Why you should become a Bible-believing anarchist
who also believes the universe was created around 4004 B.C.
I asked ChatGPT:
To what degree am I warranted in making this broad generalization:
The Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Greeks and Romans (ancient empires studied by Newton) were "evolutionary" because they were "naturalists," "naturalists" because they did not believe in a super-natural Creator who was not part of "nature" (creation ex nihilo). The "gods" are part of the creation, usually an original chaos. The "gods" were mythical, held by the masses, but not by the philosophers and scientists at the higher levels of political influence in these empires.
I call them "evolutionists" just to put them in the same camp as modern "naturalists." The issue is supernaturalism vs. naturalism. "Naturalists" can believe that nature is static or evolving/changing.
I make the claim that all ancient empires were "evolutionist." They denied the Bible and the Creator revealed therein. Defenders of Darwin want me to say "developmental," or "naturalist" instead, reserving "evolution" for modern Darwinism.
I'm going to use the word "evolutionary" anyway.
ChatGPT wants to protect the word "evolution" to give credit to Darwin. It prefers I use the word "developmental" rather than "evolutionary." I say "piffle."
- You are partially warranted in this generalization if it is clearly framed as a heuristic about ancient cosmologies, but not if it is framed as a claim that ancient empires held anything like Darwinian or modern “evolutionary” doctrines. Below is a careful breakdown of what is accurate, what is only partially defensible, and what would need qualifying so that a scholarly critic cannot dismiss the argument as an oversimplification.
✅ Where Your Generalization Is Warranted
1. Ancient Near Eastern and Classical cosmologies are overwhelmingly “naturalistic” in the sense you mean:
You’re on solid ground saying:
They do not affirm creation ex nihilo.
The gods arise out of a pre-existing chaos (water, darkness, void, swirling matter).
The cosmos is eternal or semi-eternal.
There is no transcendent Creator outside the natural order.
This is exactly right. Consider:
Mesopotamian: Enuma Elish begins with Apsu and Tiamat—primordial waters. Marduk organizes pre-existing stuff.
Egyptian: Nun (primordial waters) precedes the gods; Atum self-emerges from the Nun.
Greek: Hesiod’s Theogony begins with Chaos → Gaia → Titans → Olympians.
Platonists: Demiurge organizes pre-existing matter, does not create it from nothing.
Aristotelians: Eternal matter + eternal motion; no temporal beginning at all.
Stoics: Cyclic eternal cosmos; Zeus = rational fire that periodically reorganizes the world.
So your broad claim that ancient cosmologies operated with naturalistic metaphysics—where gods are inside the cosmos, not creators beyond it—is very well-grounded.
2. Ancient high-level thinkers did treat myths as political tools for the masses
This is not conspiracy; it is the consensus of classical scholarship.
Plato’s “noble lie.”
Cicero, Varro, Sallustius, and Plutarch openly discuss exoteric vs. esoteric religion.
Aristotle refers to the masses’ beliefs as mythoi, necessary for civic order.
Stoics allegorized Zeus, Hera, and Poseidon as natural forces.
Thus your claim—“the gods were mythical, held by the masses, but not by the philosophers and scientists”—is historically accurate and widely attested.
Even Newton himself held that ancient elites had an esoteric monotheism lost under later corruptions (a standard Renaissance-era view).
3. Many ancient thinkers did espouse proto-evolutionary or developmental cosmologies
“Evolutionary,” in the broad historic sense of:
The cosmos develops from simpler to more complex states by natural necessity.
Not Darwinian, but developmental and naturalistic.
Anaximander: Humans evolved from fishlike creatures.
Empedocles: Creatures emerge from random assemblages; only the fit survive (proto-natural selection).
Lucretius: Spontaneous generation + survival of the fittest (Darwin himself acknowledged this).
Stoics: Cyclic cosmic birth, development, destruction, regeneration.
Heraclitus: The world is in constant flux, governed by an immanent rational principle (logos).
Epicureans: Entire universe formed from random collisions of eternal atoms.
Thus—yes—ancient cosmologies frequently had naturalistic developmental models.
This justifies calling them “evolutionary” if you are very clear that you do not mean modern biology, but philosophical cosmology.
⚠️ Where Your Generalization Needs Qualification
1. Not all ancient people were philosophical naturalists
The elites often were; the general population usually wasn’t.
But even among elites:
Plato posits a Demiurge, though not ex nihilo.
Aristotle posits an Unmoved Mover, though not a creator.
Stoics affirm a divine rational principle immanent in matter.
These views are “naturalistic” in the sense of no transcendent Creator, but they are not atheistic.
Safer wording:
Ancient elites generally held metaphysical systems in which the divine was immanent in the cosmos, not transcendent over it.
2. "Evolutionary" must be defined carefully
If you mean:
no creation ex nihilo
cosmos arises from chaos
natural processes unfold by necessity
gods arise within nature
Then “evolutionary” is a defensible term.
But if you mean:
Darwinian descent with modification
biological evolution
natural selection as we know it
Then the generalization becomes anachronistic.
❗ What You Should NOT Say Without Qualification
“The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans were evolutionists.”
This wording is too modern.
You need something like:
“Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman cosmologies were developmental and naturalistic—the cosmos and the gods emerged from pre-existing matter through natural processes. This worldview is an early form of what we would now call evolutionary cosmology, in contrast to the Biblical teaching of creation ex nihilo.”
This is historically secure.
✅ Your Thesis as a Defensible Scholarly Statement
Here is a version you can safely use:
All major ancient Near Eastern and classical civilizations shared cosmologies in which the universe, and even the gods themselves, arose from pre-existing matter or primordial chaos. Their elites tended toward naturalistic or pantheistic interpretations of these myths, viewing the “gods” as part of nature rather than as transcendent creators outside it. In this sense, ancient imperial worldviews were “evolutionary”—they envisioned the world developing through natural processes rather than being freely created ex nihilo by a personal, supernatural God, as in the Hebrew Scriptures.
This is historically defensible and avoids overstatements.