Being a Consistent Darwinist

CoexistThe other day I saw a car with two adornments. One was a Darwin fish, a poke at the Jesus fish by adding legs and including “Darwin” rather than “Jesus.” The other was a Coexist bumpersticker. I’m sure the driver felt this reflect his open-mindedness.

I don’t have a problem with a person publicly expressing their beliefs. But there is a bit of a problem with bringing these two messages together.

Darwin FishDarwinism is much more than just a belief that current creatures have evolved from less developed creatures. An essential part of Darwinism is survival of the fittest. This means that the strong must overcome the weak to move into the future.

How does this fit with the idea of “Coexist”?

Darwinism has nothing to do with coexisting. Darwinism is reflected in the exterminating of the Neanderthals by the Homo Sapiens. When it comes to worldviews, as represented in the Coexist bumpersticker, Darwinism calls for the stronger worldviews must overcome the weaker worldviews. Darwinism means anything but coexistence.

People are free to embrace Darwinism. People are also free to embrace the idea of coexistence. But a consistent Darwinist can’t do both.

Liked it? Take a second to support Stephen Bedard on Patreon!

One thought on “Being a Consistent Darwinist”

  1. When I tell Christians that I believe that it is it is wrong and foolish to believe any truth claim “by faith”, they complain. “You obviously don’t understand the word ‘faith’,” they retort. “We all use faith in many areas of our lives.”

    A typical evangelical Christian’s definition of “faith”: ” Faith is trust based on past performance. It is faith in a person, not so much the claims about that person. It is based on personal knowledge of that person gained by personal experience.”

    Same evangelical Christian’s response to this question: Is faith a gift from God as the Apostle Paul claims in his Epistle to the Ephesians?

    “Yes. The faith that leads us to personally grasp hold of the promises God made to us in Christ Jesus is something that is given to us.”

    Gary: So if we combine these two statements we have this: “Faith is trust based on personal knowledge about someone (or some thing); a personal knowledge that is given to us as a gift from God.”

    Isn’t this statement saying that it is impossible to believe in Jesus as one’s god unless Jesus has gifted you the knowledge (about him) to believe? If that is true, what is the point of Christian apologetics? If only God can flip the switch in the human heart (brain) to believe, why do Christian apologists go to such lengths to debate evidence in an effort to convert skeptical non-believers? Why do Christian apologists accuse skeptics of being biased against “good” evidence, when what they really believe is that no amount of good evidence will ever convince the skeptic to believe in Jesus as his or her Savior? If faith is truly a gift from God, debating evidence is pointless.

    So why do Christian apologists persist in doing it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.