Natural Selection’s Dark Side Prompts Historical Revision
“Who controls the present controls the past”
by Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D.
An article addressing some of evolution’s difficulties was recently published in Aeon, a magazine of philosophy and culture. It was just another stark case of evolutionists embarrassed about the implications of their own worldview coupled with an obvious attempt to rewrite history. The article was oddly titled “Don’t misread Darwin: for humans, ‘survival of the fittest’ means being sympathetic.”1
The article begins by recognizing both the religious implications and the logical contradictions of Darwin’s radical selectionist worldview. It states,
One of the shockwaves from Charles Darwin’s idea that humans evolved from other animals was moral panic. If our ethics are not guided by an omnipotent and all-knowing god and, instead, life is driven by ‘survival of the fittest’ via natural selection, how could we possibly expect humans to behave with anything other than brash self-interest?
It’s a good question. The supposed answer to that question and others are provided in a short interview with evolutionary psychologist Dacher Keltner. He heads up the Social Interaction Lab at the University of California, Berkeley.
Keltner’s frame of reference is the scientifically-unsubstantiated notion that the complex human brain has somehow evolved from simpler brains. Though he doesn’t refer to a plausible mechanism of how brain evolution happened, he imagines that evolution has produced newer and older parts of our brain. In an act of circular reasoning, evolutionary psychologists also believe these imaginary new and old brain partitions are, in turn, evidence for evolution…
CLICK THIS LINK TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE (& references)
image credit: Unknown