From times immemorial, man has held a position of power and authority over nature, at least beyond that of any other life form. Can we, as the secular communities insist, categorize ourselves as mere animals only for a time enjoying a position of comfort within the natural order of things, or are we more, something special perhaps?
Either way, we have amassed a wealth of knowledge and wisdom, learning early on how to cultivate our food and to build immaculate civilizations for our survival and advancement. We have reigned in art, science, and philosophy, seeking to get the most out of this life all the while searching for answers about the next. Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? These are questions that everyone has asked at some point or another, and naturalism has diligently sought to provide its own interpretation of the answers to each.
According to the mainstream model, millions of years ago our ancestors – chimpanzee-like apes – rustled around in the treetops of equatorial Africa. At some point, possibly due to climate change, our ancestors’ treetop habitats became less capable of sustaining them, thus they clambered down from their arboreal homes in favor of the rich, grassy plains. There, shuffling about on all fours, they were easy prey for predators. The intelligent apes, in defense, started to move from four-legs to two, standing upright to better see above the field, perhaps even giving them an opportunity to flee a stalking predator. This stance also provided them the added benefit of freeing their hands, leading to the ability to use tools. Thus a cycle began some 2.6 million years ago. By using simple rocks and sticks, our ancestors’ brains began to see the possibilities, and so in turn grew more complex. More complex brains led to more complex tools, and so on. Mankind was born through a happy set of circumstances; from trees to tools, we eventually became the dominant form of life on this planet.
Socially, our ancestors probably started out like other apes, with large assemblages of relatives moving in tribes across the African savannah. Though family groups like this always value their members either for protection or food gathering, they became increasingly more important as the secular man evolved. Like us, our ancestors probably had relatively defenseless newborns, exhibiting an incredible degree of morphological neoteny. The explanation as to why this is the case, and how it relates to the origins of society, are happily offered by secular naturalism. As the story goes, larger brains caused problems with birth, as the mothers began having trouble passing the young through their pelvis, perhaps leading to increases in the death during childbirth. Natural selection, they assert, in response to these pressures, directed humans to evolve, forcing deliveries of infants at ever earlier stages of development. The end result was the condition we now see, whereby our newborns are far less capable at birth than those of most other vertebrates, unable to talk or walk or feed themselves.
Though this solved the problem with birthing, it instigated several others. While most animals are born with instincts on how to survive immediately, such as the foal that runs within minutes of first touching the ground, humans are born with few instincts and even fewer physical capabilities. As a consequence, we have to be taught the majority of what we know. Lacking instincts ourselves, we must learn from others how to be human. Sociologically, it is assumed that our ancestors’ tribes became more compartmentalized as a result, with some individuals functioning as food gatherers, others tending the young, other still teaching the young how to acquire a mate, etc. Each member had a place in these tribes, and from the many an individual would learn how to live.
As the millennia passed, the secular ape-man became ever more sophisticated, shifting from lowly ape-like creatures into modern human form sometime between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago, and eventually transitioning from opportunistic hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists, domesticating livestock and cultivating vegetation. According to mainstreamists, this transition likely occurred sometime between 13,000 and 10,000 years ago in the Near East. With the advent of agriculture, our ancestors began to settle various regions, forming the first large-scale settlements, and in due course, we were building grand temples and monuments, engaging in metallurgy and other pursuits, developing a wide range of tools and art, and generally going about life much as we do today. Eventually, the secular ape-man settled the world, conquering nature in the process, and assuming its rightful place as the dominant form of life on Earth. The end.
Believing this scenario, those in authority quickly point out that chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, a sister branch of the same ancestral tree to which we belong. They claim that there is not only a high physical and intellectual similarity between us and them, but also a genetic similarity, with humans and chimps sharing no less than 98% of their genes. Bolstering their views are several transitional fossils, demonstrating our descent from apes. Of course, if these things were actually true, then this would be a much different book…
In reality, there is a wealth of evidence that stands in opposition to all points noted above. Similarities in morphology and behavior cannot be used as a definitive metric for two reasons. The first of these reasons deals with the topic of convergence, whereby unrelated forms can share overwhelming similar features. Though often used by secular researchers as an example of the wonders of evolution, in the light of all that has been discussed here, can such similarity truthfully be the product of chaotic action?
– This was an excerpt from “Remnants of Eden: Evolution, Deep-Time, & the Antediluvian World.” Get your copy here today. God bless! –
FOUNDRY4 is a proud member of the International Association for Creation