Evolutionists Endorse Sin
Crime pays in Darwinism, apparently. Some biologists find good in what most of us find evil. After all, in Darwinism, evil is only an illusion.
- Corruption: Victims of corruption may have a different outlook on what Science Daily told its readers:
Francisco �beda, an evolutionary biology professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Edgar Du��ez of Harvard University found that power and corruption may play a role in maintaining overall societal cooperation.
A report of their research is published in the journal Evolution.
- Gossip: In evolution, gossip is no longer a sin. In the wake of WikiLeaks, Live Science asked, “Is Gossip Good?” The answer is found in Darwinian theory:
Some researchers have argued that the tendency toward jawing about our neighbors is rooted in our evolutionary past. In his book “Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language,” (Harvard University Press, 1998), Oxford anthropologist Robin Dunbar argues that gossip and language evolved as primate groups got too large to bond by grooming. In other words, instead of picking lice off each other, humans buy “US Weekly.”
When evolution is left out of the research, sometimes the findings coincide with traditional values. Science Daily reported on an economist who found a shocking thing: money doesn’t buy happiness. “Across a worldwide sample of 37 countries, rich and poor, ex-Communist and capitalist, Richard Easterlin and his co-authors shows strikingly consistent results: over the long term, a sense of well-being within a country does not go up with income.” But did we need science to tell us that?
Darwinism is not just superfluous; it is downright evil. By turning good and evil into amoral illusions, and by making people pawns of a mythical evolutionary past, evolutionists open the door to a flood of vices. Some of Darwin’s contemporaries understood the danger his theory posed. Adam Sedgwick, his geology professor, wrote:
There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. ’Tis the crown and glory of organic science that it does through final cause, link material and moral; and yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, and our classification of such laws, whether we consider one side of nature or the other. You have ignored this link; and, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which, thank God, it is not) to break it, humanity, in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it, and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.
Two world wars and a host of secular totalitarian dictatorships in the 20th century are the result. See What Hath Darwin Wrought? as described in the 09/27/2010. After all the social wreckage they have caused, Darwinists remain unrepentant, as the above articles show, still committed to preaching amoral ideas from the mire of folly.