Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Evilution - Rise of Adam by wendelin Evilution - Rise of Adam by wendelin
This is not supposed to offend anybody - it's just my opinion about religion and how some people deal with it.

I want to thank Ansgar H., who shot the reference photo and kindly allowed me to use it for my drawing and submit it here to DA. He's a remarkable photographer and if you like to view his works (including the shot I used here), feel free to visit his gallery at a German site, Photocommunity: [link]

Drawn with Corel Photopaint using a tablet.
Add a Comment:
monoheel Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2016  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I love the pic. I love the comments it got almost as much. Great job. Keep it up!
Jim-From-Hell Featured By Owner May 25, 2015
It's funny to see how German populists love to scapegoat religion since atheists brought nazism.
Coelophysis Featured By Owner May 23, 2014   Writer
I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this image. Is it saying that we only as our fellow apes in terms of understanding the nature of God and the universe? 
wendelin Featured By Owner May 23, 2014
It says that the questioning of his own existence and that of the world he's living in, is what primarily separates the human from the animal. This is where (I think) religion comes from with its implication of the "pride of creation".
Cocoman68 Featured By Owner Apr 23, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Joakimkaller Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2012  Hobbyist Photographer
Love it
ArnoldRonald Featured By Owner May 23, 2010
LOL! Very good!
SheTheTDE Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2010  Hobbyist General Artist
I dont give a damn about religion so long as when I die its on my terms.
Greed-kun Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2010  Student Traditional Artist
Reality>Religion, I always say. But then again, It's always my intention to offend the religious. Their threats of hell and such amuse me.

Other then that very creative, very nicely done.
angelwolftears Featured By Owner Mar 4, 2009
This is actually a very powerful image... very creative, in my opinion.

Nicely done :)
wendelin Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2009
I like your opinion! Thank you very much. :)
angelwolftears Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2009
You're welcome :)
ash9111 Featured By Owner Jan 10, 2009
Oh contentious. ! See even though you clearly state that no offense is meant, people won't take notice of that.!!! Blimey below is nearly a bible in itself.!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P680 Featured By Owner Dec 29, 2008
This sums it all up very nicely.
pariah87 Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2008
I like it! I'm agnostic and I think we must discuss and respect every religion :)
Thank you for sharing
faerie247 Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2008
This is so good its mind blowing.
DancesOnTheBreeze Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2007
I absoulutly love this, and you have go balls to put this on. I think the reaction to this by some poeple is Classic.
Thanks for the laugh.
ChrissieCool Featured By Owner Nov 6, 2007  Hobbyist Digital Artist
featured you here, hope thats ok [link] :hug:
wendelin Featured By Owner Nov 7, 2007
Thank you very much! :)
ElaineTheMain Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2007  Student Photographer
And I like youre drawing skills:)
ElaineTheMain Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2007  Student Photographer
I'm adding this too favs because I like the discussion of Atheism and Christianity.. I belive in Jesus, God and The Holy Spirit by the way:D
bellezza-corrutta Featured By Owner Sep 11, 2007
lol, dam you know how to take the piss and take it well!!!
Mallimaakari Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2007
This is great!!!

The Jehovah,s witnesses have become a real pain in the ass for me, in last couple of years.

Keep up the good artwork!!! Your native american pieces are great too!
jerxzman Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2007  Professional Interface Designer
can you make another version?

Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
Isaiah 56:11
King James Version
wolfpurplemoon Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2007
Whatever the meaning of this image, it is beautifully rendered and is going in my favourites! :+fav:
r-w-shilling Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2007   Digital Artist
The picture is great, the symbolism is obvious, especially seeing as how you explained it already...although its obvious that some ppl dont seem to take that into account here that it is not a personal attack on a particular religion. The colours and tone is notch picture here:).
Touch-Not-This-Cat Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2006
An even earlier and prehaps better quote:

Evolution is either
an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things
came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack
upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does
not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply
means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly
into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the
most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things
slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were
outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that
there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as
a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such
thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that
is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not
upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are
no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not
separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, "I think;
therefore I am." The philosophic evolutionist reverses and
negatives the epigram. He says, "I am not; therefore I
cannot think."

Orhodoxy, by GK Chsterton, 1909
ElaineTheMain Featured By Owner Nov 5, 2007  Student Photographer
Touch-Not-This-Cat Featured By Owner Dec 20, 2007
No German pessamist philosphers here!

And now for a bit of sillyness: There were only two good points about Fredrick Niechie: His wonderful mustach, and he hated Wagner. Seriously, who wants to sit for 20 hours waching inbred morons murder each other verrrrrry slowly over a lump of gold??
Touch-Not-This-Cat Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2006
If this is something you really care about then the following is important:

To-day all our novels and newspapers will be found swarming with
numberless allusions to a popular character called a Cave-Man. He seems to
be quite familiar to us, not only as a public character but as a private character.
His psychology is seriously taken into account in psychological fiction and
psychological medicine. So far as I can understand, his chief occupation in life
was knocking his wife about, or treating women in general with what is, I
believe, known in the world of the film as 'rough stuff.' I have never happened
to come upon the evidence for this idea; and I do not know on what primitive
diaries or prehistoric divorce-reports it is founded. Nor, as I have explained
elsewhere, have I ever been able to see the probability of it, even considered a
priori. We are always told without any explanation or authority that primitive
man waved a club and knocked the woman down before he carried her off. But
on every animal analogy, it would seem an almost morbid modesty and
reluctance, on the part of the lady, always to insist on being knocked down
before consenting to be carried off. And I repeat that I can never comprehend
why, when the male was so very rude, the female should have been so very
refined. The cave-man may have been a brute, but there is no reason why he
should have been more brutal than the brutes. And the loves of the giraffes and
the river romance of the hippopotami are effected without any of this
preliminary fracas or shindy. The cave-man may have been no better that the
cave-bear; but the child she-bear, so famous in hymnology, is not trained with
any such bias for spinsterhood. In short these details of the domestic life of the
cave puzzle me upon either the revolutionary or the static hypothesis; and in
any case I should like to look into the evidence for them, but unfortunately I
have never been able to find it. But the curious thing is this: that while ten
thousand tongues of more or less scientific or literary gossip seemed to be
talking at once about this unfortunate fellow, under the title of the cave-man,
the one connection in which it is really relevant and sensible to talk about him
as the cave-man has been comparatively neglected. People have used this
loose term in twenty loose ways, but they have never even looked at their own
term for what could really be learned from it.

In fact, people have been interested in everything about the cave-man except
what he did in the cave. Now there does happen to be some real evidence of
what he did in the cave. It is little enough, like all the prehistoric evidence, but
it is concerned with the real cave-man and his cave and not the literary caveman and his club. And it will be valuable to our sense of reality to consider
quite simply what that real evidence is, and not to go beyond it. What was
found in the cave was not the club, the horrible gory club notched with the
number of women it had knocked on the head. The cave was not a Bluebeard's
Chamber filled with the skeletons of slaughtered wives; it was not filled with
female skulls all arranged in rows and all cracked like eggs. It was something
quite unconnected, one way or the other, with all the modern phrases and
philosophical implications and literary rumours which confuse the whole
question for us. And if we wish to see as it really is this authentic glimpse of
the morning of the world, it will be far better to conceive even the story of its
discovery as some such legend of the land of morning. It would be far better to
tell the tale of what was really found as simply as the tale of heroes finding the
Golden Fleece or the Gardens of the Hesperides, if we could so escape from a
fog of controversial theories into the clear colours and clean-cut outlines of
such a dawn. The old epic poets at least knew how to tell a story, possibly a
tall story but never a twisted story, never a story tortured out of its own shape
to fit theories and philosophies invented centuries afterwards. It would be well
if modern investigators could describe their discoveries in the bald narrative
style of the earliest travellers, and without any of these long allusive words
that are full of irrelevant implication and suggestion. Then we might realise
exactly what we do know about the cave-man, or at any rate about the cave.

See the whole book at: [link]

Trust me, he wrote it to address this very issue in 1925, just months after the Scopes Monkey trial.
Geistig Featured By Owner Nov 3, 2006  Professional Digital Artist
this is by far one of the best pieces of meaningful ART that i've seen on nailed it. :clap::clap::clap:
ISHAWEE Featured By Owner Aug 14, 2006  Professional Digital Artist
amazing idea! and great skill, too!
detwayler Featured By Owner Aug 5, 2006   Interface Designer
great perspective about the religion the idea

Mentalsquint Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2006
This is an amazing piece! I'm still not quite sure what meaning I want to choose for it, and that makes it even better! This is a piece of art that can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people -- It makes me think of the arrogance of human religion -- something that should be simple and fundamental has become a tool to oppress some and elevate others. Those who deny evolution and deny science and nature, and who are frightened and intimidated by the existance of other faith and other people, are only destroying the relevance of faith and religion to our own world. As a Christian who finds herself constantly embarassed by all the raving radical fundamentalists out there who simply can't stop prostyletizing, I really appreciate this!

All philosophy aside, your technique is magnificent -- absolutely photo-realistic! Wonderful job!
wendelin Featured By Owner Jul 30, 2006
Wise words! Thank you very much! :hug:
xuadobiht Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2006
Nicely drawn... but, I don't quite understand what it is that you are trying to say here. Is it that religious people are of a simple mindset no better than that of animals? Or is it simply that mankind is an animal in itself and religion has no practical application?
wendelin Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2006
No, I don't try to say that religious people are of a simple mindset. In fact everybody has his own interpretation of a piece like this, just like everybody has his own interpretation of life ;). My thoughts were that men separated from animals as soon as they started thinking about the reason why they exist, the question of life. I can't imagine any animal doing this. At the same time this is the reason of much evil in this world.
xuadobiht Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2006
OK, I understand your standing, but you are mistaken on two points:

1. Man never derived from lower animals as "science" teaches. This has been proven, but not made public.

2. Is it really prudent to attack an entire religion based on the actions of the evil men that infiltrate it? (Attacking something for it's worst case scenario is called a Strawman arguemnt, and it is chalked up with logical fallacy because it's generally too presumptuous.)

So I ask you, consider the facts and ask yourself if you have come to your opinions based on the whole truth, or if you are merely being told what to think by the agendas of secular society.
wendelin Featured By Owner Jul 21, 2006
You should read all the comments here - I don't "attack an entire religion". I needed a religious symbol so I picked the most popular, the cross. The reason why is because if you turn that one upside down it gets a different meaning, quite the opposite of the original meaning. My drawing is about misinterpretation of religion - the monkey holds the bible upside down. Maybe he don't understands it or he just don't want to, but he will use it to his advantage.

I don't want to start a discussion about evolution here, but I'm definitely interested in the proves that the theory of evolution is wrong. ;)

I believed in god the first twenty years of my life. In those years I was "told what to think". Then I had my doubts and started thinking and reading about other theories. Did you know that Jehova/Allah was the god of a small tribe of shepherds in Palestine (one of hundreds other gods of other tribes there) and he had a wife on his side? Did you know that Lilith was Adam's first wife and not Eve? You can't find that in the bible anymore, this is the result of archaeological work. The bible as you can read it today has been changed through all the centuries just to fit. I'd call it the evolution of the bible. ;) I came to the conclusion that it wasn't god who created the human race but it was the human race who created god. They were just looking for an explanation.
xuadobiht Featured By Owner Jul 21, 2006
Dear Wendelin, You seem to hide your subject behind ambiguity. First you say that man has misinterpreted religion (which is true in many cases), then you say that man created God (which is false). Which is it?

As for the evolution stuff, check here: [link]

From your research, I’m afraid you have come to some rather wild conclusions. An obscure Eastern tribe claiming to worship Jehovah among other gods is no obstacle for the truth. There are people today that claim to serve God and worship themselves, so nothing has really changed. And Lilith. I’m no stranger to such mystic oddities. The Lilith theory is not Biblical, however. Lilith seemed to be accepted among some Hebrew people as a sort of spirit, or ill omen, but only some wild Hebrew fairytales associated her with Adam. (There are unorthodox offsets of Judaism out there. Kabbala being one.) Aside from not being mentioned, it violates biblical writing. I have a journal posted up about the truth of scripture if you are truly interested in the subject.

Whatever the message of this drawing, I perceive that someone has instilled doubt in you about God’s word, and such should not be. Forget what you were told to think in the past, and forget about your newfound prejudice, and read the Bible for yourself. Ask wisdom of the Lord, and He will give it to you.
wendelin Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2006
Ambiguity? When asked if I believe in a god I can say it loud and clear that I don't.
This drawing, though, is about how religion has been used by people to manipulate others in the past. And today as well. The problem's much more obvious today in the islamic world. But there's no religion better or worse than the other. I'm pretty sure if I would have picked the Koran instead of the christian bible you wouldn't have any problems with it. But I tried to explain several times, why I chose the cross.

I couldn't find any proves in that link that evolution is wrong.

Concerning Jehova I'm afraid you misunderstood (it's not easy for me to discuss something like this in English, sorry :hmm: ). What I tried to say was that the origin of Jehova has been found out now. There were many tribes living in Palestine. Jahwe was the god of one of these (arabic) tribes and he first had a wife, Ashera, back then (Baal is another well known god of these times, worshipped by other tribes). When David united the palestinian pre-israelitic tribes he formed the Juda-Israel (spelling?) kingdom. Jahwe became the "official" god, all the others disappeared little by little and the Jahwe monotheism was established through the years. There is no evidence of Mose, no escape from Egypt and no walls of Jericho beyond the bible. The texts on which the bible is based were written that time, perhaps just to glorify the new kingdom and create a history for those people. The career of Jahwe is amazing, though. ;)

"I perceive that someone has instilled doubt in you about God’s word, and such should not be. Forget what you were told to think in the past, and forget about your newfound prejudice, and read the Bible for yourself. Ask wisdom of the Lord, and He will give it to you."

Now you sound exactly like those people who told me what to think when I was a child and teenager. ;)
xuadobiht Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2006
I dare say you are right. I would not have brought it up if you had the monkey holding a Koran, because I have no right, means, or reason for defending that. But the creature IS in fact holding a Bible, and you say yourself that this was your opinion of religion.

Couldn’t find it? The website is huge. Check these: [link] [link] [link] . That should keep you lost in thought all year.

Next, I commend you, your English, though not faultless, is much better than you give it credit for. Your history, not your English, is what is flawed. You claim that Moses and the escape from Egypt [link] , the walls of Jericho ([link]) , etc, were all fictional (That is false. Check the links). You have no basis. The Bible has long been regarded as a valid historical document. Therefore, to disprove its words, you need evidence to go one way or the other, and not a lack thereof. You then make accusations that Ashera was the spouse of Jehovah. No. There is no evidence of this outside the rantings of a few ancient cults. You can’t just take someone’s outlandish beliefs and say it was a widely accepted part of the religion.
I’m afraid you have your history of the Kingdom of Israel all wrong as well. David was not even the first king, Saul was. The division of Israel and Judah came in the time of Jeroboam and Rehoboam. (Many years after David’s death) So your basic errors on the subject let me know that this is not a topic of active study for you. Let me explain something else: Every culture of the ancient world would record their history in such a way that it would seem their country was the greatest in the world. Every culture would record their mighty victories, and leave out their defeats. Except of course for the nation of Israel. Israel recorded victory and defeat. It recorded the good and the bad. So your theory of the scriptures being written to glorify the new kingdom is completely illogical.
Yes, it’s true that there were other gods going around in Israel (long before and long after David), the Bible even records that. There were even times when certain kings would place these idols in the high places to be worshipped. So no wonder there would be evidence of this. But the people of Israel would get into trouble somehow, and return to the Lord.
Now for some strange Bible facts: Almost every other religion in the world that has "holy texts" has all of its literature written by a single person. Muhammad was the exclusive writer of the Koran, and since he claimed a monopoly on the prophetic, no other writings could be added to his own. Buddhism is obviously exclusive to the teachings of Buddha, and a similar story is in Confucism. The Book of Mormon (a cultic document) was written by Joseph Smith, who claimed it to be the third testament of the Bible (but again, he was all alone in his writings). In every case, a single man wrote his own opinions and monopolized on the aspect of "spiritual inspiration".
The Bible is different though. The Bible is written by many people. And though it focuses on the deity of Christ, Jesus himself didn’t write a word of it. I think there was good reason for this. If I claim to be a big shot, it means nothing, but if every person around me makes that claim without my forcing them to say so, then that is a whole different story. So the first difference that the Bible has is multiple sources over a period of thousands of years, all of whom have astounding correlation to one another.
The second thing that the Bible incorporates are witnesses. While many of the writings of other religions are just accepted for what they say, the Bible made many references to witnesses being needed for the foundation of truth. That was the reason of John the Baptist beginning his ministry just before Christ. Because Jesus could not witness for Himself, but John went before Him to proclaim that He was the Messiah before Jesus even began His ministry. (Gospel of John, chp. 1)
Third, the Bible has prophecy. Not just prophecy, but prophecy that came to pass. The book of Daniel, in figurative language, prophesied the life of Alexander the Great, and even the results of his downfall (Dan chp. 8). The Bible prophesied the coming and crucifixion of Christ (Isaiah chp. 53). The Bible even prophesied the reforming of the nation of Israel (Micah 2:12). Yeah, I know that some wild stretch of imagination can explain all of these things in a "logical" sense, but the truth cannot be seen by someone with no understanding of faith.

You said that your picture was not intended to offend anybody. But I recommend that you be more careful when the subject of your work is the very basis of someone’s existence. They may not take it as lightly as you do. ;)
wendelin Featured By Owner Jul 30, 2006
This is another demonstration how useless it is to discuss something like this with somebody who takes the bible as fact and denies or fights every scintific result that wouldn't correspond with what's written in the bible. Another monkey drawing comes into mind, a really famous one: see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing. ;) If you believe the propaganda of an organisation like the one on that website (thanks btw for the new links, so I could find what I was looking for) it's your own decision. I built my world view by studying sources which weren't meant to declare any kind of ideology. Only the result for me was that I just can't belive in a biblical god anymore. But hey, I would have been killed for this a few centuries ago, so we're making progress. ;)

One more word about the "basis of someone's existence". From my point of view the only reason for religious people to defend their ideology is to keep their hope alive, a hope of a "better world" after death. You call it basis of existence. All of the main religions have that in common. It appears that religious people consider their lives to be something they have to go through in order to be rewarded after death. So please nobody say something that would destroy this hope. ;) Jesus said "Give and you will be given" (I don't know if this is the right expression in English, I just translated it from German, the meaning of it is that you should give or help and you will get something back, a eternal life in heaven for example). I think if he would have said "Give because they need it" we would have a much better worl today. Religious people ( at least the three main religions), raise a lot of ethical opportunists. Everybody acts just to his own advantage, even he's helping others. He wants to be rewarded with heaven. I'd prefer to teach our children more compassion and tolerance instead. A drawing like this would become redundant.

But speaking of an eternal life in heaven. I wonder has anybody ever really thought about what that means? People expect heaven to be a world where they will be happy where every wish will come true (a world whitout virtues? ;P ). Anyway, they "hope" to live - let's call it "exist" - forever. But they just seem to stop thinking at this point. Just pay attention to your next holidays. You probably will realize, that the enjoyment of your holidays, which you were looking forward so much, will turn into normal just after a few days or maybe weeks. And now imagine this going on forever. F-o-r-e-v-e-r! I can assure you that sooner or later it will turn into real hell. What are you going to do after all your wishes have come true and you just don't want anymore? There's no way to end it. You have to exist forever and ever. This would mean hell to me.

As a non religious person I have my hopes too of course. I hope, that either there will be nothing left from me after I die, or if there's something "surviving", like a soul or a self-awareness it will merge into something like an universal awareness, a form of being without feelings anymore.

Whatever may come after we die, I'd only hope, that people would much more concentrate on their lives than on their death or post-death-time. All they had to do is to live and let live.
(1 Reply)
leoplaw Featured By Owner Jun 15, 2006  Professional Traditional Artist
Terrific image. While I agree to some extent with previous postings equating religion with a low level of development, I also see the converse. The rise of fundamentalism in all corners of the globe reflects the abuse and manipulation of structured spiritual beliefs. Movements of mass spiritual belief are often originated from an inspired revelation, e.g. Christ, Budda, however, then once applied in a generic form, it is open for exploitation. The same happened for Marx and Engels' ideas of Socialism and Communism.

It is the personal spiritual experience that allows us to rise above our basest and most selfish instincts and look beyond ourselves. So while the answer is not in book or anothers words, inspiration can be gleaned thereby from which we can fashion our own way. With that attitude we can therefore not deride and then see their is also a grain of truth in the ways of others also.

Here is my take, but from a the other end of the spectrum. [link]
AyanAyzodei Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2006   General Artist
Staunchly denying the fact of evolution, the most bestial and selfish creature among us lies behind our Churches?

A portrait of all of life's gits, from time immemorial. One of the most formidable images I've seen on DA (in my few weeks so far). Really good concept. This is one of your best, so maybe should be available for people to buy.

Maybe it is the chimpanzee Tony Schumacher. It doesn't represent chimps in a good light, and indeed the portrait is ultimately that of a powerful, nasty villain. A savage, hoarding animalism lurks behind the eyes, which are bloody and uncompromising, while cunningly he holds on to his prize, his weapon and world. Hypocrisy is an animal trait, veiled behind human guile, and remains the law of the jungle we still inhabit.
wendelin Featured By Owner Jun 1, 2006
Thank you very much for this comment! :) You bring some new aspects to this image. I like the "prize (which means the world)" and the "weapon" in his hand that makes him to an animal. Amazing.

The reason why I didn't offer this as a print is, that I used a photo of somebody else for reference (the chimp or bonobo) and I first would have to ask him for permission. He kindly allowed me to post the drawing on the internet, though. :thumbsup:

What's of interest to me is the story of the "chimpanzee Tony Schumacher". I don't know if you're interested in football but we had this goal keeper in our (German) national team now 25 years ago. His name is Tony Schumacher and he's been acting a little bit strange on the field from time to time. ;) :D Is there any connection?
unicorngraphics Featured By Owner May 25, 2006
Outstanding work,und im übrigen bin ich ganz deiner Meinung!!!!!!!!
dubblebubblejo Featured By Owner May 18, 2006  Hobbyist General Artist
i feel the same way :).

the texture on the face is amazing as always, and the ear looks like it would feel perfectly leathery and just.. wow. what also catches my eye is the embossed print on the bible. it's just amazing how you never never forget these small small details. if i were you i'd be forgetting things and swearing and going to do it again and again XD. but you've always paid attention to those small little things, and i can only wonder while you're doing them do you ever get frustrated? because i know i have little patience and i'd give up. that's what makes you special though, because you persist where other artists do not. you make sure every last detail is in place and the effect is so massively stunning. very beautiful!
wendelin Featured By Owner May 19, 2006
Oh sure, I get frustrated very often. :D :paranoid: I think everybody who tries to paint or draw has to go through these moments. :O
The bible was drawn without references, but the leather texture wasn't really hard. These are just a few lines on a dark background to create the illusion. ;)
EatToast Featured By Owner May 16, 2006  Professional Traditional Artist
wow. i completely agree with this. religion will eventually be our downfall--but this is both smart, well drawn, and entirely cool
Add a Comment:


Submitted on
April 4, 2006
Image Size
195 KB


319 (who?)