Materialists are not the Fittest to Survive
One mantra chanted by riders for the Darwin brand is "Survival of the fittest". Fitness seems to be determined by survival, and I heard someone say that it is nonsensical: "Survival of the survivors". When it comes to humanity, "fitness" is arbitrary, based on materialistic evolutionary presuppositions. The "science" of eugenics is one example of atheists and evolutionists utilizing Darwinism to the fitness of other people. However, there is another contrast that needs to be made.
Evolutionary scientists have resorted to dishonesty in areas like origin of life studies and peer review. Civilized folks tend to think of that as being immoral, and detrimental to not only science, but society itself. But hey, they are only living up to their worldviews. However, many of us hold to a higher standard with a solid foundation for morality.
When a science writer referred to certain animals as "freaks of evolution", she was being inconsistent with her own paradigm. After all, evolution does what it does, and nobody has any business complaining. (Creationists believe that critters are the way they are because they were designed for certain purposes, so let's find out more about them.) However, she also said in typical leftist fashion some blatant untruths about evangelical Christians, and called us the freaks of evolution. (If you study on it, dishonesty and ridicule are a frequent part of persecution.) Question-begging epithet noted. See "Freaks of Evolution Exposed" for more.
Darwinism dehumanizes people, reducing us to the products of time, chance, random processes, and so on. Studies on "religion" and "religious people" have provided some interesting results, but they are flawed. Atheists claim that they hate religion, and generalize about all religions, but conveniently neglect that fact that atheism is a religion as well. It would be nice to know which religions researchers are discussing. Church-goers are have fewer mental health issues and less likely to use recreational drugs. Seems like the evidence is showing that these people are more fit to survive and benefit society than secularists. To read about this, click on "Religious People Have Better Fitness".
Secular scientists are preoccupied with proving evolution and denying the Creator, so they are unlikely to realize that he makes the rules, even though scientific malpractice is consistent with their paradigm. When it comes to education, scientists should pay attention to how "religious" students are more academically successful. Not the nominal or cultural Christians, but those who live the life. Secularists play up the community aspects and neglect the spiritual, however, since they have their a priori commitment to naturalism. Younger people today, those indoctrinated in atheism and leftist education, are more sexually promiscuous than other folks. Is that really such a mystery? One other point.
Despite the frequent, refuted lie that atheists tell, that "atheism is the default position at birth" or "born atheist", and believing that natural selection and survival of the fittest is the source of morality, children are showing virtue and cooperation. Darwin had it wrong again. To read more, click on "When Learning, Don’t Neglect the Religion".
 |
| Credit: Unsplash / Aaron Burden |
When a science writer referred to certain animals as "freaks of evolution", she was being inconsistent with her own paradigm. After all, evolution does what it does, and nobody has any business complaining. (Creationists believe that critters are the way they are because they were designed for certain purposes, so let's find out more about them.) However, she also said in typical leftist fashion some blatant untruths about evangelical Christians, and called us the freaks of evolution. (If you study on it, dishonesty and ridicule are a frequent part of persecution.) Question-begging epithet noted. See "Freaks of Evolution Exposed" for more.
Darwinism dehumanizes people, reducing us to the products of time, chance, random processes, and so on. Studies on "religion" and "religious people" have provided some interesting results, but they are flawed. Atheists claim that they hate religion, and generalize about all religions, but conveniently neglect that fact that atheism is a religion as well. It would be nice to know which religions researchers are discussing. Church-goers are have fewer mental health issues and less likely to use recreational drugs. Seems like the evidence is showing that these people are more fit to survive and benefit society than secularists. To read about this, click on "Religious People Have Better Fitness".
Secular scientists are preoccupied with proving evolution and denying the Creator, so they are unlikely to realize that he makes the rules, even though scientific malpractice is consistent with their paradigm. When it comes to education, scientists should pay attention to how "religious" students are more academically successful. Not the nominal or cultural Christians, but those who live the life. Secularists play up the community aspects and neglect the spiritual, however, since they have their a priori commitment to naturalism. Younger people today, those indoctrinated in atheism and leftist education, are more sexually promiscuous than other folks. Is that really such a mystery? One other point.
Despite the frequent, refuted lie that atheists tell, that "atheism is the default position at birth" or "born atheist", and believing that natural selection and survival of the fittest is the source of morality, children are showing virtue and cooperation. Darwin had it wrong again. To read more, click on "When Learning, Don’t Neglect the Religion".