Online dating clergy letter project

22-Oct-2015 06:39

If evolution were true, it would be true regardless of whatever negative “biological imperatives” it had given us.

(In reality, rather than only the “fittest” surviving environmental pressures, it is only the “least fit” who do not survive.This may seem a semantic triviality, but there is a substantive difference.) Answers in Genesis and other creationists have attacked the evolutionary worldview indirectly through revealing the evils of social Darwinism, a view that (we contend) ultimately influenced Hitler. that an unpopular social policy that sounds like science can undercut sound scientific ideas.” He then quotes from David De Witt’s article Jefferson vs.Zimmerman agrees, calling social Darwinism “despicable,” but adds that we “somehow think . Hitler: Social Darwinism is not a perversion of the principles of Darwinian evolution.On the contrary, it is taking them to their natural, logical conclusion.This week, Zimmerman contributed an interesting opinion piece to the online Huffington Post. Zimmerman states: [S]ocial Darwinism" is a concept whose woeful misnaming has led to serious damage.(For helpful background on the Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Sunday, see Ken Ham’s discussion in Churches in praise of . Social Darwinism is a bizarre name in that it has precious little to do with either Darwin or the theory of evolution to which his work gave rise.

) The essay not only dismisses the idea that “social Darwinism” has much to do with Darwinism; it also names us specifically.

Zimmerman argues that social Darwinism is a misapplication of the concept of “survival of the fittest,” itself a slightly incorrect interpretation of the working of natural selection.

Further, if there were no connection to evolution then why is it called social In addition to knowing that social Darwinism is unrelated to evolutionary principles, proponents of evolution also understand a larger truth.

They understand that even if the two were actually linked, human society allows us to move beyond some biological imperatives.

What should creationists make of Zimmerman’s argument?

First off, logically speaking, it’s true that arguing against the moral consequence of an idea is not the same as arguing against an idea itself.