Slavery in the Ant World?

To read more about this concept, go to:
http://ia600200.us.archive.org/20/items/ants_13347/13347_text.pdf (1975)
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent525/close/SlaveAnt.html
http://io9.com/5947040/enslaved-worker-ants-fight-back-through-acts-of-sabotage
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/social-parasitism-in-ants-13256421

What do you think? Is this a case of anthropomorphism among scientists? By enslaving others, do humans become more like ants or ants more like humans? In his 1975 article (listed above), Wilson refers to slavery in the ant world as an "evolutionary descent" and "degeneration." Why would these ants DEvolve instead of continuing to Evolve? Have humans "evolved" so much that they don't still enslave others? That they don't make war on others? Supposedly we're progressing. Well, it looks more like we're regressing. Or is it that certain "races" of humans are evolving while others are devolving?

No, I believe that humans are just as sinful as they were after the Fall, and that sin is affecting Nature just as much as it was centuries ago. Since God is the absolute standard, is perfection, then any imperfection, any deviation from the absolute, however small we might regard it in our relative views, is an absolute error. Thus we neither evolve nor devolve. Yes, in relative terms there may be particular times when humans seem more barbaric (e.g. the Crusades, the Holocaust, etc.), but if the standard is absolute, it doesn't matter what the sin is. It's simply sin, and punishable by death.

As for the ants, they may indeed "enslave" other ants, but we must remember that they are not humans, not made in God's image, never having tasted of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, possessing no soul. They too are affected by sin, for before the Fall animals did not prey on other animals nor did humans eat animal flesh. But slavery in the ant world is not a "degeneration" from some better evolutionary status. We can't compare ants to humans. We can't anthropomorphize them. Yes, when we have an affection for an animal, such as a pet, we attribute human qualities to it, to strengthen the bond, but that has NO PLACE in science. Of course, evolutionists believe we are all animals, evolved from some lesser organism. That rids them of accountability to their Creator. If they're just a higher animal, to whom are they responsible? To them, morality doesn't have any higher meaning; it is merely practical and beneficial social behavior.

In conclusion, if ants really do make slaves of other ants, it's because that's the type of ants they are. As the result of sin entering the world, their behavior has become part of the reality that exists now. But they are not self-aware. We are the only ones who consciously sin. The ants aren't aware of being slavemakers; neither are their "slaves" aware of being enslaved. Both sides go about their business, acting out their genetic programs. God allowed sin to enter the world, and He allows preying and slavery in both the animal and human worlds. He will continue to allow it until He judges the world in the final days. At the same time, I don't think it's quite right to call what the ants are doing "slavery" or "making raids" or "marching" or "social parasitism". We are talking about ants here, not people. By putting these labels on ant behavior, scientists remove some of the responsibility from their own human shoulders. Ants don't "know" what they're doing like we do. When we enslave fellow humans, we're aware of it. Slavery, like other sins, is not a sin because it hurts other people; it's a sin because it is against God. When King David committed adultery, he said "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight." (Psalm 51:4)