We are survival machines whose only goal is to perpetuate our genes. So say Darwinists. Yet here we have atheists and homosexuals who seem to care almost nothing about doing what they say evolution has determined we must do at almost any cost.
Religious people on the other hand are reproducing at almost twice the rate of atheists.
In his book, “Darwin’s Cathedral” David Sloan Wilson describes how religion provides something that secular society doesn’t: a vision of transcendent purpose.
As a result religious people develop a zest for life that is, in a sense unnatural. They exhibit a hopefulness about the future that may exceed what is warranted. And they forge principles of morality and charity that simply make them more cohesive, adaptive, and successful than groups whose members lack this binding and elevating force.”
“Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003)
Austria is the only country which records the religious belief of parents but their figure, of 0.85 children per atheist woman, is far below replacement rate (2.1) and below even the most barren European country’s average rate, which is about 1.2.
It would seem that it is atheism and its sidekick homosexuality (Romans 1:18-32) that doesn’t fit the Darwinian paradigm. The atheist’s support of those who kill their offspring, in total contradiction of our supposed need / drive to multiply flies in the face of evolutionary theory. Why would nature select people who mate with others of the same sex, and why would nature select people who see no higher purpose to life or the universe than satiating their own amusement desires?
As Dinesh D’Sousa asks, “Maybe the New Atheists can help us understand how atheism, like the human tail-bone and the panda’s thumb somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past.”
Dinesh D’Sousa, “What’s so Great About Christianity,” (Regnery Publishing Inc) 2007, 19