Why do cons only support Darwinian evolution when applied in the social context?

Question

Biological evolution is as close to settled fact as we get, and it's far more credible than intelligent design, yet many cons refuse to believe on religious grounds.

But these same cons claim social Darwinism explains success.

If cons are right, then people like Kim Kardashian and Snookie have achieved the highest level of social evolution.

Sorry, I refuse to believe that.

Answer 1

Short answer: It's down to cognitive dissonance, the ability of the human brain to simultaneously hold two contradictory thoughts or beliefs or even emotions.

Long answer: too long for here, there could be any number of reasons used to justify this contradiction. Off the top of my head you could argue that they're using Darwinism as a metaphor even though they believe it to be discredited scientifically (which it is absolutely not, obviously). You can see similar behaviour, albeit less extremely contradictory, with university English departments who make Freudian analyses of literature, even when they know that Freud's theories have been largely debunked by modern psychology. They use the metaphoric structure of it to explain something unrelated.

Answer 2

You have got to cut a few from the herd so the rest can thrive. Call it self inflicted social Darwinism.

Answer 3

Actually biological evolution is not close to fact. Most of the history we are taught is complete BS. It's combo of intelligent design and biological evolution. Both ideas themselves are poles on a spectrum, the answer is in the middle; as with most ideas.