The Curmudgeon Announces Social Creationism

We often get in trouble on weekends when there’s no news of The Controversy between evolution and creationism. That’s when we unleash our inner Curmudgeon and speak our mind. Well, we're doing it again. Some of you won't like this one, but we think it may be our finest hour.

Most of you have heard of Social Darwinism. It makes as much sense as social quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, from its misguided origins (Banquet at Delmonico’s — Spencer and Social Darwinism) it has become a pejorative term used by creationists to imply that the theory of evolution is responsible for eugenics, racism, imperialism, genocide, divorce, promiscuity, and any other evil they can think of, notwithstanding that those things have been around as long as humanity itself.

The Discoveroids frequently make use of this fabrication — see Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler. We’ve discussed all this before, for example: The Insanity of “Social Darwinism”. But the creationists persist in presenting their wildly false propaganda.

Well, it’s time to turn the tables on them. Therefore, we hereby announce the … ah, genesis of a new sociological and political concept — social creationism. The beliefs and practices of social creationism are the result of applying the principles of creationism to human activities. Bits and pieces of it already exist, but it’s never before been assembled into a coherent doctrine.

What would those beliefs and practices be? That’s simple, they’re the opposite of social Darwinism. We’re always being told that social Darwinism is evil, so its flip-side, social creationism, must be good. Our logic is undeniable.

In what follows, bear in mind that virtually every claim about social Darwinism is false. Nevertheless, social creationism isn’t entirely fictitious. Here’s the program, presented for the first time in one essay:

• Instead of the rich preying on the poor, the poor will prey upon the rich.

• Instead of eugenics (elimination of the genetically inferior, which goes back at least as far as the Spartans), social creationism requires that the genetically superior will be eliminated.

• Instead of allowing and encouraging entrepreneurial activity and competition, such behavior will be outlawed. No one will be permitted to excel in business or anything else. Successful individuals are so … Darwinian.

• Private property will no longer exist. Everything will be owned by everyone in common.

• Individualism will be discouraged, and tribalism will be the only acceptable form of society.

• Intelligence will be penalized, not rewarded. Universal mediocrity will be the rule.

• Everyone will be issued not only food stamps, but also intelligence stamps, health stamps, beauty stamps, and success stamps, so that no one will have more of anything than anyone else.

• And of course, science will be outlawed. Those misguided souls who were scientists will become unskilled laborers.

That’s the deal. Some of the principles of social creationism are already politically popular, but the movement is fragmented. Now that the full concept has been assembled into one glorious intellectual package — and given a proper name — we can expect its adherents to unite and bring about an acceleration of current trends. Your Curmudgeon is pleased to have performed this service for humanity.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

24 responses to “The Curmudgeon Announces Social Creationism

  1. What time was this posted? It must have been shortly before 3:00 PM, because it’s hard to believe no one had yet commented on your rather controversial hornet’s-nest-stirrings.

    That aside, it is easy to see how the removal of individual incentives will lead to social mediocrity.

  2. retiredsciguy asks: “What time was this posted? It must have been shortly before 3:00 PM, because it’s hard to believe no one had yet commented on your rather controversial hornet’s-nest-stirrings.”

    It was 2:52 PM. You’re the first.

  3. Ceteris Paribus

    Well there ya go. Trying to start a brilliant new utopia, and first thing out of the gate, whoomp Rule 1 is that Time Zones are abolished to make everybody equal.

    Some people prefer their own time zones. And I don’t even care if some libertarians want to walk around all year without bothering to re-set their clocks for DST twice a year.

    And it is fine with me if pagans want to walk around naked in the woods according to their equinox and solstice time clocks.

    As for me and my house, we strictly adhere to pure Siderial time, the way the one true universe was designed.

  4. Sounds like a cross between “1984” and communism.

  5. Creationism is the belief that natural processes only lead to deterioration, and that intelligent design is the only way to avoid that.
    Creationism accepts that evolution occurs within a kind, such as “mankind”
    Creationism thinks that what we ought to do can be derived from what is. (Values derive from nature, as nobility of character being inherited.)

    That suggests that Social Creationism, if there were such a thing, says that we ought to act to prevent evolutionary deterioration within mankind. Eugenics, for example.

    Social Creationism is, fortunately, just as much a figment of imagination as is Social Evolutionism. In the case of Social Creationism, that is in part due to Creationism being inconsistent.

  6. To paraphrase Darwin’s Bulldog Thomas Henry Huxley, “How stupid of me not to have thought of that.” This should be immediately promoted across the land and we’ll see if the DI can defend themselves against the application of their own nutty ideas.

  7. I just Googled for the phrase “social creationism” — something I should have done earlier. It’s been used before, sometimes in response to the accusation of social Darwinism. But my treatment is more comprehensive.

  8. Our Curmudgeon doth channel Ayn Rand, methinks…

  9. So, Megalonyx. After an unseemly absence, your first comment is to accuse me of being a Randoid! I’m merely spelling out the opposite of cultural Darwinism. If Rand would agree, so be it.

  10. “Social creationism” would never penalize business success; creationists are too dependent on wealthy Republican businessmen for that.

    As for rationing everything, including intelligence, so that “no one will have more of anything than anyone else”–not a chance; see the preceding paragraph. “Social creationism” would more likely simply say that the poor are poor and the rich are rich because of how poorly or well they have pleased God rather than how evolutionarily “fit” they are–which is essentially the attitude conservatives took before anyone had ever heard of Charles Darwin. Intelligence won’t have to be rationed; it’ll merely be punished if it’s used for “secular” purposes (business won’t count as secular).

  11. Eric Lipps says:

    “Social creationism” would never penalize business success; creationists are too dependent on wealthy Republican businessmen for that.

    What? Are you suggesting that they would tolerate a successful individual? No true creationist would even consider that. It’s Darwinism!

  12. I like it a lot. Age will be counted backward so that no one need ever feel old, cuddle parties will replace competitive sports, conversation will be compulsorily made up of selections from 1000 trite sayings, and all math will be reconfigured to eliminate decimals and fractions.

  13. Somebody’s Wheaties got pooped in today didn’t they. 🙂

  14. Hmmmm ….
    Darwinism (in normal English: Evolution Theory) is correct. Social Darwinism is incorrect.
    Creationism is incorrect. In SC’s logic this means that Social Creationism is correct …..
    Conclusion: SC is a cryptocommie.

  15. The term, “social creationism,” as you have defined it, is remarkably similar to the term “progressive” as we know it today. You are describing leftists perfectly.

    You have a good start but perhaps some refinement will bring forth the full Curmudgeonly thesis?

  16. This is the way to go

  17. Hmm, the point-by-point description reads more like “socialist creationism.”

  18. Cyano de Bactergerac

    You’re complicating the simple, Curm. There’s a straightforward method for devising Social Creationism, working as an analog to the creationists’ caricature of Social Darwinism. Here’s how:

    The creationists say, “Darwinism means we’re just animals, therefore Social Darwinism is animalistic behavior applied to human social interactions.” Analog: “Creationism means we’re just machines, artifacts of a Designer for a specific purpose, therefore Social Creationism means is the considerations of machines applied to human social interactions.”

    Logically speaking, that makes Social Creationism look like Orwell on steroids: Everybody must fulfill the purpose (as we’re nothing but machines) of worshiping the leader (the Designer’s representative on Earth), and everyone must do exactly as the Program (scripture?) tells to do; whoever strays away from the line is no longer serving their purpose, so they must be reprogrammed (reeducation camp) or, as incurably malfunctioning machines, they must be dismantled.

    Give me Social Darwinism and its animalistic view any day.

  19. Cyano de Bactergerac says:

    You’re complicating the simple, Curm.

    Sure. I could have said nothing more than: “Social creationism is mindlessly obeying the dictator intelligent designer.” But the concept needs more than a one-liner.

    The creationists say, “Darwinism means we’re just animals, therefore …”

    That’s good. I didn’t think of using that one.

  20. Con-Tester says:

    Hmm, the point-by-point description reads more like “socialist creationism.”

    When one considers a point-by-point description of what they call social Darwinism (leaving out the crazy stuff like Manson and various school shootings), that’s what you get when you flip it around.

  21. Curmg,

    I think you missed this one. Social Creationism, to be truly parallel to Social Darwinism and be Creationist, must answer every social question with “Because we were created that way.” So, why are people so cranky before their morning coffee? BWWCTW Why do mass murderers favor assault-style weapons? BWWCTW Why do the poor envy the rich? (This one came from Mitt Romney.) BWWCTW Why do teenagers rebel against the confines of society? BWWCTW

    Play along, it is easy to answer any social question with social creationism! In fact, because of the existence of the Bible, we no longer need subjects like sociology or psychology. All of the questions of a social nature are now answerable!

    Schools should be teaching this! If not as a separate subject, at least acknowledging The Controversy!

    Wha’dya think?

  22. Why are we most similar to chimps and other apes?
    Because we were created/designed that way!

    Therefore, to follow the purposes of our creators/designers, we ought to act like apes.

    This contrasts with the naturalistic/evolutionary account, which is simply that we are related to apes. (The fact that I am related to my great-uncle, the horse thief, does not have any bearing on what I ought to do.)

  23. Steve Ruis observes:

    Social Creationism, to be truly parallel to Social Darwinism and be Creationist, must answer every social question with “Because we were created that way.”

    That can be shortened to every four-year-old’s answer to every question. E.g., Why did you make such a mess? Answer: “Because.”