changed from its wild ancestor in six thousand years. That is obviously a different species, a very different species, and if you don’t think it is a different species, give it another six thousand years.

    The earth is very old. Leonardo Da Vinci noticed shells in the rocks on top of a mountain, and concluded they had not been put their in a flood, but had grown their generation after generation, at the bottom of a shallow sea, from which he concluded that the rocks slowly move over time unimaginably immense. Similarly Lyell, looking at the layers in stone where the layers had been turned on their side, and realizing that each tiny layer represented a season.

    Survival of the fittest, and the vastness of time, implies Darwinism.

    • “Survival of the fittest, and the vastness of time, implies Darwinism.”

      But not the atheistic part of it. Without God, the world does not self-order.

      I have no dispute with the old-earth position. I think it’s probably true. But young-earth creationism is vastly more rational than the atheistic position, which at root holds that the cosmos originated and ordered itself.

      • Agreed, Alan. Fred Flintstone riding a brontosaurus is probabilistically far less implausible than the chance development of an incalculably large number of beneficial mutations required to evolve life in the relatively brief existence of the planet Earth.

        Information Theory, a new but highly precise and extremely mathematical science (did you know that information behaves exactly according to the theories of thermodynamics?) , has driven a stake through the heart of Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.

    • There is so much information and order integrated into life that there has been insufficient time for it to ‘evolve’. Additionally, the presence of so much information stored genetically and epigenetically in even the most ancient fossils seems to imply that the plans, logically enough, pre-dated the structures.

    • It just doesn’t reconcile that one could wax eloquent about (E)volution knowing in his background that he rejects objective (S)upremacy?

      “Descent” with “modification” doesn’t sound much like real evolution.

  11. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 05/26/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.