The question that recurred in my mind was why there is goodness or in other words why righteous men exist who strive day by day to become less selfish and more selfless. Why do folks care about the feelings or welfare of others when it has no bearing on their own welfare? Put in evolutionary terms, why is there such a thing as if you would unbeneficial humanitarianism where an individual’ survival success will not be impacted or rather positively impacted directly or indirectly by his or her care giving/taking of others.
Someone once answered this question as follows that perhaps the giver of these seemingly selfless acts is committing them because he too may require them sometime in the future if he also falls into the same position that the current recipients of his love and care have fallen into at the moment. Therefore if one should judge it from this angle it turns out that it was never unbeneficial humanitarianism but still the same old selfishness. The problem with this reply is that it is cheap and tacky it hardly answers the question or even describes it well.
Logically, there
isn't an "evolutionary" answer that is NOT an excuse. Every single suggestion for an answer with the selfish gene, is plastic and conjectural. which means that every suggestion they make
can't be tested. Think about it, if you help mother, it's your selfish gene, if you help mother's friend it's the selfish gene, if you help mother's friend's dog, it's the selfish gene, if you commit suicide it's the selfish gene, if you stand on four legs howling at the moon it's the selfish gene if you're Elvis Johnny-cake Jonah from the planet Mars it's the selfish gene.
Please somebody show me how to refute something that is so plastic that any answer you give is, "evolution". RIDICULOUS.
It's exactly the same thing as invoking the insanely improbable. One can simply say in regards to the improbable event, "ahh but given enough time".
UNFALSIFIABLE.
Therefore the
PHILOSOPHY of evolution is logically
IRRELEVANT to the died-in-the-wool FACTS you have just stated.
Any direct FACTS that favour theism, and favour Christianity, have to be dealt with by materialists in one of two ways;
1. Say the fact is illusory.
2. Deny the fact.
I refer to this personally, as, "Arguing-To-The-Extreme".
To argue to the extreme-level, is to either deny reality, or try and fudge over reality with speculation. But just because people speculate, doesn't mean their speculation/philosophy, is then true.
Christians have provided one of the most satisfying answers to this enigma.
Exactly. A fully functioning mind and conscience is a
thing of reality, which is why a cheap-philosophy designed to PRETEND reality is not there, does not satisfy you.
There are other examples of scientific facts which none-scientific or atheistic-evolutionists argue away, realities they, "play down".
Examples:
-Freewill. (doesn't really exist")
- Design. ( only and "appearance")
- Morality (only "relative")
- Human uniqueness. (By giving example of rudimentary, irrelevant similarities in animals, playing the "quantitive" game.)
- DNA, (not really "information")
Cedre, if you are still around I implore you to accept reality for what it is, not philosophy based on guesses. Evolution doesn't explain the human condition, and never did. They can give excuses, but we don't have to buy them.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
