James,
That’s a lot of words about religion from a guy who’s supposed to be talking about science.
I came to dislike Darwinism for the same reason one of my compatriots here did. I read Darwin’s The Descent of Man.
Why have religious reasons for genocide when there are perfectly good scientific ones?
I always wondered why Australians were so enamored of Darwin and his ideas of white superiority. It’s the best scientific reason to shove some aboriginals off the planet.
Just like it will be the best reason for the Marxists to shove the Christians off the planet.
After all, if sexual preferences are genetic, so are practically all other preferences, including religious ones. Why else bother hypothesizing a “God gene”? Tie religion to genetics, declare the Christians incapable of deconversion because theism is inborn, and start eliminating them so they stop using up undeserved finite resources. The fit survive, the slovenly unfit stupid God botherers don’t.
Right?
Wrong.
I can understand your point of view, but consider this:
If Newton were a mass-murderer, would that background have made his laws on motion invalid?
You’re wrong about evolution depending on the survival of the “fittest”. Survival depends on lot more aspects than mere fitness. Couple that with the Principle of Reciprocity (the Golden / Silver Rule, if you will), and you have no scientific reason for genocide. Healthy societies cannot exist without this rule being operational, so where does the question of genocide even arise?
I asked you that question in my earlier comment about morality based on the religion you’ve adopted. Why is there no answer? What did David’s child die for?