Ready or not here comes 150 years of Darwinism.

Another problem for Darwinian evolution is human morality. Unlike looking at animals and trying to understand them, we have inside information on what human morality means and how it goes against selfishness.

In Darwinism the strongest wins – it survives and produces more children. When we try to apply this to human moral behavior Darwinian evolution does not fit. There is nothing in Darwinism to explain self sacrifice. Nothing to explain why fire fighters went into the twin towers in New York on 9/11 to rescue people who they did not know; and committed to continue until either every person was rescued – many sent text messages home because they realized the danger they were going into.

Self sacrifice is not instinctual, the (what we call) instinct is to get away from the danger. The morally right thing to do is often in opposition to instinct, and must be a decided choice, it is not forced.

Updated 9/21

Human Morality is much much larger than merely an individual’s conscience. But all us individually can look in our heart and understand we distinguish right or wrong we can also see this in other people. Indeed when we seek for somebody to act in a correct way – we are appealing to their knowledge of right and wrong. One would never ask a dog to do the right thing.

“Origins of the species” (online here: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/ ) puts forth that species evolve because of the aspects of certain individuals within that species. Those individuals most fit for survival are favored (in Darwinism) and their children inherit the traits of those individuals who are best fit for survival because within the species they have the most children.

Lets look at another moral law that of adultery is wrong. Again there is a problem fitting this moral law into Darwinism because those who would control such behavior would have less children than those who would not. Therefore according to the fundamental principles of Darwinism as it is accepted by the scientific community (not rebuttals of those who are concerned about religion or metascience being taught in school) – those traits against adultery would have less opportunity to be inherited and would vanish.

I could continue to innumerate moral laws of humanity which cause mental anguish to those who insist evolution is a fact. All of us can search our knowledge of right and wrong and find things that would not have been advantageous to reproduction – none should exist under Darwinism.

It would be incorrect to suggest all moral laws conflict with Darwinism. It would also be incorrect to say all chemical reactions conflict with alchemy’s ancient classic element systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element – Until the renaissance, (before Christians took seriously the search for truth), Alchemy was considered true. It explained enough during its time but failed to explain everything because it was not fact.

However, if one is to insist that Darwinism is “fact” then any error in Darwinism is a problem. One would not send somebody to jail in court if the DA presented a case and important elements – lets say DNA type – did not match the accused.

Via CinemaNow, Rentable for only $3.99

The American public’s awareness and beliefs vis-à-vis our government’s expanding role in defining the curriculum in America’s schools, universities and institutions of science.

Neo-Darwinian theory contends that life is the result of a random, purposeless process.

Neo – Darwinian theory is taught in schools as if it is the only plausible scientific explanation of how life originated and developed. Yet Intelligent Design theory has recently emerged to challenge neo-Darwinian theory.

Both are scientific theories, and the debate is therefore legitimate. Why is the debate being suppressed?

At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?
Question #1:

Knowing this – should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nation’s public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?
Question #2:

There is growing support among scientists that there is evidence of intelligent design operating in nature. Yet these scientists, researchers and educators are being routinely persecuted for their scientific views. Who is behind this persecution? Why is this happening in America? How did this situation develop?
Question #3:

Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” presents a point-of-view so powerful, that it
literally forces a re-examination of these issues.