Let’s see what you think of this one, dear reader. We found it at the creationist website of the Discovery Institute. Unless we’re missing something, there’s a weird typo in their title: To Say the Lease [sic], Altruism Is Not an Easy Fit with Darwinism. It has no author’s by-line. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
On a new episode of ID the Future [Ooooooooooooh! A Discoveroid podcast!], host Andrew McDiarmid presents an Evolution News essay, “How to Destroy Love with Darwinism.” Download the podcast or listen to it here. [Link omitted!]
Their podcast has a most provocative title, so let’s see how Darwinism destroys love. They say:
Altruism as defined by evolutionists means “behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind.”
Okay, let’s go with their definition. What can they do with it? Here it comes:
It’s not an easy fit with Darwinism [Really?], since Darwinian evolution is all about passing your favored genes onto your offspring. How can a creature do that if she gives her life for another, particularly when it’s not even her own children, and before she has produced any offspring? Such individuals fail to pass on their own genes — a seeming conundrum for Darwinism.
Well, not every act of altruism involves giving one’s life. It often means only exerting some effort, or experiencing some inconvenience, in order to benefit someone else. Life-saving, self-sacrificial acts for anyone — family or otherwise — are rare, but they do happen — especially in the military. We’ve all heard tales of a solider who gives his life to save his comrades, and indirectly, his nation. The Discoveroids wouldn’t agree, but we think such acts are far from being foolish, Darwin-disproving behavior. Anyway, the Discoveroids continue:
Evolutionists have made some progress (they think) explaining such things with theories of group selection or kin selection. [That makes sense!] But those explanations face some fresh challenges and don’t even begin to explain self-sacrificial acts done for non-kin, a behavior we see among humans.
It’s true that people sometimes do amazing, self-sacrificial acts, with no expectation of personal or kin benefit. Does that disprove Darwin’s theory? The Discoveroids claim it does. Here’s their explanation:
From a design perspective [Hee hee!], though, such behaviors are not baffling, for they are not genetically determined acts, as if humans are only wet robots governed by genes.
Ah, that explains it. The intelligent designer — blessed be he! — designed you to sacrifice yourself, and he doesn’t care about genetics — even though he personally dictated the contents of your DNA. Darwinists, however, never think of anything but genetics. And now we come to the end:
They are acts of true self-sacrificial love, done freely and made possible because reality is more than matter and energy, and humans are more than just DNA survival machines.
Brilliant! This means that the next time you pause to hold the door open for someone carrying packages, you are glorifying the intelligent designer and disproving Darwin’s evil theory. Wowie — it’s another Discoveroid victory!
Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.