Christian Darwinism Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Momentous event: Darwinist explanation of human generosity

Spread the love

On August 1, 2011, ScienceDaily explained to us the “Evolution of Human Generosity:

Why was this a question anyway? Are you paying taxes to support  compulsory indoctrination in crapped out Darwinism, at serious risk for local versions of fascism? Darwinists wonder why anyone prefers civilization to barbarism because they cannot acknowledge that the mind exists and prefers civilization:

These commonplace acts of generosity — where no future return is likely — have long posed a scientific puzzle to evolutionary biologists and economists. In acting generously, the donor incurs a cost to benefit someone else. But choosing to incur a cost with no prospect of a compensating benefit is seen as maladaptive by biologists and irrational by economists. If traditional theories in these fields are true, such behaviors should have been weeded out long ago by evolution or by self-interest.

There should never have been a scientific puzzle and no resources expended on the Darwinists’ “question.” The resources were expended for one reason only: To protect Darwinism from its justified collapse by creating a pretended usefulness.

Their work surprisingly shows that generosity — acting to help others in the absence of foreseeable gains — emerges naturally from the evolution of cooperation. This means that human generosity is likely to rest on more than social pressure, and is instead built in to human nature.

How about, people prefer civilization, based on the reality of the mind, to barbarism. It is learned, but is learned by a process that includes reason, which Darwinism (materialist atheism) cannot accept. To accept it is death – death to Darwinism and Christian Darwinism alike.

If this analysis is wrong, why do vast numbers flee to common-law jurisdictions (pinnacle of human reason) and risk the difficulty of being illegal immigrants? At least one country is continually besieged by people who want relief from the sort of government Darwinism predicts. It’s not perfect, by any means, but its founders took English Common Law seriously, and many loyalists do today.

One Reply to “Momentous event: Darwinist explanation of human generosity

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    I liked the late Professor Philip Skell’s take on this:

    Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology
    By: Philip S. Skell
    Excerpt: ‘The efforts mentioned there are not experimental biology; they are attempts to explain already authenticated phenomena in Darwinian terms, things like human nature. Further, Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.’


    And this unchecked ability of Darwinism to ‘explain everything’ within Human Nature,, i.e. both generosity and its polar opposite selfishness etc.. etc..,, is the exact ‘unchecked ability’ that Dr. Plantinga used to highlight the absurdity of Darwinism,,,


    Should You Trust the Monkey Mind?
    Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties.

    What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? (‘inconsistent identity’ of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) – video

    Can atheists trust their own minds? – William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism – video

    “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” – Charles Darwin – Letter To William Graham – July 3, 1881

    It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, pointed out by Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a cause for objective morality;

    The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris – William Lane Craig – video

    “Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth.
    As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain.” – Crevo Headlines

    This following video humorously reveals the bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground beliefs within a materialistic worldview;

    John Cleese – The Scientists – humorous video


    James 1:17
    Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Leave a Reply