Just saying so does not make it so. The Evolutionist can justify rape and pillage as survival of the fittest at any time. I do not consider rape and pillage as meaningless.
The evolutionist, since he isn't a complete moron, would not confuse a scientific law with a moral constraint. The Law of Universal Gravitation says that bodies will fall towards the enter of the earth. Does that mean it's OK to throw your grandmother downstairs?
On the other hand, a Christian might well justify rape and pillage as a Divine Command. As in, for example, Numbers 31:7-18.
And the creationist can justify eugenics as an attempt to intelligently design specific microevolutionary changes to the genome to improve the lives of the children.
Look, we're human beings. How we got to be human beings instead of just another species of chimpanzee is an interesting question, but it's irrelevant to questions of morality. To form a moral system and answer moral questions, you start with the fact that we are human beings, with certain universal needs & values that flow from our status as humans, and work from there.
That's one of the most insulting things I've seen for quite a while.
Did ModernMan or SeaLion say anything like this?
And before 1859 those things never happened, right?
"Survival of the fittest" is a term describing a process observed in nature and is neither a prescription for a society nor a military strategy.
Survival of the fittest does not mean the survival of the most violent. Any fitness has to result in a reproductive advantage. Please, don't build silly little straw structures.
Any chance you can back up that statement with an evolutionist ACTUALLY justifying rape and pillage? Like you said, just saying so does not make it so. With all due respect, you do not have a very evolved understanding of evolution and the nature of "survival of the fittest".
The attempt to paint those who believe in evolution as being without any moral character or moral code is a typical creationist ploy. A human being does not need a transcendant morality in order to be a moral agent.
BTW, I don't consider rape and pillage as meaningless either, only a meaningless red herring in the context you're using it in.
If you had said that atheists believe there is no life after death, AND they have no ethical or moral priciples, therefore they can rape and pillage, you'd have made your point.
Rapine and pillage isn't a factor in "survival of the fittest", having a trait that helps you resist malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa is.
Your position is a transparent attempt to connect the ToE to immorality, which does nothing to the theory but does expose your ignorance of the subject matter.
Do you actually believe the stuff you post or are you doing it for kicks?
I do not rape and pillage.
I accept the fact of evolution.
I do not believe in creationism.
Therefore, I am a superior moral being, seeing as though I don't rape and pillage, even though I supposedly can.
I am better than you.
/creationist "logic."