Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote?
Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote?
By Tom Willis - Creation Science Association of Mid-America - original
Everywhere the subject of origins is discussed, evolutionists routinely, yea, systematically, denounce creationists as some combination of stupid, ignorant, and... dangerous. If we recall there are two major methods men make momentous decisions: empirical and theoretical. I intend to show in a brief space that belief in evolution requires, at minimum, deep delusion allowing one to believe, or pretend to believe, in a manifestly impossible historical scenario. And it leads, both empirically and theoretically, to grotesquely harmful results in every society in which evolutionists are allowed to have a major influence, including our own.

Empirical Evidence
That Evolutionists Should Be Denied The Vote

Evolutionism was/is the apologetic foundation for the faith of predatory capitalism, Germany in WWI, the USSR (from 1918 to this day), NAZI Germany, Fascism in other European countries, and Socialism in all of Eastern Europe beginning about 1945. It was also a major justification in the defense of slavery in the 1800's against Christian opponents. In those nations evolutionist, anti-Christian, anti-creationists killed more people, from the late 1800's to today, than all the wars combined for the last 2000 years. Evolution formed the apologetic framework for justifying the harshest of cruelties during this period as well.

This is not to say that evolution is the only excuse for human cruelty, merely that a logically consistent pursuit of evolutionary theory has been used to justify atrocious crimes on the grandest scale in human history. Obviously one might argue that the grand scale was enabled largely by modern technology. True enough, but the technology did not kill anyone, nor did it have any motive to do so. The motive and the killing was done by Homo Sapiens, the technology was only a tool.

Theoretical Evidence

Evolution is a belief that the Origin of Man was initiated by genetic copying errors in single-celled creatures. These random events purportedly were mostly harmful, usually killing the hapless recipient. But they occasionally conferred a minor benefit to the offspring. "Mother Nature," red with tooth and claw, aided the "most fit" of each generation to kill off the less fit (or the less fit were simply more likely to perish). This process, long continued, we are confidently assured, resulted in the initial one-celled critters being transformed into creatures that design and build airplanes and computers, of course, requiring millions of years.

The story is quite amusing, and many seem to actually believe it. We are interested here in two ideas.

1. Would an informed (not necessarily highly credentialed, or even "well read," just modest grammar school education or above), and truly sane person, believe this story?
2. Should a person capable of believing it be adjudged competent to vote?
To answer #1, we must consider the major claims of, and real evidence for, evolution.

Three Key Atheist Claims

1. Matter has either been here forever, or it came into existence by "Natural" causes, in real history.
2. Life either came into existence by "Natural" causes or been here forever (virtually never argued). And, oh by the way, that first life, didn't just happen, but could also auto magically stamp out copies of itself.
3. Following the magical occurance of the first, self-replicating life form, errors in copying the major code (DNA) for how to make (key parts of) the life form, produced at least a million new biological structures in the last "500 million years," and millions of species, genre, families, etc.

For Atheist Claim #1: Matter has been here forever or came into being Naturally. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states emphatically that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. We transform matter, e.g., we burn logs, but the total matter/energy in the Cosmos does not change. But, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which, because of its importance, many believe should be called #1, states that, in every exchange of energy, some is effectively lost due to an imperfect exchange. In each energy exchange, e.g., in a fire, or a living cell, the total energy in the universe remains the same, but a qualitative change causes there to be less available for work. The measure of this loss is called entropy, and is called by many "Times Arrow." A universally understood result of this law is that, if the Cosmos had truly been here forever, there would be no energy available for work. The Cosmos would be at about 3 degrees above absolute zero (0 K on the Kelvin scale, -273.15 centigrade, -459.67 Fahrenheit). This is a largely uncontested fact, not a "Christian myth." The atheist, Isaac Asimov, in his Intelligent Man's Guide to Science stated essentially the same thing.

This presents a nontrivial issue for atheists. Matter cannot have been here forever (2nd Law) and it cannot come into existence in real time (1st Law). Thus, these Laws, known to everyone qualified to be called a "science teacher" clearly require a powerful, non-material cause of the Cosmos. Only a fool can know of these two laws and remain an atheist. Claim #1 of atheism is absurd.

Claim #2: Life started in Nature. Four thousand years of Human observation, and 400 years of extensive laboratory experiments, all of which resulted in the "Law of Biogenesis - "Life comes only from life." There is not one successful experiment or observation in all of human history to refute this law. As far as all men who have ever lived know, life comes only from life. But, if God exists, then the cause of life is external to the Cosmos.

Claim #3: At least a million new biological structures have formed in the last 500 million years. The only "proof" of this claim takes the forms like the Petrii dishes above. Bacteria are subjected to some chemical, or other treatment. The change in environment is designed to kill, and many die, but some develop resistance to the new environment. Evolutionists shout, "Evolution is just change, change is everywhere, evolution is a fact!" This is a bit like noticing dents in your child's wagon, and deciding that rocks change wagons, therefore more rocks might turn it into a car. Pause and consider that evolution is sold as a process capable of producing Man from bacteria, but what is demonstrated is bacterial resistance to some chemical. Of the million or so biological structures that evolutionists need, not one has ever been observed, much less demonstrated! It is a simple fact that, in the entire history of man, not one new biological structure has ever been observed. Thus, their theory is an absurd religious insanity. But, it gets worse.

Evolutionist Religion Cannot Ascribe Purpose to Man

Because they aggressively insist that random processes resulted in every biological structure on Earth, we must reflect on what else we know about such processes. First, by definition, they have no purpose. It would be an oxymoron to call events with a purpose "random." By definition, random events have no purpose. It necessarily follows that the results ("products") of random processes can have no purpose. If such events cause a tree to fall or a car to receive a dent, no purpose can possibly be ascribed to these results. Random processes do not have purpose! Thus, in the Evolutionist Religion, Man can have no purpose. If you read evolutionist ramblings enough, you find that they all eventually admit this, even exult in it.

Thus, "Evolutionist Man" cannot have purpose. But, all human laws are purportedly to punish "wrong" behavior, or to promote "maximum or general good" for the most people. If Man has no purpose, how can any behavior be deemed "wrong" ... or "right?" What is "good?" How can an evolutionist know how much "good" to vote for, because there can be no "good" in his religion. If he tries to claim otherwise, on what basis does he make the claim? He cannot possibly know any purpose for Man, therefore, it is impossible for him to have a rational conversation about what Man "ought" to do, or what would be "good" for Man to experience

Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote?

.. They do not and can not know the purpose for Man. In fact, all of them believe Man has no purpose.

.. Therefore, they cannot make informed judgments about how men should behave toward each other, or what would be "good" or "bad" for any group of men to do, or not do.
.. Thus, they have no sane foundation upon which to base “laws” or rational for insisting that other men obey the laws.
.. Thus, the religion they profess to believe renders them incapable of participating in any decision about what men ought to do. But, that is the purpose of all law.
.. Therefore, in a sane society, evolutionists should not be allowed to vote, or influence laws or people in any way! They should, perhaps, make bricks to earn enough to eat.

Q.E.D. - Quod Erat Demonstrandum "That which was to be demonstrated."

OK, OK, you're going to say "You didn't deal with theistic evolution." Well, I challenge all comers to find a single hint of evolution or one unequivocal hint of as much as 20,000 years in the Bible, and, as shown above, no evolution occurs in empirical or theoretical science. So the theistic evolutionist must look squarely at us and declare "I believe in God, but the Bible, real empirical and theoretical science are all wrong. My stories about what might have happened in the past are what I, and all others, should believe." This is even worse than the atheists. Historically, those who claim belief in God, but elevate human opinion or tradition over the Bible, have always performed as badly any atheist. If you had any say, would you allow such a person to influence, in any way, what citizens ought, by law, to do? Q.E.D. numerus duo.

The Real Meaning of This Essay

The arrogance displayed by the evolutionist class is totally unwarrented. The facts warrent the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously, professor. Oh, by the way… What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God?

But, of course, I myself, am not deluded. "Kingdom Now" theology notwithstanding, I have no expectations that such a proposal will ever be implemented, for the simple reason that delusion is ordained by God to reign until Christ returns. (2 Thess 2:10)