Articles

What Is Man?

One thing Christians need to know before they move their individual, family, or church thinking into the direction of the world is what the world thinks about Man. I could say Christians need to understand what the world thinks about God, but the effect of atheism and agnosticism is manifested in anthropology. By “anthropology”, I do not mean the study of the skull fragments of so-called hominids (pre-human “man”) with the view of trying to link together an evolutionary progression, but that does have something to do with what I’m talking about. What I mean is, what does the world of mankind we are presently living in think about Man and does it have anything to do with what God reveals about Man in Scripture? Also, what effect does the world’s view of Man have on the world’s policies regarding man?

Christians need to know that the “scientists” who are the experts to which the worldling refers with faith on all matters of “science” has a narrative running through his or her head about human beings. Evolutionists think of man in terms of various animals from which we are allegedly descended. In documentaries about evolution, say, about the mythological Paleozoic Period, you’ll see a biologist being interviewed who is talking about a jawless, brainless fish called a haikouichthys and referring to it frequently as our “human ancestor”. The narrative that is swimming around in this biologist’s skull is that this wedge-shaped fish is Man. Later, he might be talking about osteostraci, an armor-headed fish in the Silurian period; this, too is the mythological man of about half a billion years ago.

This kind of thinking is presuppositional, that is, it is basic data out of which wider and more integrated thoughts proceed. These integrated thoughts become a system of thoughts or a grid of thinking which affects behavior and volition (decision and policy making). What man thinks about Man has a great deal to do with how men will treat men. If one believes that man was once a jawless, brainless fish, then that fish is still in man. If one believes man was once an amphibian (Diplocaulus), then the salamander is still resident in man. If one believes man was once a reptile (Casineria), then the lizard is still resident in man, and so forth all the way through subordinate mammals. This does two things to one’s view of man: 1.) it reduces man to the animal level and 2.) it blurs the essence of humanity so that Man is never a definite creature, but is always a potentiality.

If man is animal and is not a settled being, one can make policies regarding man that are extremely destructive. Whole populations of people can be annihilated with impunity or else humanity becomes an essence that can be settled (temporarily) by law and that which is “fish” or “amphibian”, such as a human fetus, is not to be considered human. From this comes genocide and abortion, and these are realities of our time. On a lower, but just as irrational level is that those who imbibe the fiction of evolution can never have true relations with human beings. This is why evolutionary environmentalists look upon man as an enemy, the monster who is destroying Nature on the planet.

The evolutionist exists in a mental world of fiction. Evidence of this is the way evolutionists state the particulars of their “theory”. For example, articles on evolution often say things like: ‘The earliest amphibians evolved in the Devonian period from lungfish fish.” Notice the verb “evolved” in the past tense and unqualified. It is a statement of certainty, a statement of fact. This is common especially in school books and children’s books, even though scholarly articles may take more care to qualify the statement with an indefinite “early amphibians may have evolved...etc.” thereby assenting that they are dealing, not in fact, but in theory. There is only one form of literature that states unsubstantiated things in absolute terms and that is fiction. This casts evolution into a deeper realm of unreality, that it is not meant to inform of facts, but to excite to belief and confidence in the system. Man, in evolutionary thought, is not a fact, but an object of expectation, a fictional character in a drama. (David Copperfield is a fictional character who says, “I was born ... on a Friday, at twelve o'clock at night.” The fact is that David Copperfield was never born and never even existed except in Charles Dickens’ imagination.)

&What happens when Christians begin to incorporate this kind of thinking into Christianity? In the first place, we will not treat our fellow man with love and compassion, but as an object of animal competition. Secondly, we will not treat our fellow man as a complete entity, i.e. human, but as an unsettled animal-creature that is potentially something else other than what it presently is. Finally, the Christian religion will cease to be credible and will slip into irrationality and unreality. Since worldly thinking proceeds from man to God, ambiguous ideas about men will conceive ambiguous attitudes toward God and all that God has done and said. God will slip into His own creation and become an uncertainty, and the Christian faith, in the minds of those who go this way, will become increasingly irrelevant until it ceases to exist.