Childhood's end; the myth of man as child

A common strategy among evolutionists is compare the history of the human race (including its non-human ancestry) to the history of a human being. In this scenario the current stage of mankind is compared to that of a (developing) child.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Science Daily reported on a paper from Current Biology called “The Origins and Evolution of Leadership” that puts Darwin in the lead. The authors “argue that due to ‘a hangover from our evolutionary past’ factors like age, sex, height and weight play a major part in the determining [sic] our choice of leaders.” [1.]

- The authors have bought into the myth of comparing human beings to children. I call this the 'Childhood's End' myth. This is the idea the human race is evolving from apes, and is now in what is called the childhood of man stage, and is 'progressing' toward adulthood. This is one of the main myths propagated by evolutionary theorists. (It was a favorite notion of the Darwinist Arthur C. Clarke.)

B. Here’s what Dr. Andrew King (Zoological Society of London) had to say:
" Evolution has fashioned principles governing leadership and followership over many millions of years. We need to ground the complex, even mystical, social phenomenon of leadership in science.

- Since all things are supposed to be explained by evolutionary theory (by order of the courts) I suppose we need to ground science itself in science. We would then need to ground scientific research in science; and ground grant mongering in science; and ground politics in science; and ground buffoonery and lies in science. (And we'd need a good scientific reason for doing all this of course.)

This is reductionism run amuck. Politics (leadership) has nothing to do with apes throwing jaw bones in the air, or anything else out of the Darwinian comic book. The so called 'leadership problem' has to do with man's desire to be god, and to play god in the lives of other people. By removing morality (and truth) from the subject, scientists can't tell us anything worth knowing.

C. "Through empirical observation, theoretical models, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and genetics, we can explore the development and adaptive functions of leadership and followership.''

- Let's reword that bit of sci preaching, and relate it to science. "Through empirical observation, theoretical models, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and genetics, we can explore the development and adaptive functions of science and science worship."

- Very rarely do these evolutionary 'psychologists' ever use their methods to look at themselves. Apparently they have some bias against looking into the mirror. (Or perhaps it's a fear of doing so.) They explain everyone but themselves by some imagined evolutionary history; where man was once an animal, then became a baby, and then a toddler, and then a child... and all the while progressing to the stage where he can leave childhood behind and become an 'overlord' in his own right.

Everything they don't like (including global warming) is explained by the fact human beings have evolutionary hangovers; ie. it's sin that makes men do wrong, but his animal ancestry. None of this applies to evolutionary scientists of course, as they've evolved faster than anyone else... and are now our overlords.

D. 'He sees overlap between human and animal leadership behaviors that point to evolutionary origins. He said, “By identifying such origins and examining which aspects are shared with other animals offers us [sic]
better ways of understanding, predicting and improving leadership today.”

- Let's rephrase that a bit; “By identifying such origins and examining which aspects are shared with other animals offers us better ways of understanding, predicting and improving the quality of scientific leadership today.”

- Perhaps, if we're lucky, all this will help improve the quality of ethics in the science community as well. Perhaps it will help us find a way to get scientists to be honest and open about what they're doing. (But I suppose that's just my inner animal deluding itself.)

Notes;
1. Who Explains Whom? Creation/Evolution Headlines 10/26/2009
2. The methods (if they can be called methods) by which it's determined we are now in a 'childhood' stage of development are not scientific or rigorous. Anyone is able to draw up whatever scheme they like.
3. I'm listening to Clarke's book on the Astounding days of science fiction, and I've never come across a man so in love with himself. (Every few paragraphs he feels the need to stop talking about other authors, or the magazine, and to tell us another of the marvelous things he's done.) I guess it's not only creationists who have a much too high view of themselves.