What’s in it for me?

[Mike Elphick]

In a recent article on AiG we read:-

Evolutionists have long struggled to explain human generosity. Evolutionary dogma dictates that behavior patterns which “unnecessarily give up resources without return” should die out in favor of behaviors that “retain those resources” for self or family. Some have argued that other group dynamics are involved. But no model has explained the evolution of altruistic behavior toward complete strangers.
News to Note, August 6, 2011 (my bolding)

Why is it that creationists deny the possibility that the qualities we admire so much in human beings, like our spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy — in other words moral behaviour in general — could have evolved? In consequence (although this does not follow) they claim it must be the gift of God, as commanded in the Bible. After all, 'evolutionists' can do as they please!!!

In fact, Darwin himself offered the solution a long time ago:-

It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.
Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, CHAPTER V.

In this weeks New Scientist Magazine, there is an excellent article that explains the mechanism (and the history behind it) very well.

Darwin's problem is an unavoidable fact of life for all species, including our own: prosocial adaptations usually put individuals at a disadvantage relative to other members of their group. The only way for them to evolve is if there is another layer to the process of natural selection. That layer is group selection. More prosocial groups robustly outcompete less prosocial groups, which means a prosocial trait's between-group advantage can make up for its disadvantage within groups. It's that simple.
Selfless evolution: A new consensus

I ask again, why do creationist ignore what Darwin wrote? Why to they turn a blind eye to the latest research on the subject? Is it because they don't know enough about evolution? Or maybe they want a monopoly on moral behaviour?

 

[Astridhere]

In a recent article on AiG we read:-



Why is it that creationists deny the possibility that the qualities we admire so much in human beings, like our spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy — in other words moral behaviour in general — could have evolved? In consequence (although this does not follow) they claim it must be the gift of God, as commanded in the Bible. After all, 'evolutionists' can do as they please!!!

In fact, Darwin himself offered the solution a long time ago:-



In this weeks New Scientist Magazine, there is an excellent article that explains the mechanism (and the history behind it) very well.



I ask again, why do creationist ignore what Darwin wrote? Why to they turn a blind eye to the latest research on the subject? Is it because they don't know enough about evolution? Or maybe they want a monopoly on moral behaviour?

I, as a creationist ignore Darwin mostly because he was wrong and the New Modern Synthesis is an attempt to keep Darwin alive, as best they can.

As far as morality is concerned all this research is going nowhere. A gorilla, male silverback, has protected a child that had fallen in their zoo cage from the other gorillas and was seen stroking the child while he lay unconscious. A female gorilla also picked up a child that had fallen into their cage and took the child to the cage entry for the staff to take the child.These gorillas appear to have demonstrated compassion for another species, which is a moral reflection.

Patriotism... apes show a version of this for the clan or group, some non human species mate once for life. Many species show great courage, and obedience to the dominant male, sympathy and inter species compassion has been displayed as stated by gorillas etc.

So, either some ape common ancestor was already moral and compassionate, by your descriptor, or these traits 'evolved' independantly in many species and demonstrates nothing in relation to the rise of mankind.

Mankind was created in the image of God and therefore has an ability to comprehend God, and an afterlife, with high level reasoning and perceptive ability and sophisticated language, all human features not created in apes.

 

[Tabletform]

I, as a creationist ignore Darwin mostly because he was wrong

Whoever told you that told you a lie, they also told you because they knew you would just believe it and never check out the truth of it for yourself.
You and the others like you are heaven sent for the charlatans and con men of this world.

 

[Skaloop]

Mankind was created in the image of God and therefore has an ability to comprehend God, and an afterlife, with high level reasoning and perceptive ability and sophisticated language, all human features not created in apes.

Well, aside from the fact that humans are apes, so anything created in humans is by definition created in apes, you're wrong on the reasoning and perceptive ability parts. Gorillas, chimps, and other non-human apes exhibit those traits to varying degrees.

You're right about language, though. We're the only extant species with language.

 

[Mike Elphick]

I, as a creationist ignore Darwin mostly because he was wrong and the New Modern Synthesis is an attempt to keep Darwin alive, as best they can.

As far as morality is concerned all this research is going nowhere. A gorilla, male silverback, has protected a child that had fallen in their zoo cage from the other gorillas and was seen stroking the child while he lay unconscious. A female gorilla also picked up a child that had fallen into their cage and took the child to the cage entry for the staff to take the child.These gorillas appear to have demonstrated compassion for another species, which is a moral reflection.

Patriotism... apes show a version of this for the clan or group, some non human species mate once for life. Many species show great courage, and obedience to the dominant male, sympathy and inter species compassion has been displayed as stated by gorillas etc.

So, either some ape common ancestor was already moral and compassionate, by your descriptor, or these traits 'evolved' independantly in many species and demonstrates nothing in relation to the rise of mankind.

Mankind was created in the image of God and therefore has an ability to comprehend God, and an afterlife, with high level reasoning and perceptive ability and sophisticated language, all human features not created in apes.

Thank you, but you've not answered the questions. You've picked up on levels of altruism in our ape cousins, but they don't have fully developed systems for curbing individual selection — something that is essential for group selection to work well. I'd go so far as to say that man suffers from a dilemma — the contradictory forces of selfishness (individual selection) against instincts for group survival. You can see this dilemma in the Genesis stories of the Fall and Curse and the development of concepts of sin. It's also not all to do with genetics and neo-Darwinism, but perhaps more so with cultural evolution. Ignoring Darwin, because someone told you he is wrong, is a mistake. If you have personally worked out that he, and other evolutionary biologists, are wrong, perhaps you could supply the evidence that invalidates the theory of evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

I, as a creationist ignore Darwin mostly because he was wrong and the New Modern Synthesis is an attempt to keep Darwin alive, as best they can.

No, the modern synthesis was a sucessful attempt to combine genetics with Darwinian evolution. Darwin could not explain where the variation that natural selection worked on originally came from, nor could he (correctly) explain the mechanism of heredity. Genetics explains these mechanisms. Thus, The modern synthesis explains heredity, variation and evolution all together. Where is the problem?

So, either some ape common ancestor was already moral and compassionate, by your descriptor, or these traits 'evolved' independantly in many species and demonstrates nothing in relation to the rise of mankind.

What is wrong with the former conclusion?

 

[Greg1234]

AIG should already know that Creationism is to idealism what Darwinism is to materialism. If you do it, Darwinism most likely did it.

 

[juvenissun]

In a recent article on AiG we read:-



Why is it that creationists deny the possibility that the qualities we admire so much in human beings, like our spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy — in other words moral behaviour in general — could have evolved? In consequence (although this does not follow) they claim it must be the gift of God, as commanded in the Bible. After all, 'evolutionists' can do as they please!!!

In fact, Darwin himself offered the solution a long time ago:-



In this weeks New Scientist Magazine, there is an excellent article that explains the mechanism (and the history behind it) very well.



I ask again, why do creationist ignore what Darwin wrote? Why to they turn a blind eye to the latest research on the subject? Is it because they don't know enough about evolution? Or maybe they want a monopoly on moral behaviour?

Do you mean early human worried about the survival of human race?

Do not kid yourself. We don't even worry about it now.

The idea is simply a fantasy.

 

[Mike Elphick]

Do you mean early human worried about the survival of human race?

No, I do not! Please read the OP more carefully, you've not understood it:-

If you consider that natural selection works at multiple-levels (genes, gametes, mates, individuals, groups and perhaps even species), and that it is NOT restricted to selection of selfish individuals, then evolution DOES offer an explanation for altruistic behaviour and the development of human morals.

Creationists deceive their followers by stating that evolution cannot explain ethical behaviour, and indeed, they go so far as to say that evolution is an entirely selfish phenomenon — it is not — evolution is just as much about cooperation.

 

[Jazer]

No, the modern synthesis was a sucessful attempt to combine genetics with Darwinian evolution. Darwin could not explain where the variation that natural selection worked on originally came from, nor could he (correctly) explain the mechanism of heredity. Genetics explains these mechanisms. Thus, The modern synthesis explains heredity, variation and evolution all together. Where is the problem?

The problem is that Darwin had a copy of Mendels book on his shelf and he never even read it. As important as Genetics is to evolutionary theory today it just does not make any sense that Darwin would disregard it in his day. If Darwin had pure motives then how could he have missed it?

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/MBG/MBG2/MBG.Question.02.html

 

[Mike Elphick]

The problem is that Darwin had a copy of Mendels book on his shelf and he never even read it. As important as Genetics is to evolutionary theory today it just does not make any sense that Darwin would disregard it in his day. If Darwin had pure motives then how could he have missed it?

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/MBG/MBG2/MBG.Question.02.html

Darwin did not have "a copy of Mendels book on his shelf and he never even read it". The truth is more complicated:-

There were two books in Darwin's library collection at Down House and neither contains "the full text of Mendel's work with all its conclusions".

W.O. Focke's book "Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge" (1881), briefly mentioned Gregor Mendel's discoveries on hybridization but "Mendel takes his place in the book alongside a host of other plant hybridisers. Overall, no special note was taken by Focke of the 'theoretical potential' of Mendel's work." Moreover, the book was acquired by Darwin less than 18 months before his death.

The second relevant book was "Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung des Werthes von Species und Varietät" (1869), by H. Hoffmann. However, Hoffmann himself "did not recognize anything exceptional in Mendel's results and was thus not capable of introducing his readership to their significance."

The extent of Charles Darwin's knowledge of Mendel.
Did Darwin have a copy of Mendel's paper?
Wilhelm Olbers Focke

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

The problem is that Darwin had a copy of Mendels book on his shelf and he never even read it. As important as Genetics is to evolutionary theory today it just does not make any sense that Darwin would disregard it in his day. If Darwin had pure motives then how could he have missed it?

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/MBG/MBG2/MBG.Question.02.html

It's a curious historical fact, but Mendel's work wasn't widely appreciated until later, after Mendel's death.

Besides, Mendel's work on Genetics is a lot like Darwin's work on Evolution. The modern understanding of it completely dwarfs the father of the theory.

 

[Split Rock]

The problem is that Darwin had a copy of Mendels book on his shelf and he never even read it. As important as Genetics is to evolutionary theory today it just does not make any sense that Darwin would disregard it in his day. If Darwin had pure motives then how could he have missed it?

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/MBG/MBG2/MBG.Question.02.html

Please explain how this would be a problem for the Modern Synthesis. Also, explain what you mean by "pure motives." What do Darwin's motives have to do with the accuracy of his theory? What are your motives posting here? Are they pure? Should we judge your posts by our perception of the "purity" of your motives?

 

[Mike Elphick]

I thought it wouldn't be long before creationists started blaming 'evolution' for the atrocities committed in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik. It's a pity. My wife is a Norwegian and we have both been very upset by it all, but reading today's article "Norway terrorist: more media mendacity" made me believe it is relevant to this thread.

Breivik was extremely far from being a Christian, even according to his own words. But even without that, it’s important to remember what we have often pointed out: atrocities committed in the name of Christianity were inconsistent with real Christianity, which is revealed in the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible that would do anything but condemn Breivik’s monstrous deeds. But atrocities in the name of evolution are consistent with the theory, as we have explained in articles such as Christian vs evolutionary atrocities and The Bible vs slavery and apartheid.

Let me make it clear: I don't believe either Christianity or a proper understanding of the Theory of Evolution had anything to do with this particular atrocity.

The hypothesis outlined in the OP is that humans evolved moral codes of conduct by a process in which cooperative, altruistic traits developed at the expense of the selfish ones more usually associated with individual selection. It is suggested this occurred, mainly by selection at the group level. See the New Scientist Article Selfless evolution: A new consensus.

The process of multilevel selection, principally through the formation of groups that competed with one another, explains not only why there are within-group rules against killing, theft and so on, but why these rules do not strictly apply when it comes to between-group conflict, as seen in recent human history (and in the Bible), and why, even today, there is racism, tribalism and warfare. It also explains why the process of individual selection has been moderated and how this has been achieved partly through the possession of a conscience.

Of course this does not rule out atrocities, especially of war between groups (which have been going on for millennia), but it does ensure that individuals behave within the rules of their society, so murder, and particularly mass killings by individuals, are extremely rare occurrences. Remember that such behaviour is also punished by society. See Altruistic Punishment

To deny that the Bible has not condoned wars and atrocities is ridiculous. Just read the article on this creationist website "What does the Bible say about war?"

Conclusion

The atrocity committed by Breivik can be explained by:-

1. Christians, on the basis of man's 'sin nature'.
   
   
2. A deranged individual who has a distorted view of science (evolution) and society.

But for creationists to say that "atrocities in the name of evolution are consistent with the theory", is just not true: atrocities committed in the name of evolution are actually inconsistent with the theory and are just another example of the creationists' denial that the qualities we admire in human beings — our moral behaviour in general — could have evolved.

 

[juvenissun]

No, I do not! Please read the OP more carefully, you've not understood it:-

If you consider that natural selection works at multiple-levels (genes, gametes, mates, individuals, groups and perhaps even species), and that it is NOT restricted to selection of selfish individuals, then evolution DOES offer an explanation for altruistic behaviour and the development of human morals.

Creationists deceive their followers by stating that evolution cannot explain ethical behaviour, and indeed, they go so far as to say that evolution is an entirely selfish phenomenon — it is not — evolution is just as much about cooperation.

How far away is your ethical behavior from chimps ethical behavior?
How far away is chimps ethical behavior from fishes ethical behavior?

The difference can not be better shown than the comparisons.

Ethical behavior can NOT be evolved. Just like you can not control what your adult child will do.

 

[hasone]

How far away is your ethical behavior from chimps ethical behavior?
How far away is chimps ethical behavior from fishes ethical behavior?

The difference can not be better shown than the comparisons.

Ethical behavior can NOT be evolved. Just like you can not control what your adult child will do.

What are you saying here? I find your post difficult to parse.

 

[juvenissun]

What are you saying here? I find your post difficult to parse.

This curve does NOT say evolution !

 

[MoonLancer]

This curve does NOT say evolution !

your right. the word evolution has not been placed on the image you posted

 

[Mike Elphick]

Ethical behavior can NOT be evolved.

Did you read the New Scientist abstract? If you wish I will PM you the complete article (and anyone else), which explains how ethical behaviour CAN evolve.

If you want to close your eyes and ears, then please explain WHY ethical behaviour could not have evolved.

 

[juvenissun]

Did you read the New Scientist abstract? If you wish I will PM you the complete article (and anyone else), which explains how ethical behaviour CAN evolve.

If you want to close your eyes and ears, then please explain WHY ethical behaviour could not have evolved.

I don't care how would anyone explain the evolution of intelligence (include the ethical behavior), The huge gap between that of human and other animals DOES NOT say evolution. Whatever mechanism of evolution is suggested, it has to explain the ultrafast pace of change between human and chimp, and the virtually no change among animals. No current model can do that.