[Sparta]

I'm undecided on Darwin's theory, so I'll be interested in the comments.

[cinFLA]

I'm undecided on Darwin's theory, so I'll be interested in the comments.

The author should crawl back into his cave.

[cookcounty]

"I'm undecided on Darwin's theory, so I'll be interested in the comments."

I'm generally skeptical of Darwin's ideas, but this article is deserving of the criticisms on this thread.

[jlogajan]

I'm undecided on Darwin's theory

You'll have to look at real evidence, such as the fossil record, DNA research, species data, etc. These "philosophy" pieces prove nothing except the ability of the writer to engage in circular logic.

[jejones]

OK: differential reproductive success for an individual isn't a necessary condition for a trait to persist; otherwise the sickle-cell anemia gene wouldn't still be around. (It provides enough of an advantage to heterozygotes to "compensate for" the early death of homozygous recessives.) Similarly, cooperation can be advantageous enough to groups or species as a whole to be selected. The author's notion that Darwinian evolution would mean that humans would be perpetually at war, unable to form even small cooperative groups, is just silly.

[butter pecan fan]

Begins with a fallacy. This is as far as I read:

IF DARWIN'S THEORY of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.

It is good for the survival of mankind both for individual men to cooperate together, and for groups of men to live in the presence of other species that help provide such things as food, fur, etc. Therefore, Darwinism would favor the survival of men who cooperate and conserve other species. Those are the kinds of men that would tend to survive and reproduce. Therefore, the article begins with a complete and utter fallacy as its opening point. It's not worth reading further.

[bert]

There is no Darwinian dilemma.