Scientist Declares, ‘I am not a child of monkeys’

The theory of something from nothing evolution has no many holes in it that it should be the “Swiss Cheese Theory.” Evolutionists can’t account for the origin of matter, organized information, design complexity, morality, or speech.1 Science requires proposing a theory and then backing up that theory with supporting repeatable experimental results. No scientist has demonstrated that matter, mind, and morality spontaneously appeared.

Information theorist Hubert Yockey argued that chemical evolutionary research faces the following problem:

Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted…. What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written.”2

In a book he wrote in 1992, Yockey argued that the idea of abiogenesis from a primordial soup is a failed paradigm: “Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception on the ideology of its champions.…”3

There is also the dogmatic claim that humans are distant relatives of less than human lifeforms. For example, journalist and author Gwynne Dyer claims that “The apes are our brothers—at least our first cousins.”4

Union Minister of State for Human Resource Development Satyapal Singh objects to Darwin’s theory of evolution, “saying he does not consider himself a ‘child of monkeys,’” The Indian Express reported. “I am a science student and I have completed my PhD in Chemistry. … We should be compelled to think. We get scared of the press. If not today, tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then in 10 to 20 years, people will accept what I said. At least, I believe that my ancestors were not apes.” (Scroll.In)

It’s no accident that many people today are beginning to follow the logic of what Darwinists have been trying to force on them and their children. The Darwinists have made it their life’s mission to ensure that young people are made to believe they are animals:

Despite the protests of creationists and their intellectual allies, and the occasional attempts by American state school boards to expunge evolution from the curriculum, science has long taught that human beings are just another kind of animal, but most of the time this seems like a technicality.5

Of course, today’s Darwinists will insist that the human animal is not a descendant of chimpanzees and apes but that the human animal and their closet DNA relatives diverged at some point. This means that we are less human than chimpanzees and apes. The late evolutionary paleontologist of Harvard University, George Gaylord Simpson, disapproved of the attempt to dismiss the obvious:

On this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be the descendant of any living ape—a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [cowardly] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise6

The logic of Simpson’s point is that human animals evolved from something less than monkeys and apes. If monkeys, apes, and human animals evolved from a common ancestor then that common ancestor is less than a monkey, ape, or human animal.

It’s no use, therefore, for Darwinists to claim that human animals did not evolve from monkeys and apes, thus absolving the theory of evolution to be animalistic, because, as Simpson concludes, “that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it.”

In fact, it’s worse than what Simpson concludes. The human animal has evolved from pond scum! The first chemically formed life that supposedly emerged from Charles Darwin’s “warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity … present” had no regard for reason or morality. After reading Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, Herbert Spencer described “natural selection” more accurately as “the survival of the fittest.”7

The biology text used in the Dayton school system when John Scopes was put on trial for teaching evolution in 1925 was George William Hunter’s Civic Biology (1914), the best-selling text at the time. Hunter’s work was “heavily laced with the scientific racism of the day. According to Hunter, ‘simple life forms of life on earth slowly and gradually gave rise to those more complex.’ Humans appeared as a progressive result of this evolutionary process, with the Caucasian race being ‘finally, the highest type of all.'”8

Robert Lewis Dabney (1820–1898), a Southern Presbyterian theologian, wrote: “If mine is a pig’s destiny, why may I not hold this ‘pig philosophy’? Again, if I am but an animal refined by evolution, I am entitled to live an animal life. Why not? The leaders in this and the sensualistic philosophy may themselves be restrained by their habits of mental culture, social discretion and personal refinement (for which they are indebted to reflex Christian influences); but the herd of common mortals are not cultured and refined, and in them the doctrine will bear its deadly fruit.”9

Because Christianity had so impacted nineteenth-century society, the ethical and cultural effects of Darwinism were at first minimal. In time, however, as consistency began to be demanded of the new naturalistic and materialist worldview, the evolutionary dogma impacted the world in ominous ways. Marxism and Nazism were built on Darwin’s theory. “Given the close relationship between Darwinism and the horrific crimes committed by Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge Regime we are forced to conclude that ours has been the Darwinian century.”10

Darwin’s first work, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection, first published in 1859, was the weapon that secularists needed to advance a rival comprehensive worldview based on non-Christian presuppositions. Darwinian evolution was a way out of a world governed by a Creator who demanded ethical absolutes. We’re seeing the impact of Darwin’s theory working itself out in the streets, schools, courts, and political parties of the United States of America.

  1. Tom Wolfe, The Kingdom of Speech (New York: Little, Brown and Company), 2016. []
  2. Yockey, “A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology (1977), 67:377–398, quotes from 379, 396. []
  3. [1]Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 336. []
  4. Quoted in Impact (May 1999), 7. []
  5. Michael D. Lemonick and Andrea Dorfman Monday, “Up from the Apes,” Time (January 17, 2000), 51. []
  6. George Gaylord Simpson, This View of Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World), 1964), 12. Emphasis in original. []
  7. “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called ‘natural selection,’ or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.” Principles of Biology (1864): 1:444. []
  8. George William Hunter, A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (New York: American, 1914), 194-96, 405. Quoted in Edward J. Larson, Summer for the God’s: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion (New York: Basic Books, 1997), 23-24. []
  9. Robert L. Dabney, “The Influences of False Philosophies upon Character and Conduct,” in Discourses (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Pub., 1979), 4:574. []
  10. F. W. Schnitzler, “Darwinian Violence,” Christianity and Society, 4:3 (July 1994), 28. []
Previous post

Will Democrat Rhetoric Lead to More Violent Acts?

Next post

The Democrats Would Rather Celebrate The French Revolution Than Independence Day