Walking with Andy Gosler | Wolfson Meadow

Agreed. It is better to avoid expressions that attribute subjective states to genes. Cooperation is more descriptive of the observable net effects rather than saying anything about the motivating factors as if all creatures make self aware choices.

2 Likes

RD discusses this issue in Chapt. 10 of the SG the title of which, “I scratch your back, You ride mine” reflects his belief in the Selfish Gene. In this chapter. he briefly discusses the ecological view of symbiosis, which is closest to cooperation as most people know it. RD rejects cooperation because the SG demands that it receive more out of the relationship than it puts into it and the SG is the successful gene.

In other words, cooperation and good faith are for losers according to RD, Cooperation is found in ecology, which is based on symbiosis and sharing, and not in evolution, which is based on conflict and exploitation.

RD is not selling science, but a worldview. That might be okay if you agree with this worldview, but it still should not be disguised “science” and those who criticize it called unscientific, when they are not.

Yes, RD is explaining that natural selection will ultimately favour those organisms that leave the most offspring relative to competitors, and that natural selection will thus favour cooperative behaviours that bring net benefits to the actor. But this is nothing new–all biologists would claim this is how natural selection works (i.e. evolution) operates. This is simply science, not a “worldview”. Dawkins DOES stray into a philosophical worldview (untestable by science) when he asserts atheism–that God did not create nature or the evolutionary process. (but that is something entirely different from the “selfish gene” idea). So, you might say that I (a Christian biologist) agree with Dawkin’s scientific account of Kin Selection and the “selfish gene concept”, but do not agree with his “atheistic philosophical worldview”. Evolutionary “self-centeredness” doesn’t bother me though, because we humans have the self-conscious capacity to override evolutionary inherited tendencies, if we so choose.

I still can’t understand how you can logically separate “ecology” from “evolution”. Ecological relationships in nature are themselves a result of evolution…

1 Like

Nowhere in the SG does RD say this or anything like it. Your reading into what RD thinks based on what you want him to think is a mistake, just as those who think that DJT thinks what they want him to think because he calls himself a conservative.

True natural selection is based on symbiosis. Why don’t we bringing unity into science and recognize how ecology completes evolution by making it clear ecology explains how natural selection works and survival of the fittest is a myth? RD is basically a troll.

It’s perfectly scientific to utterly ignore utterly unnecessary claims. Nature does not need God. There is nothing philosophical about that fact. It isn’t a worldview. It’s a brute fact. Furthermore nature isn’t atheist. There is no theistic synthesis that science has to overcome dialectically. Science, the only method of investigating reality, is the synthesis that has to be overcome with a superior antithesis. Let me know when you’ve got one. Theism isn’t it.

Natural selection is based on symbiosis??? That’s certainly not the accepted scientific definition… If that’s how you define NS and evolution, I think you might be misunderstanding what RD is saying.

2 Likes

He’s not the only one is he?

1 Like

Yes I agree. Science can study and propose only natural causes-and-effects. The supernatural (or lack thereof) simply can not enter the scientific method as a hypothesis, and science makes no claims about the functioning of the supernatural world (if it exists).

1 Like

: ) science doesn’t have to. As you know. Science, nature, reality precludes the supernatural. Meaning. And fully explains our yearning for it. Desire is its own magisterium. It doesn’t need to belittle science.

Your big problem is that you have admitted that RD is wrong about the basic process of evolution. Organisms are not selfish, but they cooperate. If RD is wrong about this how can he right about anything else.

The problem is that most people confuse the natural with the physical. Our genes have created brains that give us the ability to think and not make selfish choices, but there is no place in RD’s world for thinking because humans are controlled by our selfish genes.

Are humans rational? Yes, but not always.

Are humans able to love and share? Yes.

If science is about the Real, it must be able to deal with the Rational and Spiritual. I know that God has not made humans to be the automatons that RD says we are.

You have misunderstood me, and RD, unfortunately, and seem to be unfamiliar with the very basic concepts of natural selection and evolution. I wish you the best, but see no point to furthering the conversation in these circumstances.

4 Likes

So you are saying that the laws of evolution as found in the SG do not apply to humans even though RD has clearly said otherwise. "DNA neither knows nor cares. It just is. And we just dance to its music." Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, A Darwinian View** of Life (Basic Books,1995) p. 133.

Evolutionary “self-centeredness” doesn’t bother me though, because we humans have the self-conscious capacity to override evolutionary inherited tendencies, if we so choose.

You are right. Lies in themselves do not bother me, but what does not bother me is people who should know better and even say they know better, who say that the lies are true. You say that evolution is based on cooperation, whiles still saying itis based on RD’s SG. It has to be one or the other and RD has made it clear on which side he stands. You and BioLogos need to do likewise. Andy Gosler to his credit has chosen cooperation, which is why I commented.

How is it possible for genes, which cannot think, can create rational human beings out of nothing?

The arrogance of evolutionists is amazing and dangerous. The biological world does not center on evolution. .Evolution does not create climate change. It is not God.

Hi,
No, I’m agreeing with RD that evolution of DNA and associated behaviours also apply to humans and that DNA “doesn’t care” (that’s the “science” part). But I am disagreeing with RD’s philosophical interpretation of that science that “we…just” dance to it, because I think that human self-consciousness allows one to override evolutionary inherited tendencies. When reading Dawkins, one must tease apart his scientific statements from his personal-philosophic statements based on his atheism. I do think that RD should be more careful in his popular writing about confusing his own philosophical interpretations with “what science says” or with “the truth about everything”.

Cooperation (as described in evolution and by RD) brings a net benefit to the cooperator, so in this sense, it can be seen to be “selfish” in the sense that animals are still behaving so that they can leave the most offspring they can to the next generation. But “selfish” is probably a misleading word here because it implies in the vernacular language that the animal is always being aggressive or mean. “Individualistic” is probably the better word–by being nice to another animal “cooperating”, the animal expects others in the group to be nice in return–so that its niceness is repaid (reciprocity). So neither RD nor myself claim that such cooperation doesn’t exist in nature.

As I defined it earlier in this thread, it is only “True Altrism” which is impossible for natural selection to favour. In the biology terminology, “cooperation” is something entirely different from “true altruism”.

The questi9on here is whether the human mind evolved or not? if it evolved, which it clearly did, then the mind must have been programed to follow the survival of the fittest o9f the selfish gene.

When I read the SG I was impressed by RD’s commitment to Darwinism. Darwinism is an ideology based on survival of the fittest, not science. Therefore, RD strenuously opposed all who thought that natural selection was based on cooperation, be they ecologists or A. N Wilson.

The is not whether cooperation exists, bur whether it guides evolution. Look at Chapt 10 of the SG and tell me where it says that cooperation does.

No. It is not an ideology.
 

What did cooperation between the two climbers have to do with it? Nothing.

First of all evolutionary fitness is not about individuals, but about groups of organisms, such as species with different DNA.

Fitness is not physical fitness, but the ability to pass along to the next generation one’s DNA.

If a person is better prepared for a difficult task such as mountain climbing that is a strong indication that he or she engages in cooperative behavior, such as seeking out advice from experienced climbers, going through training, and using guides. Cooperation has much to do with the success of each climber.

That would be correct. You are still rather missing the point about it is not necessarily in competition with another species or even competition within a species, which is what my analogy demonstrates.

So please stop saying it is an ideology.

Darwinism as survival of the fittest is an ideology. Please tell me what you are talking about…

Prove it. Why isn’t it pure science. All you’ve been doing is repeatedly saying that.