Survival of the fittest

[Gerr]

This dog-eat-dog, the-weak-and-small-are-just-food-for-the-big-and-strong, this principle of nature - survival of the fittest, is it of divine origin?

[Scuba]

This dog-eat-dog, the-weak-and-small-are-just-food-for-the-big-and-strong, this principle of nature - survival of the fittest, is it of divine origin?

 

I would say it's human nature, not divine nature. Divine nature is to be meek and humble. Now don't mistake meek with weak. To be meek means you have the strength and power to conquer but you choose not to use it for the sake of the Gospel and the willingness to manifest the character of God in a fallen and decaying world. 

[Robert]

This dog-eat-dog, the-weak-and-small-are-just-food-for-the-big-and-strong, this principle of nature - survival of the fittest, is it of divine origin?

 

If one believes in Theistic Evolution, then yes, God brought about humanity through this process.

 

If one believes in creation, as taught throughout the Bible, then no, fallen Lucifer invented this principle and therefore it is satanic.

[Gerr]

I would say it's human nature, not divine nature. Divine nature is to be meek and humble. Now don't mistake meek with weak. To be meek means you have the strength and power to conquer but you choose not to use it for the sake of the Gospel and the willingness to manifest the character of God in a fallen and decaying world. 

If it's just human nature, why does it permeate the whole animal kingdom?  Worms are food for birds.  Smaller fish become food for larger and larger fish, on up the chain.  Deer for lions, etc.  This is even true in the microscopic world - a euglena engulfing/eating smaller organisms!

[Gerr]

If one believes in Theistic Evolution, then yes, God brought about humanity through this process.

 

If one believes in creation, as taught throughout the Bible, then no, fallen Lucifer invented this principle and therefore it is satanic.

It is more obvious how the downfall of man affected human nature, but the whole lower animal kingdom?  And if it's not of divine origin, why does it seem to work well in nature? Elimination of the weak and sick seems cruel, but it ensures the perpetuation of a healthy species.

[Robert]

It is more obvious how the downfall of man affected human nature, but the whole lower animal kingdom?

 

I understand, but it was not designed this way by God.  See the following Scripture:

 

Isaiah 11:

 

The wolf will live with the lamb,

    the leopard will lie down with the goat,

the calf and the lion and the yearling together;

    and a little child will lead them.

7 The cow will feed with the bear,

    their young will lie down together,

    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,

    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

[Scuba]

I would say it's human nature, not divine nature. Divine nature is to be meek and humble. Now don't mistake meek with weak. To be meek means you have the strength and power to conquer but you choose not to use it for the sake of the Gospel and the willingness to manifest the character of God in a fallen and decaying world. 

 

I should have said fallen nature, which the whole world is now under. In the new heaven and earth it won't be like that.

[Gerr]

I understand, but it was not designed this way by God.  See the following Scripture:

 

Isaiah 11:

 

The wolf will live with the lamb,

    the leopard will lie down with the goat,

the calf and the lion and the yearling together;

    and a little child will lead them.

7 The cow will feed with the bear,

    their young will lie down together,

    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,

    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

That's what will be. Is the now of divine design?

[Robert]

That's what will be. Is the now of divine design?

No!

 

Why?

 

There was no death that marred God's creation.  Nothing harmed.  There was no "dog-eat-dog" principle until it was introduced by Satan at the tree of the knowledge of good & evil.

[LifeHiscost]

It is more obvious how the downfall of man affected human nature, but the whole lower animal kingdom?  And if it's not of divine origin, why does it seem to work well in nature? Elimination of the weak and sick seems cruel, but it ensures the perpetuation of a healthy species.

It is important to recognize who masterminds this world,s mores lest we attribute to God, his character, which is one reason given why some reject the only God of Love.

 

…3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God....2 Corinthians 4

 

 44 ........the devil,...... He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies....John 8

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[Gregory Matthews]

The principle of nature - survival of the fittest:  No, that is not the evolutionary principle.  It is survival of the fit.  There is a difference, which many creationists do not understand.

[Gerr]

Gregory Matthews, on 14 Feb 2015 - 7:44 PM, said:

The principle of nature - survival of the fittest:  No, that is not the evolutionary principle.  It is survival of the fit.  There is a difference, which many creationists do not understand.

Greg, did I say anything about evolution?  My question is whether the survival of the fittest, or if you prefer survival of the fit, ( in the dog-eat-dog, world ,etc. only the fittest survive, imho) is of divine origin or  not.   Or is this one of God's concessions to the reality of sin?

 

Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated in evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. It is more commonly used today in other contexts, to refer to a supposed greater probability that "fit" as opposed to "unfit" individuals will survive some test. In these contexts, "fit" refers to "most well adapted to the current environment," which differs from common notions of the binary 'fit' and 'unfit.'^{[citation needed]}

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."^[1]

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" alongside "natural selection" in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869,^[2][3] intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".^[4][5]

 

 

Robert, on 14 Feb 2015 - 4:30 PM, said:

You think Satan introduced it in nature?  Or is it one of God's concessions to the presence of sin?  Divorce was never in God's plan, but God conceded to it because of the hardness of man's heart.

[Robert]

You think Satan introduced it in nature?  Or is it one of God's concessions to the presence of sin?  Divorce was never in God's plan, but God conceded to it because of the hardness of man's heart.

 

Yes...Satan is the author of iniquity.  

 

Divorce happened after the fall....The hardness of man's heart occurs because of his nature.

[Gregory Matthews]

Post # 12:

 

Yes Gerry, I am well aware that the phrase began I evolutionary theory.    But, evolutionary theory taught survival of the fit not survival of the fittest.  The phrase :"survival of the fittest" is most commonly used by people who do not understand evolutionary theory and is one reason why creationists who use it are ridiculed by evolutionists.  Even in your dog eat dog world that you mention, it is the fit that survive, not just the fittest.

[Ted Oplinger]

If it's just human nature, why does it permeate the whole animal kingdom?  Worms are food for birds.  Smaller fish become food for larger and larger fish, on up the chain.  Deer for lions, etc.  This is even true in the microscopic world - a euglena engulfing/eating smaller organisms!

Back in Genesis 1, when God created man, they were to have dominion over all other life forms on this planet (verse 28). Everything there before sin served all others beneficially under God's Laws.

 

When man sinned, they gave both themselves AND all they had dominion over, to Satan. Satan controls and dispenses of it as he wishes. (Luke 4:6) Hence, the strong rule the weak, the swift are victorious over the slow, and the cunning win by greater deceit against the trusting and careless...just like it is among people.

 

Paul writes of this in Romans, when he links the redemption of man to the redemption of creation. It groans currently, awaiting its new birth. Romans 8:22

 

Simply put, survival of the fittest is nothing less than might makes right - the hall mark of Satan's kingdom. It affects all of nature, because it affects all of man. Along with man's redemption will also come the redemption of all he once had dominion over. Christ will return the eco system back to the way it was created, because He has won the right to be the new Adam...not through might making right, but by sacrificial love laying life down for all others.

 

Blessings,

[8thdaypriest]

Without the infilling spirit of God - giving life - death results.

But HOW does death result?

Is it because God Himself kills people, and creatures?

NO.  It is because God withdraws His spirit. 

 

God designed man and all of creation, to function by His indwelling.

THAT is our design.

Without the indwelling - our design dictates our slow death. 

 

In THAT SENSE only,

the "strong eats weaker" - food chain - that we see in the world today, IS the result of God's design. 

 

So - God IS ultimately responsible. 

He is the designer.

And HE paid the ultimate price.  He took on the nature of the created man.  He died as the victim of "strong destroys weak".

 

Our part in witnessing this terrible pain and destruction, is to plead for the full return of the Indwelling. 

 

Perhaps 50,000 years into eternity, I may have a thought that I'd like to do something "my way".

But THEN I remember what happened when created beings tried things their "own way".

And I am repulsed. 

The pain of 6000 years, witnessed by the entire Universe (not simply by mankind) is the greatest deterrent to another "rebellion".

[Ted Oplinger]

Death did not occur on earth prior to Adam and Eve sinning. The ecological balance and food chain originally designed by God here was also in harmony with His character - everything in balance and designed to serve and benefit every species around, not to destroy or drive to extinction. Genesis 1:29, 30 give the original diet not just for man, but for all living things on earth. Death had no place here until Adam sinned, and the dominion of this planet devolve to another ruler - the one we name Satan. 

 

The hallmarks of Satan's character and dominion are the selfish "might makes right, the end justifies the means" type character, resulting in domination, predation, and ultimately, death - all diametrically opposite that of God and His character. These hallmarks can be traced everywhere Satan exerts his dominion, and will ultimately be characteristic of the Mark of the Beast in the very last trials.

 

It was Satan who corrupted the animal kingdom into the predator/prey paradigm. God did not design it this way. Christ, in dying to redeem mankind, also redeems everything mankind once held dominion over. Such dominion comes as Christ's legal right as our New Adam. That is why in the end, we will return to the peaceful kingdom portrayed in prophecy in Isiah 65:25.

 

Blessings,

[joeb]

This dog-eat-dog, the-weak-and-small-are-just-food-for-the-big-and-strong, this principle of nature - survival of the fittest, is it of divine origin?

An aside to this is that a large percentage of the people who believe in evolution, which the underpinning for the rationalization that it's OK to be that way also think socialism is great.  I guess it's a logical conclusion for them because it is the ultimate big dog eats the little dog scenario for it in the big dog is the government and all behaviors are controlled by the government. 

 

Both are at odds with the Bible.  That shows their common source for if principles/concepts are at odds with the Bible we know what their source is.

[Sojourner]

When I studied evolution in Biology in High School, it was the ideal of Natural Selection that I found I began to disagree with. My view is that Natural Selection accepted as such can be used and is used to promote racism as suggesting that it is a natural thing to occur via some type of primal process.

I feel that G-d gives us a mental and moral capacity to refuse the principal of natural selection based on the fact that G-d does not value the strong nor the weak, but values people in general. There are various examples throughout scripture where G-d takes the weak to overcome the strong, or the few to overcome the many.

Anyway in answer to the OP, no I don’t think it has any divine origin whatsoever. I acknowledge that the beliefs exist within a number of groups in society and I feel that is as others have mentioned because of the fall and the rejection of G-d by people.

[LifeHiscost]

This dog-eat-dog, the-weak-and-small-are-just-food-for-the-big-and-strong, this principle of nature - survival of the fittest, is it of divine origin?

I'm of the opinion this bumper sticker wisdom is why many accept evolution and the theory of natural selection and it has nothing to do with an accurate knowledge of God.

 

Science teaches us how to fly to the moon.

Religion teaches us how to fly into buildings.

 

 

God is Love!  Jesus saves!