Support This Website! Shop Here!

Monday, November 10, 2014

Evolution Is For Losers

While it is perfectly clear that young earth creationism is stupid, it is equally clear that evolution is equally stupid. But it only recently occurred to me that even the people who teach evolution are demonstrably unwilling to believe in evolution themselves.

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?"

2 comments:

BenYachov said...

Some random Thoughts.

After reading Edward Feser's THE LAST SUPERSTITION I am convinced it's irrational and foolish to claim Evolution is not compatible with Catholicism.

He certainly makes the case from a Traditionalist Thomistic Scholastic perspective that not only is Evolution compatible with Catholicism but it slightly helps Aquinas' fifth way.

You should check out his blog & his book. It changed my life.

Of course this having been said saying Evolution is compatible with Catholicism is not the same as saying Evolution is true.

But then again Evolution is an equivocal term.

By evolution do we mean metaphysically that life on this planet over millions of years was changed by natural forces into different distinct biological species? Well God causes mere Nature to exist and exist with it's properties and final causality & via divine providence foresees and wills it's end. So that is clearly not a problem.

Do we include Abiogenesis in that equation? That primitive life arises from non-living matter via natural forces? Well the ancients & the scholastics prior to Pascal believed in Spontaneous Generation which they believed was an unknown but purely natural process. They where still Theists. There is no metaphysical difference between the two only one of mechanism.

Not every Evolutionist is a neo-Darwinian. Stephen J. Gould believed in Punctuated Equilibrium and rejected a strict neo-Darwinian view but he was as much an Atheist as Richard Dawkins(whom he fought with over this).

OTOH Darwinism as a metaphysical explanation for all of reality is problematic. But when you get into that realm you aren't arguing science anymore but philosophy. Really bad positivist materialist philosophy.

Do I believe in Evolution? Well the science & the evidence seems to suggest the likely hood lifeforms changed over time into different species by natural forces. Still he who marries the Science of this age will be a Widower in the next age.

So tentatively I have no reason to doubt Evolution took place. God still created Adam's soul and thus Adam the first parent. Wither it was from supernaturally turning a pile of dust into a man or using a hominid animal and giving it a soul turning it from an it to a Him.

Catholic Theistic Evolutionism is superior to the crap version found among Liberal Protestant and emerging Evangelical so called Evolutionary Creationists. We still believe in Adam.

If I except evolution even if I believe the mechanism for evolution was the result of strict Neo-Darwinism. There is no logical reason to deny the existence of Adam.

So it's all good.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Oh, I don't say evolution is incompatible with Catholic Faith. Of course theistic evolution is compatible with Catholic Faith in the sense that it does not violate any doctrine of the Faith. For that matter, Creationism doesn't violate any doctrine of the Faith.

It's just that both are mathematically absurd.