People are part of nature and we have made programs to protect the disabled, the stupid, the weak. Also, the reason Evolutionary Biologists hate Christians is that we practice something that is a force against their natural selection, disproving Evolution by our own actions. The Scriptures command us not to show favoritism, which means “Do not be selective”. And we are a force in nature.
Also, if Evolutionary Biologists practice what they preach, then they would fight for the right for racism. Showing racism is exactly a selective process, based on skin preference. So if they do not advocate racism then they are hypocrites.
Very easy to tear down their so-called “theory”
When a stronger animal protects a weaker one in the face of a factor that would destroy the weak in the population, it disproves Evolutionary Theory’s Selection of the Fittest. And that happens with mothers of all species. Motherly instinct to protect her young children is clear disproof of Survival of the Fittest. Likewise, in animal social groups many individual males may team together to kill the alpha animal. The alpha animal was the fittest, but then is destroyed by of the pack. Who survives? The fittest? No. The fittest dies.
All of our anti-discrimination laws and programs are forces of the human societies, which are forces of nature and fight against selective processes. The existence of these programs, part of the natural forces of human beings in nature, disprove Evolutionary Theory.
You may say that these programs are selecting, but they are selecting for disadvantages in the individual that would destroy them and they protect them from these disadvantages by providing for them what they cannot achieve on their own or by their own networks.
Notice that I am not denying there are forces that will destroy individuals if they lack certain criteria. I am saying that the natural selection of the population based on this criteria is not across the board in all of nature. Therefore, the Selection of the Fittest is not applicable to the Theory of Evolution and the entire theory hinges on the Survival of the Fittest. The conclusion then is that the Theory of Evolution fails on these points and more, found below.
These factors must be considered, since the Evolutionary Biologists consider social organization a factor in survival of the fittest, not of the individual within a population, but of a species against another species, for example in competition for food resources. They also consider cooperation between species, called Symbiosis, an advantage for survival as the fittest.
Our programs, though, protect those who would not survive. These purposely shelter them against the elements that would destroy them from our population. Yet, they are not selecting them based on some advantage they would have in the face of some environmental stimulus or stimuli, but based on disadvantages in the face of those stimuli. It is the opposite of Survival of the Fittest and undermines the foundation of Evolutionary Theory.
There have been many human feral children taken in and raised by packs of wolves and wild dogs, as well as monkeys and ostriches and other animals. These children did not survive because they were fitter than any of the wolves. Rather, they were taken in out of some instinct of generosity. These children were helpless and defenseless. There were only disadvantages for the pack to take them in. Yet, they did and they protected them until human adults found them and brought them back to human society.
Christian grace, mercy, kindness, generosity, and forgiveness also completely undermine Survival of the Fittest. This, together with the commands to not show favoritism, give the Evolutionary Biologist adequate reason to hate Christians. These Christian qualities and commands from God destroy the principle of Survival of the Fittest.
The scientific point, though, is that since there are so many forces even today that disprove Survival of the Fittest, they prove the possibility of so many other forces throughout history in nature that are also contrary to Survival of the Fittest. This raises the real doubt in the theory of Evolution, but these forces today, by their mere existence, disprove Survival of the Fittest and therefore Evolutionary theory.
Now there are two approaches to the Survival of the Fittest, the easiest of which we have just destroyed. The second one will incorporate the forces of Man and suggest that these helpless individuals were the fittest by their social network that connected them to the help they needed or by the knowledge they had that these programs existed. So now we turn to destroy the very fabric of the Survival of the Fittest concept, as we dismantle it with Logic.
If you ask what is meant by “fittest” and focus on it meaning the superlative of such attributes as strong, intelligent, fast, etc… the Evolutionary Biologist might agree at first. However, once you suggest the above issues they want to change the meaning of “fittest” to include anything at all that allows the animal to survive. So then “fittest” is defined by “survival”. But the phrase “Survival of the Fittest” makes survival dependent on “fittest”. It is a circular argument.
Is fittest determined by survival or survival determined by fittest? According to their argument it is both ways, though that is impossible by simple logic. Every man is an animal, but not every animal is a man. You learn this in the first week of Logic class. You cannot argue that this principle defines a natural process, without defining the terms independent of the principle. If the definition of the terms of the principle are dependent on the principle, then it is completely arbitrary and it means nothing at all. The terms then do not mean what they do in the language itself. They become only place markers for elements in the principle, but they have no content behind them to refer to anything concrete and measurable. If the proposition cannot be measured, then it is not scientific. The scientific method demands that the proposition can be measured and tested by experimentation and that the experiment must be reproducible with similar results. This circular referencing robs it of the concrete connections that allow it to be measured and tested. It is not scientific and not even a reasonable proposition.