April 17, 2016 | David F. Coppedge

The Evil Darwinians Do, Cont.

You will know them by their fruits.

Last time, we looked at three evils rationalized by evolutionary theory. Individual evolutionists might certainly despise needless killing, but their worldview cannot really call anything evil if it evolved by natural processes; it is what it is, neither good nor evil. But to fail to condemn evil is to condone it, and to condone it is to encourage it. We continue with more examples that routinely show up in evolutionary science news. The first one is just silly, but has tragic ramifications.

Killjoy Darwinism

Do you enjoy laughing with friends? You shouldn’t, according to evolutionary theory proposed by Jordan Raine on The Conversation. He argues that “The evolutionary origins of laughter are rooted more in survival than enjoyment.” You’re not really having fun; you’re just exercising survival of the fittest. As part of secular science’s obsession to explain everything in Darwinian terms, Raine has just taken the fun out of life. In a flourish of just-so storytelling, he illustrates how Darwinism makes human beings pawns of evolutionary forces. What does that do to your friendships, if you think your selfish genes are using you as their pawn? It’s no laughing matter. It is kind of funny, though, that Dr. Raine doesn’t see that the joke is on him. Evolutionary forces drove him to write this article, didn’t they? Therefore: he doesn’t really mean what he says.


There’s no moral reason to be faithful to your spouse. There are just evolutionary forces keeping you from straying, so that sexually transmitted diseases don’t drive humanity extinct. In “How sexually transmitted diseases might have driven the evolution of monogamy” on The Conversation, Rob Knell again uses the just-so storytelling habit of Darwinians to suggest that monogamy is a blind effect of evolutionary forces. What does this theory do to marriage? It trivializes the honor that civilization gives to weddings. It implies that otherwise it would be perfectly fine to have sex with anyone and everyone. Racist overtones can be seen in his choice of photos of modern African hunter-gatherers, some of whom condone plural marriage. The Darwinian theory of monogamy, promoted by two evolutionists in Nature Communications, was picked up uncritically in the press (Science Daily, New Scientist), showing that once a Darwinian just-so story gets going, few are the reporters willing to confront it. Once again, though, a critic could ask these Darwinians whether natural selection drove the evolution of Darwinian just-so storytelling.


There’s hardly a more un-Darwinian phenomenon than homosexuality, since practitioners cannot pass on their genes, as Science Daily struggles to explain in Darwinian terms. Isn’t it odd, therefore, that as soon as the LGBT agenda became trendy, evolutionists were quick to join the political correctness bandwagon? Another piece on Science Daily, for instance, proudly reports that there is no difference between same-sex parenting and traditional parenting. Even if that were true (which could rightly be doubted according to the questionable methods used in the study), is it science’s responsibility to rationalize it? Traditional parenting by a mom and a dad has been considered the ideal for thousands of years around the world. Now, just when gay marriage has a achieved a sweeping cultural coup in western countries, science is right on top of it, throwing in its support by rationalizing it as OK for children. Coincidence?

New Scientist threw in another bouquet for the LGBT crowd by telling the truth—with intent to convey a message. Reporter Jessica Hamzelou headlines her article, “No excuse for doctors who refuse to treat transgender people.” That’s right. God commanded us to love one another as ourselves. Even those we disagree have rights and deserve respect. But why the focus on possible discrimination against this group at this time by a scientific news service? At most, LGBT people constitute 4% of the population. People who disagree with the LGBT agenda, however, are a large majority. Do they have any rights of conscience? Where is a science report about those supporting traditional marriage who cannot, with good conscience, participate in weddings that contradict their morals? Where is the headline, “No excuse for judges who punish those believing in traditional marriage and God-given sex roles”? Why not?


Love for Darwin by the founders of communism (Marx, Engels, and Lenin) is well documented. One might think that science would respect the economic system that actually works: the free market. Liberty in commerce rewards success for those who satisfy the most customers in win-win transactions (see Prager University). Conservatives believe in honest labor and would consider it immoral to reward slackers by redistributing wealth. So what are we to make of this headline by David Tuffley on The Conversation? He proposes, “What to do when machines take our jobs? Give everyone free money for doing nothing.” He actually defends his radical thesis with ideas of Karl Marx! Yet communism wrought untold evil in the 20th century (and even today, in Cuba and North Korea), leading to the deaths of 164 million civilians.

Taxation Without Representation

Samuel Adams would be appalled: “Sugary drinks tax would offer big benefits” (Science Daily). If there is anything freedom-loving people should fear, it is rule by a scientific oligarchy telling governments how to control their citizens.

Shades of Gray

No one is naive enough to expect that all moral beliefs are universal,” Rebecca Saxe smirks in PNAS with extreme examples (card stacking). This half-truth masks the reality that some moral issues, like honesty, must be universal or else science is impossible. Evolution champions moral relativism which it cannot defend (see 4/03/16). But true to their habits; evolutionary psychologists, discussed by Science Daily, apply Darwinian theory to explain why humans tend to believe in moral absolutes. Infatuated with game theory, they love to pose moral dilemmas to survey participants to see why their brains think in black-and-white terms. Evolutionists would, of course, totally deny the existence of a God-given conscience. Posing ethical challenges most people are unlikely to ever face, the psychologists seek to tease out “whether our default reliance on moral rules has an evolutionary basis.” Their methods guarantee that whatever they find will please Darwin, who believed morality evolved. Naturally, they conclude, “Rather than reflecting erroneous emotional thinking, making moral judgments based on rules may be an adaptive feature of our minds,” implying that people don’t really have free will. Why do these evolutionists never turn that idea on themselves? Why don’t they conclude that writing evolutionary stories is an adaptive feature of their neurons in their brains? Here’s why: they want you to believe their theory is true. But that would imply that truth is a moral quality that is not subjective. Their own actions, therefore, refute their own premises.

We have only touched on some of the evil fruits of Darwinism. There’s a great new resource that develops this further with scholarship and full documentation: it’s Dr. Richard Weikart’s newest book, The Death of Humanity and The Case for Life. (Hear Dr. Weikart discuss his research on ID the Future #1, #2, #3.) As with his other books, this UC historian ties undeniable links from Darwin to some of the worst evils in the world since 1859. Along with John West’s magnum opus Darwin Day in America, you will have ample opportunity to see the evidence for yourself without taking our word for it. Jesus said, “A bad tree cannot produce good fruit… you will know them by their fruits.” It’s time to chop down this tree that has killed millions and continues to poison the planet. Also recommended: That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis.

Which fruit would you cultivate for the kind of world you want to live in? Paul the Apostle wrote in Galatians 5, “Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.”

In full agreement with Paul, the Apostle James seemed to be targeting the Darwinians in the last days when he wrote in James 3, “Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.”





(Visited 71 times, 1 visits today)


  • rockyway says:

    “What to do when machines take our jobs? Give everyone free money for doing nothing.”

    – What if the robots won’t give us any :=}

    – Tuffley needs to go on and read the next chapter… in it robots get rid of the superfluous humans.

    “Sugary drinks tax would offer big benefits” (Science Daily).

    – there’s nothing our socialist elite doesn’t want to tax…. apart from their own grossly inflated egos of course.

    – entitlement politics can be seen as a big, tall sugary drink.

    – My own idea, which doubtless some will say is impractical, is to tax socialism. Any person, group or entity that espouses socialism would be taxed at twice the normal rate.

Leave a Reply