Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paloma_55
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...

48 posted on 09/13/2005 5:28:38 AM PDT by SeaLion (I wanted to be an orphan, but my parents wouldn't let me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: SeaLion

Very well stated.

I think your argument that supporting one another can be construed as a survival mechanism, but then it contradicts that other survival mechanism, clubbing the hell out of each other.

Contradictions exist and I guess they are supposed to work themselves out over time, eh?

As for why disease exists... there is a contradiction in the Bible on this. God created the perfect world..but then introduced fallibility because a perfect world would simply be like a painting, never changing. He wanted to be loved, but love demanded, will not exist. So He created the choice to love Him or deny Him. Perfection is no longer complete without imperfection.

It is this absense of perfection, the bad things, that make the good things good.


101 posted on 09/13/2005 6:47:40 AM PDT by Paloma_55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson