Search This Blog

Sunday, June 30, 2019

Altruism, Creation, and Evolution

On one hand, people will try to destroy others who do not agree with their views. On the other hand, we try to help others at considerable personal risk, and have even signed on to perform rescues on a regular basis. We are a baffling bunch at times. Darwin and his followers cannot explain altruism.

Darwin and his followers cannot explain morality and altruism, even with game theory. Christians and creationists know the source.
Credit: RGBStock / Copta
Helping others is hit or miss. We can be horrified or angry when someone refuses to help someone else, such as on an episode of Barney Miller: Officer Stan Wojciehowicz arrested someone for not grabbing a purse snatcher. This child believes that at the very least, people can call an emergency number to possibly save a life or property.

Some folks think that morality (thus, altruism) are the result of evolution, but that idea is loco. But they keep trying, saying that human cooperation is because of evolution; we evolved it for a purpose. (So, evolution is blind and purposeless except when it isn't, natural selection magically did it. Right.) Why are animals altruistic toward each other, and they sometimes save people, Papa Darwin? Some evolutionists are attempting to plug altruism into game theory. Actually, morality and altruism come from the source that is anathema to naturalists.

One aspect of being made in our Creator's image is morality. This is expressed through kindness, compassion, and altruism. God cares not only about us, but about animals, and we take care of our own beasts as well as forming animal rescue organizations. However, we are not highly-evolved animals, and caring for critters as well as for each other cannot be reasonable explained through evolutionary thinking or evolutionary mysticism that denies God.
Jargon-rich theories to explain altruism in Darwinian terms melt in the light of justice.
To Darwinians, morality is just a game. Literally. Evolutionists have long turned to game theory and other tricks to try to explain humans’ propensity to care for others. Altruism has been a conundrum for natural selection ever since Darwin considered it. Evolutionists have come up with possibilities like kin selection (the notion that caring for one’s kin increases the fitness of the family), group selection (expanding the target of selection to populations), and reciprocal altruism (“you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”), but those notions fail to explain many examples of self-sacrifice, including human altruism. People will send money around the world to help those in need that they will likely never meet, and risk their lives to rescue strangers. How did that evolve?
Darwinists have fought among themselves over competing hypotheses for the evolution of altruism. Those fights, however, are usually kept out of public view. Current Biology, an expensive Darwin-Only paywall journal, published a series of open-access articles last week on the evolution of altruism as if to hold an open house. “No controversy here,” the articles proclaim. “Darwin our champion can still take on all comers.” But do the game theorists succeed in connecting their toy models to reality? Let’s take a look.
To continue reading, click on "Evolution Cannot Do Justice to Morality".