Political Implications of the Theory of Evolution

First of all, I will be forthright in my beliefs on the origins of life, earth, and the universe. I believe that God created everything as taken from Genesis 1 in 6 literal 24 hour days. I won’t go into detail on my reasoning because that is not the purpose of my post. The point is, I don’t believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor, or that there is one at all. I believe that God, at creation created every animal according to its own kind and from then, till Noah and then after Noah till now and continuing, there was a great deal of adaptation of all life, but not evolution. Anyway, a few verses in Genesis illustrate the point I want to make but keep sidetracking myself from. Oh well, this is my brain’s post so I have to deal with it just as much as you do.

[26] Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 
    [27] So God created man in his own image,
        in the image of God he created him;
        male and female he created them.

So here in this passages in Genesis 1, we can see that God created man in His own image (The “let us” and “our own” indicate a statement among the members of the Trinity, and not the angels). We are not simply evolutional accidents. We are created in the image of God. That’s a powerful statement. The implications of that for our person-to-person relationships are numerous. As easy as it is to (At least for me), we can’t treat other people like pieces of scrap or helpless morons (Even if they act that way) because they are created in the image of God. His representatives on earth. Now, perhaps the greatest earthly results from this was the idea of natural rights. Argued eloquently, (But not the first) by the founding fathers, the concept of natural rights basically means that we have rights that come naturally from our status as creations in the image of God. The book I’m currently reading A History of American Political Theories puts it best:

They [the soon-to-be-American colonists] declared that there exists a body of natural rights antedating the existence of government and superior to it in authority. These natural rights, it was held, are the real basis of political rights, and hence the action of the British government, even if strictly legal, was still regarded as contrary to the inherent rights of man. This idea was boldly and forcibly expressed by many of the Patriot leaders. Dickinson declared that "our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declaration of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchments or seals; but come from the King of Kings and Lord of all the earth." John Adams said that rights do not come from princes or parliaments; but are coaeval [sic] with these. They are founded "in the frame of human nature, rooted in the constitution of the intellectual and moral world," derived from "the Great Legislator of the universe." Even more vividly the youthful Hamilton asserted that "the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."

So here we have the view that as humans and not just British subjects, Parliament had violated the rights of the colonists. Because humans are created in the image of God, they cannot be trampled on. They cannot have their possessions taken from them. They cannot be killed wantonly. They cannot be pushed into subjugation against their will. The colonists felt that Parliament, by taxing them, forcing them to quarter their troops, closing their harbors, monopolizing the tea trade, all without any consent of their own, was doing just that. So that’s why they fought the most powerful nation in the world at the time. Not because they were spoiling for a fight, on the contrary, many (at least in the beginning of the war) held the British crown and government in high regard, but because their rights as creations in the image of God were being tossed aside in the name of tax revenue and efficiency for the British.

So what does all this mean? Well, when you think about the rampant viral disease of secular humanism that has spread throughout the world, you can explain the actions of some. As much as Hitler could say that he believed in God, he certainly didn’t treat the Jews like creations in His image, much less God’s chosen people. Heh. My next argument was that this could be seen in less extreme ways with what the Democrats are doing in Congress, but nothing they’ve done really has violated our natural rights really. Just pretty much everything else. I guess then a better argument would be that as we see many European nations become more and more secular, we need to watch out for our own as we can easily see in our normal days the rampant Godlessness of our fellow people.