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.

The Second Neglected Commandment

I said there were two commandments that are ignored today. The first commandment is

Thou shalt NOT be an ARCHIST.

I think this is what the Bible teaches from cover to cover.

Why do so many people reject this commandment?

Surprisingly, I believe one reason why people find it hard to advocate for the eradication of all violence is because they have neglected to obey the other commandment:

Thou shalt believe that the earth was created in six days not more than a few thousand years ago (not billions).

Jesus said:

5 “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, God created them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, 8 and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.”
Mark 10:5-9

Jesus was quoting the creation account in Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:24. Evolutionists and "theistic evolutionists" do not believe the emergence of human beings came at "the beginning of creation." It happened at the end of creation, relatively recently.

The 4th Commandment says:

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 20:8-11

Up until "the Enlightenment," Christians believed the world was only six thousand years old. For 1700 years, Christians believed that Genesis (and the rest of the Bible) taught that God created the universe in six 24-hour days, about 6,000 years ago.

In the 5th century, Augustine wrote:

In vain, then do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? . . . For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth?
Augustine, City of God, Bk. XII, chaps. 14–16.

In a 4th of July address in 1802, Daniel Webster said:

“We live under the only government that ever existed which was framed by the unrestrained and deliberate consultations of the people. Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once gone, might leave a void, to be filled, for ages, with revolution and tumult, riot and despotism.”
File:Newly discovered fourth of July oration

Obviously Daniel Webster was not a non-archist as advocated on this website. But he was a "creationist."

The Bible says, in effect, "Thou shalt be a creationist."

The Bible is not primarily a "church" book, it is primarily a history book. It is the primary textbook of world history, because God wrote it. And it is mostly the history of human archists; the history of false gods and those who clamor for them. There are about 30,000 verses in the Bible, and most of them are about archists -- far more verses than are about going to heaven when you die. If you don't like reading what God says about archists -- over and over and at great length in a long book called "The Bible" -- will you want to spend eternity with Him?

But if it's difficult for the average church-goer to accept the claim that the Bible completely prohibits hiring mafia hit-men or voting for "elected representatives," it's probably also going to be difficult to accept the claim that the Word of God commands us to believe that the world was created just a few thousand years ago, when both church and state (and both university and media) tell us that the earth is millions of times older than that.

Many Christians believe that God created everything, but they aren't clear as to when He did that. Or how. This means God turns into a distant, deistic god, rather that the God of the Bible who is looking over your shoulder and expecting you to know His Commandments in the Bible.

Perhaps more surprising than the claim that the Bible commands us to believe in a young earth is the claim that this commandment is the flip-side of the commandment not to be an archist. They seem (to most public school graduates) to be unrelated (though equally kooky). But they are two sides of one coin. Tightly related.

As I said above, the theory of evolution is actually a religion, invented to justify being an archist. I'm going to prove that shortly.

Background

The Bible says that everyone knows that God exists and that He is our Creator (see Romans 1:18-32). People who claim to be atheists "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (verse 18). They are (to be blunt) liars.

Some people who deny that God is our Creator and say instead that the world created itself over the course of billions of years are liars. Other people who say God used this process of self-creation ("evolution") say this not because they are liars, but because they want the approval of liars. They want an "accredited" college degree issued by liars. They want a job being employed by liars. They want government grants to propagate lies. They sincerely believe the "experts" are not liars. "Listen to the Science!"

But there are many liars. They hate the God of the Bible. On occasion, or behind our backs, they admit this.

It's a safe bet for me to assume that you believe these lies. Most people do. You've had about 13,000 hours of brainwashing in atheistic "public" schools, or maybe more if you went to college. I think I can convince you of what the Bible actually says, and empower you to believe what the Bible says, and teach others what the Bible says (Matthew 5:19; 28:20). It will take some time, but far less than 13,000 hours of classroom indoctrination.

  1. First I must convince you that the Bible says that the world is only a few thousand years old. Everyone on both sides agrees that if this is true, Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true. Not enough time.
  2. Then I must convince you that you are morally obligated to believe what the Bible says on this subject. (You should believe whatever God says.)
  3. Then I must convince you that you've heard a lot of lies to the contrary.

Based on what I've written above, I might have you on the fence about whether we should have a pure capitalist society (100% pure laissez-faire, 0% socialism, 0% fascism, 0% communism -- 100% free market, or as the Jewish economist Murray N. Rothbard called it, "Anarcho-Capitalism"). But it's probably going to take a lot longer to convince you that the Bible requires you to reject what all the "scientists" and all the university professors and all the cool kids say about the age of the earth.

Besides, there have already been a lot of interesting books written on a stateless society, but there haven't been as many books written on a non-violent defense of creationism. In fact, I can't think of one. Perhaps this will be the first.

The first article I ever wrote that was published by someone else was an article on the creation-evolution controversy in The Chalcedon Report. I posted it online here. But don't click there; I'll just put it here:

"THE FACTS" VS. THE FAITH

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness . . . so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20).

When men decide either for or against the claims of Christ, do they objectively evaluate all "the facts" as those who are neutral and without prejudice? The Apostle Paul says, No: non-Christians deliberately and maliciously suppress the true nature of "the facts" because they bear inescapable witness to the certain judgment of God upon their lawless lives.

Consider the confrontation of ungodly men with the record of Creation in Genesis. James P. Lodge has described the components of the "scientific method" as follows:

A scientist formulates a hypothesis ... to explain something he has observed... He then makes the best efforts of which he is capable to prove himself wrong. If he is unsuccessful, the hypothesis makes an official transition into the status of a theory, and it is provisionally accepted until such time as it fails to explain something it should have explained. Then it is replaced.

Was this the dispassionate method used by the Post-Enlightenment world to set aside the Biblical perspective in favor of an evolutionary one?
It must be admitted by all that at no point in time did the creationist framework "fail to explain something it should have explained." It was put aside many generations before Darwin or anyone else found it "wanting" at the bar of science. The 1800's saw men grow increasingly intolerant of the Biblical perspective on life and more and more desirous of the non-Christian world-and-life view (Weltanschauung) expressed by men like Kant, Hegel, Mill and Marx. But no worldview is complete without a theory of origins, and Darwin filled this vacuum perfectly. Well-not quite. It seems that Darwin's hypothesis failed to explain many things it should have explained. But it would have to do. As Dobzhansky tells us;

"Darwin's successors had to labor to adduce proofs that the evolution of the biological world and of man had actually occurred. That was the paramount task which biologists faced in the closing decades of the 19th century."

 After reading Dr. Lodge, one might have thought that the paramount task of 19th century biologists would have been to make the best efforts of which they were capable to prove the theory wrong. This was not the case. Dobzhansky observes,

"With Darwin's successors... it was necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the living world as we see it is a product of the evolutionary process."

The "scientific" questions must surely be, "Why?" Why was it "necessary to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the living world as we see it is a product of the evolutionary process?" The German Biblical critic David Strauss answered that evolution was irresistible to those who thirsted for truth and freedom:
                                         Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
    Satan, in John Milton's Paradise Lost,   I, l 262

Vainly did we philosophers and critical theologians over and over again decree the extermination of miracles; our ineffectual sentence died away, because we could neither dispense with miraculous agency nor point to any natural force able to supply it, where it had seemed most indispensable. Darwin has demonstrated this force, this process of nature; he has opened the door by which a happier coming race will cast out miracles, never to return. Everyone who knows what miracles imply will praise him, in consequence, as one of the greatest benefactors of the human race.
The biologist Karl Pearson also recalled "the joy we young men then felt when we saw that wretched date BC 4004 replaced by a long vista of millions of years of development." Why is the "neutral" date BC 4004 "wretched"? Is this "objectivity"? What do miracles "imply"? Is this merely a "dispassionate search for truth?"
With the cataclysmic judgment of the Flood in back of us, the inevitable judgment of God looms threateningly on the horizon. But Darwin's confession of faith was sure: "As all forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of great length." Sir Julian Huxley also demonstrated the truth of 2 Peter 3 when he affirmed, "The past of life has been steadily increased by science until it now [1958] exceeds the staggering figure of two and one-half billion years. And in place of an imminent Last Judgment Life on this planet can now envisage at least an equal span of evolutionary time in the future." No doubt his belief produced great relief.
Did the "objective facts of scientific pursuit" compel acceptance of an evolutionary Weltanschauung? Or was and is it a desire to escape the Living God of the Bible? George Bernard Shaw answered:

"If you can realize how insufferably the world was oppressed by the notion that everything that happened was an arbitrary personal act of an arbitrary personal God of dangerous, jealous and cruel personal character, you will understand how the world jumped at Darwin."

The Bible was clearly known to all, but its truth was "suppressed in unrighteousness." History and the world around us, however, testify against Mr. Shaw's implied justification, demonstrating with unmistakable clarity that it is the arbitrary rule of man over man that has created slavery, tyranny and oppression; the rule of God's Law brings justice and security. But, as Milton might write today, "Better to rule in an impersonal world of would-be gods than to serve in a personal world of responsibility under God's Law."

This is not a debate over "the Facts." It's a debate over the interpretation of facts. You can't choose your facts -- facts just ARE --  but you can choose your interpretation of those facts.

Once again, in order to persuade you that the Bible requires you to believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, I have to prove the following:

  1. First I must convince you that the Bible says that the world is only a few thousand years old. Modern theologians deny that.
  2. Then I must convince you that you are morally obligated to believe what the Bible says on this subject. Modern theologians deny that too.
  3. Then I must convince you that you've heard a lot of lies to the contrary. Including what modern theologians say.

By "modern" theologians, I mean "liberals."

Thomas Henry Huxley was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" because of his vigorous public propagation of Darwin's theory. He was also the patriarch of one of the Great dynasties of Britain: The Huxleys. One of T.H. Huxley's grandsons was Aldous Huxley. He was sometimes honest about his motivations for accepting evolution. He said that evolution, which denied a Creator, and therefore denied design, and therefore denied meaning, provided atheists with a justification to "seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...."

Is the universe a meaningless, random event?
Or does life have meaning - a meaning that reflects
the design and morality of a personal Creator?
Here is the answer of one evolutionist:

     “I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption.
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence.
      Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their [purpose] that the world should be meaningless.
      The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves....
      For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy [worldview] of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.”
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means, Chatto & Windus: London, 1946, pp. 270, 273) 

The "Military-Industrial Complex" loves the dogma of evolution. It allows them to "seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves...."

I would argue that the desire to cheat on your wife can sometimes be an archist desire to rule over a member of an inferior sex. But these evolutionists are honest: evolution is not "science," it's a "political and erotic revolt" against the Bible. Not everyone is willing to admit "I want to steal your money and your wife." They would rather say "I just listen to the science."

From well before the French Revolution (1789) to the Sexual Revolution (1960's), evolution meant Worshipping the Creature Rather Than the Creator. Throughout these centuries, it wasn't just Darwin and biology. It was Louis XIV (1638-1715) (“L’État, c’est moi” ), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), and the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814).

So the first question should be,

What Does the Bible Actually Say?

Here's the answer to that question.