Morality in a group is a form of cooperation. Human groups that cooperate are more likely to succeed, when compared to a group that is immoral. So, it is wrong to suggest that evolution selects against morality. Cooperation in a group is a non-zero sum game, similar to the prisoner's dilemma. I feel as though I am repeating myself, since I have made the same point again and again in these thread.
It gets rather tedious to have to refute the same silly ideas about evolution, again and again. Maybe it would be better if there wasn't any debate on FR about evolution. Some of the FR creationists do not believe in logic, or evidence. One guy on here even believes that the earth orbited Saturn. So, it would seem that these threads completely lack any instructional value.
Secondly, one rule of debate is to address the points raised by your opposition. Since creationists do not believe in evidence or logic, they resort to quotes from the bible. This is not evidence, since there isn't any evidence to support statements arising from that book. Belief is a matter of faith, and can't be used in an argument based on evidence and logic.
Third, some of the creationists engage in personal attacks, of either the posters on these threads, or on public individuals like Gould. This is distasteful, because it does not address the merits of the issue at hand.
Fourth, creationists do not address the strongest arguments for evolution, and resort to attacks on tangential issues. For example, one poster questioned the Big Bang theory in his criticism of evolution. The Big Bang has the same relevance to evolution as the theory of gravity. Disproof of either the Big Bang, or Einsteinian gravity, would not affect the fossil and genetic evidence for evolution.
The quality of the debate is so poor that perhaps it would be better if it is not discussed at all.
Of course it does. That is what natural selection is all about - selecting amongst the most successful individuals so that the species would be more successful. That is why many call "selection" survival of the fittest. Selection is not about a struggle between species, it is about the struggle within a species to find the individuals who are the most successful and the ones most able to survive. It is about spreading the traits of the successful throughout the species.
You've provided a candidate definition for morality, against which can be stated many others, including "he who dies with the most toys, wins." Your definition says nothing, however, beyond the idea that morality is defined by success -- a good working definition of utilitarianism.
So, it is wrong to suggest that evolution selects against morality.
Not precisely. It is certainly wrong to suggest that evolution selects against cooperation. You're the one equating cooperation with morality. However, cooperation is not an evolutionary absolute, either. And at any rate, if cooperation=morality, Gengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, or Nazi Germany were highly moral groups of folks.
Cooperation in a group is a non-zero sum game, similar to the prisoner's dilemma.
Not even remotely true, as a quick glance around you will show. If cooperation were truly zero-sum, we'd still be shivering in caves rather than conversing via FR.
I feel as though I am repeating myself, since I have made the same point again and again in these thread.
While I haven't encountered these claims from you before, I highly doubt that they'd be any more convincing the 30th time around.
It gets rather tedious to have to refute the same silly ideas about evolution, again and again.
Perhaps it's because you haven't refuted the point being made.....
What "arguments for" are there?? What "logic"?? What "evidence"??
There can be only one truth to the matter of 'Big Bang/Evolutionism vs. Creationism. The only significent factor is evidence of a "designer" or creator....
Nobelist Linus Pauling puts the issue into perpective:
"A single cell, the smallest living unit, is "more complicated than New York City." "The 'simplist' self-sufficient cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules, at different times and under different conditions. Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintanance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication -- ALL of these functions take place in virtually every cell, and each function itself requires the interaction of numerous parts...If any part of this incredibly complex biochemical machinery is not functioning properly, the cell will die.
Even Evolutionst-guru and Oxford University zoolologist Richard Dawkins himself admitted in his book, 'The Blind Watchmaker' that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." He also concludes that every cell, either of a plant or animal, contains in its nucleus "a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together."
Then there's Sir Fred Hoyle. He calculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. We won't pile on with the research Behe and Johnson...
Life and creation just mere cosmic random acts? Huh?!? Still think it terribly backwards of creationists to ignore the evolutionist "proof"? To believe in evolutionism is truly believing in the absurd.
And the reason for the push and obsession with teaching evolutionism? 'The American Athiest' provides some chilling insight:
"But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is fiction. If sin is fiction, then we have no need for a Savior...Evolution destroys utterly and finally the VERY REASON [FOR] JESUS' EARTHLY LIFE...If Jesus was not the Redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."