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.

I realize that headline is about as attractive to most people as "An Islamic Terrorist Defense of a Flat Earth." Nobody is interested in either side of that equation. I'm assuming you're not an anarcho-creationist. Thanks for checking out my website.


Coming Soon - A MASSIVE website.
As controversial as it is huge.

My argument is very simple, and you'll UNDERSTAND it in less than 60 seconds.

But in order for you to be PERSUADED by the argument, an investment of TIME is required. Like "cult de-programming." You've undergone thousands of hours of schooling and media exposure to the claim that anarcho-creationism is nuts, unscientific, and unBiblical. But it will take a lot less time to un-brainwash you than it took to brainwash you.

The Bible makes two commands -- which the vast majority of "Bible-believing Christians" do not obey.

  1. "Thou shalt be an anarchist."
  2. "Thou shalt be a creationist."

Are these actually commands from God in the Bible? I'm confident I can prove they are.

It won't be easy. You're a victim of 13,000 classroom hours of brainwashing in schools run by people who are on a religious mission to eradicate the truth of anarcho-creationism. I call them "archist-evolutionists." I'll explain that term in just a moment.

If that's what the Bible says, should we obey the Bible? Some people would say, "If that's what the Bible requires, then that's why I reject the Bible." I'd like to show you that the world would be a much better place if it were dominated by "anarcho-creationists" rather than non-anarchist evolutionists. The idea of evolution has resulted in the murder of millions, the enslavement of billions, and the theft or destruction of trillions of dollars of private property -- in the last 125 years alone.

The goal of this website is to help you understand the Bible, believe it with confidence, and apply it to every area of your life in "the real world."
It is not the purpose of this website to argue about fossils. The goal is to completely change your entire worldview, and the way you look at the Bible and the whole history of human thought.

I'm wondering which part you think is more controversial:

If you do not consider yourself a Christian, and especially a "Bible-believing" Christian, you probably think that

If you consider yourself a Christian, and especially a "Bible-believing" Christian, you probably think that

But if you're willing to say that you're a six-day creationist, you're willing to say that all the geological scientists are wrong about the age of the earth. But you're not willing to say that all the political scientists are wrong about the need for "government." I'm willing to say that all the biological scientists are wrong as well as the political scientists.

So let me begin there.

I'd like to show you that anyone who is not an anarchist is not taking the Bible seriously.

Anarchist!

An-archist. Literally, "not an archist." Whether you're a "Bible-believing Christian" or not, you've probably been taught (in a "public" school where it is illegal for teachers to endorse the Bible or anarcho-creationism) that "anarchists" are bad people. Those who have long since graduated from public school are still being told this by the mainstream media any time there's a group of people in black hoodies and masks who are stealing from property owners by breaking their windows, or murdering through assassination. "Anarchists today committed crimes . . . ."

Obviously the Bible condemns this violence. We are told that "anarchists" are violent bomb-throwing assassins who hate social order, and promote chaos, lawlessness, and mayhem. Archists are our saviors. That's what you've been told. (Though you've never heard the word "archist.")

This is not the definition of "anarchist" used by Jesus Christ. It will take only a few minutes to de-program you from the archist programming you received in "archist-evolutionist" schools, and help you see the Biblical definition of an "archist," and why Jesus forbids you from being an "archist."

Do you have your Bible open? Please turn to the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10. I'm going to show you that Jesus commands His followers to be anarchists. You can't refute it, you can only say "Well nobody agrees with you on that." Which is true, but saddening.

Even though the command to be an anarchist is right there in Red Letters, you're going to question Jesus and say something like "But Jesus said to 'Render unto Caesar.'" Or you'll probably say "But what about Romans 13?"

Those are predictable questions, and this website has answers. But first, let me give you what lawyers call a "Prima Facie Case" for being an anarchist by obeying Jesus Christ.

The word "anarchist" comes from two Greek words meaning "not" an "archist." That's an indisputable fact.

What is an "archist?"

That's probably a question you have never asked in your entire life. Not once.

I claim that it's one of the most important questions you will ever ask.

Once you understand the answer given by the Lord Jesus Christ, you'll be half the way to becoming an "anarcho-creationist."

I invented the word "archist," deriving it from a Greek word found in Mark 10:42-45, the Greek word from which the English word "anarchist" is derived. 

In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10, Jesus discovers His disciples arguing about who is going to be the "greatest" in the Kingdom of God. The disciples at this point did not really understand "the gospel of the Kingdom." Their concept of the Messiah was someone who would use force and violence to vanquish the Roman occupation army that held Israel under tribute. They looked forward to the coming of a Messiah who would enlist them into a Messianic Israeli Army which would "stick it to" the Romans. But just as Micah said we should beat "swords into plowshares," Jesus said His disciples should "love your enemies," and if the enemy soldiers conscript you to carry their provisions for one mile, you should go with the occupation forces two. (This form of pacifism completely refutes the legitimacy of "national defense.") The disciples didn't get it. Jesus even had to tell Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men” (Matthew 16:23). The disciples wanted to be "archists" in the coming Kingdom. The disciples didn't understand that Jesus' Messianic Kingdom was quite unlike the kingdoms of the world.

Here's what the Bible says:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. {43} Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. {44} And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. {45} "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

The word translated "rulers" comes from the Greek word from which we derive our word "anarchist." Jesus clearly says His followers are not to be "archists," and that means we are to be "an-archists" (literally, "not archists").

The Morality of Anarchism / The Immorality of Archism

An "archist" is someone who believes he has a moral right to conquer and rule; to steal and kill. An "archist" believes he has the right to impose his will on other people by force. He need not rely solely on persuasion. He need not give others anything of value in exchange for what he wants from others. He can threaten violence, and carry out those threats if he doesn't get what he wants. It would be sinful for others to engage in such violent extortion or vengeance, but the "archist" claims a "legal" and moral right to do what others must not do. For example, the "archist" thinks he has the right to compel other people's children to attend atheistic indoctrination camps by threatening violence against their parents.

This is unethical. This is immoral.

Jesus says His followers must not be archists like the kings of the gentiles, but must be willing to serve all, including their enemies.

I think this is the most basic level of Christian morality. Half of everything you earn is confiscated by archists and used to commit acts of violence around the world. But most church-going Christians support this.

The Christian (and every human being) is commanded by God not to hurt people or take their stuff. The Christian is commanded to be a servant, not an "archist." A "servant," not a "Pharaoh," "Caesar," or "Führer." We are to be "capitalists" who say "The Customer is King," and serve the customer-king by providing goods and services that raise the standard of living of the customer-king. Christians cannot be socialists, fascists, or communists who say "I am king," and confiscate property and "nationalize" businesses. As in Venezuela:

Socialists are archists. Christians must not be archists, and Christians cannot "vote" for archists.

A Christian society (or a "Christian nation" -- that's a trendy term these days) is an archist-free society. If your society has "archists," it is less than 100% Christian. To paraphrase Chinese Communist Dictator and Mass Murderer Mao Tse-Tung, "archist" power comes from the barrel of a gun. That's not Christian. That's not moral.

The great Jewish sociologist Franz Oppenheimer wrote a book titled  The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically (1908). Oppenheimer draws the essential distinction: Economic Man vs. Political Man. "Economic Man" works and serves others by creating products or services that raise the material standard of living for other people. "Political Man" does not produce anything of value that people would voluntarily pay for in a competitive market. "Political Man" confiscates the wealth produced by "Economic Man." No human society in history ever moved from a stateless "free market" to a society under archists without violence and coercion. Every professor of political science on planet earth will tell you that "the government" is a monopoly of violence.

“Private Sector” “Public Sector”
Non-“Government” Sector “Government” Sector
Anarchist Sector Archist Sector
Competitive Sector Monopoly Sector
Persuasive Sector Coercive Sector
Peaceful Sector Violent Sector
Productive Sector Parasite Sector
Servant Sector Archist Sector
"Economic Man" "Political Man"

Jesus says His followers must not be archists like the kings of the gentiles, but must be willing to serve all, including their enemies. You can't read history as recorded in the Bible without walking away saying "those gentile kings were the bad guys." Archists are not the good guys. Non-aggressive non-archists  are not the  bad guys.

You were shocked when I first championed "anarchists." I hope you now see a completely different side to this argument. I believe this is basic to the whole story of the Bible.

The Myth of "Servant Leadership"

Some people say Jesus is only criticizing the abuse of archism. It's OK to be a good archist, a "servant" archist, but don't be a bad archist.

It's all a matter of definitions. By its very definition, the "public sector" claims a right to be bad, that is, to violate the commands that the rest of us must follow. You and I must not steal, but the archist claims a right to do so. You and I must leave vengeance to God, but the archist can take vengeance.

We've been hoaxed. We've been conned. We're victims of a conspiracy to create "Mass Formation Psychosis." One writer calls it The Most Dangerous Superstition.

Nobody -- not one single human being on earth today -- has a right to violate God's commands:

"The Public Sector" claims the right to violate all these commands (and many more).

You understand my claim. If you need to think about it, I understand entirely. I used to believe what you now believe. I recommend a secular book by an atheist professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado:

I think the Bible says nobody has a right to tax one penny, kidnap one person for one minute, or kill or hurt one person. The line between a "servant" leader and an "abusive" leader is crossed when one stops serving and starts "leading."

True Religion

James 1:27 says true religion is protecting widows and fatherless children. Jesus adds "the least of these" to that list in Matthew 25:31-46 -- the hungry, the thirsty, immigrants, the naked or homeless, the sick, and the imprisoned. "Archists" are the ones who create these people; "archists" create widows and fatherless children by murdering fathers and husbands; "archists" cause famines, create refugees, drop bombs on homes, create sickness, and kidnap/imprison people. "Archists" are the worst of people, and represent a direct assault on "pure religion."

John Adams said, "Our constitution [of limited government] is made only for a moral and religious people." Many Americans like to think of themselves as "religious" rather than "atheistic." But do you really have " pure religion" if you never help widows, orphans, the hungry, the thirsty, immigrants, the naked or homeless, the sick, and the imprisoned? Are you a true Christian if you vote for political candidates who promise to kill millions of non-white people around the world and steal billions of dollars to fund the killing and destruction? During my lifetime, the federal government of the United States has done all this evil.

I hope I have created what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance." You have been taught all your life in schools, media, even repeated by your friends in personal conversations, that "anarchists" are the bad guys. But I'm giving you a pretty credible argument that Jesus says "archists" are the real bad guys. Can you be a Bible-believing Christian and also be an "archist?" Do some human beings have a right to hurt other human beings and take their stuff? Did some university professor come up with a convincing proof that showed Jesus was wrong?

Creationist!

Similarly, can you be a Bible-believing Christian if the Bible says the world was created thousands of years ago, but you believe that's a mistake, an error. Political poll-takers boast that they are not off by more than 3%. The Bible is not getting off to a good start if the Bible is off by over 99.99%. Many people won't even open the Bible because (they say) science has proven the Bible is wrong. All the university professors say the Bible is wrong. Most of the seminary professors have changed their interpretation of Genesis in order to be accepted by the professors in atheistic universities.

What I propose to demonstrate is that the scientists and the politicians are wrong, and they are wrong for the same reason: they don't believe the Bible. They don't want to obey it. If I make my case, your faith (and the faith of that guy who won't even open up the Bible) will be dramatically improved. And when a society rejects archism, we will be practicing "pure religion" (James 1:27), our standard of living will increase dramatically, and Christ will be honored.

Some will say (attempting to "protect" the Bible) that the Bible wasn't intending to say the world is only 6000 or so years old. But nobody believed that until the religion of evolution became culturally dominant. Rather than spin the Bible, its "defenders" should ask, "Why did evolution rise to replace Christianity as the dominant cultural paradigm?"

If you're not a "creationist," you probably have been programmed to believe that anyone who thinks the earth is thousands rather than billions of years old is an ignorant "fundamentalist" bigot who never took a science class. A real scientist like Isaac Newton would never be a "young-earth creationist." The "theory" of evolution is no longer just a "theory," it's a proven "fact." It's a "law" of nature.

What? The world was created in six days, not more than 10,000 years ago?!? What kind of buffoon believes that? What kind of ignoramus takes the Bible seriously? It's going to take a while to de-program you.

True Science

This is a big subject, addressed elsewhere. The English word "science" comes from the Latin word for "knowledge." I "know" that water boils at 100°C. What I'm holding in my hand I "know" to be a fossil. I do not "know" (in the same way) that it became a fossil 200 million years ago. The "scientific method" involves observation, testing, repeatability. There is a difference between "science" which creates an air conditioner or a computer or something that raises my material standard of living, and "science" which says there was no global flood at the time of Noah. The latter is religion, not science. It's faith, not facts.

I asked ChatGPT:

I have a question about the importance of beliefs about the age of the earth. Suppose I am a tunnel-builder, and need to hire a geologist. I have two candidates who seem equally qualified, but one is a creationist who believes the earth was created 6000 years ago, and the other is an atheist who believes the earth was created 4 billion years ago. Would their conflicting beliefs about ancient history have any bearing on their ability to help me build a tunnel today?

A belief about the age of the earth is inescapably religious. Is is either a belief about a "Creator," or a belief about nature as creator. Both ideas are equally religions.

Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935) was a fervent promoter of evolutionism. In 1894 he wrote a work on the history of evolutionary thought, From the Greeks to Darwin | An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea. "The Evolution Idea" was always a religion. In the 1800's it was re-branded as "science." It was dressed up with scientific "factoids" and made autonomy respectable. It was not "facts" that drove people to market "The Evolution Idea" as "science." They wanted a way to make the religion of autonomy culturally acceptable. This re-branding was successful before Darwin wrote his book in 1859. Charles Lyell made a creature-centered "uniformitarianism" a mandatory methodology without proving that the Bible was not factual. Too many Christians today believe they must be accredited by this false religion.

Thanks for reading this far. That was more like 5 minutes than 60 seconds.

I hope you'll say, "I thought you were nuts, but I can see your point."

Then you'll probably say, "But I can't agree with you, because everyone says you're wrong. All the experts are against you."

But thanks for reading this far.

Maybe you started out thinking that I'm just playing intellectual games and I'm not really serious. I couldn't be more serious. This isn't college dorm-room banter. The reason I created this website is because I believe this is a message the entire world needs to hear.

On a scale of 1-10, where

I'd like to get your rating up to a "5," which means "I've never heard this information before, and I need to study it a little more."

My claim:

The opposition:

Five Other Words You've Been Trained To Fear and Hate

Besides "anarchism" and "creationism." This website defends them all:

1. Theocracy

The word literally means "God governs," but "everybody knows" that it really means "Clergymen govern." We don't want to be ruled by priests. Better to be ruled by atheists and pedophiles in Washington D.C.

2. Pacifism

Jesus said "love your enemy." The prophets said beat "swords into plowshares." But if we followed the Bible and became pacifists, Muslims or communists would take over and enslave us. We would have to serve the Muslim conquerors the way Jesus told the Israelites to serve their pagan Roman conquerors. We better follow the Pentagon instead of Jesus.

3. Theonomy [vs. Autonomy]

You may not have heard the word "Theonomy," but it's controversial among those who have.
1. "Theonomy" means obeying God; "autonomy" means rebelling against God, trying to be your own God (Genesis 3:5).
2. "Theonomy" means obeying the entire Bible. Most Christians have been taught to ignore most of the books of the Bible, because they are for another "dispensation."

4. Utopia / Paradise

The word "utopia" comes from two Greek words "eu" + "topos" meaning "a good place." Evolutionists turn a "good place" into "no place" (ou, "not + topos) and then into a bad place ("distopia").

5. Conspiracy

I've already hinted at two conspiracies:

The phrase "conspiracy theory" is thrown around a lot these days. It is usually employed by defenders of government to dismiss critics of government. Critics often refer to the government trying to conceal the truth about an assassination, or the efficacy of a cheap drug which can keep covid patients out of the hospital. A inconvenient allegation that government actors have done something evil or are covering up something that would benefit the people and implicate government officials is called a "conspiracy theory."

The word "conspiracy" comes from two Latin words, "con" + "spire" meaning "breathe together." In American law, a "conspiracy" exists when two or more people agree to do something and commit one "overt act" in furtherance of their plot. See more about "conspiracy."

When you think of "conspiracy" you probably think of a secretive behind-closed-doors plot by an elite few. But there's nothing "secret" about these conspiracies. People organize together to accomplish a goal. That's all.

There are many conspiracies that I believe in, and if you believe in them it will make it easier for me to persuade you that there has been a conspiracy to make you believe that some people have the right to take your stuff, and a conspiracy to make you believe that the Bible can't be trusted:

Evolution is a much bigger "conspiracy." It involves generations of rebels, marketing strategies, and institutional dynamics:

This is the "ultimate concern" of rebels against God. Generation after generation of rebels. A species-level conspiracy.

This website defends all these forbidden concepts.

"WHY" you may ask? Why be so controversial?

I would like to show you that the opposite of Anarcho-Creationism -- Archist-Evolutionism --has resulted in the murder of millions of people, the enslaving of billions, and the theft or destruction of trillions of dollars of private property. But this is not "controversial." Mass murder and destruction are "practical," and "realistic." Following Jesus is "utopian." Following the Prince of Peace -- now that is controversial. Unless you keep your Christianity private, "down in your heart."

My goal for this website is to help you believe the Bible is the Word of God, and believe that with knowledgeable confidence. For you to have knowledgeable confidence in the Bible, you have to know what the Bible actually says.

All government schools and the vast majority of churches tell you that God (in the Bible) does not command you to be an anarchist or a creationist. Some people have a divine right to skim money from your paycheck, and cause pain and suffering if you resist. The media (news, movies, videos, etc.) tell you that you are under no moral obligation to be an anarchist or a creationist.

They might even tell you that nobody can know for sure what the Bible is even saying. It's just a mish-mosh of legends and fables which have been re-written and mistranslated over the centuries.

This is 100% false. The Bible is clear, and those who copied it over the centuries were careful to copy every letter accurately. They believed the Scriptures were the Word of God, not "the telephone game." Given its massive size (750,000 words) and long transmission timeline (thousands of years), and the number of copies made, the Bible is the most accurately transmitted document in human history.

And yet out of 30,000 verses in the Bible, even those who claim to be "Bible-believing Christians" can only tell you about a half-dozen of those verses.

That's just one example of a myth that many -- if not most -- people believe: the Bible has been inaccurately transmitted over the centuries. Completely not true.

There are many such myths. There has been a conspiracy to spread these myths.

The History of Evolution
The Most Elaborate Conspiracy Theory in History

What I'm alleging here is the largest conspiracy in human history. More than two people, many "overt acts."

From a Biblical perspective, the entire concept of "government" is a conspiracy. It is a conspiracy to violate God's Commandments against hurting people and taking their stuff. There isn't a single verse in the Bible which Trump, Biden, Putin, or Xi Jinping can point to and say, "This verse proves that God will not accuse me of disobeying Him if I rob people, kidnap people, or cause them pain, misery, suffering, or death -- because I am 'the government.'" Those who wish to be archists conspire to fool people into believing there is some validity to their possessing a "monopoly on violence."

Note: people can be participating in a conspiracy while believing that they are doing a good thing. Helping society. Being "responsible." Romans 1 says people suppress the truth. They know they're involved in telling lies about the existence of God, but they deceive themselves into believing that they are protecting "science."

The concept of a conspiracy to create "government" is a conspiracy to replace the Creator as King with a creature as king.

Isaiah 33:22
For the Lord is our Judge,
The Lord is our Lawgiver,
The Lord is our King;
He will save us);

Psalm 2 (NIV)
1 Why do the nations conspire
    and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
    and the rulers band together
    against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
    and throw off their shackles.”

1 Samuel 8
6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.

Romans 1:25
who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Secularists haven't always been "anarchists," but they have engaged in a conspiracy to convert America from a Christian Theocracy (a nation "under God") to an atheistic theocracy, where every man is his own god, and ultimately collective man is deified in "the State."

Here is an example of an "Overt Act" in the atheist conspiracy to take over government or secularize it::

Secular activists in Kentucky filed a lawsuit to remove copies of the Ten Commandments from classroom walls. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in their favor in 1980.
Not a single person who participated in the ratification of the 1787 Constitution intended to empower the federal government to prohibit Kentucky schools from posting privately-funded copies of the Ten Commandments in a classroom.
America's Founding fathers, without exception, would have shared my "Theocratic" revulsion against this conspiracy.

The case for a massive conspiracy among "scientists" is easy to prove. By "easy" I mean "you'll understand the argument quickly." To be persuaded is another (and more difficult) thing. To uninstall the propaganda you were fed during your government-approved and evolutionist-approved schooling, and install a new creationist "Operating System" will require some time. The amount of time varies from person to person. For some people "the light goes on" almost immediately. Other people have to keep looking at one piece of evidence after another until finally their public school brainwashing collapses. That can be a long and difficult process.

I believe there's a "conspiracy" to censor the Bible and promote evolutionism.

I believe there's a "conspiracy" to censor the Bible and promote archism.

I believe there is a "conspiracy" among evolutionists and archists to spread the lie that the Bible has been inaccurately transmitted.

The Scopes Trial was a conspiracy to use the undemocratic court system to overturn the laws passed by the people's representative assemblies, and to destroy William Jennings Bryan and the Christianity he represented.

This website is riddled with "conspiracy theories." People are conspiring constantly in different ways to fool you into embracing autonomy instead of Theonomy.

History books are often written by the architects of successful conspiracies. History is the conspiratorial outworking of presuppositions which are fundamentally religious. This is the insight of Christian philosopher Cornelius Van Til. He pointed out that the entire history of human thought in philosophy, theology, and science, is summed up in this classic formulation:

There is no alternative but Theonomy and Autonomy.

"Theonomy" (from two Greek words meaning "God's Law") means being governed by the Bible in every area of life: theology, philosophy, science, economics, law, and government.
"Autonomy" (from two Greek words meaning "self law") means inventing your own religion. It means inventing your own political system, your own church, your own gender. It means undoing the Garden of Eden. Adam had a choice in the Garden: obey the commandment of God, or listen to the temptation of the serpent: "Ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). You can decide for yourself what constitutes "good" and "evil." Evolution into godhead.

You're either working to obey God's Law (Theonomy) or your own law (Autonomy).

The idea of "evolution" used on this website is the idea of a God-free origin of the universe. It is the idea of

There are three books that are helpful in getting a handle on the archist-evolutionist conspiracy.

Van Til's student, John M. Frame, helps us understand the presuppositional currents of the history of philosophy:

Henry Fairfield Osborn is an older writer, avid evolutionist, who sets out a history of "the evolution idea," but his presuppositions are the opposite of Frame's. [Theonomy vs. Autonomy]

Frame is a theologian, and his book covers the intersection of philosophers and theologians leading us up to Charles Darwin. Here is an excerpt from Frame's Table of Contents:

2. Greek Philosophy
c. Philosophy, the New Religion
d. A Survey of Greek Philosophy
  1. The Milesians
  2. Heraclitus
  3. Parmenides
  4. The Atomists
  5. Pythagoras
  6. The Sophists
  7. Socrates
  8. Plato
  9. Aristotle
  10. Stoicism
  11. Plotinus
3. Early Christian Philosophy
a. The Apostolic Fathers
b. The Apologists
c. Justin Martyr
d. Irenaeus
e. Tertullian
f. Clement of Alexandria
g. Origen
h. Athanasius
i. Augustine
4. Medieval Philosophy
a. Boethius
b. Pseudo-Dionysius
c. John Scotus Erigena
d. Anselm of Canterbury
e. Toward Scholasticism
f. Thomas Aquinas
g. John Duns Scotus
h. William of Occam
i. Eckhart von Hochheim
5. Early Modern Thought
a. The Renaissance
b. The Reformation
i. Martin Luther
ii. John Calvin
d. Rebirth of Secular Philosophy
e. Continental Rationalism
i. Rationalism and Empiricism
ii. René Descartes
iii. Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza
iv. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
f. British Empiricism
i. Thomas Hobbes
ii. John Locke
iii. George Berkeley
iv. David Hume
6. Theology in the Enlightenment
a. The Birth of Liberal Theology
i. Deism
ii. Gotthold E. Lessing
b. Biblical Christianity in the Enlightenment
i. Blaise Pascal
ii. Joseph Butler
iii. Jonathan Edwards
iv. William Paley
v. Thomas Reid
7. Kant and His Successors
a. Immanuel Kant
b. Georg W. F. Hegel
c. Arthur Schopenhauer
d. Ludwig Feuerbach
e. Karl Marx
9. Nietzsche, Pragmatism, Phenomenology, and Existentialism
a. Friedrich W. Nietzsche

Frame points out how many of the theologians in history have compromised Theonomy with Autonomy. The principles of Autonomy which were brought into the church have been principles articulated by philosophers in the "classical" (Greco-Roman) tradition. In 1923, J. Gresham Machen wrote a book called Christianity and Liberalism in which he argued that the principle of "naturalism" in philosophy, when applied to Christian theology, produced a hybrid called "liberalism" or "modernism." Machen said this was not Christianity, but a completely different religion. Frame would agree.

Let's take Immanuel Kant as an example, and ask three questions. First question, why would any Biblically-aware Christian want to get his theology (doctrine of God) from a philosopher like Immanuel Kant? Frame would advise against it.

Osborn's book covers the intersection of philosophers and "scientists." This is from his Table of Contents.

From the Greeks to Darwin | An Outline of the Development of the Evolution Idea.
 
1. THE ANTICIPATION AND INTERPRETATION OF NATURE
Preliminary Survey.
Environment of the Evolution idea.
Periods of its development.
Nature of the idea.
The scientific method of thought.
The Advance of Philosophy.
Advance of Zoology and Botany.
Embryology.
 
II. AMONG THE GREEKS
Conditions of Greek thought.
The Greek Periods.
lonians and Eleatics : Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes.
The Physicists: Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, Anaxagoras.
Aristotle and his followers. Pliny, Epicurus, Lucretius.
The legacy of the Greeks to later Evolution.
 
III. THE THEOLOGIANS AND NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS
Transition from Greek Philosophy to Christian Theology.
The Fathers and Schoolmen : Gregory, Augustine, Erigena, Aquinas.
Arabic Science and Philosophy: Avicenna, Avempace, Abubacer.
Bruno and Suarez.
The awakening of Science.
Characteristics of Evolution in Philosophy.
The Natural Philosophers : Bacon, Descartes, Leibnitz, Kant, Lessing, Herder, Schelling.
 
IV. THE EVOLUTIONISTS OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
The two series of Evolutionists.
The speculative Evolutionists : Duret, Kircher, Maupertuis, Diderot, Bonnet, De Maillet, Robinet, Oken.
The Naturalists : Linnaeus, Buffon, E. Darwin.
V. FROM LAMARCK TO ST. HILAIRE
Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck.
Lamarck.
Goethe.
Treviranus.
Cuvier.
Geoffrey St. Hilaire.
Discussion between Cuvier and St. Hilaire.
Bory de St. Vincent.
Isidore St. Hilaire.
Decline of the Evolution idea.
VI. DARWIN
The first half-century.
Miscellaneous writers.
The Embryologists: Meckel, Baer, Serres.
The followers of Buffon : Herbert, Buch, Haldeman, Spencer.
The Progressions: Chambers, Owen.
The Selections: Wells, Matthew, St. Hilaire, Naudin, Wallace.
Darwin.
Darwin and Wallace in 1858.
Retrospect.

You may have noticed that several names appear on both Frame's list and Osborn's list: philosophers who wrote on theology, and philosophers who also wrote on "natural philosophy," today called "science." Names such as

In addition to pure philosophy, Kant also wrote on science. He proposed a "Nebular Hypothesis" in his 1755 Universal Natural History. Here's our second question: Why would a Biblically-aware Christian want to get his science from a philosopher like Immanuel Kant? Osborn would be OK with that; Frame would not.

I admit, some opponents of Christianity were impressive minds. Some who were involved in the evolution conspiracy wrote about philosophy and theology and "science." Men like Aristotle and Kant have had an enduring (often poisonous) influence on "Western Civilization." Your college philosophy class still honors these men, centuries after their death. They were smarter than I am. I rely on scholars like Van Til and Frame to sort them out for me. Theonomy vs. Autonomy.

And some of these same big-brained people, in addition to writing significant works on theology, philosophy, and "natural philosophy" (today called "science"), also wrote influential works on political philosophy as well (as as ChatGPT summarizes below). It takes a big brain to influence multiple fields of thought.

Those smaller-brained philosophers who wrote mostly about "science" (and aren't known for making a lasting contribution to political philosophy) still had an influence on those who would write about "politics." They all conspired to move the world away from anarcho-creationism and toward the dystopian world of archist-evolutionism.

The Great Turning Point

Osborn's survey of the Evolution Idea goes back to the Greeks. Frame's book also goes back to the Greeks. Henry Morris has written a book that parallels Osborn's book, but goes back before the Greeks:

Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God: The History and Impact of the Creation/Evolution Conflict | Google Books | PDF | Internet Archive | html | icr.org | archive
The desire to be free from God and His Law goes back to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, and continues through every human empire in history. All ancient empires and all their religions oppose the God of the Bible. All of them create revisionist histories of their own origin, histories which are evolutionary, that is, "natural" or materialistic. These origin stories may differ in some technical respects from Darwin's origin story, but all these stories claim that the creation -- the material world -- is ultimate. Not the Creator.

The Evolution Idea has always been accompanied by the Archist Idea, empire after empire, throughout human history.

But there is a particularly important era in the conflict between Theonomy and Autonomy which Terry Mortenson has described as "The Great Turning Point."

While Osborn and Frame focus on some great thinkers through history (at least from the time of the Greeks), Mortenson focuses on some neglected names that have had perhaps as great an influence on our modern age than Aristotle or Kant. Charles Lyell is one such name. Without Lyell there would have been no Darwin. Everyone -- creationist and evolutionist -- who studies the history of the Evolution idea will acknowledge that fact. But Lyell is forgotten by all but specialists.

The "Turning Point" is bigger than Mortenson writes about, which is why we need a "third book" on archism. We have Frame on Philosophy and Theology, we have Osborn and Mortenson on science, but we need a book on the political side of the conflict between Theonomy and Autonomy. Consider these details in "The Great Turning Point"

Lyell said his goal was to “free the science from Moses.”  He said “the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence.” Darwin read Lyell's book on The HMS Beagle. He said it changed the way we think. Darwin was right; we all think differently because of Lyell; we look at the whole world differently than creationists like the Apostle Paul did. And it is important to note that Lyell and those who surround him in history were not "neutral," "dispassionate," "objective" "scientists." They hated the Bible. They hated Theonomy. Romans 1 says they were self-deceived liars. Evolution is a hoax and a scam and a conspiracy. We should not get our theology from liars; we should not get our earth history from Bible-haters; we should not get our politics from conspirators.

These are the years covered by Mortenson. In Frame's book we see the rise of German critical scholarship and "liberalism" during the rest of the 19th century. Evolution is the manifestation of "liberalism" in "science." It is an attack on Christianity, wearing the costume of "scientific facts." Evolution is an anti-religion. Equally a religion with Christianity, just in the opposite direction. Theonomy is religion. Autonomy is anti-religion.

Frame advocates revelational, covenantal philosophy—reason under God;
Kepler the astronomer spoke of "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Kant and Hegel practice autonomous philosophy—reason as god. "Reason" = autonomous human reason; the creature over the Creator.
Julian Huxley wrote a book entitled Religion without Revelation; no revelation from God, only revelation from the autonomous mind of man.

Philosophy → Theology → "Natural Philosophy" ("science")  → Politics: It's all one big religion.

  1. Theology | Frame | liberalism, deism, unitarianism
  2. Science | Osborn, Mortenson | uniformitarianism, naturalism
  3. Archism | Woodrow Wilson | Administration

That third book has yet to be written, but was more than adequately anticipated by R.J. Rushdoony, as we'll see in a moment.

I'm not saying that Kant’s Social and Political Philosophy had nothing good whatsoever to offer. The "Enlightenment" in general was right to oppose "the divine right of kings" and ecclesiastical corruption. But Kant championed the autonomy of human reason, and this led to tyranny.

Here's our Third Question: Why would any Biblically aware Christian get his political theories from Immanuel Kant?

What made America the most prosperous and admired nation in history was not the Constitution, but the fact that America was a Christian Theocracy. Though imperfectly so, of course. Theonomy, not Autonomy. But Evolutionism made America a secular theocracy, with every man his own god, and collective man -- The Administrative State -- a planet-destroying god.

Kant is just a celebrity name in the long war against God, the war of autonomy vs. Theonomy. This is a political and philosophical trend that began with the temptation to "be as gods" in the Garden (Genesis 3:5), and progressed through Babel, Egypt, Assyria, the Medes and Persians, and the Greeks and Romans. The advent of Christ changed things, but we still see the residue of the fall  in the church fathers, the renaissance ("re-birth") of Greco-Roman autonomy, the "Enlightenment," the "Great Turning Point" that culminated in Darwin, and the 20th century becoming a secular humanistic bloodbath. But too many Christian "influencers" think they have to champion archist-evolutionism to gain accreditation from government, academia, and appear "intelligent" in the eyes of popular decadent culture.

Political Darwinism

The more-evolved should rule over the less-evolved. This is the essence of archist-evolutionism, in direct contrast with anarcho-creationism. which holds that "all men are created equal," and no human being or group of humans can legitimately claim to possess a "monopoly on violence."

Charles Darwin did not invent the idea of "evolution" in 1859 when he published his book,

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Most of Darwin's ideas had been set forth decades before -- many by his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin.

The concept of "favored races" and a "struggle for life" -- in a "natural" rather than "supernatural" context -- have decidedly political implications.

Wilson vs. William Jennings Bryan

The 100th Anniversary of The Scopes "Monkey Trial" was observed in 2025. One issue in that circus event concerned the teaching of "religion" (Christianity/Creationism) in a "science" (evolution) classroom. But the larger issue -- one lost in the Hollywood depiction of the event -- was racism, fascism, and eugenics/genocide. William Jennings Bryan, portrayed by Hollywood as a fundamentalist bumpkin, was not a six-day/young-earth creationist. Bryan was a progressive democrat, much to the left of today's "liberals" like Hillary, Kamala, and Biden. But Bryan was an opponent of atheistic Darwinism, and he saw the rise of Nazism -- Darwin's "Favored Races" -- as a threat to America's working class. Bryan resigned as Wilson's Secretary of State when Bryan realized that Wilson was lying America into a horrific display of evolutionism in World War I.

These three subjects are all tied together, and the connection is not seen today.

German Evolutionist Education

John Taylor Gatto has written The Underground History of American Education. Chapter 7 is "The Prussian Connection." R.J. Rushdoony chronicled the rise of unitarian/liberal/naturalist philosophy in the creation of state-managed public education in his important book The Messianic Character of American Education. The rise of state education began at the same time evolutionary geology was being created. State education promoted "Administration" -- the rule of the less-evolved by the more-evolved.

A Third Book

Now that we have

These political philosophers need to be catalogued in terms of their allegiance to Theonomy (anarcho-creationism) or Autonomy (archist-evolutionism). An anarcho-pacifist creationist theory of the State has yet to be written.

But R. J. Rushdoony has written a book from a libertarian anti-statist perspective which gets us started.

Don't be misled by the title. This book is about way more than the concept of "The One and the Many." This is a wide-ranging survey of human thought and action. It covers many ideas or themes. I would like to see a book like this which focuses more exclusively on the idea of evolution vs. creation and the connection between that ideological conflict and the conflict between liberty and tyranny, or "archism" and "non-archism." As is evident from the table of contents, Rushdoony's book spends a good deal of time discussing the "Chain of Being" as well as the dialectical conflict between order and chaos, which is related to the concept of the "one and many": the powerful "one" brings order out of the chaos caused by the anarchic "many."  Rushdoony shows (without using our term) that the "archist" claims to enjoy a higher place on the "chain of being" and thus has the right to use political "archist" power to bring order out of chaos.

What's important for our purposes is that Rushdoony is a creationist and highlights how the evolution idea extends throughout non-Christian human thought, throughout history -- going back to ancient Egypt and other ancient empires.

Notice that Rushdoony covers many of the same figures as Frame and Osborn. Rushdoony highlights their political thinking, but doesn't skip past their "philosophical" or evolutionary thought.

R.J. Rushdoony
The One and the Many
Table of Contents
I — The One and the Many
1. The Nature of the Problem
2. Attempts at a Solution
3. The Trinitarian Answer
4. The Unitarian Failure
5. Faith and Science
6. Political Perspectives
7. Implications for Education and Freedom
8. The Question of Authority
II — The Ground of Liberty
1. Introduction
2. Liberty and Dialectics
3. The Enlightenment
4. The Crisis
5. The Libertarian Failure
6. The Christian Answer
7. Law and Liberty
III — The Continuity of Being
1. Egypt
2. Mesopotamia
3. Persia
4. The Chain of Being
5. The Bible and the Concept of Being
6. Being and Society
IV — The Unity of the Polis
1. Greece: The Humanist’s Homeland
2. Greek Science and Philosophy
3. The Chaos-Order Dialectic
4. The Esoteric State
5. The Polis as Cosmos
6. The One and the Many
7. Socrates and Plato
8. Aristotle
V — Rome: The City of Man
1. The Priority of the State
2. Cicero and the Rule of Reason
3. Julius Caesar
4. Chaos Cults
5. Cicero and Revolution
6. Cicero and the State
7. Caesar and the New State
8. The New Perversity
9. Marcus Aurelius
10. Commodus
11. Last Hopes in Chaos
VI — Christ: The World De-divinized
1. War Against the Gods
2. Mysticism
3. Gnosticism
4. Christianity and the Family
5. Abortion
6. Emperor Worship
7. Creation and History
8. History and God
9. Constantine the Great
10. Arianism
11. Nicaea
12. Constantinople I
13. The Orthodox Faith vs. Heresies
14. Ephesus
15. Chalcedon
16. Pelagianism and Asceticism
17. Deprecation of Matter and History
18. Augustine on the Pelagians
19. The Church as New Rome
20. Later Councils
21. The One and the Many
VII — The Return of Dialectic Thought
1. Boethius
2. Scholasticism
3. Aquinas’ Task
4. Thomistic Dialecticism
5. Noetics and Ethics
6. Common Ground in Being
7. The One and the Many in Aquinas
8. The State
VIII — Frederick II and Dante: The World Re-divinized
1. Medieval Civilization
2. Frederick II
3. Dante
4. Dante’s View of the State
5. The Witness of The Divine Comedy
6. Pope John XXIII
7. Pope Paul VI
IX — The Immanent One as the Power State
1. Castiglione
2. Machiavelli
X — The Reformation: The Problem Redefined
1. Luther
2. Against Erasmus
3. Luther and the One and Many
4. Calvin
5. Calvin on Law and Love
6. Richard Hooker
XI — Utopia: The New City of Man
1. Humanism and Utopia
2. Thomas More
3. Francis Bacon
4. Campanella
5. Hobbes, Locke, Harrington
XII — Autonomous Man and the New Order
1. Descartes
2. John Locke
3. Berkeley
4. Alexander Pope
5. La Mettrie
6. Hume
7. Rousseau
8. Immanuel Kant
XIII — War Against the Beyond
1. Hegel
2. Feuerbach
3. Max Stirner
4. Karl Marx
5. Nietzsche
6. Sartre
7. Wittgenstein
8. Marcuse
9. Hammarskjold
XIV — The Christian Perspective
1. Modernism
2. Van Til
3. At the End of an Age
APPENDIX — Observations on the End of an Age
1. The End of an Age
2. The Religious Foundations of Culture

Rushdoony is aware of the conflict between creationism and evolutionism, and like Frame, Rushdoony covers abstract "philosophy," but the central object of the book is the State.

In Rushdoony's book, the idea of evolution is as important as the concept of the one and the many; both are like a pair of glasses through which one may examine the Sate.

Rushdoony shows us that non-Christian thought on history (evolution), philosophy (being and meaning) and politics (order and control) has a basic continuity extending back to the most ancient human empires. Henry Morris also reviews non-Christian evolutionary thought before the Greeks. The basic conflict of human thought throughout history is the conflict between archist-evolutionism and anarcho-creationism.

At the risk of over-simplifying, all ancient empires claimed to be religious -- truly religious. Emperors were divine. Israel recognized that all surrounding empires were false religions, not just false political systems. After Christ inaugurated a "new creation," all empires claim to be non-religious, or "secular." Modern "secular" scholars like to point to "classical" Greece as the inauguration of secular/autonomous/non-religious thinking, but any perfectly non-religious thinker was the exception that proved the rule: "classical" Greece was thoroughly religious. As was Rome, where the divine emperor religion was strong.

After the Advent of the Messiah, the rock of Daniel 2 began expanding throughout the world. But the expansion was not pure. The "Church Fathers" (whom Jim Jordan calls "the church babies") imported "classical" thinking into "the church." The "clergy" were crippled in their attempt to deal with the "re-birth" ("re-naissance") of "classical" culture. Up until the renaissance, naturalism/materialism/paganism/evolutionism was seen by the Christian world as a false religion. After the renaissance, evolution was branded as "natural philosophy," and after about 1800 was branded as "science," i.e., "secular." From the perspective of both Tillich and Van Til, evolution is still a religion, despite its "scientific," "objective," "secular," and "neutral," re-branding. It always has been a religion, and always will be.

True scientists like Isaac Newton always knew that any attempt to convert someone from creationism to evolutionism was an attempt to induce conversion to a different religion.

In the pages that follow, I would like to outline the case made through history that:

Evolution is a religion
and this religion was invented by people who wanted to justify being an “archist.”

When I say "religion," I don't mean "sacraments" and pews and clergymen with backward collars.

By "religion" I mean what Harvard Professor Paul Tillich called "ultimate concern." I mean a philosophy of life. A "worldview." Evolution -- a "struggle for life" to preserve favored races -- is a natural substitute for supernatural Christianity, which is about serving, not dominating. More on the word "religion."

A book on how the world was created by God is agreed by both sides to be a "religious" book that cannot be taught in public "secular" (atheistic) schools, even if it never mentions "God" explicitly and is only about "scientific facts."
But a book on how the world evolved without a Creator, and expressly claims that "God" is a primitive outdated false concept, but is filled with "scientific facts," can be used as a textbook in atheistic government-run schools.

The Creed of Evolution

The word "creed" simply means "I believe."

The Nicene Creed begins:

I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth,

The evolutionist creed begins:

I believe in one Big Bang, maker of heaven and earth.

Both are creeds ("I believe"); both are religions, the "ultimate concern" of the respective believers.

Evolution is a false religion. Not all religions are true.

Evolution is atheism.
Evolution is naturalism. It denies the supernatural intervention by the Creator.
Evolution is materialism.

Evolution is the negation of religion. It is defiance.

Evolution is a theology.
Evolution is philosophy.
Evolution is a fictitious history masquerading as "science."
Evolution is the political institutionalization of man as god.

Evolution was not invented by Charles Darwin. A "Patsy" is blamed by conspirators for their assassination. Darwin was the unworthy beneficiary of hagiographic fiction.

If Isaac Newton could have lived an extra 300 years, he would have looked back on 6,000 years of human history and said

Evolution -- or the worship of the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:18-25-32) -- was a religion for 5,800 years, and only in the last 200 years (since around 1800) was it re-branded as "science."

("Religion" defined not as sacraments and cathedrals, but (a) as Paul Tillich would define religion (b) as a substitute for a Christian world-and-life view.)

What happened is re-branding, marketing propaganda, not new evidence and facts, not proof, but simply a new advertising campaign for a religious/philosophical substitute for the historical chronicle in the Bible, now marketed as "science."

For six thousand years, rebellious autonomous man has chosen to believe the lie that the creation created itself. Evolution is an alternative religion for those who wish to be their own god. Previous empires claimed divinity; today's establishment claims to be "secular" but with all the prerogatives of God.

Why would any Christian believe these religious marketers? Why would they believe the prophets and priests of this fake religion?

This re-branding of anti-Christian religion/philosophy as "science," and subsequently excluding Christianity from public school on the grounds that it is "religion" is almost unparalleled in the history of human thought. Especially so because clergymen (especially Anglican) promoted this 6,000 year anti-Christian religion as "science" and then championed the exclusion of Christianity from public schools on the grounds that "religion" was to be taught there -- except the religion they had just re-branded as "science."

Imagine rabbis declaring Baal worship ‘meteorology,’ assuring Israel it posed no theological threat—then watching Torah banned from schools because it’s ‘religion.’”

The Third Book

We have the foundations laid in the first two books

  1. Philosophy, Theology (Frame),
  2. Science ("Natural philosophy") (Morris, Mortenson),

This work has been creationist. We have creationist resources for the third book

  1. Political Philosophy

This website covers the growth of archist-evolutionism up to Darwin/Wilson; mid-20th century. What Mortenson and Rushdoony show is that the institutional church not only failed to defend a Biblical worldview against liberalism/naturalism/evolutionism, and therefore against socialism/fascism/communism/administration, but actually promoted theological liberalism and archism. Clergymen in the 19th-century were some of the most active promoters of theological liberalism and evolutionism. The institutional church has been a failure, and even an enemy, of Theonomy.

But if the church did not know how to respond competently to the geologists of the early 1800's, it also didn't know how to defend the Bible against the astrophysicists who emerged in the 20th century. Mortenson covers "The Great Turning Point" in Geology, but I don't know who covers a similar turning point with regard to the speed of light. But the astrophysicists stand on the shoulders of the "deep time" geologists, who stand on the shoulders of Kant and Lucretius. It's all one big religion.

So to summarize the three questions we asked above:

1. Why would a Christian get his doctrine of God from atheist theologians like Immanuel Kant -- or anyone else on Osborn's list?
2. Why would a Christian get his doctrine of Creation from atheist philosophers or historians like Immanuel Kant -- or anyone else on Osborn's list? Your doctrine of God is inextricably tied to your doctrine of creation. Why would you substitute a historical reconstruction of earth history as imagined by an atheist evolutionist in place of the one recorded in the Bible?
3. Why would a Christian get his doctrine of the State from atheist political philosophers like Immanuel Kant -- or anyone else on Osborn's list?

Under Construction

I was in high school when I learned (not in class) that evolution was invented by people who hated the Bible and wanted to be their own gods. They said it themselves.
I realized that I had not been taught to take the Bible seriously by my atheistic public schools. The opposite, in fact.
I realized that becoming a Creationist meant becoming a pacifist. How can we claim to understand "pure religion" (James 1:27; 4:4) when we vote for politicians who murdered millions, enslaved billions, and wasted trillions of dollars of private property -- in the 20th century alone. See also Matthew 25:31-46. How can we Appeal to The Supreme Judge of the World with the blood of "the least of these" on our hands?
I realized that allowing God to be my Governor -- the only legitimate archist -- made me a defender of "anarchism" and "Theocracy." I learned that Micah's prophecy about beating "swords into plowshares" was a political philosophy that helped make America into a Christian nation -- a "theocracy" -- that became the most prosperous and admired nation in history. I learned that America is still a "theocracy," but the "god" of this new secular theocracy is Man, not the God of the Bible. This switch in Gods -- from Theonomy to Autonomy -- transformed America's prosperity into bankruptcy, and admiration into loathing and ridicule. From eutopia to dystopia. It was 50 years ago that I became an anarcho-creationist. I'm still learning all about this. This website -- long as it is -- barely scratches the surface. Archist-evolutionists are still cranking out their books. Our atheistic government takes money out of your paycheck and subsidizes them.

I'd like you to read their words. There's a conspiracy. There's a war. You need to pick a side.

Go to: Anarcho-Creationism Home Page Part 2 - featuring our lengthy (and growing) table of contents.

ChatGPT:

Osborn’s list is about evolution of ideas in nature, while Frame’s list is about philosophy–theology, and political philosophy only emerges where views of nature, man, and authority intersect.

I. Direct Contributors to Political Philosophy

These figures explicitly shaped theories of law, authority, state, or social order.

Ancient / Classical

  • Aristotle
    Foundational. Politics as a formal discipline (Politics), natural hierarchy, polis.

  • Epicurus
    Social contract ideas, justice as mutual non-harm.

  • Lucretius
    Political naturalism; religion as social control; proto-social contract.

Christian / Medieval

  • Augustine
    City of God — rival sovereignties, origin of political realism and limits of the state.

  • Aquinas, Thomas
    Natural law, just war, hierarchy of laws (eternal, natural, human).

  • Suarez
    Popular sovereignty, limits on monarchy, influence on early modern political theory.

Early Modern / Enlightenment

  • Bacon, Francis
    Knowledge–power linkage; technocratic state logic.

  • Descartes, René
    Indirect but decisive: rational autonomy → modern political individualism.

  • Leibnitz
    Rational order, harmony, legal philosophy.

  • Kant, Immanuel
    Autonomy, rights, republicanism, moral law detached from theology.

  • Lessing, Gotthold E.
    Progressivism, religious toleration, historical development of morality.

Modern / Evolutionary

  • Herbert Spencer
    Central figure. Evolutionary politics, laissez-faire, survival-of-the-fittest state theory.

  • Charles Darwin
    Not a political philosopher, but massively determinative for later political theory.

  • Alfred Russel Wallace
    Evolution + social reform; divergence from Darwin matters politically.

II. Structural Contributors (Political Implications, Not Formal Theory)

These figures reshaped how authority, law, or society could be conceived, even if they didn’t write political treatises.

  • Thales – Nature without gods → desacralized authority

  • Anaximander – Law (dike) embedded in nature

  • Heraclitus – Conflict as fundamental

  • Democritus – Mechanistic individualism

  • Avicenna – Metaphysics informing Islamic political theology

  • Bruno – Infinite cosmos → dethroned political–theological hierarchy

  • Diderot – Materialism → revolutionary politics

  • Goethe – Organicism influencing romantic nationalism

  • Lamarck – Perfectibility → social engineering logic

These matter because political philosophy always rests on anthropology and cosmology.

III. Not Meaningful Political Contributors

Important scientists or metaphysicians without real political impact:

Linnaeus, Buffon, Cuvier, St. Hilaire(s), Baer, Meckel, Serres, Owen, Chambers, Treviranus, Naudin, Wells, Matthew, Buch, Haldeman, Herbert (non-Spencer), Pliny, Kircher, Maupertuis, Bonnet, De Maillet, Robinet, Oken, Empedocles, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Anaxagoras.

They influenced science, not political theory.

The Big Picture (This Is the Payoff)

When you overlay Frame + Osborn, a pattern jumps out:

Political philosophy follows cosmology.
Change views of nature, and you inevitably change views of law, authority, and power.

That’s why:

  • Aristotle → hierarchy

  • Augustine → limited state

  • Aquinas → natural law

  • Kant → autonomy

  • Darwin → evolutionary governance

  • Spencer → administrative statism

Go to: Anarcho-Creationism Home Page Part 2 - featuring our lengthy (and growing) table of contents.