What exactly is the border between believing in evolution and believing in survival of the fittest, natural selection, and eugenics?
evolution to me is just an explanation of why the children of degenerates and dregs grow up to be degenerates and dregs. What exactly is the alternative explanation for this called? or is evolution in your context strictly related to origins?
I've been a lifelong Christian, went to grad school in engineering (took multiple grad level physics and statistics courses), never once had any problem with my faith interfering with my exposure to ideas and theories surrounding origins of life..
What I was taught highlighted the inconsistencies and gaps in our understanding and showed that there are so many things in the universe that we don't understand and cant fathom.. Its to the extent that my belief in God was actually encouraged more than dissuaded - all of my Professors considered elites in their professions all similarly holding ideas of faith. To me, it seems that the only real explanations to the universe are intelligent design - either by a creator or by simulation. I see in no way how evolution is contrary to those ideas.
What exactly is the border between believing in evolution and believing in survival of the fittest, natural selection, and eugenics?
Evolution is a broad theory encompassing many topics, including common ancestor, natural selection, survival of the fittest... The border of these are defined in the theory. They are each identifiably different.
evolution to me is just an explanation of why the children of degenerates and dregs grow up to be degenerates and dregs. What exactly is the alternative explanation for this called? or is evolution in your context strictly related to origins?
The alternate theory for this? None that I know of. Evolution is also not a theory for this either. I believe it's common knowledge that children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of "degenerates and dregs" (highly subjective terms) can become non-degenerates and non-dregs. In fact, if you were able to trace your ancestry back 2000 years and observe them along the way, by your own standard, you'd likely consider some of your ancestors "degenerates and dregs".
What exactly is the border between believing in evolution and believing in survival of the fittest, natural selection, and eugenics?
evolution to me is just an explanation of why the children of degenerates and dregs grow up to be degenerates and dregs. What exactly is the alternative explanation for this called? or is evolution in your context strictly related to origins?
I've been a lifelong Christian, went to grad school in engineering (took multiple grad level physics and statistics courses), never once had any problem with my faith interfering with my exposure to ideas and theories surrounding origins of life..
What I was taught highlighted the inconsistencies and gaps in our understanding and showed that there are so many things in the universe that we don't understand and cant fathom.. Its to the extent that my belief in God was actually encouraged more than dissuaded - all of my Professors considered elites in their professions all similarly holding ideas of faith. To me, it seems that the only real explanations to the universe are intelligent design - either by a creator or by simulation. I see in no way how evolution is contrary to those ideas.
Evolution is a broad theory encompassing many topics, including common ancestor, natural selection, survival of the fittest... The border of these are defined in the theory. They are each identifiably different.
The alternate theory for this? None that I know of. Evolution is also not a theory for this either. I believe it's common knowledge that children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of "degenerates and dregs" (highly subjective terms) can become non-degenerates and non-dregs. In fact, if you were able to trace your ancestry back 2000 years and observe them along the way, by your own standard, you'd likely consider some of your ancestors "degenerates and dregs".