October 21 2000
Of course there is progress, of course there is change.
Politicians propagate that all social development follows an evolutionary
I do not agree.
The most important changes do not occur in a gradual and slow
bacteria did not change gradually until Homo Sapiens was born. The power relations in our
society will not change when only gradual methods are used. Then the elite will always
stay on top and the masses will always remain in the most vulnerable regions.
Life on earth and the human society do not develop in a evolutionary but in a
revolutionary manner, important changes are not the result of many small gradual steps but
of many small and big jumps.
The Theory of Evolution is only one of the many political theories the elite uses to maintain
its place at the top of our society. These political theories are needed to explain
again and again how it is possible that masspeople live in misery while the top
lives in affluence, why the elite has the power and even the right
to decide which direction the world will take.
Religious ideas were in the past very important but when Western countries became
richer religion began to hinder economic development. Something else was needed. The churches
started lost their grip on society because they hampered the development of the principle of free
competition, the idea that the forces of the market are the best way to secure
lasting dominance of the elite over the masses.
The French Revolution showed that power relations could suddenly change.
the elite looked for new theories to maintain their grip on the masses. Montesquieu advanced his
democratic ideas and indeed our society is still an elitist democracy in which conflicts
between different parts of the elite are mostly solved in a peaceful way. In other words,
in times of conflict only masspeople will die, elitepeople to stay alive in order to take up again their leading posts when the conflict
is solved. But to this very moment the elite still uses violence to contain the masses.
Democracy was an important theory but it was eclipsed when - at the right moment - Darwin
came forward with his ideas that the development of earthly life occurred by a long
series of very small gradual changes.
The Darwinian doctrine was just what was needed. On the one hand it was directed against
religions because it attacked the idea of a creation that was independent of human
influences. On the other hand it attacked the idea that jumps were needed to bring the
world on a higher level. According to the Theory of Evolution the French Revolution had
been a mistake and all possible future revolutions had to be avoided. The people in power
could safeguard their interests and positions by propagating the idea that it was a Law of
Nature that change could only occur by small steps in a gradual and smooth movement.
But evolution is not human! Even in the private life of each human shocks, jumps, fast change, sudden new situations are experienced as important and
interesting. To fall in love, to get married, to get a paper that someone has passed his
exams, to be born, to die ...
these are some of the moments when a jump occurs in human
life. Suddenly, and not gradually, you enter a new situation - and most of the time you
like it! Everybody knows that these moments are important. We like the sudden and unexpected movements of the soccer player, during car races we wait for the
moment a crash occurs, we like to receive a present and eagerly remove the
to see what is hidden ....
it are small moments in which our world changes a
little. But these events are not gradual, they are revolutionary. Revolution is human,
jumps in our life and our thinking are like the salt and pepper in our food. Evolution is
dull, evolution is not really a characteristic of Human Life.
I am not going to explain again why I think that evolution in biology is wrong. You can
find some arguments in my book "The Scarists", especially in chapter
8 Evolution and Revolution and in chapter 9 Evolution does not exist. I am not only against evolution because
I am convinced that evolution in the Darwinian sense does not exist but also because I
think that evolution is not human, that it has nothing to do with our daily life. Darwin
was part of the struggle of the elite to maintain its power over the masses and to
maintain its right to pass its power and wealth on to its progeny. And the Theory
of Evolution, including the "survival of the fittest" support the idea of the free
market economy in which the most active (to say it euphemistically) people will come
top. Not the best idea is important but the best way to sell your idea to other people, or
to force your idea on other people (and the elite has the power to do this). So the
elite does not look intensively for other means to get energy, it continues to
use petrol to heat houses and to fuel cars, even when is known that the environment
becomes heavily polluted and earth temperature will rise in another twenty
to such a height that human life will be endangered. The elite wants profits now,
it does not want to wait twenty five years for a return on its investments.
But of course, not all revolutions are that good. The Russian and Chinese revolutions
indeed annihilated a petrifying system. But especially in the Soviet Union the
petrifaction came around again - and a new communist elite rose to power. But
happened in a country like India is much worse. The Indians did not have a revolution and
they are now more backward than countries like Russia and China. In India they tried to
change society in a slow and democratic way. They tried to apply the method of Gandhi to
oust the English colonists. This peaceful method failed but the colonialists anyhow went
away because the English elite got the right idea that they could earn more when India
should be governed by an Indian than by an English elite. In our time India is a very poor
country and her prospects are bleak. The average income in India is far beneath that of
China - though in the fifties it was much higher - and the Indian society is drenched in
violence. The abolishment of colonialism
was not achieved by activities of the Indian masses or the Indian elite. The
elite in the United States of America had in the fifties already proved that the
possession of a country was less important than the possession of the resources of that
country. Saudi Arabia is still a kind of American colony though it has an own Arabian
because I am against the Theory of Evolution in biology I am
against the Theory of Democracy in human society. Democracy is not the best
political system - it arrived a long time ago and the situation on our earth
is still very bad. It is a system by which human development stagnates just as the
Evolution petrifies the development in many scientific disciplines.
hamper human thinking and human development.
In politics all is subordinated to the omnipotent Theory of Democracy. In biology, but
also in many other scientific disciplines as economy and sociology, the Theory of
Evolution is omnipotent. Both theories block the way to new
heights, to new venues in which Homo Sapiens can develop his specific
creative and individual capacities. The still existing poverty, the ever recurring
famines, the high mortality in the greater part of our world, the low level of education
of most people, the fact that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor keeps the
development of human creativity in check. Suddenly the masses, the
poorest part of the population, can fall back in misery. The Asian Financial Crisis has
proved that improvements are not lasting. In Indonesia development was set back for more
than twenty years. This is only one of many examples that power relations
in a democracy will not change. It is comparable with the Theory of
Evolution that denies the
possibility that Homo Sapiens will suddenly change for example by influences from elsewhere
in the cosmos (see chapter 12 Panspermia of "The
Scarists"). It denies that humans can influence their own development because humans are the
beings that can harness the Powers of Nature. In science the Theory of Evolution has the
same suffocating role as the Theory of Democracy in politics. Top scientists will
their high and profitable chairs when they stop jumps in scientific thinking. Elitist
democratic leaders also stop all attempts to change the world by a revolutionary
development. The bosses in science have no tolerance for scientific jumps and the bosses
in politics oppose any jump in society because in this way they can maintain their control
over masspeople. When this will continue the future of our human society will be very
But what to do?
The principle is indeed easy. People have to work towards a turning point,
towards a jump in the development. I gave some mathematical backgrounds in the fourth chapter of the Mathematical Chip and of course in my
book The Scarists. You have to leave the continuous road that
leads to a predictable future in which the elite will still be in power and the masses
will still be subordinate. You have to take another road, you have to step aside from the
well trodden road to a bleak future, you have to take action. When many people are active
then it is possible that just your action will be the drop that will cause the
bucket to overflow. Then we will get a fundamental change in our society. When you do
nothing, nothing will happen.
The answer who is responsible for the present situation
is easy. Powerful elitepeople are responsible. So your
arrows have to be pointed directly at those leaders who want to keep what they have. You
have to attack the powerful members of the elite when you want to get a society in which
every human will have some power. Then the possibility will arise that a new elite will
never again come forward when the society has made a jump.
Yours truly, Joost van Steenis