A while ago I drew a cartoon as a joke, with the picture of hairy primate and the words to the effect: “If we come from apes, and if apes were “fitter”, then how come there are still apes?” It was a rather confusing question, unless you followed the assumption followed by Darwin, that the “fittest” would survive – as opposed to the “unfittest” which would become extinct. This joke was drawn and written for its humour, not its accuracy, because of course it is downright silly to argue this way. Just because one thing came from another does not mean the originator must be gone – just because humans are “fitter” than apes does not mean that apes ought to be extinct. A simple illustration of this is found in dog, or cat, or rabbit, or hen, or pigeon, or horse breeding. The original stock is still with us, while the offspring, hybridised and modified through careful breeding, is also with us. There are also many examples of very “unfit” plants and animals, such as the panda which lives almosty exclusively on bamboo, or the koala which likes mainly eucalyptus. Most
unfit” yet they survive.
Unfortunately, when this cartoon about the humans and apes was posted on a website, it drew a great deal of flak, as several people took it as a serious comment. On the one hand I am pleased to see that there are some intelligent people ‘out there’ in etherland, who know some facts about breeding, and I must admit I was slightly flattered that anyone would even notice my little cartoon, but on the other hand I was disappointed that the humour in the work was not taken as just that. Humour, satire, irony and other forms of amusement are not supposed to be taken as seriously as, for example, a scientific statement, or a statistical comment.
It reminded me of a joke I read, where a little kid asked his Dad “If God made us, and we are apes, then God must be an ape too!” Very logical, and based on the original premise being true, quite consistent, but funny, because the whole question is based on a silly premise.
So taking up this view that it is a good thing to be logical, and consistent with an original premise, let us see where the Darwinian view leads, if we follow it through: Darwin saw Mankind as the product of millions of years of slow development, an increasing trend, from lower to higher levels of intelligence and complexity – a development which he claimed was a normal part of living things.
Apply a logical progression to this: If this premise is true we should see:
A continuing improvement in average human phisique, health and resistance to biological opposition over time,
A continuing increase in average human intelligence, and technology,
We do not see any of these things. The trend is the other way. Darwin’s theory of evolution upward doesn’t fit the real, observed world.
Health? Humans are increasingly beset by new diseases (small pox, malaria, cholera, ‘black death’. etc), How Intellect? Increasingly discoveries of ancient civilizations are revealing that those people were actually brighter they we are in many ways (i.e. huge monuments made of incredibly heavy stones, the antikathera, astronomical knowledge, metal-work, more complex languages, etc. Are humans improving ‘morally’? Not at all – we have had more than 5000 years of continuous war, raging at least somewhere on the planet, including the more recent two world wars, a holocaust, and many examples of genocide – some going on right now. Peace on earth? Right now there are millions of people living under oppressive military regimes, or dying of sickness, hunger and/or are in the grip of poverty.
So this is the opposite to the path set by Darwin’s theory? According to him, evolution for humans is all up and up, but the reality is down and down. Humans are not smarter, healthier, better. They are either much the same or much worse. Darwin was dreaming.
But there is one last thing to note: one huge and obvious difference between that ape I drew and the average modern human is that apes don’t have an inherited sinful nature. If humans really did come from primates, they too would be sinful, but they are not. They have no moral awareness at all. That makes humans more likely to be special creations, by a moral God, than merely animals – something Darwin apparently refused to notice.