Mentally Disturbed Social Darwinists

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

First, a reminder that when people use the word Darwinism today, it partly a convenience. Classical Darwinism was dying a few decades after it was set forth, but was changed and is now called the neo-Darwinian synthesis, modern evolutionary synthesis, and so on. When discussing origins, it is expected that people know what is being discussed when the words Darwinism and evolution are used. 

Moving on. As shown previously, Darwinism is not just a biological theory, but a worldview. Social Darwinism has been around almost as long as classical Darwinism, and applies survival of the fittest principles to societies.

Mostly made at Atom Smasher

It was popular in the last century, giving rise to eugenics, scientific racism, ruthless capitalism, and more. Karl Marx saw his economic and political views expressed in Darwinian natural selection. Take a look around at what is happening in the world today. A form of Marxism has been zombified and is walking around, complete with violence and hatred for others. This can be traced to social Darwinism and survival of the fittest.

A study on social Darwinists reveals what many of us already knew: They are not right in the head. It also reveals that they have low self-esteem, hostility, and ruthless pursuit and admiration of power. In biological Darwinism, only the strong survive. Social Darwinism applies this "natural law".

Indeed, the study revealing mental instability can be expanded to evolutionists in general. Especially atheists, since they depend on evolution as a foundation for their religion. Many are demonstrably narcissistic sociopaths, and atheism is linked to autism. Having a rational discussion with a typical village atheist is almost impossible, and they are, simply put, control freaks.

Recently, I had the misfortune of trying to instruct a Christophobe on the risible claim that Jesus never existed. This is a fringe view held by militant atheists, and was (appropriately enough) a product of Soviet Union atheistic propaganda. He was reacting to a post with an article that shows why we know that Jesus existed, which cited a dubious Christian, an agnostic, and others. As usual, the atheopath refused to read the material, choosing instead to mock it using bigotry and prejudicial conjecture. I even posted a link for him refuting "Jesus Myth" nonsense that was written by an atheist. This was rejected with:

Oh, gee... A link to an amalgam of ******** that I guess I'm supposed to slog through. No thanks. How about just pointing out one thing written about Jesus that was written during his supposed lifetime? That's it. Simple challenge. It seems like you can't meet it.

Unwilling to learn, defining the parameters, rejecting evidence, a history of always being right while any Christian is always wrong — does this sound like a mentally stable individual? He becomes even more obstreperous when defending evolution, and utilizes numerous logical fallacies.

The study indicates that social Darwinists are not right in the head. This can also point backward, that most scientists of the last century were also mentally disturbed. No, belief in evolution does not make someone crazy. The real problem is sin against almighty God. People rebel against him, and eventually, he gives them over (Rom. 1:24-25). A principle called the noetic effect of sin (the sinful spirit corrupts thinking processes) applies here. Indeed, consider theistic evolutionists who applaud Darwin but deny the authority of Scripture, and even corrupt it to justify their worldview.

Social Darwinists, other evolutionists, and everyone else needs the ultimate cure for mind and spirit. Everyone needs to humble themselves and repent of their sin, submitting to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.

Here is the article that inspired my own.

Two Polish scientists have linked belief in “Social Darwinism with certain dysfunctional psychological characteristics.” 

. . .

The best example is the Scopes Trial. In this trial William Jennings Bryan opposed Social Darwinism, and Darrow, the ACLU, and a large number of leading scientists, supported Social Darwinism as was taught in the textbook at issue in the case, George William Hunters’ Civic Biology. Furthermore, not one scientist is on record opposing the Social Darwinism and racism in Hunters book. All the leading Darwinians at the time mercilessly ridiculed Bryan and his followers as anti-science

. . .

Radkiewicz and Skarżyńska examined the “the psychological profile of Social Darwinists” and concluded that they are. . .

To read the rest, see "Social Darwinists Are Mentally Unbalanced".