Consider the number of highly intelligent people who have lots of children. It shouldn't take long because there aren't very many of them. In fact, the "scientists" (I use the term loosely) who claim that evolution is true tend not to have lots of children. But that violates the very evolutionary principle they pretend to espouse.
You've all heard of the "cafeteria Catholic". These people prove there is such a thing as a "cafeteria empiricist."
Many "smart" people without children extol the brilliance of the movie Idiocracy. But the movie makes literally no sense. If "smart" people really believed the biology they claim to espouse, then they would intellectually choose to get laid and have children, infusing their superior intellectual genes into coming generations. Meanwhile, they would take every opportunity to prevent stupid people from breeding.
But that's not what they do. True, they DO try to keep stupid people from breeding (and they are mostly unsuccessful at that - not too smart of them), but they almost never have even the replacement numbers of children themselves (for instance, Stephen Gould had only two children, Richard Dawkins, has but one, David Sloan Wilson, Richard Lewontin and WD Hamilton had none).
They don't invest in the future through their genes - the only way that really lasts. Instead, they play parlor games with technological gizmos, inventing machines whose usefulness often doesn't even outlive their own lifetimes, much less that of other people's children. If this is "smart," then their lived definition of themselves is quite different than the definition the "smart" people claim to espouse. It violates the very evolutionary theory they claim rules the universe.
Nerds want Idiocracy to be true, because then they can pretend that their inability to mate is really a virtue, not the Darwinian dead-end it actually is.
They insist that Darwinism is true, but they don't live it out by mating regardless of their "love" for one another. If they REALLY believed in evolution, they would recognize "love" as a biologically expensive fantasy that has no place in modern society. They would mate and raise children based entirely on genetic profiles.
But they don't argue love is a fantasy, do they? Instead, like the fox who insisted the grapes were sour anyway, they insist that having children is something only stupid people do.
So, when someone asks if you believe in evolution, ask them a few questions first:
- "Do you think there is any genetic component to intelligence?"
- "Do you think of yourself as intelligent?"
- "How many children do you have?"
If the answer is "Yes, Yes, 2 (or less)", then reply, "I see you don't believe in evolution. So why should I?"