Friday, August 6, 2010

Question of the Day

Consider Darwin's tautological premise:  The fittest survive.

Therefore, if I kill you, then I am by definition the fittest, and my fitness/greatness is defined by my being a murderer, and as such my lack of morality makes me a superior being.

Satanism, anybody?

Was not Darwinism the justification Hitler used for the Holocaust?

Yes, it was.

Then why are we teaching this unprovable, evil, ends justify the means tautology, which has led to the mass murders of millions, in our schools, and why do we esteem the creator of such a disgusting philosophy as one of the greats?


  1. I am no biologist, but I have read critiques of his science as well. It is nothing but a theory, and a tenuous one at that, is the charge. Regardless we continue teaching it in schools. Why? Because it is a dogma of the faith known as Progressivism. And they snarl at our faith in God...

  2. Your analogy of a single killing by a single murderer does not really prove the point on a social basis. That one murderer will in the end (most often) be hunted down and incarcerated or executed, thus eliminating his DNA from the gene pool, to throw Darwin's stuff back at him.

    The survival of the fittest argument is also being used by violent and radical Islam. They kill us indiscriminantly, and consider their goals advanced in the eyes of Allah. Not so fast, Khalid and Mohammed: in doing so, you raise the ire of a vastly superior society technologically speaking, and risk diminishing your cause.

    This has proven the case over and over again throughout history: wars are won by technological superiority. Every time. And social and righteous societies band together in their technologies to defeat threats (WWII and the Axis powers, for example).

    In essence, I would agree with Charlie on this one.

  3. 'The fittest survive' can't be proven or disproven because it is self-debunking and self-proving all at once, hence its status as a tautology. If I survive then I must be the fittest, even if I'm really not the fittest in any way except that I got one lucky break. Even if you are put in prison for the rest of your life for murder you have survived the person you killed, and since the only differentiation in fitness is survival, death is in itself proof of inferiority, and a justification for killing if you also hold a belief that the weak dying off is evolutionary progress. The people killed in the holocaust are therefore deserving of their murders because they were unfit (proved only by the fact that they died while their killers survived), while those who perpetrated and got away with it are therefore more fit even though they may have been mindless dolts just carrying out their orders. It just doesn't logically follow to assume that the fittest survive and the weak die, and that the fittest surviving by killing the unfit is progress. There are too many factors that need to be added into the equation in order to argue for 'the fittest survive' as a truth including a social system set up to kill murderers, equalizing the dangers of all environments, etc. Darwin only got a little bit right. The rest is an anti-Christ religion.

    On a large scale one of the most fit species would be the cockroach, which also is one of the most vile and repulsive species. Using Darwin's theory in our own lives makes cockroaches out of us and I don't think it should be taught to the children. They can teach that species change within themselves over time, but the ends justify the means survival of the fittest is an evil, heartless, justification for murder philosophy.

  4. The cockroach example explains the hardy nature of progressivism....

  5. The cockroach example indeed explains Darwinism in a nutshell, but we all can cherry pick examples to prove and disprove Darwinism.

    I would think that Darwinism has been wholly and completely debunked through the absence of fossil evidence, showing all of those missing links of species that failed to survive because they didn't quite have what it took, and yet we see gobs and gobs of fossils of survivors in more or less their current forms.

    In no way does Darwinism debunk 'intelligent design', or religion, unless it can come up with those missing links. And there are a few million of those missing links that they need to cough up.

    Good luck with that, atheists.

  6. True, Fredd. Whether or not Darwin is correct makes no real difference, and doesn't disprove intelligent design because the one-celled bacteria still had to come from someplace, not that I honestly believe that some fish could come onto the land, sprout feet, breathe suddenly, and pass those mutations onto its offspring (wouldn't there have to be 2 mutant fish on the land in order for there to be any successive breathing land-walking fish?)

    I just can't stand listening to the idiocy and justifications that come from those who take Darwinism as a religion- PETA people who believe that the human race should kill itself off for evolutionary progress, racists like Darwin himself and the eugenicists who loved him who wanted to destroy certain races for evolutionary progress, etc. It's more far-fetched to believe in Darwinism than it is to believe in man-bear-pig. LOL

  7. I do believe Darwin was a great man, and that his evolution theory must be taught in schools.

    However, since it is true that this theory of natural selection inspired social Darwinism and ultimately eugenics, I also believe it is essential to teach the dangers of transposing "Darwinist ideas" to humans societies.

    I also believe it is true that darwinism in its biological sense inspire

  8. The last (and incomplete) sentence in my previous message should have been deleted. My mistake.


This is not a democracy. It's my blog. I moderate away comments that are offensive in language or message.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.