Be Good – For Goodness Sake

Stupid – or Stubborn??!  Your call.

Many Christian Apologists, arguing against evolution, deny Darwinism because they believe that it supports a ‘Might Is Right’ stance that doesn’t fit with the ‘God Is Love’ picture that they like to paint.
Seems that the tribes out hunting game, making weapons of war, and raping their neighbors ought to have a genetic leg-up on those singing and dancing to their “gods” around the campfire.

Be Nice – Your Species Will Last Longer

If you’d like another opinion on why to be nice, click here.

British naturalist, Charles Darwin got it right, but a lot of Apologists get it wrong.  Most people assume that Darwin was talking about physical strength when referring to “Survival of the Fittest,” meaning that a tougher, more resilient species will win out over its weaker counterparts.  But what if he didn’t mean that at all??!

He said, “It is not the strongest, or the most intelligent who will survive, but those who can best manage change.”  Charles Darwin

Scientists Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods, both researchers at Duke University’s Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, believe something else has been at work among species that have thrived throughout history, successfully reproducing to sustain themselves, and it has nothing to do with beating up the competition.

Their new book, Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding Our Origins and Rediscovering Our Common Humanity, posits that friendly partnerships among species and shared humanity have worked throughout centuries to ensure successful evolution.

Species endure – humans, other animals, and plants – based on friendliness, partnership, and communication.  People think of it as strong, alpha males who deserve to win.  That’s not what Darwin suggested, or what has been demonstrated.  The most successful strategy in life is friendliness and co-operation.  We (some of us) see that, again and again.

The first question a recent caller to an Atheist podcast had was, “Who took care of the first babies?”  When the answer was, “Their mothers took care of them.” he just laughed and said, “Yeah, right, but who took care of the first babies??”  The host explained that hominids and most other mammals, as well as most birds, and some reptiles, tend and rear their young.  “But a baby can’t even wipe its own butt.  Who took care of them?

After almost five minutes of this “Who’s On First” routine, I realized that, for his understanding of Evolution to be true, at some specific point in time, some or all ape mothers stopped giving birth to baby apes, and started giving birth to baby humans. (Not that there’s that much difference)  The answer is still the same.  Their mothers took care of them.  Has he never read “Tarzan the Ape Man?”  Probably only the comic book version.

When it became clear that neither side understood what the other was saying, he took off in another direction.  Do you believe in DNA?  Of course we believe in DNA.  Well, DNA is a code, and if you have a code, then there must be a code-maker, and that has to be God. DNA is not a code in the way you are referring to it.  Well then, you must believe that fully-formed adult humans just crawled out of a pool of DNA.

It was at this point that the hosts decided that he must be an internet troll, because nobody could be this stupid and uninformed of scientific theories and facts.  I think that they gave him WAYYY too much benefit of the doubt.  The current state of education, especially in the US, and particularly among the willfully ignorant Christian Apologists, means that people like this are far too common.

Despite not knowing what they’re talking about, there is NOTHING that they won’t seize, and present as a gotcha ‘proof’.  One recent unintentional comedian claimed that the head is the home of our intelligence and our spirit, which we use to “know,” and ‘worship’ God.  We are born head-first…. Therefore GOD exists.  😕

Since almost all mammals are born head-first, as well as many birds and reptiles (pecking their way out of their shell), I wonder if he means – and is okay with – hippos and wombats and tortoises, “knowing and worshipping God.”

I am G.O.D. and I can prove that I exist.  I expect a little more worship from you in a couple of days.  Blessed is he who likes and follows.

12 thoughts on “Be Good – For Goodness Sake

  1. Rivergirl says:

    Can’t say I’ve ever met a bible toting wombat, but if I do I’ll send him your way.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Archon's Den says:

      It’s been a while – I think we’re on the RED, do-not-approach list – but the last pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses who rang my doorbell when I was trying to sleep in on a Saturday morning. who I welcomed with the demand that they get their asses... feet on city property within 30 seconds, or I’d help them – I think one of them was a wombat. Either that, or he fell out of an ugly tree, and hit every branch on the way down. 🙄

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Yes, in GOD we trust. Lol! I’m not a devout Christian but I’m a spiritual person. I feel things like when my dad who was suffering from cancer is going to die. I remember calling my older brother and said dad is going soon. He came by after work at about 9pm. My dad looked fine and my brother said dad seemed okay, I’ll come again tomorrow morning. By 4.15am the next morning, my dad passed away. I do believe in God or in the higher power. Be careful, God may come visit GOD soon. 😝


  3. Daniel Digby says:

    “We are born head-first…. Therefore GOD exists.” That would explain the preponderance of Christian Apologists. Breach births must determine the seat of their knowledge.


  4. Jim Wheeler says:

    Friendliness works great in tribes of 150, but then consider the Neanderthals.


    • Archon's Den says:

      I never liked those Neanderthals – always putting on airs – pretending to be able to walk upright. 😉
      Does it say something about Mankind, that the average breadth of our ability to act nice and get along with others is only 150 people wide? 😯


  5. Interesting, but I do find some faults with it. One thing is generalities being used all around instead of some specifics. I’ll agree that many of my fellow Creationists are not as learned as they should be. However, I find the same with many who criticize them as being unable to mention reasons for their statements other than that is the way it is supposed to be. It works both ways, let us hope that intelligence and facts survive.


    • Archon's Den says:

      Now I am very vaguely confused. I provided a quotation, and properly attributed it to Darwin. I gave a link to the blog post that I had used for research. I gave the name of the subject book, the names of the two authors, and where they were employed. The irrelevant name of the podcast referred to, is The Atheist Experience, and FCC regulations prevent them from giving the names of callers.
      How much more specific do you feel I should be??! Or is this merely an unspecific bitch, where you visit the failings and shortcomings of others onto my work?
      😕 😳


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s