Altruism is a huge problem for Darwin's theory. Human society and the natural world are full of selfless acts-- from young men giving their lives on Omaha beach to save total strangers to insects sacrificing to serve their colony. This of course is a defeater for Darwinism, which asserts that all adaptations evolved to maximize reproductive success.
Internment in Arlington National Cemetery is evidence for many things-- heroism, love, the last full measure of devotion. It is not reproductive success. Why do the best of mankind sacrifice for others?
Christianity provides the obvious answer: we are made in God's image, and at our best we imitate Him. He sacrificed His own life out of love for us all. The graves at Arlington rightfully are covered with crosses.
Darwinism, a lie, is a fecund lie. Darwinists are a dull lot, but given time, they can explain anything. As you might expect, they have tried to explain away the utter contradiction of altruism for their theory.
They have hypothesized about kin selection (your genes give your life to save your kin's genes), reciprocal altruism (I'll give my genes if you'll give yours), the Potlatch Effect (I'm so superior to you that I can sacrifice for you), etc. etc.
Kin selection, the most widely endorsed Darwinian evasion of altruism's defeat of evolutionary theory, has a problem, though. In the theory of kin selection, genes can propagate if they use the organism as a vehicle to enhance the propagation of identical genes in other organisms. Kin will have more nearly identical genomes than non-related, so we are 'programmed' by our genes to be altruistic to close relatives. And the closer, the more altruistic.
There are of course all kinds of problems with this. Parents share the same fraction of genome with children as siblings share with each other, but sibling altruism is substantially less intense than parental altruism.
But the catastrophe for kin selection is asexual reproduction. If a parent will give his life for Darwinian reasons to save his kids, who only share half his genomes, imagine the altruism of bacteria, who are surrounded by billions of identical copies of themselves! Bacterial reproduce asexually, and their kin selection and altruism should be intense. As philosopher David Stove, author of Darwinian Fairytales, notes wryly, bacteria should be so altruistic that they couldn't even decide who should go through a door first.
Yet Darwinists assert that bacterial evolution by natural selection-- the competitive struggle for existence-- is prime evidence for Darwinism. Antibiotic resistance and all that.
Darwinists deflect the obvious observation that altruism is a defeater for Darwin's theory. It can't be rescued by kin selection, which, if true, would virtually eliminate evolution in asexually reproducing organisms.
Darwinists implicitly exempt asexually reproducing organisms from kin selection theory.
Now if humble me (and others) see this contradiction, certainly the bright lights of evolutionary biology noticed it too. But they are silent. They apply kin selection when it advances their ideology, and fall silent when it doesn't.
Darwin's theory isn't just bad science. It's a lie.