Socialism vs creationism
Hate leads to the urge to destroy
“Socialism is the historical loser, and if socialists know that, they will hate that fact, they will hate the winners for having won, and they will hate themselves for having picked the losing side. Hate as a chronic condition leads to the urge to destroy.”
—Stephen Hicks (b. 1960), Canadian-American philosopher1
Socialism and creationism represent intellectual frameworks that challenge established norms in their respective domains—political economy and science. While they emerge from different realms, these ideologies share common strategies and philosophical underpinnings, particularly in engaging with the dominant paradigms they seek to replace. Drawing on the work of philosopher Stephen Hicks, I will explore the parallels between socialism and creationism, focusing on their methods of argumentation, their stance towards prevailing ideologies, and their ultimate objectives.
Socialism and creationism both oppose deeply entrenched systems—capitalism and evolutionary biology, respectively. Capitalism, rooted in liberal economic theories, has been the dominant global economic model for centuries. Similarly, the theory of evolution, grounded in empirical science, has been the cornerstone of biological sciences since the 19th century. Both socialism and creationism emerge as critiques of these systems, offering alternative visions for how society or the natural world should be understood.
“The belief that the world was created yesterday seems to hold great appeal to those born at that time.”
—Gary Malone, columnist and blogger2
Stephen Hicks, in his critique of postmodernism and ideological movements, draws attention to the strategic similarities between creationists and what he terms "Machiavellian postmodernists." He writes:
"Creationists will sometimes argue that creationism and evolutionism are equally scientific, or equally religious, and that they should therefore be treated equally and given equal time. Do creationists really believe that? Is equal time all that they want? Of course not. Creationists are fundamentally opposed to evolution - they are convinced that it is wrong and evil, and if they were in power they would suppress it. However, as a short-term tactic, as long as they are on the losing side of the intellectual debate, they will push intellectual egalitarianism and argue that nobody really knows the absolute truth. The same strategy holds for the Machiavellian postmodernists - they say they want equal respect for all cultures, but what they really want in the long run is to suppress the liberal capitalist one."
This observation highlights the tactical manoeuvres employed by creationists and socialists (or postmodernists) when they oppose the prevailing intellectual and cultural powers.
“I remained a socialist for several years, even after my rejection of Marxism; and if there could be such a thing as socialism combined with individual liberty, I would be a socialist still. For nothing could be better than living a modest, simple, and free life in an egalitarian society. It took some time before I recognized this as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree.”
—Karl Popper (1902-1994), Austria-British philosopher3
One of the key strategies identified by Hicks is the use of intellectual egalitarianism. Both creationists and socialists often argue that their perspectives deserve equal consideration when faced with dominant paradigms that they oppose. For creationists, this manifests in the demand that creationism be taught alongside evolution in science curricula, often under the guise of promoting critical thinking or academic freedom. However, as Hicks points out, this demand for equal time is not an end in itself; instead, it is a temporary measure aimed at undermining the credibility of evolutionary theory, which creationists fundamentally reject.
Similarly, socialists often argue for the equal validity of all cultural and economic systems. This stance, according to Hicks, is not a genuine commitment to cultural relativism but a strategy to erode the dominance of liberal capitalism. Just as creationists aim to replace evolution with creationism ultimately, socialists seek to replace capitalism with socialism. The call for equal respect or consideration is thus a means to an end, a tactic employed while they remain on the "losing side" of the debate.
“No theory of government was ever given a fairer test or more prolonged experiment in a democratic country than democratic socialism received in Britain. Yet it was a miserable failure in every aspect.”
—Margaret Thatcher4
Another parallel between socialism and creationism lies in their opposition to what they perceive as the "established truths" of their respective fields. For creationists, the scientific consensus on evolution is seen not just as incorrect but as morally corrupt and dangerous. This is why creationists do not merely seek to coexist with evolutionary theory but to eradicate it, viewing it as fundamentally incompatible with their worldview.
“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”
—Richard Dawkins (b. 1941), British evolutionary biologist5
Socialists view capitalism similarly, particularly those who adhere to more radical or postmodernist interpretations. Capitalism is not just another economic system; it is often portrayed as inherently exploitative, unjust, and corrupt. The goal is not merely to reform capitalism but to overthrow it entirely, replacing it with a socialist system that is seen as more just and equitable. Recent student riots in the US are a good example of this. “Death to America” and “from the river to the sea” are destructive, not a quest for further debate, analysis, and elaboration. The search for truth and/or collaboration are not objectives.
“You only talk about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess, even when the only sensible thing to do is pull the emergency brake. You are not mature enough to tell it like it is. Even that burden you leave to us children.”
—Greta Thunberg (b. 2003), Swedish environmental activist6
This radical opposition to established paradigms reflects a deeper philosophical commitment to an alternative vision of truth and morality. In both cases, the dominant paradigm is not just wrong in a technical or theoretical sense; it is viewed as morally bankrupt and socially harmful. Hicks makes the point that the Left, broadly defined, are counter-Enlightenment.
“The contemporary Enlightenment world prides itself on its commitment to equality and justice, its open-mindedness, its making opportunity available to all, and its achievements in science and technology. The Enlightenment world is proud, confident, and knows it is the wave of the future. This is unbearable to someone who is totally invested in an opposed and failed outlook. That pride is what such a person wants to destroy. The best target to attack is the Enlightenment’s sense of its own moral worth. Attack it as sexist and racist, intolerantly dogmatic, and cruelly exploitative. Undermine its confidence in its reason, its science and technology. The words do not even have to be true or consistent to do the necessary damage.”
—Stephen Hicks7
Hicks’ analysis also touches on the ultimate objectives of these movements. For both creationists and socialists, the endgame is not the peaceful coexistence of multiple perspectives but the suppression of the opposing view. Creationists, if given the power, would likely seek to eliminate the teaching of evolution. Similarly, socialists, once in control, have historically moved to suppress capitalist practices and ideologies, often through state intervention, repression, coercion, and/or force.
The early founders of socialist ideology knew that violence would be required at one stage. In 2021, I tried to put the various levels of tyranny into a scale:
Where Starmer’s Britain is positioned on the Richter scale of tyranny, I will leave aside for now. This might help:
Intellectual egalitarianism is a means to gain ground in a battle where the ultimate goal is the complete replacement of one system with another. This is not a battle for diversity of thought but for ideological supremacy. A great reset, one could call it.
Stephen R.C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, 2004.
Christopher Hitchens and His Critics: Terror, Iraq, and the Left (2008), eds. Simon Cottee and Thomas Cushman, New York University Press, p. 282.
Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography (1974), Chapter 8: A crucial year: Marxism; Science and pseudoscience.
Margaret Thatcher, speech at the Conservative Party conference in Blackpool, England, on October 19, 1990.
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006.
You Are Stealing Our Future: Greta Thunberg, 15, Condemns the World’s Inaction on Climate Change, speech at Katowice Climate Summit 2018, Katowice, Poland, democracynow.com, 13 December 2018.
Stephen R.C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, 2004.