Does Evolution Explain Altruism?

By Julie Roys
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin

            Evolution changes everything.  Some think this theory simply explains origins, which by the way, it spectacularly fails to do.  Even evolutionists admit they can only speculate how life emerged from inorganic matter.  Yet, despite this glaring deficiency, Darwinists increasingly are purporting that evolution can explain much more than biological diversity.  They say it can explain how political systems, societal norms, even personal morality has evolved.  
          All of us possess a desire to unify our beliefs into one comprehensive worldview.  And, for a Darwinist, this means believing that every aspect of reality – not just biology – emerged randomly and impersonally.  That’s why one of the fastest growing disciplines today is evolutionary psychology.  This discipline presumes that if natural selection produced the human body, then it must also account for the way humans think, believe, and behave.  But, because evolutionary psychology is based on a faulty premise, it devolves into absurdity and wild speculation.
           Take altruism, for example.  This presents a particularly difficult problem for evolutionary psychologists.  You see, natural selection dictates that only the fittest pass on their genes to the next generation.  Yet, self-sacrifice – a characteristic that necessarily endangers the survival of an organism – still exists in the natural world.  Why, for example, would a healthy person sacrifice a kidney for a brother? Wouldn’t natural selection dictate that the genes leading to this detrimental behavior naturally die out in a population over time?
            The logical conclusion is that maybe something other than natural selection is active in this world.  And, maybe organisms – especially humans – are more than just the sum total of their genes.  But, because Darwinists are committed to a belief system that negates the spiritual realm, they ignore these obvious explanations.  Evolutionary psychologists instead have concocted what’s called “kin selection.”  This theory, popularized by biologist E.O. Wilson, suggests that when a person sacrifices himself for a relative, he’s actually helping that relative to survive and procreate.  And, since he shares genetic material with his relative, he’s not really acting altruistically: he’s simply passing on his genes indirectly.
           Over the past few decades, most Darwinists have accepted kin selection.  But now, Wilson is abandoning this theory.  Apparently, researchers have found that some species, which share a lot of genetic material with each other don’t behave altruistically.  But, other species, which share very little genetic material do.  “Nothing we were finding connected with kin selection,” Wilson said.  “I knew that something was going wrong – there was a smell to it.”
            Now many Darwinists are left with egg on their faces and they’re refusing to accept Wilson’s conclusion.  But, I agree with Wilson that this all has a very distinctive smell to it.  It’s the aroma of those who claim to be wise, but have become fools.  The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.  The assumption that all that exists is matter is folly.  


Keep in touch with Julie and get updates in your inbox!

Don’t worry we won’t spam you.

More to explore

Leave a Reply