M
MagicKirk
Guest
Hello.
I have an ongoing discussion with ru.empeirikos on a Yahoo stock trading forum. RU is an atheist and or discussion has really been all over the map. Obviously a stock trading forum is probably not the best place for our discussion. I have been trying to evangelize him to Christianity, while he is just as vigorously trying to convert me to atheism.
I am posting a copy of his most recent post on Yahoo. I have advised him that I’m copying it here and am inviting him to participate.
His post is as follows:
To show there are no hard feelings I want to tell you about the current debate on religion in the scientific community. Darwin explained altruism by a group selection mechanism, an individual doing something at a cost to his survival for the good of the greater group. In the 60s this explanation was discarded in favor of a gene centric mechanism for the selection process (Hamilton and Dawkins). Just recently DS Wilson and EO Wilson (no relation), an atheist and agnostic respectively, have revived group selection to explain why religious believe is prevalent in the majority of human cultures.
“The process known as group selection was once a central part of evolutionary theory. It seemed obvious that evolution would often favor traits that benefit groups—colonies, flocks, populations, entire species—rather than individual organisms. For example, groups that exercise restraint over their reproductive rate might be supposed to have an advantage over those that overpopulate their territory and quickly exhaust some critical resource. Later theorists recognized a flaw in this reasoning: The evolution of traits that involve sharing or cooperation could be undermined by “cheaters”—individuals who gain the benefits of group membership without contributing to the common welfare. After the 1960s, most biologists avoided explanations based on group selection and tried to describe all evolutionary events in terms of selection at the level of the individual. However, this extreme view gives misleading interpretations of many important biological phenomena. Now a more nuanced theory, generally known as multilevel selection theory, acknowledges competing selective forces within and between groups.”
They believe religion is a successful evolutionary adaptation. The overall good of religion for the group outweighs the cost of maintaining the practice by the individuals. Dawkins has only given a brief reply, hopefully a fuller rebuttal is being worked on.
…Any responses?
Kirk
I have an ongoing discussion with ru.empeirikos on a Yahoo stock trading forum. RU is an atheist and or discussion has really been all over the map. Obviously a stock trading forum is probably not the best place for our discussion. I have been trying to evangelize him to Christianity, while he is just as vigorously trying to convert me to atheism.
I am posting a copy of his most recent post on Yahoo. I have advised him that I’m copying it here and am inviting him to participate.
His post is as follows:
To show there are no hard feelings I want to tell you about the current debate on religion in the scientific community. Darwin explained altruism by a group selection mechanism, an individual doing something at a cost to his survival for the good of the greater group. In the 60s this explanation was discarded in favor of a gene centric mechanism for the selection process (Hamilton and Dawkins). Just recently DS Wilson and EO Wilson (no relation), an atheist and agnostic respectively, have revived group selection to explain why religious believe is prevalent in the majority of human cultures.
“The process known as group selection was once a central part of evolutionary theory. It seemed obvious that evolution would often favor traits that benefit groups—colonies, flocks, populations, entire species—rather than individual organisms. For example, groups that exercise restraint over their reproductive rate might be supposed to have an advantage over those that overpopulate their territory and quickly exhaust some critical resource. Later theorists recognized a flaw in this reasoning: The evolution of traits that involve sharing or cooperation could be undermined by “cheaters”—individuals who gain the benefits of group membership without contributing to the common welfare. After the 1960s, most biologists avoided explanations based on group selection and tried to describe all evolutionary events in terms of selection at the level of the individual. However, this extreme view gives misleading interpretations of many important biological phenomena. Now a more nuanced theory, generally known as multilevel selection theory, acknowledges competing selective forces within and between groups.”
They believe religion is a successful evolutionary adaptation. The overall good of religion for the group outweighs the cost of maintaining the practice by the individuals. Dawkins has only given a brief reply, hopefully a fuller rebuttal is being worked on.
…Any responses?
Kirk
