Biological evolution took a wrong turn, several million years ago, by permitting the development of a brain smart enough to understand its basic mechanisms: Natural Selection, mutation, genes, chromosomes DNA, RNA , replication, genomes, etc.In the long run such knowledge is inimicable to the survival of the human race.
The iron laws of Natural Selection themselves guarantee that the theory of evolution is destined to lose out to Creationism, Intelligent Design and other comfortable dogmas of ignorance which possess higher survival value for the human race. This is because:
(a) Give the knowledge we've already acquired, and the technologies developed from that knowledge, Man must endeavour, irrevocably, to attempt to alter the natural direction of evolution by imposing as much order as possible on a process that, unfortunately, works effectively only through adaptation by random mutations. Yet Man is forced to meddle with its mechanisms, because biological evolution is simply too cruel. No human society will ever be able to tolerate the naked "tooth and claw" ethic that governs the evolutionary process.
(b) If He does succeed in controlling the evolutionary process, He will be replacing it by one that , mediated through genetic engineering, is less efficient by several orders of magnitude. From the standpoint of Natural Selection this inevitably makes him the loser.
(c) Furthermore, a universal acknowledgment of the way that Evolution actually works will also lead to a measurable increase in the amount of despair in the psyches of normal human beings. This is because, as every philosopher from Pascal to Sartre reminds us, our situation is hopeless. Mankind survives, even thrives , only because it does everything in its power to blind itself to this reality.
(d) Normally these blinders are supplied by religion. Science has tried to replace the old dogmatic verities with the "religion of progress". However this faith, known informally as positivism provides only a flimsy barrier against the nagging certainties of suffering, fear, loss of loved ones, loss of faculties, loss of property, and, needless to say, death.
(e) Thus, for these two reasons:
one can confidently assert that communities of believers in Creationism will, in the long run, have a decisive evolutionary edge over those rare beings still courageous enough to put forth intelligent arguments for Evolution.
It has been an open question since the days of Charles Darwin ( even earlier, in the mid 18th century, when Maupertuis pursued research in biology in which Evolution is clearly prefigured ) as to whether "intelligence" bestows an evolutionary edge on its possessors. Natural Selection itself in brutal, callous, cruel and , above all, mindless . Intelligent people are not likely to spawn 100 offspring (mostly feeble-minded or with Habsburg nose/jaws, like Charles the something-or-other) , or advance their families at the expense of whole societies numbering in the millions , or kill off populations of fellow creatures who can't "run with the pack". Such behavior is more commonly found in dictators, despots, Czars, sultans, Emperors, persons in whom virtually all of the higher faculties are imperfectly developed, if at all.
One has seen in our own days, in the 21st century, 600 years after the Renaissance and 300 years after the Enlightenment, in a democracy based on high technology in which the sciences thrive as nowhere else on earth, how the species has chosen to be led by a closely knit clique of brutes and imbeciles, beings who in prehistoric days would have been evicted from the caves in the dead of winter as intolerable burdens on the tribe.
And it can hardly be an accident that these very same "leaders" have lent their support to Creationism, restrictions on sex education, bans on stem cell research, blind denial of the reality of Global Warming, protecting the environment - in a few words, any policy that would enhance the potential for human survival through intelligence rather than the blind workings of Natural Selection.
Is it going too far to speculate that, over the next few centuries, the human genome will be supplemented by batteries of genes that will lay the foundation for instincts designed to cause our descendants to believe in the tenets of Creationism against all appeals to reason?
Nor should this be seen as a bad thing: that is, if we set a value on the survival of the human race into the next millennium.