Giving science the due respect it demands from rational thinkers, let’s assume that the human race has evolved into a typical species in the animal kingdom. How then, through this supposed evolutionary process, did our species evolve so dramatically different than any other species in the natural world and become atypical? Where does there exist another species, genus, family, order, class, or phylum––in which its constituents are, by their own choice, divided into class structures––where one individual dominates and controls another in order to benefit itself exclusively? Outside the human species, where does there exist another animal group that consciously sees its other members as lower class, middle class, or upper class? Where else are there caste types set, wherein by birth alone, a creature is assigned a specific honor that sets it in prominence above others?
Where in the animal kingdom do the natural instincts of one member serve itself instead of the whole?
A weak argument held by some is that there are some alpha males and females throughout the natural world who are given prominent distinction by nature’s law. Others might suppose that the queen bee, for example, by the majestic nature of her birth, warrants the worship and class distinction she is given. In reality, the queen bee is a slave to the community. Any others born of the same royal birth are immediately killed, because there is only need for one to fill the role for which she exists.
The alpha of any group has little to do with birthrights, but is instead dependent upon the age and strength of the one given the title. If the human race followed this natural law, then the strong African slave would have had dominance over the smaller white landowner without argument. But as it is, the smaller human is able to subdue the larger and stronger, not because of any law of nature, but because of the manipulation of these laws by man.
The laws of nature have a single purpose. That purpose is to assure the perpetuation of the species. Alpha males and females are supported in order to assure a hierarchy that works well for the sake of the whole, just as queen bees are coddled and protected to ensure offspring. Regardless of these instincts, the natural law of the animal kingdom does not implement rules and laws that have the potential of destroying entire species. Each species acts within the well-balanced realm of its own environs to ensure that future generations will exist. Instinctual behavior demands this of all species except one: Homo sapiens.
Homo sapiens means “wise one.” The term is taken from the scientific classification given as the genus homo and the species sapiens. Of course, those who invented this scientific classification system did not see themselves as stupid creatures, and thus were so inclined to include their genus in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom as intelligent and wise (sapiens).
These “wise ones” of the animal kingdom came up with a theory in which they could, through their self-proclaimed wisdom, logically support their classification system. This is the Theory of Evolution. Its premise is based on what is termed, “Natural Selection,” which again as they suppose, is wise because they thought of it.
Natural selection can best be described as an evolutionary mechanism that occurs when some individuals of a population are better able to adapt to their environment, and subsequently produce more offspring. Nature, in effect, selects which members of a population are fit to survive long enough to reproduce. Differential reproductive success between individuals is the key. Those who produce more offspring have a greater influence on the gene frequencies of the next generation. In easier terms for the common wise ones to understand: “survival of the fittest.”
It would seem, therefore, that if this “wise” theory could be substantiated as a true law of nature, it would apply to all of the animal kingdom. Yet, if science has proven that a species exists to maintain and perpetuate itself, then the Theory of Evolution has no verifiable application in the ant world, for example, in which the strongest (the soldiers) could surely kill every worker and every queen and take over the hill. Likewise, an alpha male could kill all other males, he being the strongest of the group, as well as could an alpha female drive off or kill the other females, thus assuring her prominence and future posterity.
If only the strongest survive, how have insect species existed for millions of years without any indication of evolution or subjection to the theorized law of natural selection? Could it be that Darwin (the so-called father of the Theory of Evolution) was not paying attention to the ants crawling up his pants as he crouched on the ground watching the birds? Furthermore, if the Homo Sapiens evolved from other primates, why aren’t other primates evolving?
The more the species sapiens learns about itself and its environs, the more it begins to realize that there are more than just two kingdoms on this planet. There are three: the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom, and the human kingdom.
Because the human kingdom follows none of the instinctual and natural laws that the other two kingdoms follow, it cannot be logically included under their (the same) classifications.
The plant kingdom cannot survive without the animal kingdom, and the animal kingdom cannot survive without the plant kingdom; but both can do rather well without the human kingdom. In fact, because of the human kingdom, the plant and animal kingdoms are being destroyed, not by natural law, but by wise human law.
The laws of nature create a balance and order (some refer to as a symbiotic state) that perfectly sustain the perpetuation of the creatures for which these laws exist. The lion eats no more than that which satisfies its hunger. When its hunger is satisfied, it does not kill unless it feels its life is threatened. The flower takes no more sun and water than what it needs to grow and flourish.
The laws of nature uphold the design of all creatures to sustain the life of their species, and also maintain the environment from which they take this life. Creatures beholden to these natural laws do not have the ability to see themselves as individual and separate parts, but fulfill the measure of their creation in order to sustain the whole. No individual buffalo looks at its herd and makes the decision not to mate so that the herd doesn’t get any bigger. No plant or animal subjected to the laws of nature worries about tomorrow, nor do they look up at the stars and wonder what those shining lights are.
Humans are not subjected to the laws of nature. Yes, they are affected by the natural world, but they stand alone from all other genuses in their ability to consciously rebel against any law they so choose. If a wise one chooses to have sex for pure enjoyment, for example, it can do so by superseding natural law with the human law of birth control. This natural earth is not subjected to human law, but follows the course it has been following for millions of years. It wasn’t until the wise ones showed up that natural law began to be violated and disregarded.
Natural law fills the atmosphere with clean, pure air that brings energy to the plants and animals it sustains. It fills pristine streams and rivers with colorful and healthy plants and wildlife. It assures the calm rest of winter brings the refreshing life of spring. In all things, it creates a balance and order for the benefit of all those subjected to it. There is only one thing that keeps nature from doing what it does best: The Corruption of Man.