Point taken, Warren. However, we must realize (going to your altruistic atheist) that morality and religion cannot be equated to the same thing. Either one can exist (and often do) without the other. Defining fitness for human populations is a bit more complex than for other organisms. If we take the standpoint that fitness is the genetic contribution of an individual to a population, then yes, being altruistic in the absence of expected supernatural transcendence may seem odd. However, many contend that any contribution to a next generation (a great work of art, an influential book, an influencial social change) should be considered into human fitness. There is also the aspect of whether we are ever completely altruistic. The seemingly altruistic behavior of one may enhance the environment in which his/her offspring will grow, thus enhancing the chances of perpetuating those genes. While this is far from the tragedy of the commons, it seems more like selfish genes to me. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera Assist. Prof./Director, Marine Sciences Program Department of Biology Jackson State University JSU Box18540 Jackson, MS 39217 Tel: (601) 979-3461 Fax: (601) 979-5853 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It is not the same to hear the devil as it is to see him coming your way" (Puerto Rican proverb) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren W. Aney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:35 PM Subject: Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution > James, I am pleased that I stimulated your thoughtful response on this > topic. We have much more to agree on than disagree. I agree that my > perspective is European-American, but would think that the religious > perspective I described includes Eastern and well as Western Europe. And > it > may be that the Southern Baptist perspective is closer to the Roman > Catholic > (and Eastern Orthodox) perspectives than you might think, particularly > when > it comes to contemporary issues such as abortion, homosexuality and > Biblical > inerrancy. And some Christian perspectives such as Unitarianism might be > more accepting of a Buddhist perspective than that of a fundamentalist > Christian. And fundamentalist Christians have a lot in common with > fundamentalist Muslims, at least in tactics if not in theology. > > I don't think I said that religion can explain the inexplicable (although > many people of faith do believe in that oxymoron). I tried to emphasize > that > there are some very important inexplicables, many having to do with > purpose -- purposes for creation at one end of the scale and for > individual > lives at the other. > > To me, one of the most amazing of inexplicable phenomena is the altruistic > atheist. To me, a life that denies ultimate purpose should be a life that > is > hedonistic and self-centered. Yet very many atheists are noble and > self-sacrificing supporters of peace, justice and charity. How does > Darwinian selection explain altruism towards another human who shares so > very little of your unique genotype? Where did this standard of behavior > come from and why do so many of us, regardless of faith, or lack thereof, > adhere to it even some of the time? This standard is so often mentioned > in > both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles (and in the Koran and in Buddhist > literature), that I wonder if it's somehow a transcendent message that's > been slowly and persistently filtering through human intellects. > > And I agree wholeheartedly that both the findings of science and the > scientific method should be a major part of everyone's public education. > Religion should also be part of everyone's education, but only as a course > in social science -- and it should teach about all religions and not teach > a > religion. There are many things that an educated person can only > understand > if they have knowledge of our religions and their stories -- things such > as > history, art, literature and politics. > > As Prof. E. O. Wilson says, "Science and religion are the two most > powerful > forces of society." We need to harness the combined power of both if we > are > going to solve some of the great challenges facing our world today (see > Wilson's 2006 book "The Creation"). Scientists, as responsible citizens, > cannot afford to dismiss religion as just superstition. > > Warren Aney > (503)246-8613 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of James J. Roper > Sent: Monday, 07 May, 2007 19:53 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution > > > Warren, > > This discussion is interesting, because it is so "Western European". We > forget that it is not just science versus christian perspectives out > there. There are approximately 2 billion christians out there, but this > lumps Southern Baptists with Roman Catholics, and they sure have little > in common with respect to their core beliefs. Islam is the second > largest (and growing) single religion (with around 1.3 billion), but by > the civil war in Iraq, we see that they are not quite unified either. > There are so many religious superstitions that it is clear that they > cannot all be right, and if they are not all right, then who is to say > which, if any is right? I am reminded of a quote: > > "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer > god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other > possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. > -Stephen Roberts > > You stated that science will never explain everything. I would reply > that which science cannot explain, nothing can explain. There indeed are > things that are inexplicable today. It is not an explanation to say > "god did it." The christian "intelligent design" concept is just that, > christian, not a general alternative to a scientific perspective. There > are many superstitious perspectives out there that are not scientific, > and perhaps some that are. Should we give them all equal credibility? > Should we demand rights for an unbiased education for all of them? > > No. We should demand that children are taught to think critically in > school, and the scientific method is the most effective way of > understanding nature invented as of yet. Thus, the scientific method > should be taught in schools, and all the many superstitions should have > no place in school - after all, to be fair, we should have either none, > or all! Science is not a religion, it is a method of knowing, and so to > teach scientific thinking is not analogous to teaching religion. > > Cheers, > > Jim > > > Warren W. Aney said the following on 07/May/07 18:01: >> As scientists, we need to understand and appreciate the wide range of > views >> in the religious world. Particularly in the Christian sphere, these >> views >> range all the way from strict biblical inerrancy ("the Bible was written > by >> man but dictated by God") to that of an appreciation for the biblical >> stories as one culture's attempts to understand and explain the >> inexplicable. >> >> So with the subject of evolution some religious groups may say that > creation >> happened 6000 years ago in the exact 6-day timeframe and sequence as >> described in the first chapter of Genesis (ignoring or rationalizing away >> some conflicting sequences described in another creation story in the > second >> chapter of Genesis). The intelligent design proponents may say these >> Genesis stories are more allegorical, that all this may have taken > billions >> of years as science says, but God intervened and continues to intervene >> at >> each stage of the process (the tinkering clockmaker metaphor). The >> Deists >> say that God set the process in motion but has not been involved since > (God >> as the perfect clockmaker). And then some say that God set in motion a >> process and a set of laws that produced what we scientifically understand > (a >> self-adjusting and ever-changing clock, to carry the metaphor to an >> extreme). >> >> All of these religious viewpoints would agree that there are things that >> science will never be able to explain. In the >> who-what-where-when-why-how >> of inquiry, they say the realm of science is the what-where-when-how and > the >> realm of religion is the who-why (perhaps it would be more precise to say >> that science handles "why" and "what" at the cause and effect level but >> religion deals with them at the transcendent level). >> >> Some religious groups have insisted and continue to insist that science > will >> never be able to demonstrate some of the what-where-when-how stuff (600 >> years ago it was the motion of the earth around the sun, now it's >> evidence >> of one species actually evolving into another). That's what seems to be >> behind their promoting the investigation of certain high-profile concepts >> such as creationism with scientific methodology, e.g., the International >> Journal of Creation Research. But these efforts tend to be >> self-defeating >> as science continues to find solid explanations for these phenomena: > today's >> divine intervention becomes tomorrow's testable hypothesis and next >> year's >> verified and measured fact. >> >> Other religious groups are quite satisfied to say, with some confidence, >> that science will never provide an explanation for such basic questions > as: >> Why is there something instead of nothing? What is nothing? What was > there >> before there was something? What is beyond the universe? What is beyond >> time? Since information is infinite and we are finite, can we ever know >> everything? These are the inexplicables, these others say, that fall >> into >> the realm of religion. >> >> So where we get into trouble as scientists is when we insist that only >> the >> scientifically observable realm is real and important; that the religious >> realm is just irrelevant superstition. We may indidually choose to >> believe >> that to be the case, but we shouldn't do so with a hubris of scientific >> arrogance by saying, in effect, if it can't be measured it can't be >> valid. >> As I said before, science is never going to be able to explain >> everything. >> What science can and will explain is crucial, but some of the > inexplicables >> are pretty important to quite a few other people. And many of these other >> people are rational scientists. >> >> Warren W. Aney >> Senior Wildlife Ecologist >> (and Presbyterian elder) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ashwani Vasishth >> Sent: Saturday, 05 May, 2007 08:22 >> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >> Subject: News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us/politics/05darwin.html?ref=science >> >> A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin >> >> By PATRICIA COHEN >> Published: May 5, 2007 >> >> Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the >> right about whether God or science better explains the origins of >> life. But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, >> not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory >> undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it >> actually support conservative philosophy? >> >> On one level the debate can be seen as a polite discussion of >> political theory among the members of a small group of intellectuals. >> But the argument also exposes tensions within the Republicans' "big >> tent," as could be seen Thursday night when the party's 10 candidates >> for president were asked during their first debate whether they >> believed in evolution. Three - Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas; Mike >> Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas; and Representative Tom >> Tancredo of Colorado - indicated they did not. >> >> For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith >> and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces >> abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they >> abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design, >> which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an >> intelligent power could have created it. >> >> Yet it is that very embrace of intelligent design - not to mention >> creationism, which takes a literal view of the Bible's Book of >> Genesis - that has led conservative opponents to speak out for fear >> their ideology will be branded as out of touch and anti-science. >> >> [...] >> >> Cheers, >> - >> Ashwani >> Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 >> http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ >> http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth >> >> > > -- > James J. Roper, Ph.D. <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Universidade Federal do Paraná > Depto. de Zoologia > Caixa Postal 19020 > 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764 > celular: 55 41 99870543 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia > <http://www.ararajuba.org.br/sbo/ararajuba/revbrasorn.htm> > Zoologia na UFPR <http://zoo.bio.ufpr.br/zoologia/> > Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Currículo Lattes <http://lattes.cnpq.br/2553295738925812> > E-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Phone/Fone/Teléfono: 55 41 33611764 > Alternativa: 55 41 33857249 > celular: 55 41 99870543 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ecologia e Conservação na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> > Páginas Académicas <http://jjroper.googlepages.com/home> > Consultoria e Traduções <http://arsartium.googlepages.com/home> > XXVII Congresso Brasileiro de Zoologia <http://www.cbz2008.com.br/> > Call me! <skype:jjroper?call>
