>I see this principle, applied to altruism, as support to theism not as
>an affront. I have heard altruism in the past as an example
>disproving evolutionary thought. With all do respect to everyone, I
>submit this theory as a correlation. Isn't this an area where we can
>all agree?
The problem with sociobiology is that it is unfalsifiable. There is no
such thing as an altruistic act. Therefore any seeming altruism really
stems from the desire to promote one's self and ones genes. I have tried
example after example of what to me is clearly altruistic behavior (For
example, a French exchange student was walking along the lake shore in
Dallas and saw two girls drowning in a capsized boat. He plunged in and
rescued them. He wasn't doing it for any selfish motive that I could
detect (he was returning home to France that week), but my sociobiologist
friend quickly invented a plausible one), and a sociobiologist friend,
always manages to rescue my examples from altruism. Was Christ's
"sacrifice" on the cross altruistic? Not according to sociobiological
standards. Where do you draw the line? I see altruism. My
sociobiological friend sees self preservation. Who is right? I wouldn't
trade places with him for anything. If there is no altruism, there is no
reason to live. Self preservation will never hack it as a motive for
living forever.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu