[Paloma_55]

"No, evolution does not tell us one way or the other how to behave. Nice try though."

If you want me to spell it out, I can.

Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive.

What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?

1) Give the food to family B.
2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves.

Be honest with yourself.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive.

What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?

1) Give the food to family B.
2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves.

Be honest with yourself."

Why should family A give the food and water to family B and commit suicide? Any moral code that demands one commit suicide is evil. We are not sacrificial animals.

As for what evolution would say, that depends. Is family A closely relate to family B? It may not even matter. We don't blindly follow biological *instincts*; we are a culture based species. There is no way to know what Family A in your little story would do. One would hope they wouldn't sacrifice their own children because someone told them it was their obligation.

[Alter Kaker]

Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive. What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?

Darwin's theory would make no prediction regarding the behavior of the family. Darwin's theory is not a substitute for religion -- it is not a moral code or an ethos, it is simply a scientific explanation for observed phenomena, namely observed change in allele frequencies over time. Natural selection isn't a good thing or a bad thing, its just something that happens -- although people have done their best to change what nature selects for. Want examples? The development of eyeglasses and the discovery of insulin have resulted in a large increase in the frequency of genes causing myopia and childhood diabetes in the general population -- because affected children are no longer dying before adulthood. I don't think you'll find anyone opposed to eyeglasses, we're just using society and technology to select for different characteristics than our ancestors did.

[SeaLion]

Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive. What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be? 1) Give the food to family B. 2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves

You've raised a very good point, one which has been under investigation by evolutionists for sometime--formally, the problem is often known as 'The Evolution of Altruism,' and a reasonable introduction can be found at http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html

Briefly (though we can expand, if you like, I think it's a good topic), I think you are right to assert that evolutionary science per se doesn't give anyone a 'moral compass'--but neither does quantum mechanics, or organic chemistry, or any other discipline of science. That just isn't what science is for; science is about knowledge, and cannot speak to moral matters

It probably should be noted that classic Darwinian theory is chiefly concerned with the development of animal physiology rather than behaviour, though the subject was of parallel interest to Darwin. In more recent times, it is very interesting (to me, at least), that a number of distinguished evolutionists (notably Maynard Smith) have developed some strong indications that what we call 'altrusism' (that is, the behaviour of an animal to behave in the apparent interests of the group over its own self) may be a superior evolutionary stable strategy, that is, confer evolutionary benefits which are realised as enhanced success (which in strict Darwinian terms means a higher number of viable offspring which in turn reproduce).

An example? Well, ever try to pick up a wild bear cub in the woods? Does the Mama Bear skedaddle to save her own skin, or does she risk her life (and probably take yours!) protecting her offspring. The cub whose mother lacks what we call 'maternal instinct' is a bear cub less likely to survive and procreate.

It is arguable (but not strictly demonstrable) that further enhancements of this process allowed our early, proto-human ancestors, with far bigger brains, to develop more complicated co-operative behaviours, that indeed it was precisely our ability to manage complex group co-operation as hunters which allowed us to develop into humanity. Certainly, it is demonstrable that relatively large portions of our brain are dedicated to managing the complex demands (such as facial recognition) for social co-operation.

I doubt you will find my potted summary above compelling--but please accept it is offered as an 'honest' response, as you asked.

And I might add, with the caveat that no disrespect to your religious beliefs is intended or implied, that rejecting evolution in favour of Creationism doesn't really solve any moral issues either. In the Darwinian model, microbes that cause appalling diseases exist because they are very successful at adapting to survive and replicate; in the Creationist model, God created tuberculosis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, etc. etc., or, God created the earth as our dominion, but why, if He gave us animals to eat, do they experience pain when we kill them?

I'm not expecting your agreement on these specifics, simply hoping I have shown you a little of how one can very reasonably maintain two things:

[1] The model of life arising through evolution does not entail 'immoralty' or rampant selfishness

[2] Simply invoking a Creator, of whatever description, does not automatically illuminate moral questions (I'll leave alone for now the huge issue of how differences in various religious beliefs give rise to hugely different 'moralities'!)

Cordially and with respect...

[RogueIsland]

Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive. What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be? 1) Give the food to family B. 2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves. Be honest with yourself.

It would predict absolutely nothing. It does not predict the situational behavior of individual members of a species.

[b_sharp]

"What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?

"1) Give the food to family B.

"2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves.

"Be honest with yourself.

Kin selection, a part of the ToE, would predict that the actions of the two families would depend on how related those families felt they were. The relation does not have to be genetic but can be communal.

What did happen?

[Dimensio]

What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?

1) Give the food to family B. 2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves.

Be honest with yourself.

Darwin's theory of evolution cannot make any meaningful predictions regarding which family receives the food. It could make predictions about resultant offspring of the families once the action was known, but the theory does not apply in any way regarding who receives food in this scenario. Do you have a point to make beyond demonstrating that you do not understand proper applications of the theory of evolution?

[js1138]

Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive.

What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?

If you want a purely Darwinian response to a question like this you would need to ask the question of a species that does not pass morality on via religion and culture, but purely through natural selection.

I have a specific case history in mind. I had a mother cat that developed an abscess in her mouth and was unable to eat for a couple of weeks. We had lots of cats at the time and didn't notice immediately.

Under these circumstances, what would you predict the mother's behavior toward her babies would be. Would you expect her to keep feeding them, even though she was starving?

[Trimegistus]

"Suppose there are two families trapped in a hurricane ravaged area. There is enough food and water to keep one family alive.

"What would Darwin's theory predict the behavior of Family A to be?

"1) Give the food to family B.
"2) Take the food for family A and let family B fend for themselves."

The evolutionarily successful tactic would be to save the food for the children of both families. What would the Christian solution be?