To Anger them even MORE.. I refer to is as BS
to the libs and scientists I say...
What good is “Darwin’s Survival of the FITTEST,” when you LIBERALS Always put in place POLICIES that THWART Darwin at every turn.. are you LIAR or HYPOCRITE...
They always come back with “YOu want to leave the Poor to DIE??” ... when I return with ..”IT was GOOD enough for DARWIN!!”
They run for the HILLS.
67 comments
You misunderstand. Darwin was describing a mechanism for natural selection, not a moral code.
So called 'Social Darwinism' has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.
SOCIAL darwinism does NOT equal SURVIVAL of the FITTEST! ALSO why do you CAPITALIZE random SENTENCES?
I feel dumber after typing like that.
EDIT: Drax beat me to it.
RANDOM capitalizing of whole WORDS does not MAKE you any less of a liar OR a hypocrite, nor DOES it MAKE you seem smarter. Just ask Jack Chick.
Doesn't it seem funny that the supposed pro-lifes admit to being less pro-life than the supposed pro-deaths?
"To Anger them even MORE..
I refer to is as BS"
What good is “Darwin’s Survival of the FITTEST,” when you LIBERALS Always put in place POLICIES that THWART Darwin at every turn..
They run for the HILLS.
"What good is “Darwin’s Survival of the FITTEST,” when you LIBERALS Always put in place POLICIES that THWART Darwin at every turn"
Evolution is a scientific theory. Nothing more. The fact that it describes a situation that neither you nor I find pleasing does not make it any less true.
"They run for the HILLS."
Well, of course, any intelligent, rational person would want to remove themselves from the presence of such wilful ignorance tout de suite.
Joining the Army and dying for your country "thwarts Darwin at every turn", too.
Humans are social animals that succeed by cooperating with each other. Encouraging "every man for himself" and leaving others to die doesn't necessarily help guarantee the survival of your descendants. After all, how does gwilhelm56 know his grandchildren won't be among the poor?
gwilhelm56 would be dead in a month without his fellow man.
Evolutionary theory is not a moral guide, idiot. Let's pretend for a moment that it was though. There are other animal species that help their families. There are other animal species that help members of their groups that are not family. There are species whose alarm calls are recognized by OTHER SPECIES, and vice versa. Why should humans do any differently?
*facepalm*
That is absolutely wrong. "Survival of the fittest" is a poor phrase, it's really "survival of the population most suited to survive in their environment." Note that I said population; this is because evolution works on populations, not individuals. Humans have flourished precisely because we have the means to care for each other. Without that, we wouldn't be as successful a species.
So shut up and go back to school.
'Survival of the fittest' was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin.
FAIL!
Your attempt to link Darwin to social Darwinism - ULTRA FAIL!
Evolution encourages the continuance of those sufficiently fit to survive and breed. It is a fantastic system if you plan to adapt your species to a different environment. If you are more interested in building a multi-faceted, complex, stable society it is a crappy model. Humans are not trying to evolve further, we are trying to live in communities. This behaviour has done pretty well for us so far (as well as being a more ethical way to live) in that we are currently the most powerful, dominant species on the planet. Believing that evolution is a real phenomenon and a sufficient explanation for the diversity of life on earth does not require you to apply it to everything: that would be the creationists' job.
I actually do want to leave the poor out to die, check and mate.
Darwin said that the those who survive have the best abilities for their environment . The skill set for a CEO and a homeless veteran are not the same. Just because someone is poor, it does mean they have no skills, only they haven't been allowed to use them.
Eh, I don't even know where to begin...
In case you're new to sarcasm:
Lastly, I find it funny that you, a creationist, should support social darwinism...
What good is “Darwin’s Survival of the FITTEST,” when you LIBERALS Always put in place POLICIES that THWART Darwin at every turn.. are you LIAR or HYPOCRITE...
They always come back with “YOu want to leave the Poor to DIE??” ... when I return with ..”IT was GOOD enough for DARWIN!!”
And Darwin said about how it is Human Nature to care for each other... that caring for the sick and injured, that caring for the poor and down-trodden, was what we should do... rather than being slaves to a natural process.
Darwin is rolling in his grave whenever someone advocates Social Darwinism. In fact he'd be rolling in his grave over the fact that they called it 'Social Darwinism.'
Darwin, as virtually anyone who ever really meant anything in history, was a progressive. He hated slavery, and hoped to DISPROVE the notion that whites where superior, which was then commonly held.
No, we help out the less fortunate because it's the HUMAN thing to do.
Besides, how does helping people impede Evolution at the genetic level?
I followed this one for > 500 fucking posts (it goes into the 1000s).
The OP (coyoteman) got banned eventually, which is unfortunate as he appeared to be the only reasonable non-fundy in the entire forum. Now they are just back to sucking each other's dicks and dissing liberals.
Won't bother any more.
Except that Darwin was against any form of Social Darwinism.
Plus, being humans, we are able to think rationally and come up with solutions to problems that are far better than any that nature's blind process could.
Social Darwinism was a loose application of the theory of natural selection to free market capitalism, which was popular among business owners in the late 19th and early 20th century. It states that in a free market money will naturally come to those most capable of handling it. The theory of evolution, as it is today, has nothing to do with Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is almost AS idiotic as RANDOMLY placed CAPS LOCK. Also, the ToE describes how species evolve--it isn't a social code or anything remotely resembling an instruction manual. Nature, being an unreasoning entity, would leave the poor to die, but we humans have the capacity for pity and the wisdom to use it.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a system of ethics. It merely describes the way things are in nature, not the way they should be in human societies.
Also, you (and so called "social Darwinists") misunderstand the meaning of "fittest".
Sometimes being altruistic can be a survival trait, if it leads people to be altruistic in return.
"Fittest" doesn't necessarily mean the strongest ,or meanest, it just means the ones that are best adapted to the environment they find themselves in. If the environment an organism finds itself in rewards altruistic behavior, then then organisms which are altruistic will survive better then those that aren't.
Social darwinism =/= Evolution
The poor would not die, they would organise, cooperate, climb into your gated community and string your worthless ass from the lampost.
Natural Selection is NOT a moral code!
It is, however, apparently the reason you haven't yet been killed by a cement mixer while crossing the street.
The fittest does not mean the biggest asshole. The fittest means the most likely to survive and reproduce. Any examination of human beings will reveal that we thrive in supportive social environments. Being an active member of a good social support system will improve a person's chances of surviving and reproducing. The "rugged individualist" of American mythology, by contrast, has less of a chance of achieving those goals.
So tell me gwilhelm56, which side of the political spectrum is promoting the ideology that is more in line with natures definition of fitness?
(better stand back folks, I see some serious caps-lock coming our way)
> They always come back with “YOu want to leave the Poor to DIE??” ... when I return with ..”IT was GOOD enough for DARWIN!!”
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ” - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man pg. 168
As you can see here, he doesn't like social Darwinism one bit. In fact, right here he appears as if he would support free health care for everyone.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
