You are confusing Darwinian Evolution with Social
Darwinism. Darwinian Evolution by natural selection is a theory that
attempts to explain the origin of different species of organisms; it's
scientific. Social Darwinism is not science, it is a rather poorly
conceived political/ethical theory that those in power use to justify
their exploitation of those who are weaker and poorer than them. Darwin
himself never said that evolution favors the strong or the violent and
he would be appalled that his name has been attached to such an idiotic
philosphy.
I am not interested in Darwinian Evolution, or Social Darwinism, only EVOLUTION. For some strange reason some evolutionist's on this forum want to keep making the separation. They keep bringing up God and creationism as something to be debunked to support their position. Leave God and creationism out of this.
And stop separating the organic and the social/cultural. It's all evolution. Some here sound more like 'lukewarm' evolutionists. Not 'true blue, dyed in the wool' evolutionists. If you were political party members you certainly would not be of the inner circle. Only attending every second or third rally. Perhaps someone to be watched.
Everything has an explanation and being as evolution has the answer to all behavior, animal or human, organic or social/cultural, then evolution has the answer. You just have to accept it. If you don't understand it yet, keep educating yourself.
Because the theory of evolution was never meant to explain society.
There is no 'social evolution'. Social Darwinists claim that evolution
favors the strong over the weak, the smart over the stupid, the quick
over the slow. Oh really? Is a mouse strong? Are clams smart? Is a sloth
quick? Evolution favors anyone who lives long enough to pass their
genes on to the next generation, using whatever means are at there
disposal. Unless these Jihadi suicide bombers have kids and have left
behind a fat life insurance policy that covers suicide bombers, then
they are evolutionary failures! Blowing yourself up is not a sound
survival strategy; it's right up there with celibacy in the list of
evolutionarily maladaptive behavior.
Stop calling it a theory please. It's a fact.
A mother and father strap explosives onto the chests of their two small children. They direct them to walk to the local police station and then, when inside, explode the devices. They do it. "ALLAHU AKBAR!!!" God is great. Islam grows stronger. A worthy sacrifice for the cause. Mother and father are proud. They did not collaborate with their neighbors. They did it all on their own. Two children die but truly worth it for a great cause
At
another time: A mother and father encourage their two sons to go and
fight in the Great War to 'end all wars'. A worthy cause. Both boys are
killed and the parents receive a letter from the War Department telling
them what heroes they were and how they contributed to the great cause.
The parents put the letters on the fireplace mantle beside the boys
pictures and proudly display them. When friends and family come over
they direct them over to the mantle to show the letters. A house where
patriots live. Visitors leave, talking about what a wonderful family
this is. They should be so proud. Actually, deceitful politicians had
manipulated the thinking of the masses and convinced the parents that
they were sending their children to fight in a righteous war for a
worthy cause. Young men, mere boys, uniformed up, trained in the use of a
rifle and climbed out of the trench and got a bullet in the heart.
Heroes. No IED [improvised explosive device ] strapped to the chests of
these boys. Everyone of their bombs, bullets and artillery shells
carefully engineered and manufactured under strict governmental control.
Every detail of ballistics, speed of projectile and blast damage
calibrated. Every ounce of high explosive powder carefully weighed.
Thousands, millions of carefully engineered explosive shells brought to the battle
ground to, hopefully, destroy as many of the enemy as possible,
regardless of age or belief. News sent back home tells of great victories.
Tens of thousands of children die, but truly worth it for a great cause. [ Today
my country, Canada, celebrates such a victory, Vimy Ridge, a small
insignificant battle during WW 1, but we will brag about it anyways.
Somehow time has turned all these slaughtered boys into heroes. It
sounds so much better and something the politicians can make hay with.]
However, back to evolution. World War 1 for example. We may talk about the immediate cause but it says nothing for how this behavior developed in evolutionary time. We may come up with explanations about what brought on WW 1 but to understand why war exists we must look to evolution for an explanation. These two explanations are not competing with each other. They must support each other and both must be understood to properly comprehend the event. How does evolution dictate the everyday decisions of humankind?
