- Homer J. Simpson
please note that the title to this post means that i thought a certain thought was interesting, not that i came up with an interesting thought!
i heard matt chandler mention something in a message the other day that i thought was interesting and then read pretty much the same idea in something for class, i think (there are a few sources, so please forgive me for losing track).
the thought is this (and i REALLY hope i don't butcher it):
GENERALLY speaking, there are many people who subscribe firmly to darwin's theory of evolution and the idea that survival of the fittest has moved living organisms to where we are today who ALSO take fervent interest in social justice causes around the world. it would seem that these two thoughts are in contradiction to each other. if survival of the fittest is a trusted and necessary way for life to advance, then why obstruct the process by lending a hand to the impoverished? does evolution not dictate that those without who cannot should be let alone to be overtaken by those who have and can? the apparent logic to this sentiment seemed profound to me. and if i hadn't read it randomly after hearing it on a podcast, i wouldn't have posted about it, i'm sure.
now, again, i'm speaking in generalities as i can't knowledgeably contemplate the ins and outs of evolutionary thinking... nor social justice minded thinking. for someone who tries to view the world through a Christocentric, Biblical lens and does NOT hold to views of evolution or social justice (apart from the Gospel), it may be really easy to consider the thought stated above and say "yeah, what are they thinking?"
maybe i'm missing that while people believe that evolution got us here, they don't also believe that it's an approved method of moving forward.
anyone out there have any thoughts on this?