Replies

We can speculate all we want about whether or not altruism is consistent with Darwinian evolution. I agree that the widespread existence of altruism does not by itself "disprove" Darwinism. But I also think that attempts to depict it as consistent with Darwinism are speculative at best.

Speculation is fine, but the problem is that too many evolutionists take that speculation as tantamount to additional corroboration of Darwinism. As long as any Darwinian explanation is *plausible*, they are contented. In other words, they simply believe what they want to believe and belittle anyone who does not see it the way they see it.

You wrote, "In other words, they simply believe what they want to believe and belittle anyone who does not see it the way they see it."

Agreed, which is why I was careful to qualify my statement about instinctive herd mentality as a possible explanation for altruism. I'm a commercial artist, not a scientist, so I just go where the logic takes me--with the caveat 'Well, I could be wrong.'

I think that is what bothers me the most about the whole debate: guys like Dawkins claim reason as their champion, yet commit any number of fallacies that would disqualify a freshman member of the high school debating team. Creationists, on the other hand, act as if the Bible was designed as a science textbook, which it most emphatically isn't. I don't recall God explaining atomic structure to Moses, for example.

Scientists should concern themselves with the How, not the Who. For that matter, Christian preachers and theologians should keep their own eyes on the prize. All of this time and energy expended attempting to disprove evolution and to promote Creationism is a costly distraction, in my view. Is salvation dependent on non-belief in evolutionary theory? I doubt even the most religiously devout, literalist opponent of Darwin's ideas would make that claim.

"Speculation is fine, but the problem is that too many evolutionists take that speculation as tantamount to additional corroboration of Darwinism. As long as any Darwinian explanation is *plausible*, they are contented. In other words, they simply believe what they want to believe and belittle anyone who does not see it the way they see it."

Bravo! - You have therein captured the essence of Evolutionism.

We can speculate all we want about whether or not altruism is consistent with Darwinian evolution.

This is equivalent to "speculating" about whether or not two plus two equals four.

It is obvious on the face of it that creatures that effectively defend groups that include their relatives will propagate their genes into future generations more effectively than those that don't, all else being equal.