Federal courts have recently outlawed the teaching of alternatives to evolution, such as creationism or intelligent design. One federal judge went so far as to forbid a local school district from advising students that evolution was "not a fact, just a theory."

The supposed Constitutional basis for their rulings was the First Amendment's prohibition that Congress shall not establish a religion. Leaving aside the fanciful notion that State and local action can be the same as Congress establishing anything, the federal courts based their rulings on the idea that evolution is a science and that anything that disagrees with it is a religion. Whereas, as is often the case when dealing with pronouncements of the federal government, the exact opposite is true: evolution is an established religion, not a science.

The first clue to evolution's status as religion, not science, is that the federal government believes it is necessary to coerce the teaching of evolution. The federal government's involvement has been deemed unnecessary in other cases where science was supposedly at odds with religion. The federal government has not had to intervene in State and local affairs in order to uphold the scientific validity of the Copernican view of the solar system versus the Ptolemaic view. Neither has that government needed to coerce schools to teach that the Earth is spherical instead of flat.

Real science doesn't need a government to back it up. Real science works on its own, and people use it voluntarily. Real science is the product of the scientific method and can be proven using observation, hypothesis and experiment. And it is precisely because the theory of evolution fails these tests of the scientific method, because of its weakness and uselessness as science, that the federal government forbids the teaching of other theories.

Few dispute that the theory of natural selection explains rationally how some species adapt to their environments (microevolution). Darwin's Origin of the Species was a bona fide attempt to use the scientific method to describe this phenomenon. If the proponents of evolution limited its applicability to those types of cases, there would be no argument about evolution.

But the disciples of the religion of evolution do not limit their claims to those that can be proven by the scientific method. They claim that evolution explains how mammals originated from fish, how mankind originated from animals, how life originated from matter, how the cosmos itself operates (macroevolution). Their claims cannot and have not been proven by the scientific method. A scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record fails to prove how one class of animals evolved from another class. The missing link between homo sapiens sapiens and previous hominids or pithecoids remains missing, so evolution apologists now dismiss the missing link as an "outmoded" idea. At the cellular level, life displays an irreducible complexity that is more consistent with design than evolution.

Despite all the scientific advances in genetics and DNA since Darwin, no experiments have been able to create life out of inanimate chemicals. The complete absence of life, much less intelligent life, from the vast stretches of outer space, across which all the elements of the periodic table are randomly scattered, does little to fortify the belief that life evolved from chemicals.

Instead of using experimental methods or other kinds of scientific evidence, e.g., archaeological, to prove the truth of macroevolution, its proponents offer up ambiguous junk science. For example, evolution proponents offer that 96% of human DNA is related to chimpanzee DNA.

Assuming this is true, we are supposed to believe that it proves that chimpanzees are 96% human and that men evolved from chimpanzees. And yet, suppose 100% of human and chimpanzee DNA was related; that their DNA was identical. A fortiori, what would this prove? That human beings and chimpanzees are exactly the same? Or perhaps that DNA comparisons are limited or even inadequate in their ability to explain the manifestly profound differences between human beings and chimpanzees, including the question of how the former could have evolved from the latter?

If the proponents of evolution lack scientific proof for the grandiose claims they make on behalf of their theory, then why must evolution be taught to the exclusion of all other theories? Again, we must conclude that it is not because of the theory's scientific value, but because of its value as religion. Value as religion to whom, you may ask?

The religion of evolution is valuable if not essential to the project of totalitarian government. For this reason, the federal government has established the religion of evolution and outlawed the religion of Christianity. If Darwin himself had never been born, the federal government itself would have had to invent a religion of evolution to replace Christianity.

Suppose you aspired to be a tyrant, and wanted to convince people that there was no such thing as "inalienable rights" or even "rights" at all. First, you would have to discard the teachings of America"s traditional religion, Christianity. You would have to expunge in the minds of the people that passage of the Declaration of Independence that reads that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life." You would have to outlaw the Biblical teaching of man's origins, that man was created in the image and likeness of God. You would have to convince them that mankind was not created by God, and therefore could not have been endowed by Him with inalienable rights or rights of any other kind.

Instead, you would teach them that men evolved from animals, and that like animals, they have no rights. Or you might offer the slightly more inspirational notion that men and animals being the same, that men should have rights, but only those rights that the government would recognize animals as having. In either scenario, the goal is to reduce the quantum of rights accorded to human beings, on the theory than men and animals are essentially the same, which is the first credo of the religion of evolution.

In fact, animal rights is trendy topic in law schools. It should not surprise anyone that the rights proposed to be accorded to animals bear no resemblance to those that are recognized in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The following rights are recognized by the Animal Legal Defense Fund in its Animal Bill of Rights:

THE RIGHT to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect and abuse.

THE RIGHT not to be used in cruel or unnecessary experiments.

THE RIGHT to an environment that satisfies basic physical and psychological needs.

THE RIGHT to a healthy diet, protective shelter, and adequate medical care.

THE RIGHT to a self-sustaining species population.

THE RIGHT to their interests represented in court and safeguarded by the law of the land.

Note that the rights accorded to animals, or, per the religion of evolution, to men, do not include the right to life. A fair reading of this list of rights indicates that the New World Order is willing to guarantee to men and animals only the right to be comfortable. The right to bear children belongs not to individuals, but to a collectivity, of either animals or men, in the form of the right to a Òself-sustaining species population.Ó The government appears to reserve the implicit power to cull the herd from time to time.

In addition to allowing government to treat men like animals, the religion of evolution ordains that "progress" is one of the laws of the universe, that the improvement of man in relation to his environment is an inexorable feature of our world, that the present is constantly surpassing the past. The utility of such a religious myth to the political establishment is obvious.

If a government's subjects fall prey to the flattering idea that they are of a superior or improved human type compared to their ancestors, that modern man is as much of an improvement over medieval man as medieval man over Cro-Magnon man, then they must also accept the notion that modern government constitutes an adaptive improvement over its historical predecessors. The religion of evolution anoints the political status quo, a totalitarian federal government, as a necessary evolutionary adaptation, and therefore an improvement, over our prior forms of Constitutional government. The emerging status quo can be sold as a necessary adaptation to a changing present, and therefore, also an improvement. Thus those who hold the reins of political power and steer the body politic use the religion of evolution to confer upon their actions a legitimacy supposedly bestowed by Nature itself.

The political utility of evolution as a civil religion was first recognized by the ideological ancestor of the greatest mass murderers of the twentieth century: Karl Marx. In his famed Theses on Feuerbach, Marx praised Darwin as the authors of one of three "decisive discoveries" and described evolution as follow:

"that the stock of organic products of nature environing us today, including man, is the result of a long process of evolution from a few originally unicellular germs, and that these again have arisen from protoplasm or albumen, which came into existence by chemical means."

Marx's characterization of evolution might not even be recognizable by Darwin, who never used the term "evolution" in his book Origin of the Species.

Instead, Darwin referred to "natural selection." And in the concluding paragraph of his book, Darwin averred that God, not chemicals, produced life on Earth:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one."

So it is technically correct to say that Darwin himself believed in Creationism, not "evolution"

But the enthusiasm Marx and other aspiring tyrants show for evolution has nothing to do with its value as science, and everything to do with its value as religion. Apparently unconcerned whether he is accurately conveying Darwin's science, Marx rushes to embrace what he considers the essential and infallible dogma of the religion of evolution, that human beings are ultimately defined by and reducible to their material properties. Because of its political implications, this dogma radiates a magnetic allure to tyrants of all kinds. Matter, lacking spirit, has no freedom. Matter, lacking an essential form, can be shaped to the liking of those who have power over it.

And so, for the aspiring tyrant, the religion of evolution is a necessary toxin for a European and American civilization that grew out of the Christian religion. Like Agent Orange, the religion of evolution defoliates a once flowering Christian culture and poisons its root, all in the name of "progress." As was said by Julius Evola in his masterwork Revolt Against the Modern World, the religion of evolution is not true, but demonstrably necessary to defend modern civilization against the accusation of decadence:

[...] the modern ideologies of "progress" and "evolution," which have promoted the definitive abandonment of traditional truths and created the most specious alibis for the justification and glorification of modern man. The myth of evolutionism is nothing else but the profession of faith of the upstart. If in recent times the West does not believe in a transcendent origin, but rather an origin "from below"; and if the West no longer believes in the nobility of origins but in the notion that civilization arises out of barbarism, religion from superstition, man from animal (Darwin) thought from matter, and every spiritual form from the "sublimation" of instinct, libido and complexes of the "collective unconscious" (Freud, Jung) and so on -

We can see in all of this not so much the result of a deviated quest, but rather, and above all, an ALIBI, or something that a civilization created by both lower beings and the revolution of serfs and pariahs against the ancient aristocratic society necessarily HAD to believe in and wish to be true.

There is not a dimension in which, in one form or another, the evolutionary myth has not succeeded in infiltrating with destructive consequences; the result has been the overthrow of every value, the suppression of all sense of truth, the elaboration of a world inhabited by a deconsecrated and deluded mankind."

Conclusion:

The modern totalitarian mind knows that Marx was wrong and that religion in general cannot be abolished. To abolish a religion, one must replace it with another. To this end, the federal government prohibits the teaching of Christianity and mandates the teaching of evolution. The coerced teaching of evolution is proof both of its weakness as science and its utility an established religion. The religion of evolution debases man from a being created in the image and likeness of God to an animal, which is exactly where the ambitious tyrant wants him to be. The religion of evolution lays down an anthropological framework for the dissolution of man's inalienable and constitutional rights. The religion of evolution inculcates modern man with the fatuous notion that both he and his totalitarian government are the inevitable and therefore irresistible end products of progress, and that challenging the political status quo is accordingly irrational and futile.

Since the religion of evolution teaches that human beings and all other life forms mysteriously sprang from the inanimate chemicals of the Earth, it follows that this religion's holy day must venerate the Earth. In fact, the United Nations has already installed March 21 as "Earth Day."

The federal government's establishment of the pagan religion of evolution means that Christians must educate their children in private, parochial or home-based schools.

X-In Hoc Signo Vinces

Luke Exilarch - luke@eXilemm.com
February 3, 2006