Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio
version of my videos available to make listening to my
stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it. But
since my videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may
be occasional references to visual materials. If you'd like this
podcast ad free, you can join us on Patreon app,
Patreon dot com slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 2: Today I'm looking at a video by Professor Jiang, and
full disclosure, I did find this video on an unofficial
re upload channel where the only thing they do is
upload videos from his actual channel, seemingly without permission. Given
that Professor Jang has over two million subscribers and the
re upload channel only has forty one, it took me
a while to find the original to link to because
of that, but I did find that this video is
a snippet from the beginning of one of his secret
history lectures. It's over an hour long, so I'm not
going to respond to the whole thing. I'll keep it
to this clip, but I am linking to the actual
lecture rather than the channel that's stealing it. Anyway, this
guy has been getting a lot of attention on social
media recently for his predictions about what's going to happen
regarding the war in Iran, predictions that are phrased in
a way that makes it ambiguous as to whether or
not he actually believes in the Biblical apocalyptic narrative, or
if he just thinks that the people in charge believe
in that narrative and so will make certain decisions with
those things in mind. This video has nothing to do
with that, but since it's him explaining why he thinks
evolution is wrong, it does give us a hint as
to his beliefs regarding the Biblical apocalypse. So let's take
a look.
Speaker 3: This is Charles Darwin and arguably he is the most
influential thinker of the past twenty eight years.
Speaker 2: Yes, arguably, whatever your opinion on his specific spot on
that hierarchy, he is definitely up there.
Speaker 3: And the reason why is he wrote a book call
The Origo Species, and he presents to us the fear
of evolution. And you all know a fear of evolution
because they teached this to you in school and is
embedded in our everyday lives.
Speaker 2: Well, it's embedded in our everyday lives in the sense
that a lot of our understanding of biology and by extension,
medicine is based on our understanding of evolution. But for
most people, aside from their interaction with modern medicine, evolution
isn't really relevant to their lives.
Speaker 3: And there are three main ideas to the they of evolution.
The first is that it was all accidental.
Speaker 2: Not accidental. The word accident implies that there was an
intention that went wrong. The intention was for X to happen,
But why happened by accident? He's got random written up
there as well, And while that one is closer, it
still requires a bit of nuance. But I'm getting ahead
of myself. Let's let him explain what he means.
Speaker 3: So you have these geneic mutations, and the mutation that
is best fitted to survive in environment would win out. Okay,
so it's all a random, accidental process. That's the first thing.
Speaker 2: The mutations themselves are mostly random, but which mutations win
out are determined by the environment in which they occur,
not randomly. But also, this is only one mechanism of evolution.
There are also things like sexual selection that play a role,
and sexual selection is decidedly non random.
Speaker 3: Second thing is that it is materialistic, meaningfing that you
can see is all that exists.
Speaker 2: Now, evolution is completely silent on whether or not supernatural
stuff exists. Now, we learn about evolution by utilizing methodological naturalism.
That is, scientists who work on it don't look for
supernatural causes, regardless of what they personally believe about the supernatural.
And this philosophy is what has thus far in human
history been the best at learning true things about reality.
Speaker 3: The third thing is it is emergent, meaning that feel
things built on top of each other. It is a
bottom up process.
Speaker 2: I would agree with that, but I know I know
that there are theistic evolutionists who believe that God guides
evolution and had humans in mind as one of its
end goals. Although I suppose using evolution would still be
a bottom up approach, but with some top down foresight
added into the mix.
Speaker 3: Now, the fear of evolution marked a turning point in
human history because before European countries were Christian, and Christians
believed that there was a divine God who created us
and us such we were all equal before the eyes
of God.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, given the fact that
the Thirty Years War is a thing that happened, you know,
a war that was entirely between two different sects of
Christianity who thought that belonging to the other made a
person less than human, thus justifying their extermination. Or that
feudalism was a thing with the land owning nobility exploiting
the labor of the peasantry in order to increase their wealth,
with the nobility class being quite certain that they were
inherently better than the peasants. Or the slave trade, both
the Atlantic one and the regular old European slave trade
that was the precursor to the Atlantic one, which I
covered in more detail in another video that I'll link to.
Or the rampant anti Semitism throughout medieval Europe, where people
were often encouraged by those in power to blame Jewish
people for anything that went wrong, anything from crop failures
to disease resulting in prolonged persecution and sporadic programs, or
or point is society, even European Christian society, was not
some egalitarian utopia up until Darwin came along and ruined
it with evolution.
Speaker 3: Therefore, you can I go in enslave other people, you
can I go and kill other people?
Speaker 2: You might want to go back in time and let
the medieval Europeans know that, because their behavior definitely didn't
bear that out. Like I didn't even mention the Crusades,
where Christians invaded the Holy Land under the impression that
killing Muslims was a way to earn forgiveness for past sins.
Speaker 3: As well. There were three main ideas to Christianity. Okay,
the first idea is one omniscient and omnipresent God.
Speaker 2: Well, I counted three, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. The idea of these three entities only being
one being while still being distinct individuals is rather nonsensical,
but also unrelated but fun fact that I recently learned
there was a series of poems written by early Christians
sometime between seventy and one to twenty five CE, the
Odes to Solomon. The nineteenth one has what is, as
far as I can tell, an excellent contender for the
first explicit reference to the doctrine of the Trinity in
early Christian literature. Let's read the first four verses just
for shits and giggles.
Speaker 3: Quote.
Speaker 2: A cup of milk was offered to me, and I
drank it in the sweetness of the delight of the Lord.
The Son is the cup, and he who is milked
is the Father. And the Holy Spirit milked him because
his breasts were full, and it was necessary for him
that his milk should be sufficiently released. And the Holy
Spirit opened his bosom and mingled the milk from the
two breasts of the Father and gave the mixture to
the world without their knowing. So, according to this poem,
which was written around the same time as the Gospels,
God enjoyed milking himself into a cup made of himself
for people to drink Kinki.
Speaker 3: The spirit, the Holy Spirit, is what infuses life. It's
what gives meaning of purpose to life.
Speaker 2: And hey, wouldn't you know it. Whether or not that
is a thing that happens is a completely separate question
from whether or not evolution is a thing that happens.
Speaker 3: And the world is a mystery. We have the hold
faith there are things that we cannot understand. God has
a plan, but it is a mysterious plan.
Speaker 2: Okay, so apparently earlier when he said emergent, not only
did he mean bottom up, he also meant no mystery.
But if you think the natural world doesn't contain any
mystery without adding in a bunch of supernatural, then I
honestly feel kind of sorry for you. The world is
full of mystery, and a lot of it is stuff
that we as humans can work towards solving, and that's exciting.
But I guess it only counts as a mystery if
it's actually impossible to figure out, and honestly, that kind
of mystery is much less inspiring. Science is cool. Put
the effort in and you can learn all sorts of needs.
God is boring, no matter how much effort you put in.
The answer to the question of why an all powerful,
benevolent being allows evil will always be a variant of
mysterious ways. Why would we expect to be able to
learn the answer. We're just humans. God's ways are beyond
our ways. It really is, as Nietzsche said, a very
gross and indelicate answer to the question.
Speaker 3: And so we must be humble and serve the purpose
of God.
Speaker 2: You must do as I say without question, even if
what I say doesn't seem to make sense to you,
and you think that's better than accepting the fact that
evolution happens.
Speaker 3: Okay, and the fear of evolution destroys conceptric universe introduce
a more materialistic one.
Speaker 2: Honestly, if evolution destroys the idea that we all have
to do what God says without understanding why, then that's
a good thing, especially given the fact that God only
ever seems to speak through human representatives who inevitably tell
you that God wants you to give them money. Not
to mention all the times those tactics have turned into
sexual abuse.
Speaker 3: So why did this happen? Well, it happened for three reasons.
The main reason is that we live in a nineteenth century.
When Darism came into being, Europeans were engaged in a
process of imperialism. They were going around the world and
conquering other people and colonizing other people and essentially committing genocide.
Speaker 2: Did he forget the beginning of his presentation where he
claimed that European Christianity had convinced everyone that all people
are equal. Therefore you cannot go in enslave or kill
other people. I'll give you credit for acknowledging that European
colonialism was largely an exercise in genocide and attempt at genocide,
But I'm not sure how that squares with the discovery
of evolution being the turning point where suddenly we were
all like, yay, slavery is okay now, which I'd just
like to remind you of the timing there. Darwin's book
was published in eighteen fifty nine. That's just two years
before the America Civil War and just twenty six years
after the UK outlawed slavery. His book that supposedly gave
Europeans the excuse they were looking forward to engage in
slavery was published right in the middle of a time
when Europeans and their American cousins were in the process
of deciding that the slave trade they had already been
engaged in for literally thousands of years was no longer acceptable.
From a purely correlational perspective, you couldn't have any more backward.
Speaker 3: So they needed a theory to explain why this is happening,
and Darwin's theory of surround the fit is was the
most appropriate theory. And the idea is that the world
is fed into racist and the white race is superior
to everyone else, and if for the white race has reason,
has legitimacy in colonizing other people.
Speaker 2: Darwin absolutely did not invent the concept of race. In fact,
Origin of Species barely even touches on humans. The word
human only appears in the book five times. Once is
an offhanded mention of the shape of a mother's pelvis
influencing the shape of a baby's head, once in comparing
the eye to a telescope, and mentioning that the telescope
was invented by humans, Once in the introduction to chapter fourteen,
where he opens by acknowledging that it's hard to believe
that the complexity of life came about through processes that
are not equal or superior to human reason, And once
later on in chapter fourteen, where he points out that
the length of time the earth has been around for
is so large as to be inappreciable by the human intellect. Admittedly,
just searching for the word man yields sixty eight results
almost nice, but again, they aren't even about the evolution
of humans. It's mostly in the passages dealing with artificial selection,
where humans have bread plants and animals to have features
that are useful to us, even if they would be
detrimental to the plants and animals had they remained in
the wild. Meanwhile, the concept of race is a complicated
one that sociologists and anthropologists will tell you are as
old as civilization itself, though the concept has changed dramatically
in that time. I mean hell, It's even present in
the rabbinic literature. Sanhedron one oh eight b says that
Noah's sun Ham was punished with black skin for the
crime of having sex with his wife while on the arc.
But our modern conception of race as distinct categories of
people is largely based on ideas formulated in the sixteen
and seventeen hundreds, well before Darwin. In Europe specifically, the
idea was that white people were the original pure specimens
created by God, and all other skin colors were a
degradation of this initial perfection. Point is, white supremacy is
way older than Darwin, and our modern understanding of evolution
has actually led to the conclusion that race is a
social construct. It has no biological basis. Now this isn't
to say that race is not a real thing or
important or whatever. As I have to do every time
I bring up the concept of social constructs, I must
remind you that being socially constructed does not equate to
not being important or real. Other socially constructed things include money, citizenship,
and marriage. All of these things are things that are
important to our day to day lives, but they are
things that would not exist without a society that constructs them.
A Canada goose that is born in Canada will have
no problem ignoring our arbitrary borders when going on its
annual Migraine. They don't even get travel insurance to pay
the ridiculous American health care costs. That's because they are
not part of society and so don't have the social
construct of citizenship and borders thrust upon them based on
their place of birth. Hell, the existence of countries is
also a social construct. There is no fact about reality
that makes the land I'm sitting on now fundamentally different
from that which is a mere two kilometers east of me.
But if I want to go to that spot to
my east, I need to get the appropriate documents from
the government of Canada that essentially act as permission to
leave the country, and I have to go through a
checkpoint where agents of the American government determine whether or
not I have permission to enter their country. All of
that is socially constructed and also very real and important,
but the fact remains that there is more diversity in
African populations than anywhere else in the world, meaning that
from a biological perspective, the differences between skin colors aren't
any more significant than the differences between other features like
hair color. The reason African populations are so diverse is
understood to be because of evolution. Humanity originally developed in Africa,
so when a population left the continent, it became genetically
isolated from the rest of humanity, resulting in a loss
of genetic diversity, while the parent population kept chugging along,
increasing its diversity as it went. Thus, an actual understanding
of evolution would lead us to conclude that racism is
completely unjustified, while religion promotes in group and outgroup thinking
that lends itself quite nicely to racism.
Speaker 3: And evolution would give rise to racism and eugenics.
Speaker 2: Okay, racism already existed, which resulted in people who were
already racist using evolution as an excuse for their racism.
But just because bad people use their incomplete understanding of
evolution to support their bad ideas does not mean that
their bad ideas are inherently linked with evolution. As I
just explained. A proper modern understanding of evolution would have
us do away with racism entirely if we were actually
basing our ideas on rigorous science.
Speaker 3: So before Thauridism, we didn't need to have a hearts
of off race because everyone was equal in the eyes
of God.
Speaker 2: Come on, man, you literally just finish pointing out the
fact that Europeans were traveling the globe and committing genocides
everywhere they went because they saw those other people as
less than How does that square with the whole We
didn't have a concept of race because everyone was equal thing. Hell,
how does that square with the story of fina Haas
in number twenty five. That's the story where God's favorite
race of people were intermarrying with the dirty Midianites, so
God afflicted them with a plague. The thing that stopped
the plague was fina Haas heroically murdering an interracial couple
for the crime of being an interracial couple. The result
of this is that he was rewarded with a perpetual priesthood.
Now sure, from the modern concept of race based on
skin color, the Midianites were probably the same as the Hebrews,
But just because our modern concept of race is not
identical to historical concepts of race, does not mean that
the historical ones did not exist. It was still an
in group and an outgroup that was based mostly on
what culture you were born into.
Speaker 3: And now with the rise of Darwinism, the world's about
it according to race as well. Because of evolution theory,
people start to believe in eugenics, which is the idea
that stupid people, people who are not white, they should
be sterilized because whe let them live, they would just
all they would do is dilute the genetic pool.
Speaker 2: Okay, there is a lot more to the story of
eugenics than that oversimplification, but yes, I can agree that
trying to force people to either procreate or not based
on characteristics that are seen as either desirable or undesirable
is a bad thing. Again, though, a modern understanding of
evolution in genetics would suggest that were we to implement
such a program, the best way to increase our robustness
as a species would be to make sure that people
only breed with people whose genomes are significantly different from
their own in order to increase genetic diversity. Because, ultimately,
from an evolutionary perspective, the more diversity of species has,
the less likely that species is to go extinct. But
once again, I would just like to make it explicit
that having programs that try to push people into these
sorts of reproductive decisions is a bad thing.
Speaker 3: And even today, guys, there are still many people who
believe in racism and eugenics.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are. Guess which religion most of them belong to,
At least in North America, it's the Christians. And it's
the ones most likely to deny evolution that are most
comfortable being vocally racist, which I would suggest is actually
causally linked. The less educated you are, the more likely
you are to both deny evolution and cling to in
group and out group stereotypes.
Speaker 3: The thing about evolution that's very important is that it's
a teology. Okay, what does that mean. It means that
it's a theory of human progress while God no.
Speaker 2: Teleology is not a theory of human progress without God.
Teleology is the study of causality as a function of purpose.
The only sense in which evolution could be said to
be a teleology is with the view that God guided
the process with the goal of bringing about humanity. But
when evolution is understood as an unguided natural process. It
has no goal in mind, and thus it cannot be
a teleology.
Speaker 3: So even though evolution thinks that geniputation is an accident,
the theology is that will the strong survive and that's
what's right. Okay, still might makes right?
Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. That is a complete misunderstanding of the
concept of survival of the fittest. There is no moral
aspect to survival of the fittest. It's not that the
strongest surviving is good or desirable. It's just what happens.
But it's not even about strength per se. It's more
about an organism being the best fit for its ecological niche.
The one that fits the niche better will survive over
one that doesn't fit it quite so well. If it
were about strength and domination, then why do pray animals
survive as well as predators. Clearly the gazelle was weaker
than the lion, and yet pick any ecosystem on the
planet and you'll find that there are significantly more prey
animals than predators by population numbers. The week seem to
be winning by a lot, almost like the strongest survive
is an inaccurate oversimplification.
Speaker 3: So in many ways, evolution is a rejection of Christianity.
Speaker 2: Tell that to Francis Collins, the highly respected scientist who
headed the Human Genome Project and founded Biologos, an organization
dedicated almost entirely to explaining why evolution is not a
rejection of Christianity.
Speaker 3: So you would think that Christians would oppose Darwinism and
evolutionary theory. Well, it was surprising is that when the
book came out in eighteen fifty nine, only twenty years,
the fear of evolution would come to dominate the entire
Western world.
Speaker 2: Turns out, true things are true, even if they contradict
your religion, and if you can show a true thing
to be true, then people who want to believe true
things will come to believe it.
Speaker 3: It became the dominant idea in schools, in diversities into sciences.
Do you mean today evolution is a dominant paradigm, meaning
that you cannot question evolution.
Speaker 2: Quite the contrary. Questioning aspects of evolution is how scientific
progress is made. Questioning the theory as a whole, though,
shows you to either be ignorant or a liar.
Speaker 3: If you question evolution, it means you're crazy. Okay, but
I'm crazy. So we're gonna question evolution today.
Speaker 2: You said it, not me. I just said that you
are either ignorant or a liar. For this guy, my
money's on ignorant. Unlike the creationists who have PhDs in
relevant fields, he doesn't seem to have the required level
of understanding to be a liar.
Speaker 3: All right, so you've said this in schoolall But evolution
means we came from monkeys, apes, and then there were
different species of humans, and eventually the best are species,
the Homo sapiens, won out.
Speaker 2: I really hate it when people put value judgments on
species not going extinct. We aren't the best of the
species of humans. We just happen to be better at
occupying our ecological niche than the other species did, so
we're the ones that survived.
Speaker 3: Okay, So what evolution says is that we are just
a monkey. Guys. Okay, we're just a monkey. And what
do monkeys do. Monkeys like to have sex, monkeys like
to eat, Monkeys like to fart. That's all we are.
We're just monkeys.
Speaker 2: We're not just monkeys. It's weird how he keeps flipping
between using supremacist language that aligns with the idea that
we are superior and so are justified in wiping out
the inferior races, and then the dismissive language like this,
where if evolution is true, we're all just a bunch
of monkeys. In reality, evolution is value neutral. We just
are what we are. But as long as you're disparaging it,
could you at least be consistent instead of flipping back
and forth between mutually exclusive concepts.
Speaker 3: But there are certain problems with this theory. Okay, the
first problem is if you look at evolutionary theory, what
you should have a diversity as this species develops.
Speaker 2: There is well. Morphologically speaking, humans are morphologically very diverse,
as different populations adapted to different environments. Genetically speaking, though,
humans are on the low end of the diversity spectrum.
Speaker 3: But so why is it that we only have one
human species? Weren't there many different.
Speaker 2: Ones evolutionary luck of the draw, There were other human species,
but they went extinct. The reason is debated. Could have
been climate change. There could have been out competed for resources.
We could have even just bred them out of existence.
The Homo sapiens population was much larger than the other species,
of human so it is possible that we just kind
of assimilated their genetic material into our own as time
went on, like a non cyborg borg sort of thing.
Speaker 3: Well, the argument is that there are there were many
different species before, but we won out.
Speaker 2: Yes, for one reason or another, we became the last
one's standard.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, that's fine, But another problem is why are
we going around the world.
Speaker 2: We weren't the only ones doing that. The locations where
we found the fossils of the other human species indicate
that the various species of humans were spread out all
over the place.
Speaker 3: Okay, so all sies of human beings like to migrate,
but primates don't do that.
Speaker 2: Primates do do that because we do that, and we
are primates. Why did the non human primates not do that?
I don't know, but it's far from the only example
of closely related species engaging in wildly different behavior. My
dog is very closely related to wild wolves, So why
don't wild wolves get excited every time they see a
human and start begging for pets? And if she ever
had to survive on her own hunting skills, she wouldn't
last long at all.
Speaker 3: Why is that humans like to migrate, and so the
explanation often is what bigs a climate change because of
war because humans are chasing game okay, bisons and food.
But then how to explain these people, Okay, these are
people who where to populate the Pacific islands Micronesia. That's
kind of weird.
Speaker 2: So Micronesia are the islands that are closest to the mainland.
But he was gesturing at Polynesia. The first human migration
to Polynesia, the hardest islands to get to, was the
last great human migration to occur. Pretty sure you can
figure out why it was the last one. It's timing
coincides with a severe centuries long drought in the easier
to find Micronesia, Melanesia and on the mainland. There is
evidence that humans landed on the Polynesian islands well before
they settled there. Given the timing, this indicates that they
were likely searching for food and in the process we're
developing their maritime skills that later allowed them to settle
the islands.
Speaker 3: First of all, it's really dangerous to go out to
the Pacific for months and months, right. Also, like, how
do they know that there'll be islands waiting for them
in the Pacific.
Speaker 2: If the reason they went there were because of the drought,
they didn't. They were desperate to find other sources of
food to supplement their failing to supply at home.
Speaker 3: So that's something that's very odd about human beings. In fact,
there are lots of things that are really odd about
us that other animals don't do.
Speaker 2: And that is a true statement of literally every species.
Every single species has at least one feature or behavior
or something that makes it unique. If it were not unique,
it would not be its own species. It would be
part of another species, which would be unique in some way. Amusingly,
uniqueness is one of the least unique characteristics there is.
Speaker 3: For example, we're very religious. Okay, okay, So the Neanthdols
are supposed to be before Homo sapiens. But as you
can see, what we discovered are these religious ritual sites,
the Neananthols, wherein the Anthos engage in religious ritual practice.
That's kind of weird.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it is weird, but it demonstrates that our species
of human were not unique in their development of religion.
Speaker 3: What does your religion have to do with survival? In fact,
you can argue that religion is the waste of time.
Speaker 2: I do argue that, but it does help with survival
in a social species that relies largely on cooperation, like humans.
It's a way to signal that you're part of the
in group, so that you are someone who is trustworthy
and with whom it is okay to share resources.
Speaker 3: Why aren't they hunting? Why are they using so much
resources and time in building these ritual.
Speaker 2: Sites because they had finally gotten to a point in
their evolutionary development where they had time that didn't need
to be dedicated exclusively to survival. I'm going to stop here.
The video that I have went on a bit further
into the lecture, but he is essentially done with evolution
at this point. He pivots to talking about how humans
work together instinctually, and like Noe, we're a social species.
That's what we do. Today's common today comes to us
from Somerset case One, who says, calling loneliness a god
shaped hole is like calling hunger a chef shape. You're
not missing God, you're missing dinner and company. Geez man,
it's really harsh. Doing a better job than I did
at making the point I took a whole last video
to make in just a single sentence rude. Thanks for watching.
I'll be back next Friday with more, but if you
need to get your rye efix in before then. I
lastream was service every Wednesday eight thirty East around my
other channel, a watering Hole, and periodically published shorts on
the channel Vice Rhino Shorts. Thanks to Piper for being
my editor, and special thanks as always to my patrons,
who are the racism that didn't exist before the evolution
that is my channel was discovered. If you'd like to
ignore the majority of human history to make a point,
you can join us on Patreon for as little as
a dollar per week over at patreon dot com slash
Vice Rhino, or by supporting the channel and one of
the other methods. I can be foun at linkstad vice
around dot com, which is also where you'll find links
to my other projects. If for whatever reason you want
to send me stuff, my pobox addresses in the description
see next Time