Assessment of implications of inter-species equality from Darwinian evolution

It would be believed, if Darwin were correct, that Peter Singer’s ethical application of the theory of evolution to elevate the status of animals to that of human beings would be wholly justified, as there would be no cause for humans to be held to higher regard than the animals from which they came.

In the words of William Shakespeare, “tis common proof that lowliness is young ambition’s ladder whereto the climber upward turns his face; but when he once attains the upmost round he then unto the ladder turns his back, looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees by which he did ascend.”(Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 1) 

So would Peter Singer, or Darwin himself, have us believe that humans are as Caesar is compared to, but not from humble origins, but origins so humble that they are inhuman, and in their inhumanity are they inferior to we which are created in God’s image. 

But if the creation wasn’t of a man, but rather of an ape, or of a fish, or of an organism invisible to the naked eye, than Michelangelo would be mistaken, as would Moses who did write the book of Genesis, and that the story must be reinterpreted in such a specific way as to still maintain a functional superiority of man, but an irredeemability from Darwin’s unbiblical incognisance. 

All modern notions of the equality between animals and humans come directly from Darwinian evolution, which leads Peter Singer to discredit original sin as a reason for evil in the world because animals, which have not committed original sin, still have sufferance upon them. 

By claiming this however, it suggests that animals are significant in any way in regard to human beings, which, of course, they are not. When God created the great flood, he cared not for the excess of the animal species which had drowned, for such was the necessity in order to cleanse the slate of human sin. 

And yet if Charles Darwin, and Peter Singer, and their sympathizers who believe in unbiblical evolution were correct, then the freedom of the animals from sin would be a cause of great distress, and the annihilation of most of this world’s animals would be justification enough to regard such an action, irrespective of the performer of the act, as a thing of wickedness, of which the worthiness of life for animals transcends the worthiness of death for human beings. 

Humans are superior because we have been made in the image of God, whereas no other animals are in His image. God does not resemble any of the early creatures from which Darwin believes that man descended from, and so it cannot be that we descended from any animal at all, for such an animal would give an appearance like that of God. And the greatest certainty of God’s true form is that of a man in the witnessing and subsequent portrayal of creation, which is of such indisputable greatness, that it can come from no other place but from God.

It now appears the path to God is narrow, exclusively by the church which St. Peter founded, and which Michelangelo exalted to the greatest humanly possible extent. Detached from that which Michelangelo had brought about, there was no certainty of God’s true form, but there must now be no objection to it, lest the objector seek an idol in the place of God. 

Rather than the God of Michelangelo being an idolatry, a God which is formless and dull and impersonal is idolatry, and much worse still when Darwin comes about to proclaim that God, if in an image at all, is of such a primate as he conjures from the ground, that he pieces it together artificially. “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin,”(John 15:22) 

Neither Charles Darwin nor Peter Singer have any cloak for their sin, because their conjectures are rendered obsolete by the truth and might of God’s revelation through His church and instruments.