Calling Darwinists What They Imagine They Are: Slime-Snake-Monkey-People, and Oh Yes, Mutants


ARTICLE SUMMARY: Mainstream academics, scientists, and journalists are blind to the true meaning of Greek art and its connection to the events described in Genesis because Darwinism has poisoned their thinking. They firmly believe that they evolved from slime, snakes, and monkeys over billions of years through countless random mutations. As such, they cannot even consider the possibility that the events described in Genesis and depicted in Greek art may be real, historical events.

The idea of being descended from a first couple in an ancient paradise seems ridiculous to them. Instead, they insist that they've been randomly generated over vast eons of time from primordial slime, counting among their ancestors insects, rats, and reptiles. How do we shake them out of their stupor? How do we free them from their delusion?

It's a simple matter of name-calling—accurate name-calling. Forget the euphemistic terms Darwinist, naturalist, and evolutionist. Call them what they imagine they are: Mutants and Slime-Snake-Monkey-People. Sooner or later, with many of them, the idiotic and unscientific nature of Slime-Snake-Monkeyism will sink in. If they object to being called by these names, all we have to do is ask them why.

Below you will find in full the final section (Section IV) of the new book by Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr., Noah in Ancient Greek Art. This section is entitled "The Mainstream's Blindness to Our Origins," and it is preceeded by three sections in which the author presents detailed and overwhelming evidence that ancient Greek art DEPICTS the same key events and people in humanity's past that the Book of Genesis DESCRIBES. The difference is one of standpoint: the Greeks believed the serpent enlightened, rather than deceived, the first couple in paradise. As a whole, Greek art (vase-painting and sculpture) chronicles pushing Noah and his God out of the picture after the Flood, and celebrates the return to the serpent's "enlightenment" and the rebirth and victory of the way of Kain (Cain).

Did ancient Greek architects, sculptors, painters, and laborers toil for 15 years elevating those magnificent sculptures on the Parthenon, believing all the while that the artistic themes represented nothing more than "myths"? Is that our rationale for building monuments today? Elevating "myths"? Only a moron would answer these questions in the affirmative. And yet the academic and scientific worlds today, abetted by mainstream journalists, continue to assert categorically that ancient sculptors and vase-artists spent their entire working lives portraying nothing more than "myths." Why do they believe this? The better question is: why must they believe this? You'll find the answer below.

These same academics continue to ignore the facts that the gods looked and acted exactly like people, and that the Greeks claimed descent from them. They ignore also the fact that Sokrates referred to Zeus, Apollo, and Athena as his "lords and ancestors." Why must today's academics deny the obvious evidence that Greek gods and goddesses represent our human ancestors? And why must they deny that these ancestors correspond to the key figures named in Genesis? You'll find the answers below.

SECTION IV of the book NOAH IN ANCIENT GREEK ART
by Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.
© www.solvinglight.com

The Mainstream's Blindness to Our Origins

How Darwinism (Slime-Snake-Monkeyism, also Mutantism) Keeps Scientists, Academics, and Journalists from Considering the Obvious and Abundant Evidence for Creation and a Creator

What ancient Greek artists tell us about mankind's history is so plain to a simple understanding, we must ask why the scholars do not see it. The answer is that Darwinism has thoroughly polluted the mainstream sciences, not the least of which is anthropology, the study of humanity's beginnings. Today, mainstream anthropologists do not study the record of our origins that our ancient ancestors have left us in their art and literature. Instead, they study chimpanzees. This is very sad, pitiful even. These grown men and women work diligently and proudly in an effort to finally find the evidence that will prove that they themselves, along with their vaunted intellects, are the products of unintelligent chance, with no expectation of immortality.

The pernicious notion that we evolved from slime, snakes, and monkeys has hardened into a quasi-religious, uncompromising dogmatism. The idea of a Creator/Designer is heretical to the atheistic teachings of Darwinism, and therefore, no evidence from any field that points to a Creator/Designer can be allowed to disrupt that closed system of intellectual pretension.

The Book of Genesis asserts that "In a beginning, Created by the Elohim [God] were the heavens and the earth." It goes on to say that God created Adam from "the soil of the ground," blew into to him "the breath of the living," and that he thus became "a living soul." It further states that God made Eve out of Adam, and from this first couple, all humans today, through Noah and his wife, are descended.

According to the Slime-Snake-Monkey-People (SSMPs), this cannot be true. (I call them SSMPs, not because they are, but because they think they are. The term gets right to the heart of their beliefs, as opposed to the high-sounding euphemisms Darwinist, evolutionist, and naturalist. And since they firmly believe that they evolved from slime over millions of years through a countless series of random mutations, we are well within the bounds of propriety to also refer to them as mutants).

The story of Adam's and Eve's transgression in the garden, and Noah's Flood, must be considered fairy tales by the SSMPs. An SSMP cannot consider any evidence at all for these events, because within his or her religious and philosophic framework of belief, they are not possible. Since they are not possible, those who give credence to these events must be looked upon with contempt. Mutant mythologist and Slime-Snake-Monkey-Academic (SSMA) Joseph Campbell expresses this contempt most succinctly:

No one of adult mind today would turn to the Book of Genesis to learn of the origins of the earth, the plants, the beasts, and man. There was no flood, no tower of Babel, no first couple in paradise, and between the first known appearance of men on earth and the first building of cities, not one generation (Adam to Cain) but a good two million must have come into this world and passed along. Today we turn to science for our imagery of the past and of the structure of the world, and what the spinning demons of the atom and the galaxies of the telescope's eye reveal is a wonder that makes the babel of the Bible seem a toyland dream of the dear childhood of our brain.

Now let's see how Campbell goes about denying one particular piece of independent evidence that points to the truth of Genesis. In his The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology, he features an illustration of a Sumerian seal from 1500 BC, below.

Here we have a man, a woman, a tree, and a serpent. We think immediately of Eden. But Campbell writes that this "cannot possibly be" the representation of a lost Sumerian version of what happened in Eden. Why not? Because, he writes, there is no "sign of divine wrath or danger to be found. There is no theme of guilt connected with the garden. The boon of the knowledge of life is there, in the sanctuary of the world, to be culled. And it is yielded willingly to any mortal, male or female, who reaches for it with the proper will and readiness to receive."

But this is exactly why it is Eden. This is the view of the events in the garden taken by Kain (Cain) and those who embraced his way. They defied and ultimately dispensed with the angry God, so He and His wrath are not going to show up here. There is no guilt because there is no sin; there is no sin, or falling short of the ideal, because, according to the line of Kain, Adam and Eve did the right thing in taking the fruit. In Genesis 3:14, Yahweh condemned the serpent to crawl on its torso and eat soil. On the Sumerian seal, the serpent rises to a height above the seated humans. Why? Those who hold to the belief system of Kain revere the wisdom of the friendly serpent who freely offers the fruit of the tree of knowledge, enlightening the two progenitors of all humanity so that they and their offspring might be as gods, knowing good and evil.

How do we explain the fact that Campbell misses something so obvious and so basic to the study of what he calls mythology? He must ignore any and all evidence and insights which contradict his atheism or his whole system falls apart. Note that Campbell does not refer to the Eden connection as improbable or unlikely, but as impossible, as something that, in his words, "cannot possibly be." As a Slime-Snake-Monkey-Academic, his atheistic standpoint demands that the Book of Genesis be treated as a fable, and that all ancient art or literature that tends to validate the events of Genesis, be treated as myth. If it means he must wrench away art from its historical significance and pry truth from its moorings, so be it.

Scores of authors have followed in the dark and murky paths carved out by Campbell and have thus been drawn into wasteful pseudo-intellectual excursions of their own. Lady of the Beasts by mutant author Buffie Johnson is one book among many which shows how the teachings of Campbell have limited and befogged many writers. In her book, Johnson features seventy pages devoted to the serpent in the ancient world. Over and over, she stresses the importance of the serpent. Over and over, she points to the connection between a woman, a tree, and a serpent; but she cannot see the Genesis connection. That is because her standpoint is based on that of Campbell and other Slime-Snake-Monkey-Academics.

She features an illustration of the same Sumerian seal Campbell pictures in his book on Greek myth, and which I have discussed, above. Here is what she writes about it in her book: "Although there are similarities, the possibility that this could be an early version of the Adam and Eve story has been denied by archaeologists" [emphasis mine].

Note that she does not say that archaeologists have disproved it, or refuted it, but have denied it. All SSMAs must deny the possibility of an Eden, and deny every bit of evidence that suggests or points to a Creator; likewise, they must deny all the evidence which points to the inextricably related idea that the Book of Genesis is a true account of human origins. Their denials are a matter of atheistic dogma, not of science or logic.

In Section I (of Noah in Ancient Greek Art), I wrote about how impressed I am with the information in the book, The Myth of the Goddess, even though the authors are SSMAs. Authors Baring and Cashford come very close to breaking out of the SSMA trap. They write that "the first 3 chapters of Genesis are incomparably more beautiful than the Babylonian myth of creation" [my emphasis], and that Genesis presents "a new way of perceiving the world, one in which creation is seen as the linear unfolding of an intelligible divine plan." Right on, sisters! Praise be to God!

But wait, for SSMAs to take a positive view of Genesis is taboo, and these authors know it. Calling them "vital to remember," they invoke these words of Joseph Campbell: "Wherever the poetry of myth is interpreted as biography, history or science, it is killed . . . it is never difficult to demonstrate that as science and history mythology is absurd . . . When a civilization begins to reinterpret its mythology in this way, the life goes out of it."

As we've seen in the first three sections of this book, just the opposite is true. Once we see that what the mutants call "myth" is actually the history of our race, we develop true understanding of our origins. Life doesn't go out of the images in ancient art when viewed as history; it comes into them.

After settling back into the Slime-Snake-Monkey rut by quoting Campbell, the authors, as they must, do penance for their rashness and write: ". . . to reinterpret mythology solely in terms of the historical events that may have given rise to it is to undervalue the numinosity of the image that still has the power to inspire and heal." What in God's world are they talking about here? Perhaps their trumping of history with "numinosity" is a corollary to this Joseph Campbell gem:

These mythic figurations are the 'ancestral forms,' the insubstantial archetypes, of all that is beheld by the eye as physically substantial, material things being understood as ephemeral concretions out of the energies of these noumena.

Such obtuse mystification tells us exactly where atheism and Slime-Snake-Monkeyism (SSMism) lead—nowhere. Paul referred to it as the "profane prattlings and antipathies of falsely named knowledge" (I Timothy 6:20). Let us here remind ourselves that ever since the Tower of Babel, fools have been posing as learned men.

The Religious Dogma of the Slime-Snake-Monkey-People

SSMPs assert that life began by a chance occurrence: matter suddenly turned into a living cell capable of reproducing itself. They cannot describe what specifically happened, how it happened, where it happened, why it happened, or when it happened. Thus, their adamant insistence that it happened despite the total absence of scientific evidence for it is a matter of faith, as absurd as that faith may be. If a man kept showing up at the police station, insisting that a crime had occurred, but could not say specifically what had happened, or how, when, why, or where it happened, he'd be charged with filing a false report, and most likely, be considered insane. SSMPs keep filing the same false report day after day. And this report is not based on scientific fact; it is what they believe—their anti-Creator dogma.

The SSMPs have their great prophet and apostle, Charles Darwin. While the apostle and prophet, Paul, represents Jesus Christ and His Father, the Supreme Spirit of Light and Love, Darwin represents Chance and Natural Selection (what he called survival of the fittest) operating over Time. As Christians worship Christ, SSMPs adore Darwin. In 2002, a group of well-known SSMPs published a book of essays exalting their prophet. They called it, Darwin Day Collection One: The Single Best Idea, Ever. Darwin's "single best idea, ever" is a religious one, though it contrasts sharply with what Jesus said:

You shall be loving the Lord your God out of your whole heart, and out of your whole soul, and out of your whole comprehension, and out of your whole strength. This is the foremost precept. And the second is like it: You shall be loving your associate as yourself. Now greater than these is no other precept (Mark 12:30-31).

Which do you consider the greatest precept—loving your Creator heart and soul and your neighbor as yourself, or the idea that about a billion years ago, you began the process of mutating by chance from slime?

SSMPs have their living high priests. Their Grand Exalted Mutant today appears to be Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. The very title of his book should tell you that his focus is not on developing a systematic scientific approach to understanding nature, but on denying our Creator. He knows that the viewpoint he embraces is fundamentally religious: his first chapter is entitled, "A deeply religious believer in no God." SSMPs have a religious hierarchy under Dawkins in the scientific and academic worlds. And they even have their dark side counterparts to Sunday School teachers: the many biology teachers in our high schools—the mutants at the local level who thoughtlessly feed this speculative garbage to our children.

Like other primitive religions, SSMPs have their taboos. They are forbidden to consider a Creator or Intelligent Designer as a possible explanation for their observations in nature. I have never seen any evidence presented by SSMPs that justifies the exclusion of a Creator/Designer as a possible explanation for life on earth. Just as sound police work does not exclude suspects without evidence that they were not involved, sound science does not exclude possible explanations for what we observe in nature without presenting evidence for that exclusion. This in itself shows that SSMism is not true science in the sense of an open-minded, open-ended search for truth, but rather an exclusionary, dogmatic, religious philosophy of science.

SSMPs even have judges who make it taboo for parents and students to question the SSMism in our school system. In 2005, in Cobb County, Georgia, federal judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a school board's evolution-disclaimer sticker had to be removed from science textbooks. This is what the sticker said:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

Fear of this sticker reveals how insecure SSMPs really are about their religious philosophy of science. Any valid theory ought to be able to withstand the salutary tonic of a free current of public scrutiny.

SSMPs have their miracles, beginning with the one where molecules suddenly turn into a living cell. The second miracle is that this first cell came into being with the capability of reproducing itself. DNA is essentially a transmitter of information. Thus, their greatest miracle, more astounding than the virgin birth or turning water into wine, is the turning of molecules into information-carriers that enable a single cell formed by chance out of the "primordial soup," to change into a 60-trillion-cell, self-conscious human being, and at the same time to change into the millions of other life forms on this earth.

Chance has gifted SSMPs with a reverse form of prophecy. Although they often can't remember what they had for breakfast, they can look back through the mist of eons of time—30 million, 100 million, 500 million years ago—be absolutely certain that the earth existed then, and also tell us what kind of sex-dance our rat and snake "ancestors" were performing back then.

As part of their everyday religious rites, SSMPs employ magic. With deception worthy of the best of prestidigitators, SSMPs in general and Slime-Snake-Monkey-Journalists (SSMJs) in particular, have become adept at transmuting arrant evolutionary speculation into facts. I will document some of this presently.

Let me add one further observation about their religion. A fetish is something people irrationally and unquestioningly pursue or devote themselves to. SSMism is not logical or rational, and a believer is not allowed to question it. Those who devote themselves to what they call "the single best idea, ever" in reality embrace nothing more than a sacrosanct fetish.

Slime-Snake-Monkey-Journalists

Most of us do not read the pseudo-scientific reports by Slime-Snake-Monkey-Scientists. We learn about their work through the news media. SSMism has thoroughly polluted the media mainstream, producing SSMJs who routinely and systematically violate the most basic principles of their profession in their outright promotion of SSMism.

How did SSMA, Joseph Campbell, a man with virtually no understanding of the origins of ancient cultures, come to be considered an expert on the meaning of ancient art? SSMJ Bill Moyers made Campbell famous by presenting him as such on a PBS series entitled, Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth. An estimated 30 million people watched the original presentation in 1988, and it has been re-aired often as part of PBS fund-raising efforts. There were no tough questions from Moyers, no probing the scores of obvious contradictions in Campbell's talk, and no skepticism—theoretically a hallmark of sound journalism.

Moyers is one of those doubly-deluded SSMJs, repeatedly insisting that he himself is a Christian. In The Power of Myth, Moyers is quoted as saying to Campbell, "Far from undermining my faith, your work in mythology has liberated my faith from the cultural prisons to which it had been sentenced." One cannot be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, and promote as valid and edifying, the work of an atheistic Slime-Snake-Monkey-Academic. There are no mutants or Slime-Snake-Monkey-People in the body of Christ.

Now let's go to a March 17, 2005 Washington Post article by SSMJ Rick Weiss entitled, "Human X Chromosome Coded," with the sub-headline, "Sequence Confirms How Sex Evolved and Explains Some Male-Female Differences." Despite the promising sub-headline, Weiss presented no evidence at all confirming how "sex as we know it" evolved—just these two utterly speculative sentences:

It happened about 300 million years ago, long before the first mammals. A conventional chromosome in a forebear of humans—probably a reptile of some sort—apparently underwent a mutation that allowed it to direct the development of the sperm-producing testes.

Lucky for us that this very special "probably a reptile of some sort" didn't get hit by a comet or choke to death on a catfish before its magical mutation; otherwise, today we wouldn't be enjoying "sex as we know it."

The editors of the Washington Post have written that the evidence for evolution is "overwhelming" and "powerful." How can the Post editors allow such arrant speculation to pass as overwhelming and powerful proof? The answer is that they "believe" in SSMism, and transmuting speculation into fact is one of their favorite religious rituals. SSMism is the only subject wherein they allow—even encourage—their reporters to break journalism's standard rules.

Suppose a sports reporter, under the headline "Washington Nationals Clinch World Series," wrote:

It happened around yesterday or a few days ago, probably in the bottom of the ninth, a ball-player of some sort may have gotten a game-winning hit, apparently to clinch the World Series.

That sports reporter would be fired that day for not knowing what he is writing about, for being incompetent.

Weiss' article gives us a prime example of the magical transmutation of speculation into fact. In the mainstream media, SSMism is always presented as fact and never proved, and Creationism is always denied, and never refuted.

Based on Weiss' article, other Washington Post SSMJs have falsely presented as fact to their readership that scientists have indeed confirmed how sex evolved, and that our X and Y chromosomes go back 300 million years to the reptiles who first engaged in sex. (If 300 million years doesn't seem like a long enough time for reptiles to morph into human beings, just add 50 or 100 or 300 million years). Such faux-reporting is dishonest and corrupting, and it evinces an unfathomable indifference to the principles of sound journalism.

On March 19, 2007, Washington Post mutant reporter, Shankar Vedantam, wrote about "our evolutionary predecessors" in the indicative mood; i.e., as a fact. He also wrote that "Biologists have shown that our arms and legs and organs have long evolutionary histories." There is absolutely no evidence for this—unless you consider that famous drawing of a fish crawling out of the water gradually turning into a man as some kind of evidence.

You would be outraged if the Post falsely published that your great-grandfather was a serial rapist or a child-molester. But when the Post says we all are descended from snakes, oh well. When little Johnny comes home from school and says he's descended from monkeys and reptiles, what can you say? The Washington Post has written that scientists have confirmed it as fact! Didn't you see the headline?

In The New York Times, the LA Times, on the Discovery and National Geographic channels, all over the country, mainstream journalists on the "science" beat have become unthinking propagandists for the religious philosophy of Slime-Snake-Monkeyism. On February 12, 2007, Tampa Tribune mutant reporter, Kurt Loft, wrote a revealing piece about the silk of the spider's web being studied by MIT. The web is made up of highly-reinforced nano-crystals spiders produce just before the silk sets. By weight, the web is stronger than steel, insoluble in water, resistant to bacteria, and chemically non-reactive. Here we have prima facie proof of design. But no. SSMJ Loft writes: "The MIT team hopes to replicate in a short time what spiders have developed over 350 million years."

Chance knows nothing of the strength of materials, or the mathematics and optimum specifications of web design. By chance, say 340 million years ago, did a spider spin its web out of rubber and go extinct because its prey kept bouncing off? Does that sound crazy to you? It should. At its core, SSMism is a crazy as can be.

Why don't spiders get stuck in their own webs? They exude an oil from their feet that enables them to walk across it. Are we to believe that the spiders who did not "evolve" this ability died stuck in their own snares, and that by chance, some spiders "evolved" that ability and survived? There is as much chance of a spider "evolving" the ability to walk on its own sticky web as there is of a human baby being born wearing a catcher's mitt and holding a baseball bat.

I challenge any SSMP to produce a diagram which shows, generation by generation, with detailed explanations, how a single cell evolved into a spider with its web or into a honey bee in its hive. Or how a single cell evolved into an oyster, a tick, a dolphin, a lightning bug, a giraffe, or any other creature for that matter. Oops, perhaps I shouldn't use the term "creature" because it implies creation. We need to coin another word that fits the Slime-Snake-Monkey paradigm. How about "randomite"? By the way, what fortunate randomite chanced into having the first heart, and what made it start to beat at the correct intervals?

These SSMJs are college graduates. Some hold masters degrees in journalism. Has it never occurred to them that the key operative Darwinian phrase "natural selection" implies an agent of selection—a Selector? This is an obvious and fundamental embarrassment to Slime-Snake-Monkey "theory." Darwin's convoluted language drags the idea of the Creator right along with him into his own messy and contrary atheistic speculation. And what makes these SSMJs think that "random mutations" push in the direction of progress? Have they never played the daily lottery to realize that randomness turns out to our dismay most of the time? Can they explain what makes the random events of SSMism so different?

The Horrendous Implications of Slime-Snake-Monkeyism

Most SSMPs don't even think about the horrendous implications of their beliefs. We find the founding principle of our republic in these words of Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

If there is no Creator, we are not endowed with "unalienable rights" of any kind, and we need to bulldoze the Jefferson Memorial. Not only are we revering an ignorant man, our form of government is built upon a lie. Shouldn't we build in its place a memorial to that prophet of random mutations, that son of the reptiles, Charles Darwin? In place of the Jefferson Memorial, why don't we erect a huge seated bronze statue of Darwin, with a snake in his lap and a monkey on his back? Please think deeply about this: if SSMism is true, as the scientists, academics, and journalists proclaim, give me one reason why we shouldn't replace Thomas Jefferson with Charles Darwin.

Along these same lines, let us consider what is (by coincidence?) the very central verse of the Bible, Psalms 118:8: "It is better to take refuge in Yahweh (God) than to trust in a human." Slime-Snake-Monkey-People believe just the opposite: "It is better to trust in a human than to take refuge in God." The question then becomes, what human? Hitler? Stalin? Karl Marx? Sigmund Freud? Mao Tse Tung? The Ayatollah? Fidel Castro? Charles Darwin?

The point is this: Slime-Snake-Monkeyism leads inexorably to the political and religious philosophy of "might makes right." All our so-called "rights" are alienable in the extreme when we take SSMism to its logical conclusion. There are no Creator-given rights, and without a Creator, everything is relative. There are no ultimate principles of right and wrong. Our "rights" are as chancy as our evolution from the slime.

And what does the notion of being products of random mutations at the deepest level of our genetic makeup really imply about our humanity? Random means "unpredictable," while a mutation is a deviation from the norm, the very definition of "aberration." Once there were chimpanzees. Millions of unpredictable aberrations later, there were humans. Billions upon billions of unpredictable aberrations take us back to that first cell, and to the slime before it. According to the Darwinist way of thinking, what, more than anything else, defines our humanity, our very essence as living beings? Unpredictable aberrations.

Summary

We have been way too timid in our criticism of what is essentially an evidence-shy, insane teaching of our origins. Jesus talked about the foolish man who built his house upon sand. At least sand offers some support. When we get back to the very foundation of Slime-Snake-Monkeyism, there is nothing there. Molecules of matter do not turn into information on their own. Darwin's God-denying, infectious pretense has developed into a ludicrous consensus which denies contrary evidence, impedes the search for truth, destroys intellectual integrity, and muzzles scientific curiosity.

The scientifically correct way to approach the truth of our origins is to gather all the evidence we can, study it, and logically evaluate whether the facts point to chance or to a Creator/Designer. Darwinism is not about an authentic approach to science. It is about Herakles, with the help of Athena, pushing away the heavens, and with them, the God of the heavens, exalting man as the measure of all things. It is the way of Kain.

We should refer routinely to those who embrace evolution as what they believe they are: Slime-Snake-Monkey-People. Calling them Darwinists, evolutionists or naturalists imparts to them an undeserved dignity. They themselves profess to be mutants. What they believe is not intellectually factual, just intellectually fashionable. Their doctrine is loaded with preposterous assertions, ludicrous incongruities, and farcical proofs. Let us hold them up to merited ridicule.

We are created beings living in a creation. Sit in your yard or go to a park and look around: it is design that distinguishes the species, not chance. Like our unalienable rights, this too is self-evident. Paul wrote that we know intuitively of the Creator by His achievements. From Paul's standpoint, SSMPs are those who "alter the truth of God into the lie, and are venerated, and offer divine service to the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25). Paul also wrote this about them: "Alleging themselves to be wise, they are made stupid, and they change the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible human being and flying creatures and quadrupeds and reptiles" (Romans 1:23). Here is the ultimate irony of SSMism: when humans push our Creator out of the picture and exalt themselves as supreme, they begin insisting that snakes are their ancestors.

The next time you run into a Slime-Snake-Monkey-Person, ask him or her to repeat out loud, with conviction: "Three hundred million years ago, two reptiles had sex; therefore, I am."

The hallmark of a healthy humanity is a genuine connection to the truth of our historical identity. SSMPs do not have that connection. They embrace a false, fixed belief—a delusion—concerning who they are and where they come from. SSMPs try to purify and protect their delusion by excluding evidence that challenges and contradicts the many systematized fabrications populating their imaginations. They find the witness of humanity's origins recorded in the Book of Genesis and in ancient art very threatening. That is why they must treat the former as a fairy tale, and the latter as myth. Understanding what is portrayed by ancient art validates the Book of Genesis which in turn validates the existence of the God of Genesis. Acknowledging the God of Genesis forces a recognition of mankind's utter stupidity in relation to Him. Next comes humility, and the admission that Darwin's speculation is, to put it mildly, asinine.

I must add something in regard to mankind's stupidity without God. Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, a time when the fashionable world was especially hungry for writings that "proved" the Scriptures false. In 1860, the Frenchman, Ernest Renan, also fed that desire by publishing The Life of Jesus, a weak biography that made Jesus out to be just a rather exceptional man, and not the Son of God. The intelligentsia (read: the idiotica) ate up Darwin's and Renan's writings.

The interesting thing is what else Renan wrote: an ode to Athena. Some key excerpts: "The world will never be saved unless it returns to thee . . . I will adore none but thee," and in perverted imitation of King David's words in Psalm 84:10, "I would rather be last in thy house than first elsewhere." How urbane and progressive to make an object of devotion out of an idol representing Naamah, the dead sister of Tubal-kain!

Is it any less pathetic a delusion when the mutant randomites make Charles Darwin and pseudo-science the dumb idols of their adoration?

Those who believe that they are Slime-Snake-Monkey-People are under strong delusion. I pray this book in some small way helps break that delusion, and that God, by His grace, will enable many "to come into a realization of the truth . . . sobering up out of the trap of the Adversary, having been caught alive by him, for that one's will" (II Timothy 2:26).

___

You are free to circulate this article so long as it contains the copyright notice: ©www.solvinglight.com
CONTACT
Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.
RBowieJ@comcast.net