Anarcho-Creationism.com

An Anarchist Defense of Six-Day Creationism

And a Creationist Defense of Anarchism

Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
 who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.

I realize that headline is about as attractive to most people as "An Islamic Terrorist Defense of a Flat Earth." Nobody is interested in either side of that equation. I'm assuming you're not an anarcho-creationist. Thanks for checking out my website.

Coming Soon - A MASSIVE website.
As controversial as it is huge.

About the Author -- And the Reader

I am an anarchist.

I am a murderer. Some would say I'm a "mass shooter." Others would compare me to Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber."

I engaged in theft (extortion) to fund my acts of murder.

But I have repented of murder and theft. I am now a Bible-believing anarcho-creationist.

You too are a murderer. You too are a thief. You are guilty of these crimes precisely because you are not an anarchist. The Declaration of Independence (1776) says you will stand before "The Supreme Judge of the World," and I claim you will be found guilty of violating "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." You need to repent. You need to become an anarchist.

• Continued here.

Anarcho-Creationism: A Tough Sell

I'd like to show you that taken as a whole, the 30,000 verses of the Bible constitute an Anarchist Manifesto, and this is why every government in history has eventually banned the Bible. Even in the United States, a public school teacher cannot "endorse" or "promote" the Bible. The Supreme Court has ruled that students can only be taught "about" the Bible, from an atheist ("secular") perspective. "People used to believe the Bible," your teachers smugly told you, but your teachers were prohibited by law from saying 'You should believe the Bible. It's the Word of God."

I told you: "archists" are not good people.

Why do I say "The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto?" It's very simple, and it's very clear. And your government doesn't want you to know this with confidence.

• The Bible is against violence.
• The State is a "monopoly of violence."
• Anyone who uses violence is an "archist." An "archist" is someone who believes they have a right to impose their will on others by force or threats of violence.

We have been brainwashed in "public" schools (run by archists) to believe that an "anarchist" is:

• a bomb-throwing
• assassin
• who rejects the doctrine of private property,
• seeks to foment disorder, chaos and riots in order to overthrow the government by force and violence
• and establish some dreadful political ideal like "the dictatorship of the proletariat," where everyone is his own god and criminals run wild.

I realize "anarcho-creationism" is going to be a tough product to sell.

1. To not be an "archist" is to be an "anarchist," and "anarchy" (the absence of "archists") means (as we've all been taught) chaos, lawlessness, riots, killing, destroying property, and many bad things. Our "archist" schools taught us that a person described by the word "an-archist" was a very bad person: a bomb-throwing assassin who promotes disorder, chaos, lawlessness. Without "archists" (we were told) society would collapse into "anarchy," by which was meant "crime and lawlessness."
2. To be a creationist, we were told, is to not be an evolutionist, which means being an ignorant, anti-science fundamentalist bigot.

Nobody wants to be an "anarcho-creationist" because nobody wants to be an ignorant, anti-science fundamentalist bigot who advocates chaos, lawlessness, riots, killing, destroying property, and other bad things.

But the reason I'm an "anarchist" is because being an "archist" is a sin, and I'm against chaos, lawlessness, riots, killing, destroying property, and every such bad thing.
And the reason I'm a "creationist" is because evolution is anti-science, and I am pro-science.

Anarchism: It is immoral to be an archist.
Creationism: The Bible says the world was created a few thousand years ago.

I think you get the picture, but you resist the conclusion, because the implications are staggering.

• It means all the politicians are wrong. Your political science professor is wrong. (Most likely.)

I'm sure you know what a creationist is: someone who believes God created the world in six days, about 6000 years ago.

• In other words, all the scientists are wrong.

The "anarcho-creationist" says everybody is wrong and the entire "civilized" world is engaged in a conspiracy to cover-up the truth.

"Everybody?" I suppose that's a bit of an exaggeration. Nobody is 100% consistent with their guiding presuppositions; not atheists, not Christians. Nuggets of truth can be found everywhere, in every person. But the direction of "the world" of archists is wrong. The disposition against Christian Anarcho-Creationism is deadly.

You are like unfaithful wives having illicit love affairs with the world and breaking your marriage vow to God! Do you not know that being a friend of the world is hostility toward God? So whoever chooses to be a friend of the world takes his stand as an enemy of God.
James 4:4

 If you're like me, you spent 13,000 hours in classrooms managed by "archists" and evolutionists. Add another 4,000 classroom-hours if you went to college. If you majored in a STEM field (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) you were certainly taught creationism is wrong. Even "liberal arts" subjects teach evolutionism, and they certainly deny the Bible and promote "archism" (big government) even if they never use the word "archist."

And if you're confused, it's because you have spent more than 13,000 hours in classrooms run by evolutionists and "archists." You've been brainwashed. Fortunately it will not take 13,000 hours to un-do 13,000 hours of brainwashing. Just a few hours.

But it will take time. And thought. Mental energy. This is not a cute kitty video.

Isaac Newton: Creationist

It was only recently that I learned that the great scientist Isaac Newton (1643-1727) was a devout Bible-believing creationist who believed the world was created about 6,000 years ago.

1. Did you know that Sir Isaac Newton -- one of the greatest scientists in the history of Western Civilization -- was a Bible-believing young-earth creationist?

1a. He wrote more words on the Bible, theology, prophecy, church history, and post-flood ancient history -- a creationist critique of history as written by ancient empires -- than he did on science.

1b. He was interested in Bible prophecy, especially the books of Daniel and Revelation. Daniel 2 has a vision of a statue which represented great empires leading up to the birth of Israel's Messiah. Newton believed that all of these empires lied about how long they reigned, and about the age of the earth. So he wrote a great deal in an attempt to amend all their ancient histories and align those histories with the history contained in the Bible, adjusting ancient histories to reflect the global flood in Noah's day, and the division of nations in Genesis 10. This was a massive project.

1c. Newton was familiar with the evolutionary/naturalist anti-Christian philosophers that began with Nimrod and led up to his own day, c. 1700.

1d. He rejected them all and remained a Bible-believing Christian.

2. Had Newton lived another 400 years, he would have seen the unbroken chain of anti-Biblical thinking. None of the philosophers and "scientists" that came after him would have persuaded Isaac Newton to reject young-earth creationism and embrace evolutionism, any more than those who preceded him.

3. Evolution is not about "facts." Evolution is using "facts" to prop up a religion. Call it "philosophy," call it "worldview" or call it religion. Evolution is a religion; a rival to the religion of the Bible. An alterative religion.

4. The religion of evolution was invented to justify archism.

4a. Interestingly, I would call Newton a "proto-anarchist" even though he worked for the government.

4b. Newton laid the foundation for a family-centered society without corrupt empires and a corrupt church. I call this theory "Patriagora" (family + market). See here.

4c. The evolutionary religion of the ancient empires and the modernist church is a rebellion against a family-centered society, which I call the “Vine & Fig Tree” worldview: Every family owning property and doing business with other peaceful families.

This is a vast "conspiracy theory" in which the institutions of church and state rebel against the Bible and the heterosexual family, and set up extortion-financed indoctrination camps ("public schools") to propagate this anti-Biblical religion. Neither state nor church want you to understand the Bible the way Newton and Henry Morris understood it.

Isaac Newton: Great Scientist and Great Creationist. Ask your favorite AI bot if that's true. I asked Grok, "Did Isaac Newton believe the world was created about six thousand years ago?" and Grok said:

Yes, Isaac Newton believed that the world was created roughly six thousand years ago, in line with a literal or near-literal interpretation of the biblical chronology, particularly the timeline derived from the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (the version used in most Protestant Bibles of his era). Key evidence from Newton's own writings: In his unpublished theological manuscript Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (written in the 1720s, published posthumously in 1728), Newton produced a detailed chronological reconstruction of ancient history that explicitly placed the Creation around 4004 BC — the same date famously calculated by Archbishop James Ussher in 1650–1654, which Newton accepted with only very minor adjustments. Newton’s calculated date for the Creation/Fall of Man was approximately 3998–4004 BC, meaning he believed the Earth and universe were about 5,700–5,730 years old in his own lifetime (he died in 1727). In another unpublished theological work, Yahuda MS 17 (held at the National Library of Israel), Newton repeatedly defended a young-Earth timeline and argued that the biblical genealogies in Genesis were historically reliable when properly interpreted (he spent considerable effort trying to resolve apparent gaps or contradictions in them). Newton was not a strict “Ussherian” in every detail (he differed by a few years on some events and was more concerned with synchronizing biblical and pagan histories after the Flood), but he unambiguously accepted a Creation date very close to Ussher’s 4004 BC and a total age of the world of only a few thousand years. So, to directly answer your question: Yes, Isaac Newton believed the world was created approximately six thousand years ago. This was not a casual or peripheral belief for him; he wrote hundreds of thousands of words on biblical chronology and considered his historical-theological work just as important as his physics and mathematics.

This proves that you can be a great scientist and a "creationist" at the same time.

The word "science" comes from the Latin word for "knowledge." Science is observable.

This website is about evolution, but it's not a debate about "science" or "scientific facts." That's because "The Theory of Evolution" is not really about "the facts." It's about a religion that points to "facts" and claims support for their religion. Imagine two people on stage. On the table in front of them is a fossil. The fossil is a "fact." But one speaker says the fossil is millions of years old, and the other says the fossil is only thousands of years old. Is it a "fact' that the fossil is millions of years old? No, that's an interpretation of the facts. The "facts" are the same for both speakers on stage; the interpretation of facts is what differs. Both interpretations are based on the speaker's religion, or worldview. A different religion leads to a different interpretation of the facts.

Isaac Newton would say that what Americans believe about "The Bible and Modern Science" is not based on science, or knowledge. "Science" today is based on religion. Isaac Newton's version of science was based on Christianity. Anthony Fauci's version of "science" is based on the religion of secular humanism.

We'll examine both "science" and "religion" and see that these claims are valid.

If Isaac Newton, generally regarded as a "great scientist," could travel through time from 1700 to 2026, he would be horrified at what Americans say "science" is saying. He would be horrified at what public schools, the mainstream media, and government says "science" says.

None of history's experts proved to Newton's satisfaction that the Bible was wrong. Nothing the experts have said since Newton was alive would have changed the great scientist's mind.

I think I can prove that to your satisfaction.

But it will take some time to read the evidence you've never seriously considered before.

I admit that Isaac Newton was not an anarchist. He worked for the government. But if you and I and Isaac Newton could travel through time back to the days of Moses in Egypt, when Moses compiled the Pentateuch and the account of creation, and then proceed through history through the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires, then through the medieval age, up to the age of Darwin and our own day, Isaac Newton would say, "Nope, the Babylonians didn't prove evolution, nor the Greeks, nor the Arabs, nor the Enlightenment, nor Nietzsche nor Hitler nor Mussolini." It's never been proven, even by its most enthusiastic advocates.

I think I could also prove to Newton that the human race should never have abandoned Theocracy like the Egyptians and the Hebrews did, and the greatest philosophers and political scientists of the ages have not proven that we need archists.

In other words, let's take Isaac Newton or some other great scientist/creationist through history to show that Creationist-Theocracy has never been disproven, and evolution is a religion invented to justify archism. That's what most of this website is: a tour through history, showing the origin of the theory of evolution as a rival to Christianity to justify archism.

Along the way I'll list a few resources. Some are indispensable, others are for the benefit of the intellectually curious and the nerdy. I'll let you know which I think are must-read.

Analytical Table of Contents

This website contains many separate webpages, and could be branched out to include many more. This is an outline of currently available pages. More are continually being added.

Go to the first commandment: "Thou shalt be an anarchist." In a sense, this is all I have to say about "anarchism." I think this concept is the easiest to defend.

• Pacifism: The Bible is Anarchist Because the Bible is Pacifist

• Expropiación: Logical extension of anti-anarchism 

• War

• Conversation with Perplexity on Mark 10

• Liberty and Libertarianism

• What Keeps You From Being an Anarchist

• Romans 13

 
Go to the second commandment: "Thou shalt be a creationist." This is the rest of the website.

• Does the Bible Actually Teach Creationism?

My central thesis is that evolution is a religion which was invented to justify archism. To prove this we need to build a foundation of basic concepts like "religion" and "science."

This website may never get finished.

Here are the pages which have readable content.

Introduction - Definitions - Foundation

About the Author . . . and the Reader

The Bible

• Trust the Bible
• Obey the Bible and the Gospel of Anarcho-Creationism
• Theonomy

What is "religion?"

Harvard Professor Paul Tillich defined "religion" as "ultimate concern." R.J. Rushdoony has a similar definition. See here.

A statement about the Creator is said to be "religious," but a statement that there is no Creator is said to be "scientific." In fact, it is just as much "religion" as a statement about the Creator.

• There is No Neutrality

• Romans 1 - Creature/Nature Worship

What is "science?"

The word comes from the Latin word for "knowledge."

Isaac Newton called it "Natural Philosophy"

Today it's usually associated with technology.

Biblically, true science is "exercising dominion over the earth" (Genesis 1:26-28)

"Science" should not be confused with "history."

Especially ancient history.

"Evolution" is an account of history. It is not "science" in the observable, testable, empirical sense.

• "Science" Used To Be "Natural Philosophy"

• Natural Theology vs. Natural Philosophy

• Divinity and History

• Science is Downstream from Culture

Religion and Science: The Constitution

We're told religion cannot be taught in public schools, but the religion of Secular Humanism (evolution) can be

• What About the Constitution?

• Separation of Church and State

• Public Theism, Private Evolutionism

• America was originally a Theocracy. This is what made America prosperous and admired. Converting the American Christocracy into an atheist theocracy transformed prosperity into bankruptcy and admiration into loathing and ridicule.

• Science and The State

• Populism

What is "psychosis" and "mass formation psychosis?"

"Psychosis" is a belief which is detached from reality.

"Mass Formation Psychosis" occurs when a large group, society, or even an entire nation entertains a belief detached from reality.

Psychosis and "Conspiracy."

Governments and others engage in "conspiracies" to induce "Mass Formation Psychosis."

• You Must Be An Extremist

• Gradates from atheistic schools run by archists and evolutionists believe all kinds of lies and myths.

Revelation From God: Bible and Nature

• Two Books? |

Political Science

• The Origin of "the State" ("Civil Government") - Political Philosophy 101 According to the Bible

• Franz Oppenheimer: All empires/governments originated through violence and conquest.

• Anarchist Professors of Political Science

We may need to spend some time with these concepts. Click those links if you have questions about how I'm using those terms.

The History of the Conspiracy

All of human history -- from the Garden of Eden forward -- is the conflict between Theonomy and Autonomy. History is the story of the conspiracy of Autonomy against Theonomy. The bulk of this website is comparing the history of the world as set forth by Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, and Isaac Newton, with the history of the world set forth by Lucretius, Kant, Darwin, and Mussolini. Those who oppose God's Law have constructed an entirely account of human history, indeed of the entire created universe. They don't want to live in a society that publicly recognizes the crown rights of King Jesus, our Creator and Lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22).

Charles Darwin did not invent the idea of "evolution" in 1859 when he published his book,

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Most of Darwin's ideas had been set forth decades before -- many by his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin.

The entire history of human thought in philosophy, theology, and science, is summed up in the classic formulation by Christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til:

There is no alternative but Theonomy and Autonomy.

"Theonomy" (from two Greek words meaning "God's Law") means being governed by the Bible in every area of life: theology, philosophy, economics, law, and government.
"Autonomy" (from two Greek words meaning "self law") means inventing your own religion. It means inventing your own political system, your own church, your own gender. It means undoing the Garden of Eden. Adam had a choice in the Garden: obey the commandment of God, or listen to the temptation of the serpent: "Ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). You can decide for yourself what constitutes "good" and "evil." Evolution into godhead.

The idea of "evolution" used on this website is the idea of a God-free origin of the universe. It is the idea of

• Autonomy vs. Theonomy in "philosophy"
• Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism in "science"
• Orthodoxy vs. Liberalism or Modernism in "theology."

I put quotes around the words "science," "philosophy" and "theology" because when the basic idea of evolution or autonomy is applied to those categories they become fakes.

• True "science" is knowledge and dominion under God; fake science is a pseudo-historical pseudo-religion invented to justify archism.
• True "philosophy" is "love of wisdom" under God; fake philosophy is fancy academic-sounding words for "I don't like God."
• True "theology" is literally a "doctrine or teaching about God. Fake theology is "Liberalism."

This point is worth pausing for: The work of "science" in the Christian sense goes back to the first commandment given by God in Scripture: "Exercise Dominion" (Genesis 1:26-28), "work and protect the garden" (Genesis 2:15) and classify the animals (Genesis 2:19). What some call "The Dominion Mandate" could also be called "The Scientific Mandate." There are many practical and Christian vocations in what was once called "Mineralogy." Evolutionists invented "geology" in the early 1800's and turned it into anti-theistic speculation.

Ussher's chronology had been discarded a hundred years before Charles Darwin by many who today are called "scientists." (Those who followed the Bible tended to still call themselves "natural philosophers" rather than "scientists." Nobody called himself a "scientist" in Ussher's day. Theology was once known as "The Queen of the Sciences." Natural science could be called "Natural Philosophy.") And the idea of a natural origin and development of life -- rather than a super-natural origin -- goes back to Satan at the beginning of human history, as Morris shows.

I first started compiling the table of contents from these sources of information on the history of the idea of evolution:

Greg L. Bahnsen gave us a survey of the anti-Christian worldview of the post-enlightenment evolutionists in the first Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Summer, 1974:  On Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator

Bahnsen earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at USC. This article surveys modern philosophy beginning with Spinoza (1632–1677) and Kant and shows that Darwin's materialistic creature-centered theory of origins was promulgated centuries before Darwin. Evolution is first a philosophy/worldview/religion, then it is dressed up in the "science" of the day.

Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict | Google Books | PDF | Internet Archive | html | icr.org | archive

The desire to be free from God and His Law goes back to the Garden of Eden, and continues through every human empire in history. All ancient empires and all their religions oppose the God of the Bible. All of them create revisionist histories of their own origin, histories which are evolutionary, that is, "natural" or materialistic. These origin stories may differ in some technical respects from Darwin's origin story, but all these stories claim that the creation -- the material world -- is ultimate. Not the Creator.

Gary North, Cosmologies in Conflict: Creation vs. Evolution, Appendix C in Sovereignty and Dominion: An Economic Commentary on Genesis

How philosophers created the religion of evolutionism, which was then promoted by "scientists."

John M. Frame

John M. Frame has written a terrific book:

• A History of Western Philosophy and Theology

It's a history like Osborne's but it focuses on Philosophy and Theology rather than Science.

John Frame was a student of Cornelius Van Til. Frame's book centers on the basic maxim of Van Til: "There is no alternative but that of theonomy and autonomy." Applied to the subject at hand: There is no alternative but that of Biblical creation and anti-Biblical evolution. There is no neutrality. There are no neutral, objective, unbiased, dispassionate "scientists." Some are liars, some are hoodwinked by the liars. Attempting to mix the Bible and pagan philosophy (falsely called "science") is called "syncretism." Some people are lying syncretists, others are inadvertent syncretists.

My own summary of the Romans 1/neutrality issue is my first article published by Chalcedon:

• The "Facts" vs. The Faith reprinted here.

Bahnsen (above) was also a student of Van Til, and earned his Ph.D. studying the antithesis between naturalism and supernaturalism; theonomy vs. autonomy.

Frame starts with the Greeks and moves through history to Machen and Van Til. Frame does not cover the theology and philosophy of Nimrod, Pharaoh, Goliath, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians, but they all had theology, philosophy, and science. Modern evolutionists usually begin with the Greeks. Henry Morris goes back before the Greeks in his book, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict. 

Frame's focus is on "philosophy and theology," but many "philosophers" are considered precursors of Darwinian "science." Kant, for example, is known chiefly as a "philosopher," but also formulated scientific theories (e.g., nebular hypothesis) and wrote on religion. Darwin himself was a seminary dropout with no degree in any natural science. Go through Frame's list of philosophers and ask your favorite AI bot how each "philosopher" contributed to the development of evolution/"science" and promoted freedom from the Bible. They are all called "scientists" if they reject what the Bible says about science, "philosophers" if they reject what the Bible says about philosophy, and "theologians" if they attack the Bible's theology. One single individual thinker can, and has, worn all these hats. 

There is not only no "thin line" between "philosophy" and "science," there is no line at all. There is also no line between "philosophy" and "theology." Many "philosophers" made a career out of opposing their favorite theologian or theological punching bag. 

Van Til had surveyed this history in his book A Survey of Christian Epistemology.

No Christian who aspires to be a "Bible-believing Christian" would get his theology from a pagan philosopher. Nor should he look to pagan philosophers for his science. You can find lots of articles from evolutionists praising the names on Frame's list of philosophers for their contributions to "science," especially evolutionary science, yet if they were here today, their views would be considered "pre-scientific" and as respectable as Lamarckism or flat-earthism. What makes them "respectable" today is that they rejected the Bible. Autonomy rather than Theonomy.

The first to propose theories of evolution were priests (in the OT, Egypt, Babylon, etc. -- the "Jesuits" of their day) and "philosophers" (in the post-Roman world), then the Evolution Idea was propagated by lawyers (e.g., Charles Lyell) and "influencers" (the "bloggers" of the 19th century).

This is the core of my Table of Contents. Go through the list and ask,

• Should I trust this thinker to define Christianity for me?
• Should I trust this thinker to define philosophy for me?
• Should I trust this thinker to define science for me?

In every case, you should say "No." 

That warning might even apply to those who called themselves Christians.

Church Fathers

Van Til covered the "Church Fathers" in chapter 4 of his book A Christian Theory of Knowledge. They accepted the Greek philosophers and tried to incorporate Greek thinking into their Christian teachings. Theirs was a crippled defense of the Christian faith, Van Til concludes. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Christianity became culturally dominant in many ways, but after a few centuries, Greco-Roman thinking experienced a "rebirth" ("renaissance").

Frame's history reflects the church's inability to prevent the resurgence of Greco-Roman autonomy. Frame simply builds on Van Til's foundation. Here is the history of liberalism, naturalism, and autonomy in Frame's book. 

This is not about science in the STEM-field sense; this is about "science" as an anti-Christian propaganda/hoax; "science" which studies the creation but religiously excludes from the outset the idea of a Creator. Evolution with its doctrine of uniformitarian "deep time" is the big lie.

Just as atheistic Communists infiltrated churches in the 20th century, atheistic propagandists infiltrated academic institutions and called themselves "scientists," who actually created a new anti-Christian discipline: secular "science." ("Natural Philosophy" having been a theological discipline.)

Many evolutionists have posed as Christians. They have even been clergymen.

On the other hand, some (like Darwin's bulldog, T.H.Huxley) were notorious atheists and Bible-haters. They hated Christianity.

There were some evolutionist philosophers who hated "the church" (I don't completely blame them). Some were also political rebels against monarchy (again, I don't blame them for this) and anti-Bible evolution was a way of attacking the entire political-religious order, which was upheld by the church, which quoted the Bible on occasion to justify the State. They had been taught that both the Roman Catholic Church and their own nation-state monarchy were prescribed by the Bible, so they hated the Bible, and they hated Biblical creationism. In some cases they had a strong libertarian streak.

It's hard to blame them and not also blame the institutional church. Sometimes the lines are hard to draw.

In nearly all cases, these philosophers were not "neutral," "objective," "unbiased," "dispassionate," and "scientific." They were Bible-haters. They did not arrive at their unBiblical cosmogony by "scientific observation and testing," but by science fiction.

The "Church Fathers" and the "institutional church" that followed them has been largely pathetic in resisting archist-evolutionism, and in many cases helped promote it. "The Church" has not self-consciously promoted the “Vine & Fig Tree” conspiracy. 

Evolution and Autonomy

But before "Darwinism" there was an idea I call "evolution," or what Henry Fairfield Osborn calls "The Evolution Idea"

Henry Fairfield Osborne,  From the Greeks to Darwin:  An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea.

More about this hard-core evolutionist below.

Osborne's book gives a treatment of the idea fuller than Bahnsen's article. It forms the spine of this table of contents.

But "the Evolution Idea" goes back before the Greeks.

Henry Fairfield Osborn

Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935) was a fervent promoter of evolutionism. He was professor of anatomy at Columbia University, president of the American Museum of Natural History for 25 years and a cofounder of the American Eugenics Society. Osborn was one of the most well known scientists in the United States during his own lifetime, “second only to Albert Einstein", and was a prominent public advocate for the truth of evolution. In 1894 he wrote a work on the history of evolutionary thought, From the Greeks to Darwin | An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea. Here is Osborn's outline of the history of the idea of evolution:

• Osborn's History of Evolution

It would be a good idea to click that link and at least scan the history. Darwin was by no means the first to promote a theory of evolution.

Notice that most of the names on that list would be considered "philosophers" rather than "scientists" strictly speaking. "Science" used to be called "natural philosophy." It wasn't until after 1800 that certain fields -- like "geology" -- branched off "natural philosophy" and became known as "science."

"Philosophers" have always dabbled in "science."

"Philosophers" have also dabbled in "religion."

Three Books

You don't have to read these books, but it would be good to read the Table of Contents of each of them.

1. Frame on Philosophy and Theology
2. Osborn on Evolution
3. This website on Political Science (archism)

Beginning with Frame's book on Philosophy, we see that from "philosophy" stems "liberal theology," and from Osborn's book we see that from "philosophy" also stems "natural philosophy," which is now called "science." Frame shows the conflict between Theonomy (Christian philosophers and theologians, of which there have been too few) and Autonomy (humanistic, unbelieving rebellious philosophers and theologians). Osborn champions Autonomy over Theonomy.

It's interesting to compare the Table of Contents of Frame's book with the Table of Contents of any book on the history of the idea of evolution, such as the book by Henry Fairfield Osborn, a die-hard evolutionist.

If you've read these two tables of contents, Frame on philosophy and Osborn on science, you may have noticed that some names appear on both lists. That's because what we call "science" today used to be called "natural philosophy." The "theory of evolution" was invented by "philosophers," not "scientists." Evolution is an apostate philosophy and an apostate theology. The emphasis of Frame's history of philosophy is a theological one, not a "scientific" one. The "philosophers" who advanced the idea of evolution also advanced what J. Gresham Machen called "liberalism." Theological "liberalism" was "naturalism" applied to miracles and the theological doctrines of the Bible. Frame follows Machen theologically, and Machen was a colleague of Van Til.

Frame covers "philosophers" who bled into theology, while Osborn covers "philosophers" who bled into "science." The most famous names are on both lists.

A third book needs to be written: "philosophers" who bled into politics. Evolutionists who bled into "political science" or "political philosophy." Again, it would cover the same names. From Aristotle to Kant to Hegel,

• Frame tells what the great "philosophers" wrote about God (Theology),
• Osborn tells what these same philosophers wrote about nature and its origins ("science," evolution), and
• another book could be written telling what these same people said about the State and the organization of society from the top down.

The philosophers you learned about in school

• denied the God of the Bible ("theology"),
• they proposed alternative histories of the world (to rival the Bible, which is a massive history text) ("natural philosophy," or evolution),
• and they justified the existence of a monopoly of violence, through which the more-evolved ("archists") rule over the less-evolved.

The Bible advocates anarcho-creationism; the world's name-brand philosophers advocated archist-evolutionism.

• Darwinism: Order from the bottom up (from the mud)
• Archism: Order from the top down (from the king)

Both deny order from the Triune God of Scripture.

Below (and above!) is the combined Table of Contents from Frame and Osborn -- as well as a few other sources. Frame covers some Christians, some of whom were faithful defenders of Theonomy, others who compromised with Autonomy. Osborn lists mainly atheists, but a few evolutionists claimed to be Christians of some sort. Like those named by Frame, they were compromisers. The major figures (from Aristotle to Kant to Nietzsche) simultaneously advanced ideas in theology, science, and politics. They had big brains, no doubt about it. But a very sharp saw blade in a crooked setting tears up the wood. Here's what I conclude:

• atheism/deism is a lie (Theology)
• evolutionism/naturalism is a lie ("science")
• naturalism/liberalism/modernism is a lie (churches)
• archism is a lie (the State)

It's all a vast conspiracy. It's a "package deal." It's the same big-brained people, plus a few lesser names repeating the same big lies. Stragglers and followers. Isaac Newton said they were all wrong up to his day, and he would say the same thing about those who came after him.

Frame's' magisterial work focuses mainly on "philosophy" and "theology," but it becomes apparent that there is a thin line between "science" (especially cosmogony, the origin of the creation) and "philosophy." But it would be helpful to have a book like Frame's which focuses on the scientific side of "philosophy." Morris' book is good, but marred by his dispensational premillennialism. Mortenson has also done good work on the influence of autonomy/naturalism in "science."

This website is the outline of a third book, which tells us what the great "philosophers" said about politics and government. The same list of names, who wrote not only about evolution and theology, but also about how society should be organized. The Christian thinkers on that list argued for what the atheists would call "Theocracy," or a nation "under God." The evolutionists on that list argued for what Christians would call "tyranny." The more-evolved get to rule over the less-evolved. This is "archism." This is Genesis 3:5: "Ye shall be as gods."

I'll concede, as noted above, that not all evolutionists justified statism; some naturalists were political libertarians, just as some supernaturalists have been tyrants and ecclesiocrats. Many naturalists hated the Bible because the Church taught them than a tyrannical church-state was either condoned or mandated by the Bible. Unfortunately, some libertarian evolutionists centuries ago have been outshined by evolutionary archists/statists in the more modern era.

Many political reformers have also called for reform in the church, calling out corruption in both institutions. But the dominant trend in human history has been to replace the God of the Bible -- the Creator -- the True Archist -- with a creature, a human archist. See Romans 1:25; Isaiah 33:22; 1 Samuel 8:7. (See Thomas Paine's comments on 1 Samuel 8.) As Georg W. F. Hegel (a philosopher who also wrote about science) put it, "The State is God walking on the earth."

Theonomy is supernaturalism.

Autonomy is naturalism.

Naturalism in science is "evolutionism" (the opposite of creationism).

Naturalism in theology is "liberalism."

Naturalism in politics is "archism," tyranny, fascism, socialism, communism.

The idea of evolution originated in the mind of men who did not want to obey God's command to not be "archists." They wanted to banish God from their thoughts.

But if there is no Creator, how could there even be a creation? Why is there "something" rather than "nothing." Answer: evolution. Everything evolved from nothing, or from ultimate chaos. But from the ultimate chaos, man evolved. There was no design or purpose behind the origin of the human species, but now human beings can impose their own purpose on the cosmos. They can impose their purpose on you.

There needs to be a third book. Maybe such a book already exists, but I don't know about it. This would be a book like Frame's but which focuses on the history of political science. And again, the same names would be covered in this third book. Many of the philosophers who wrote about evolution did so because they wanted a society autonomous from God, free to exercise political power over others. Or free from the exercise of power by their opponents. As Google AI claims:

The Enlightenment: This era saw a renewed focus on scientific discovery and a challenge to traditional Aristotelian and medieval worldviews, leading to an emphasis on knowledge as a source of power. [7]

Power. Not steam engines, but political power. And often, occult power.

Fortunately, this third book could be created by a number of essays which have already been published. Bahnsen's article above is a start. Historian Gary North says the most important essay he ever wrote was entitled, "From Cosmic Purposelessness to Humanistic Sovereignty." It is found in his economic commentary on Genesis, Appendix A.

https://www.GaryNorth.com/SovereigntyAndDominion2.pdf

https://RealScopesTrial.com/purposelessness.htm

He expands on Huxley's admission elsewhere on this site that theories of evolution were attractive as a cover for seizing political power. Darwin gave rise to the abandonment of constitutionalism, economics, and politics as "natural law" (in a Christian/Newtonian anti-Baalist sense) and construction of a vast "Administrative State" guided by the more-evolved who would rule over the less-evolved.

Gary North's essay "Cosmologies in Conflict" documents the unfortunate tendency of Christian apologists to compromise with humanism. After the fall of Rome, Christianity was ascendant, and unbelievers were coy in their advancement of an evolutionary cosmology. But as Christian apologists compromised more and more, evolutionists more and more publicly advocated an epistemologically self-conscious evolutionary cosmology, and the apotheosis of more fully-evolved political man. Christians unlocked the door, evolutionists opened it little by little, and ultimately locked the Christians out.

History/Conspiracy

Here are the currently available (but still unfinished) pages giving more detail on the history of the evolution conspiracy.

1. Adam
2. Satan
   • Rushdoony: POWER FROM BELOW
3. Noah
   • Noah's Flood Local?
4. Nimrod
5. Abraham

Background on Ancient History

Isaac Newton, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended (1728) 
Newton treated the Bible as a more authoritative history book than the history books written by secular historians of the ancient empires.

1. Scripture and History:

Ancient Religions

1. Baalism
2. Chain of Being
3. Ancient Evolutionists

Newton writes about these great ancient empires:

1. Assyria
2. Babylon
3. Egypt
4. Medes
5. Persians
6. Ancient Evolutionists:

They all had basically the same "credo." Natrualism, or evolutionism, and autonomy.

Part I: Evolution from the Greeks to Newton

1. The Evolution Idea
2. Greeks
3. Civilization: see How Jesus the Messiah Produced "Western Civilization"
4. The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, 563 to 483 BC.
5. Sophists
6. Plato (c. 428-347 B.C.) See: Plato: Autonomy vs. Theonomy
7. Aristotle (384-322 BC)
8. Rome: Christ or Caesar?
9. Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 98 BC - ca. 55 BC)
10. Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis; Bishop of Hippo (now, Annaba, Algeria) (354 -430)
    • St. Augustine Was a Young-Earth Creationist [Along with other Church Fathers] || Answers in Genesis
11. Salvian the Presbyter (c. 400-480)
12. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

"The Dark Ages"

1. Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

The Reformation

1. Reformers Belief about the Age of the Earth | Answers in Genesis  Dr. Joel R. Beeke
2. Claude Duret (c. 1570-1611)
3. James Ussher (1581–1656)
4. John Lightfoot (1602–1675)
5. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
6. John Locke (1632-1704)
7. Thomas Burnet (1635–1715)

Part II: Evolution from Newton to Darwin

1. Enlightenment
2. Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
   • Newton's Religion
   • Newton's Work-Product
   • Newton did not believe in "Newtonianism"
   • Newton and Chymistry
   • Newton on the Trinity
   • Angels and Providence
   • Comparing Isaac Newton and Henry Morris
   • Newton, The Churchmen, and "Christendom"
   • Patriagora and Isaac Newton
   • Providence
3. John Woodward (1665–1728)

The speculative Evolutionists : Duret, Kircher, Maupertuis, Diderot, Bonnet, De Maillet, Robinet, Oken.

1. Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, (1707-1788)
2. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
3. James Hutton (1726-1797)
4. Jean André Deluc (1727-1817)
5. Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)
6. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)
7. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)
   • Father of Theological Liberalism
8. Étienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844)
9. Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873)
10. Patrick Matthew (1790-1874)
11. William Whewell (1794–1866)
    • The origin of "Science"
12. The Messianic Character of American Education
    At this point I'm introducing more characters to our Evolutionary Hall of Shame:
    Founders of the Modern Public School movement. This history is chronicled in
    the very important book The Messianic Character of American Education,
    by R.J.Rushdoony.
    Review by Gary North
13. Charles Lyell (1797-1875)
    • Fossils and Presuppositions
    • Uniformitarianism is a Religion
    • Deep Time
    • Links to Lyell Articles
14. Robert Chambers (1802-1871)
15. David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874)
16. Precursors of Charles Darwin
17. Young-Earth Creationists pre-1900
18. Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
    • Saint Darwin
19. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
20. Slavery: Liberals and Conservatives
21. John Wesley Judd (1840-1916)

Part III: Post-Darwin: The Scopes Trial, Progressivism, and the Administrative State

Evolution and The Administrative State

Eugenics and Racism |

Fundamentalism

1. Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)
2. Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913)
   • Gary North: Lester Frank Ward: Godfather of American Central Planning
3. William James (1842–1910)
4. Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924)
5. Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935)
6. The Scopes Trial: This significant event brought together several figures in 1925.
7. The lives of Darrow, Bryan, Mencken, and Machen all intersected in fascinating ways,
   involving several "conspiracy theories," and the famous "Scope's Monkey Trial."
   To get the remarkable story of that trial and these four men, click here.
8. Evolutionism and Racism
9. Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
10. Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (1858- 1919)
    • Darwinism, Teddy Roosevelt, and the Invasion of the Philippines
11. William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)
12. H. L. Mencken (1880- 1956)
13. J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937)
    Machen was an opponent of Liberalism

1. Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

Modern

1. Davos and Transhumanism
2. De-Population
3. Dawkins et al
4. Putin and Christendom

Common Objections to Anarcho-Creationism

The Vine & Fig Tree Worldview

A Complete Curriculum

Benefits of taking this college-level course

History and Strategy of This Website

I began creating this website during the Covid "scamdemic" when liberals were saying we must "Listen to the Science!"

• MassFormationScam.com 

The title of that website comes from a phrase that was trending on social media during the days of Covid: "Mass Formation Psychosis." I claimed that a society that suffers from a psychosis has been "scammed." That is, there are people who are intentionally inducing people to believe things that are not connected to reality. Covid was a scam; the masses believed it. The six foot "social distancing" was invented by a bureaucrat, not a scientist. Masks don't work against covid, a virus created by the government in a lab. Your local "Mom&Pop" grocery store was not less "essential" than Walmart. It was a scam. Some people were scammers, some people were scammed. Most Americans were scammed. They patriotically participated in the scam, thereby scamming others. Archism is a scam; the masses believe it. Evolutionism is a scam; the masses are taught it in archist-run schools, and they believe it.

Then I began adding material to commemorate the 100th anniversary of "The Scopes Trial" in 1925. William Jennings Bryan was not a six-day creationist. His concern was that "experts" were scamming people into accepting "scientific racism" and taking nations into war. Jennings resigned as Secretary of State because he believed President Wilson was scamming the nation into an unnecessary and horrific World War.

• RealScopesTrial.com - Articles by Gary North
• TheRealScopesTrial.com - My commentary on North's articles.

I didn't have time to get this website completed before the anniversary of the Scopes Trial on July 10, 2025.

This website, "Anarcho-Creationism.com," grew to a size longer than Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law, an 800-page tome which I believe every Christian should read. But as Gary North notes:

It is a well-known fact that people find it difficult to follow long chains of reasoning. So, let me present my conclusion up front, in a form that does not require a long chain of reasoning. (p. 1419)

I think you can see my conclusion already: Anarcho-Pacifism, Creationist-Theocracy, eutopia and paradise.

"Crazy" and "extremist" ideas. Ideas which -- though not consistently applied -- made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history.

This is a huge website. At nearly 100k words, it's a good sized book. It also links to dozens of important articles and not a few books that are essential to understanding the big issues. It should be a college level course. No college will touch it.

What will you get out of reading -- or even just reading the summary of -- this website?

I believe it could be one of the biggest life transformations you've ever experienced. It has been that for me. If will force you to rethink a lot of bogus ideas fed to you by government schools and media.

The Case For Creationism
The Case Against Evolutionism

Here's my thesis in a nutshell:

Evolution is a religion
and this religion was invented by people who wanted to justify being an “archist.”

When I say "religion," I don't mean "sacraments" and pews and clergymen with backward collars.

By "religion" I mean what Harvard Professor Paul Tillich called "ultimate concern." I mean a philosophy of life. A "worldview." Evolution -- a "struggle for life" to preserve favored races -- is a natural substitute for supernatural Christianity, which is about serving, not dominating. More on the word "religion."

I was in high school when I learned (not in class) that evolution was invented by people who hated the Bible and wanted to be their own gods. They said that themselves. I'd like you to read their words. There's a war. You need to pick a side.

I realized that I had not been taught to take the Bible seriously by my atheistic public schools. The opposite, in fact.
I realized that becoming a Creationist meant becoming a pacifist. I realized that allowing God to be my Governor made me a defender of anarchism and Theocracy. That was 50 years ago. I'm still learning all about this.

This can be done in a month, 15 minutes a day.

Most Americans are incapable of wrestling with a controversial idea like anarcho-creationism for 15 minutes straight. They need to keep scrolling. Our attention spans are much shorter than they were when America was a Christian Theocracy. And we haven't been trained to pay attention to what God says in the Bible.

I wonder if you can unlearn your atheistic schooling and comprehend and absorb the real meaning of the Bible. It will take work, but it can be done in a few minutes a day, giving time for the ideas to percolate.

I myself used to strongly oppose "anarcho-creationism" (although I never heard that term -- until I made it up last Tuesday).

1. I believed an "anarchist" was a bad person, who promoted chaos, lawlessness, vandalism, and all those bad things. I believed in Christian ethics and the Ten Commandments.
2. I believed evolution was a proven, verifiable, tested, substantiated scientific fact -- not even a "theory" anymore -- and anyone who took the Bible literally was an ignorant fundamentalist. I believed we should "Listen to the Science!"

It took a while, but I eventually realized I had it all backwards.
I realized I was a victim of educational malpractice.
I realized the Bible was against "archists," and evolutionists were against the Bible.
I realized that everything I had been taught was a lie.

Yeah, that's a bit of an exaggeration. Not "everything" I was taught was a lie, of course. My Driver's Ed instructor taught me some true things about driving a car.

But when it came to some really big issues -- like the history of our species and the universe itself, and the way civilized nations ought to be organized -- I had been lied to.

And just as important, I realized that those who were telling me about the history of life were giving me a false history in order to justify their being in charge of organizing society according to their own wishes and profit.

Here's my thesis in a nutshell: Evolution is a false religion; a religion created in order to justify being an archist.

Evolution is not "science." It is a story; it is history. Just like the Bible: the Bible is a big history book. Isaac Newton believed the Bible was a true history, evolutionists disagree with Newton; they have invented their own fictional history.

• Evolution says "History [evolution] justifies a technocratic elite taking control of your life."
• The Bible says "History [creation] justifies God the Creator taking control of your life."

The only legitimate "archist" in this universe is God.

Obviously the burden of proof is on me: I need to prove that

• being an archist is a sin;
• that Evolution is "revisionist history" (not science), and that this revision of history is designed to justify an elite group taking power over you (assuming here that you do not consider yourself part of that elite); the religion of evolution was invented to justify being an archist.

I'm confident I can meet that burden of proof. I have the footnotes ready to go.

The Evolution of Evolution from Nimrod to Darwin

Table of Contents

Here is the Table of Contents.

It's the history of evolution. It's a big website.

Isaac Newton largely begins his historical chronicle after the flood. But history goes back to Adam in the Garden of Eden.

Please do not read this Table of Contents. Please just scroll through it. We'll look at it again in a little more detail below.

1. ADAM
2. Satan
3. Noah
4. Nimrod
5. Abraham
6. Baalism
7. Assyria
8. Babylon
9. Egypt
10. Medes
11. Persians
12. Ancient Evolutionists:
13. Greeks
14. Civilization

Milesians: lonians and Eleatics : Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes

15. Thales (c. 624 BC - c. 546 BC)
16. Anaximander (c. 610 BC - c. 546 BC)
17. Anaximenes (d. 528 BC)
18. Pythagoras (c. 570 BC - c. 490 BC)
19. Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 570 - c. 478 BC)
20. The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, 563 to 483 BC.

The Physicists: Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, Anaxagoras

21. Heraclitus c. 535 BC - 475 BC
22. Parmenides b. 510 BC
23. Anaxagoras (c.500—428 BC)
24. Empedocles (c. 492—432 BC)

The Atomists

25. Leucippus c. 450 BC
26. Democritus c. 460 - c. 370 BC

The Sophists Protagoras, Gorgias, and Hippias. 2nd half of 5th century BC (450-401 BC)

27. Protagoras (490-420 BC)
28. Gorgias (c. 483 BC - c. 375 BC)
29. Hippias of Elis (late 5th century BC)
30. Socrates (469-399 BC)
31. Plato (c. 428-347 B.C.)
32. Aristotle (384-322 BC)

Aristotle and his followers. Pliny, Epicurus, Lucretius

33. Epicurus 300 BC
34. Stoicism founded in Athens by Zeno of Citium (modern day Cyprus), c. 300 B.C.
35. Zeno of Citium c. 334-262 BC.

Romans

36. Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 98 BC - ca. 55 BC)
37. Strabo (64 BC - 24 AD)
38. Ovid (43 BC - 17/18 AD)
39. Gaius Plinius Secundus (AD 23/24 - 79), known in English as Pliny the Elder
40. Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD)

Birth of Christ

41. Clement of Rome (Pope Clement I) (35- 99 or 101)
42. Ignatius of Antioch (35/50 - 98/117)
43. Polycarp (69 -155)
44. Shepherd of Hermas (70 to 140)
45. Didache (70-150)
46. Justin Martyr (100-165)
47. Irenaeus (130-202)
48. Tertullian (c. 155/160 - after 220)
49. Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 155-c. 220)
50. Origen of Alexandria ( c. 185 - c. 253)
51. Plotinus (204-270 AD) [Neoplatonism]

The Fathers and Schoolmen : Gregory, Augustine, Erigena, Aquinas.

52. Athanasius (296-373)
53. Gregory of Nyssa, (c. 335 - c. 394)
54. Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis; Bishop of Hippo (now, Annaba, Algeria) (354 -430)
55. Salvian the Presbyter (c. 400-480)
56. Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (476?-526?)
57. Pseudo-Dionysius (c. 485- 532)
58. John Scotus Erigena (810 - c. 877)
59. Anselm of Canterbury (1033—1109)

Arabic Science and Philosophy: Avicenna, Avempace, Abubacer.

60. Abubacer | Abū Bakr (573- 634)
61. Avicenna (Ibn Sina, 980-1037)
62. Avempace (c. 1095-1138/39)
63. Moses Maimonides (1138-1204)
64. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
65. Averroes (Ibn Rushd, 1126-1198)
66. Eckhart von Hochheim OP ( c. 1260 - c. 1328)
67. John Duns Scotus (1265/66-1308)
68. William of Ockham (c. 1287-1347)

The Reformation

69. Martin Luther (1483-1546)
70. John Calvin (1509-1564)

The Natural Philosophers : Bacon, Descartes, Leibnitz, Kant, Lessing, Herder, Schelling.

71. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
72. Francisco Suárez (1548—1617)
73. Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban (1561-1626)
74. Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
75. Claude Duret (c. 1570-1611)
76. James Ussher (1581–1656)
77. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
78. René Descartes (1596-1650)
79. John Lightfoot (1602–1675)
80. Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680)
81. Henry More (1614–1687)
82. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
83. Robert Boyle (1627–1691)
84. John Ray (1627-1705)
85. Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza (1632-1677)
86. John Locke (1632-1704)
87. Thomas Burnet (1635–1715)
88. Nicolas Steno (1638-1686)
89. Enlightenment
90. Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
91. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646 -1716)
92. Benoit de Maillet (1656-1738)
93. Edmond Halley (1656-1742)
94. William Derham (1657–1735)
95. John Woodward (1665–1728)
96. John Toland (1670-1722)
97. George Berkeley (1685-1753)
98. Joseph Butler (1692-1752)
99. Voltaire (1694-1778)

The speculative Evolutionists :
Duret, Kircher, Maupertuis, Diderot, Bonnet, De Maillet, Robinet, Oken.

100. Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis 1698 - 1759
101. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
102. Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778)
103. Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, (1707-1788)
104. Julien Offray de LaMettrie (1709-1751)
105. Thomas Reid (1710-1796)
106. David Hume (1711-1776)
107. Denis Diderot (1713-1784)
108. Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach (1723-1789)
109. Gotthold E. Lessing (1729-1781)
110. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
111. James Hutton (1726-1797)
112. Young-Earth Creationists pre-1900
113. Jean André Deluc (1727-1817)
114. Charles Bonnet (1720-1793)
115. Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)
116. Jean-Baptiste Robinet (1735-1820)
117. Horace-Bénédict de Saussure (1740-1799)
118. William Paley (1743-1805)
119. Johann Gottfried von Herder 1744-1803

From Lamarck to St. Hilaire

120. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)
121. Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749-1817)
122. Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827)
123. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)
124. William Charles Wells (1757- 1817)
125. William Playfair (1759-1823)
126. Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1761-1832)
127. Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814)
128. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)
129. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)
130. Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
131. William Smith (1769-1839)
132. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859)
133. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831)
134. Étienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844)

The Age of Darwin

135. Christian Leopold von Buch (1774-1853)
136. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775—1854)
137. Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus (1776-1837)
138. Jean-Baptiste Geneviève Marcellin Bory de Saint-Vincent (1778-1846)
139. William Herbert (1778-1847)
140. Lorenz Oken (originally Okenfuß) (1779-1851)
141. Chalmers, Thomas, 1780-1847
142. Johann Friedrich Meckel the Younger (1781-1833)
143. William Buckland, 1784-1856
144. Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873)
145. Antoine Étienne Renaud Augustin Serres (1786-1868)
146. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
147. Patrick Matthew (1790-1874)
148. Karl Ernst von Baer (1792-1876)
149. William Whewell (1794–1866) The origin of "science, 1833"
150. James G. Carter (1795–1849)
151. Horace Mann (1796–1859)
152. Charles Lyell (1797-1875)
153. Robert Chambers (1802-1871)
154. Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872)
155. Richard Owen (1804-1892)
156. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1805-1861)
157. David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874)
158. Precursors of Darwin
159. Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

Post-Darwin: The Scopes Trial and the Administrative State

160. Henry Barnard (1811–1900)
161. Samuel Stehman Haldeman (1812-1880)
162. Georg Büchner (1813-1837)
163. Charles Victor Naudin (1815-1899)
164. Karl Marx (1818-1883)
165. Charles Kingsley (1819-1875)
166. Friedrich Engels (1820-1895)
167. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
168. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913)
169. Edward H. Sheldon (1823–1897)
170. James Swett (1830–1913)
171. Francis Wayland Parker (1837–1902)
172. William Torrey Harris (1835–1909)
173. John Wesley Judd (1840-1916)
174. Lester Frank Ward (1841-1913)
175. William James (1842–1910)
176. Friedrich W. Nietzsche (1844-1900)
177. G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924)
178. Charles De Garmo (1849–1934)
179. Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924)
180. Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935)
181. Karl Pearson (1857-1936)
182. The Scopes Trial: This significant event brought together several figures in 1925.
183. Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
184. Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (1858- 1919)
185. John Dewey (1859–1952)
186. William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925)
187. Nicholas Murray Butler (1862–1947)
188. William Heard Kilpatrick (1871–1965)
189. Boyd H. Bode (1873–1953)
190. Edward Lee Thorndike (1874–1949)
191. Herman Harrell Horne (1874–1946)
192. J. B. Watson (1878–1958)
193. Henry Louis Mencken (1880- 1956)
194. J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937)

The Progressive Era

196. Benito Mussolini (1883-1945)
197. Harold O. Rugg (1886–1960)
198. Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
199. Carlton Washburne (1889–1968)
200. George S. Counts (1889–1974)
201. Theodore Brameld (1904–1987)

So here's my proof for six-day creationism.

Here's why, if you call yourself a Christian, you should believe and promote the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

For me, Newton is the "prima facie case." Newton said the Bible was right. Some other name-brand scientist who wants to dismiss the Bible and creationism with the wave of his hand cannot do so. He has to counter Newton with actual evidence. He has to present a case. He can't do it.

I think he also has to explain the scammy conspiratorial nature of the evolutionary claim. All through history, those who have denied the Bible Newton affirmed have made unscientific claims. These lies, like it or not, spill over onto evolutionists who are not as hostile to the Bible. They need to distinguish themselves from the propagandists and scammers.

Ancient History

Imagine that you and Isaac Newton have been teleported through time back to the beginning of human history. Imagine you get to go through thousands of years of human history, observing the rise and fall of empires and false religions. You witness the "great thinkers" who promoted evolution rather than creationism. Like walking through the table of contents of Osborn's book above, only in real life. My challenge: At no point in this walk through history would Isaac Newton have looked around and said, "Omigosh! These Egyptians (or Persians, or Greeks, or German idealists) have shown me scientific evidence that the Bible is wrong and God did not create the world in 4000 B.C. Here's the proof that Noah's flood never occurred!" No "great thinkers" who promoted evolution from the dawn of history to Newton's day persuaded Newton that his creationism was "unscientific."

Going back to the "beginning of human history?" When was that? Newton would say we should go back to post-flood world Genesis 10 and the "Table of Nations." Human history before that was wiped out in Noah's flood, according to Newton. Newton's work on The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended showed him that The Chronologies set down by ancient writers from Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, the Medes and the Persians, and the Greeks and Romans, were all lies and fables, and needed to be amended according to the one infallible historical record we had: The Bible.

More Recent History

If Newton could travel slowly through time from his day (1642-1727) to ours (2026) and observe the triumph of evolution and the demise of Christianity, would he become an evolutionist? In what year? If he went all the way to 2026, would he be happy with what evolution has done to the world? If he encountered a "fact" that evolutionists used to support their religion, would Newton "jump" on it, or pause to re-assess?

In the last 150 years, evolutionists have been given billions of dollars in government grants to shore up their religion with scientific factoids. What if that money had been given to creationists instead? What if public schools had not promoted evolution, but all Americans had been taught to think in creationist terms? What would science look like today?

As noted above, no Christian should get his theology from a secularist or pagan; no Christian should get his philosophy from a secularist or pagan, and no Christian should get his theory of origins and history of the universe from a naturalist, secular or pagan. (And no Christian should get his theory of political philosophy from pagans either.)

So let's imagine a trip back in time. Then let's move through human history with Isaac Newton, the great scientist. Let's answer the most basic questions in theology ("the Queen of the Sciences"): should I trust this guy more than I might trust Isaac Newton or Henry Morris or John Frame?  Go through the list and ask the most prominent civilizations and writers a series of questions:

Do you believe the God of Israel is the one true God? Do you believe that Israel's God is the creator of the Universe, and did so a few thousand years ago? Do you believe that God created the universe ex nihilo ("out of nothing")? Is there a distinction between the Creator and the creation which the creature cannot bridge (no "chain of being")? Do you believe in the Commandments God gave to Moses, specifically, "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" apply to every human being? Theonomy or Autonomy: Is man's reason and his action to be subordinated to God's revelation in Scripture? Have you created an alternative revision to creation and history as revealed in the Bible in order to justify you or your friends forming a State and violating God's commands against hurting other people and/or taking their stuff? ("Statism" = worship of the State. State = highest authority.)

The answer to the first six questions will always be "No," and the answer to the last question will always be "Yes."

In the history of Christianity, many "doctors of the church" and free-market theologians (who sell their books outside the institutional church) have been squishy on these questions.

It's a simple choice: Do I believe God and His Word in the Bible, or am I my own god, justifying my own religion and political theory by citing the name of some dead philosopher?

While it's a simple task, it can take a long time if you want to demand answers for those questions from all the great "philosophers," "theologians," and "scientists" of history. Newton did the work for those who preceded him; we need a new book which covers the "philosophers," "scientists," "theologians" and "political scientists" who followed him. And again, sometimes big-brains have written trend-setting books in all four categories.

Newton was not persuaded to abandon the Bible by the Assyrians and Greeks who preceded him, and he would see throughout history that it's not about "scientific facts," its about Theonomy vs. Autonomy. It's about Civilization vs. Chaos.

The history of philosophy, theology and evolution is a vast conspiracy against God.

Final Question: would a great scientist and creationist like Isaac Newton be persuaded by the arguments of this vast list of co-conspirators against God the Creator? Especially if considered in chronological order?

Chronology is important. As Osborne notes, the ideas of today were birthed by philosophers of the past. If we travel from Genesis 10 (Assyria, Babylon), Egypt, Medo-Persia, and up to the Greeks, would Isaac Newton, the young-earth creationist, at any point have listened to "the experts" and been converted from creationism to evolutionism? No. Newton did his homework. He knew what these ancient philosophers said, and he was still a creationist. Continue through history with more modern scientists, philosophers, and theologians: We can pursue these questions throughout history all the way to Darwin and into the 20th century to 2026. The answer will always be "No." Isaac Newton would never see any evidence to convert him from creationism to evolutionism, from civilization to chaos.

It's not just about scientific factoids. It's about which religion explains civilization. Which religion undermines civilization and creates war and suffering? (Hint; the archist religion.)

Nor will you, if you take this journey.

At no point in history is "scientific evidence" the real issue. The issue is authority. Christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til said "There is no alternative but that of Theonomy and Autonomy." God's Law vs. Self-Law. Is your authority God in His inscriptured Word, or is your authority autonomous "science" that does not "think God's thoughts after him."

The Chart

Table of Contents

Here is a chart of nearly all the names found in the resources listed elsewhere (Osborn, Frame, etc.).

The list includes atheist philosophers and some who claimed to be Christians. Some of the ostensibly Christian philosophers understood the conflict between Jerusalem and Athens, while others were infected by autonomy and evolutionism. Most of them compromised on the issue of Biblical authority vs. the autonomy of human reason. In his book, Frame consistently points out the conflict between Theonomy and Autonomy.

We have Frame's book on Philosophy and Theology that shows the conflict between Theonomy and Autonomy/naturalism..
We have many books like Osborn's that give us the history of evolution from a naturalist perspective.
We need a third book which covers the history of the idea of "The State" from a Theonomic anarcho-creationist presupposition. So far, all books on the State -- even anarchist books - have been written from a pro-evolution perspective.

This website begins to describe how Autonomy leads to statism -- politics without the supernatural; politics with creatures-for-archists.

More importantly, did some of these philosophers admit that they loathed the Bible and creationism because they didn't want to be limited by God's commandments, and invented evolutionism to justify seizing power. It's astonishing how many of these writers admitted (sometimes publicly, often only privately) it is not about "facts," but about morality. "We will not have this Man reign over us" (Luke 19:14).

Fill in this chart, and you have the third book we need.

Here again are the questions to ask each one of the big-brains and the lesser-brains.

Then the final question as we imagine traveling through time, Would a great scientist and creationist like Isaac Newton find any argument by any of these thinkers compelling enough to abandon Providence, an orderly and predictable universe, and the Bible as an authoritative history book, abandon creationism and convert to evolutionism? The answer has only ever been NO.

Some work has already been done to answer these questions for key figures. Much work remains, but enough work has been presented here to constitute a "prima facie case" that evolution is a fake religion, a fake philosophy, and a fake science invented to justify being an archist.

Benefits

I realize there's very little incentive for you to go to all the trouble to prove to yourself that the whole world is wrong, and only the Bible is right. But there are benefits. After reviewing this website, an AI ChatBot came up with these benefits.

Now I'd like to ask you for an entire year.

I'd like to ask you to consider the reliability of the Bible and the necessity for "pure religion" for the next 365 days, 5 minutes a day, weekends excluded. I truly believe you will experience

the most profound, beneficial, massive, and lasting personal transformation of your entire life

I'd like to completely transform your understanding of the Bible, as well as the history of planet earth, why God put human beings on this planet, and how we can enjoy a peaceful and prosperous society together.

If you'll give me a few more minutes, I'd like to show you what I would like to show you. A bird's-eye view. Go ahead and click the links if you wish, but all I'm asking for at this point is a few minutes to show you the basic outline of my anarcho-creationist class.

Religion

Everyone agrees that "creationism" is a "religion," even though it's a scientific-sounding theory about the origin of the cosmos, and even though "creationism" by itself doesn't prescribe "sacraments" and does not take place in "churches." "Creationism" is considered "religious" because it says something about a Creator. The Declaration of Independence must also be considered a "religious" document on this basis.

"Evolutionism" is equally a "religion." It is an anti-religion. It is a desire to escape the moral obligations of a Creator. It is a desire to be free from "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" [Creator], laws which William Blackstone said can only be found in the Bible. Evolution is simply the moral opposite of Creationism, but it is equally "religious," but the "piety" is oriented in a different direction. The opposite direction.

Beginning with James 1:27, I will show that anarcho-creationism is true religion, and evolution is a false religion. Evolution is a religion that was invented to justify being a non-anarchist.

You are the victim of 13,000 classroom hours of indoctrination, telling you that the thesis of this website is untrue, even dangerous, and certainly worthy of ridicule. It will take a couple of hours for you to realize that

You are a Victim of Educational Malpractice

You'll have to balance out 13,000 hours of brainwashing with a couple of hours of the Bible and its history of the world.

A note on using AI

Material in orange box is usually a conversation with an AI bot like ChatGPT, unless the source is otherwise identified.

I view AI bots (like ChatGPT) as a starting point. It can usually tell me if I'm in the ballpark. Every day I find it making something up. But it's mostly reliable.

If I make a claim that you find hard to believe, I recommend you check what I say with an AI bot. Unless you actually have person-to-person access to a university professor or other "expert." When I first started creating webpages on the internet, I was jazzed by the ability to provide a "hyperlink" to the actual sources I was citing, instead of just a footnote. Today, if you want to check what I'm saying, you can start with an AI bot. I don't have to create a link for every claim I make.

If you just ask a simple, open-ended question on a controversial issue, you get the "consensus" view -- the view of Mass Formation Psychosis. If you ask AI for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, based on pure logic, observational science, and mathematical probability, you get a completely different answer. If you get an answer that challenges the opinions expressed on this website, push back with some of the evidence presented here and see if the AI bot doesn't modify its opinion.

A general question gets the popular, generic, consensus answer, but getting more specific can result in an entirely different answer. See this example:

• https://youtu.be/ga7m14CAymo

Amazing.

It should be obvious that I'm not a "scholar" in the sense of going to original primary sources and drawing conclusions based on my knowledge of the field. I rely primarily on secondary sources. I've done a fair amount of reading, and I think I can create a "prima facie" case for my conclusions. I like the writing style of Michael Huemer in his book on Political Authority. He doesn't quote Plato, Locke, or Montesquieu, but simply applies "common sense" to well-known political theories like "democracy" and "social contract." I apply common sense and Biblical sense. I ask questions (people who "just ask questions" are often called "conspiracy theorists") and refuse to accept the consensus opinion at face value. I don't care if my questions take me outside the "mainstream." I would rather be logical and Biblical than accredited.

Answers to Common Objections

Jesus came to bring the "salvation" described by the Old Testament prophets, which preeminently meant a decentralized spread of peace and wholeness across the globe, free of secular militarism and Humanistic empires. God's will would be done on earth as it is in heaven. The Prophet Micah said people would one day put God's Law into practice, beat their swords into plowshares, and be free from the despotic genocidal tendencies of would-be gods, sitting peacefully under their "Vine & Fig Tree." Don't wait for heaven; The end of evolutionism is NOW! Check out

The Vine & Fig Tree Home Page

The Bible is an Anarchist Manifesto