It seems that W. Christopher Epler has an incoherent argument for getting rid of the rich and bringing in socialism.
It is common biological knowledge that if “outliers” (used in a broad sense) are allowed to run amuck, that life form or, more importantly, that ecological system, is in grave danger of going extinct. Indeed, it is a near certainty that extinction will follow since the outliers are destroying any possibility of creative harmony which is the homeostasis of healthy evolution.
What’s the problem with this statement? Two, at the least.
1. He is attempting to apply the theory of biological evolution to society and its ills. Biology and sociology are two distinct fields. We cannot bridge the gap so seamlessly and easily, I dare say.
2. He assumes that evolution is the result of creative harmony. Evolution is actually red in tooth and claw. The theory of evolution does not speak to us of creative harmony.
It cannot, because:
a. There is no creator in the theory of evolution
b. The theory of evolution speaks of the survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest tends toward personal autonomy and a dog-eat-dog mentality.
Evolution needs magnificent harmony, balance, and energy. The ideal human society for Mother Nature would be socialism. This isn’t complicated or debatable. This is the high rationality of nature.
Said in language perhaps many would prefer, nature is functional Democracy.
I have stated before that there is no rationality to evolution because there is no absolute. It is clearly seen here. Epler equates democracy with socialism. The meaning of words can mean whatever you want them to mean in the evolutionary system, I suppose. Not so in a Christian/Theistic system.
it seems we’re in a life a death race to rid the planet of pig, pig rich people.
From the point of view of evolution, the “means” to this end is irrelevant.
So it should also be for us.
How much more incoherent could one be? First he calls for harmony. Next he states that it does not matter how the “pig, pig rich people” are eradicated. You cannot have both. They are mutually exclusive.
This is a glaring example of the incoherent thought process that is the result of the evolutionary/atheistic/agnostic belief system that is embraced by so many today.
I do not say that all atheists and agnostics speak in such careless manners. I do say that, taken to its logical conclusion, evolutionary thought will lead to just such incoherence and even worse.
Just musing…