Darwinism; solving problems that don't exist

It's my contention that what's popularly known as Darwinism is a project devoted to solving non-existent problems. These 'problems' are caused by adopting the worldview of Materialism. I'll look briefly at one example.

Quotes and comments;

A. The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. [1. full quote in notes]

- How strange do you have to be, to be perplexed by a 'problem' (non-existent) like this? Is it necessary to point out that this isn't a problem at all; that only the philosophically deluded imagine it's a problem? (Don't we have enough problems? Do we really need to invent problems for ourselves? But I guess it's a good make-work project.) Only if one accepts Materialism (with its necessary correlate Evolution) is this a problem.

This is an example of the kind of pseudo science that dominates so much of academia. What for instance would be the point of such an 'investigation'? What would one do with the results? Anything? What's the relationship between this 'study' and the real world? What's the connection to society? What good is such 'research'? Why would one bother? Apparently questions like these don't matter when one has access to the public trough.

Evolutionary theory makes 'problems' out of everything; and then materialists go out and try to 'solve' these non-existent problems... and all this nonsense is called science. Because the basic assumption (materialism) is wrong; this world view produces a never ending series of false conclusions and false theories. In trying to present explanations (stories) for why things are the way they are, they produce a seemingly endless list of problems to be solved. This is Pandora's box with a vengeance. Being based on a false assumption, the theories it generates can never be true. It ends up being a make work project to last for eternity. (In other words, this is every academic's dream come true.)

Only those deluded by Darwinism wonder why sex exists. This 'problem' only occurs to people who see human beings as animals, or as bits of matter in motion. [If they really don't know the answer, they can try reading the bible.] This is just one example of all the 'problems' that spring up when people abandon biblical creation.

B. As an example of how deluded this kind of Darwinian thinking can get;
“We are proposing a new way to look at religion – as a strategy to advance evolutionary goals,” announced Yexin Jessica Li at Arizona State University in Tempe. [2.]

- This goofball has 'solved' another non-existent problem; namely how to give an evolutionary account of religion. (i.e. 'Since there isn't a god how do we explain the prevalence of religion? This is a very big problem that we need to work on... if only we could get funding.')
Once your basic assumption is wrong, everything you come up with will be wrong. (i.e. once Materialism is adopted, evolution is necessarily adopted; and once E. is adopted as the basis for explanation, all your explanations will be wrong.)

Summary; in my opinion the only reason we get useless 'research' like this is that we suffer under a Socialist system of government. No one would waste their time with this kind of thing if the State wasn't paying for it, and wasn't making it possible. It's hard for me to imagine that any person would devote themselves to such a question on their own, and it's hard for me to imagine any private concern financing such a clownish undertaking. What we see here isn't true science, but political and social faddishness.

Notes;
1. Darwinizing Everything: Creation/Evolution Headlines 11/16/2009
Nov 16, 2009 — 150 years after The Origin of Species, it’s clear that Darwin succeeded in one thing: granting biologists free rein to speculate about how everything under the sun evolved.
Composite explanation for sex: The “evolutionary cost of males,” a problem that perplexed Darwin, was addressed in a press release posted by Science Daily. Researchers at the University of Oregon, some of whom are male, were able to reassure themselves that the benefits of males outweigh their costs. “Many scientists have argued that outcrossing [e.g., sex] has evolved to avoid the genetic consequences of inbreeding, while others have emphasized the role that outcrossing plays in generating the genetic variation necessary for evolutionary change,” explained Patrick Phillips. So which is it? “Our work shows that both of these factors are important,” he said, while admitting earlier, “biologists going all the way back to Charles Darwin have been puzzled why sexual reproduction via outcrossing exists at all.”
- The professors claim to know why reproduction exists, but they don't tell you how it came about. (That they can't is a trade secret.)

2. see above; under Romantic Religion
3. How people can claim we don't have enough scientists when we have people wasting time on such trivial and pointless pursuits as this I don't know. (But then again maybe these people aren't real scientists at all.)