question for evolutionists

Hi i'm new and from England. I mention the latter because over here there doesn't seem to be a very open debate about creationism versus evolutionism - so the whole thing is a bit new to me.......I'll get to the point first and then give you a bit of background to it if you are inclined to read it all.The point is a question for evolutionists. How does one come to terms with a theory like selfish gene theory?Okay here's the background:I am wondering about how all this makes people FEEL as well as what they think - cos i know how it made me feel when i first came across it............pretty depressed, like life had become futile and meaningless.I don't have a problem with evolution otherwise, i can even deal with the possibility that there is no God or no soul or spirit - but to me there was always MEANING. Don't ask me to explain this because i cannot, it's what they refer to as ineffable. Sitting out in nature amongst the trees, seeing the sunset, seeing an innocent face of a baby animal, looking at a rose,........all these things just seemed so profound and like within everything there was the key to the meaning of it all......then i came across Richard Dawkins and the selfish gene idea! and i cannot criticise this man's quest for what's true as opposed to what could be delusion - but neither can i sit comfortably with his theory.Perhaps i'm sounding all ridiculous and twee - that's not really me, but it's late here and i just wanted to get this post done quickly.It's just become that now when i look at nature, which was always my sanctuary, i can only see how all it's beauty has arisen from cut throat competition!Anyway i'm curious as to other's perspectives on this, particularly evolutionists, as i am not really religious - though perhaps i had pantheist leanings before (seeing a divinity within the physicality of nature)Thanks for reading and glad to have found this site! I've read loads of your posts nowthe cat{Moved, per originators request, to "Evolution" forum - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-06-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the cat:
How does one come to terms with a theory like selfish gene theory?

---

... never felt the need to 'come to terms with it.'

quote:

---

I am wondering about how all this makes people FEEL as well as what they think - cos i know how it made me feel when i first came across it............pretty depressed, like life had become futile and meaningless.

---

Life is no different than it was before.

quote:

---

...all these things just seemed so profound and like within everything there was the key to the meaning of it all...

---

Ah.... yes, young jedi! The Dark Night of the Soul.

quote:

---

but neither can i sit comfortably with his theory.

---

I don't get it. What is there that is so threatening about the selfish-gene idea, assuming it is correct?

quote:

---

It's just become that now when i look at nature, which was always my sanctuary, i can only see how all it's beauty has arisen from cut throat competition!

---

You cheer at sports events, yes?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Hi cat,You're not alone. I'd suggest reading "Unweaving the Rainbow" by Dawkins, which is an antidote to all that existentialist angst you might torture yourself with after coming to terms with the selfish gene (the "selfish" gene as replicator was a concept which Dawkins found useful to explain evolution, it of course also needs to be "co-operative" where appropriate).Point, purpose, function - all words invented by humans. Life's what you make it.PE

dearYou say:
'..Richard Dawkins and the selfish gene idea..'PB: Richard Dawkins is already backpeddeling on his selfish gene stupidity. (read his book 'Unweaving the rainbow')
Besides, it can be demonstrated that he doesn't even know the most elementary stuff on DNA (see my thread: Richard Dawkins...exposed), so let alone genes (He is a zoologist; You don't go to the bakery to buy meat, isn't it?). And since the scientific proof of non-random mutations, his ideas are completely redundant.best wishes,
Peter
Peter

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by the cat:Ah.... yes, young jedi! The Dark Night of the Soul.I don't get it. What is there that is so threatening about the selfish-gene idea, assuming it is correct?You cheer at sports events, yes?[/B][/QUOTE]Thanks for your reply! the Jedi bit - could you explain and sorry to be thick but i've never seen Star Wars!Yes i do cheer at sports events and yes there is something good about competition for all of us, never had a problem with competition - but in nature, competition is the fight for life! What i find threatening about selfish gene theory is that, competition aside, the theory is not just about 'selfishness' but about the development of a disregard for life in all organisms unless it is kin - ie unless that life has the same or similar genes to itself. I find that threatening as i always thought we evolved from natural systems and were very similar to the animals - kill for food but that's it, now it would appear that animals kill the babies of others so that their own offspring will perpetuate. I know people will now say that they are not concious of this - but if life is the result of intelligent design (not necessarily a God in the religious sense, but divine nature) - what sort of intelligence is that?! Whether or not the animal is concious of this - it does it and this is what maintains the balance of life on earth - so to me the threat is that i cannot 'escape' to nature anymore, it's not the thing i thought it was - the theory of which i speak appears to suggest that there is no inherent morality in nature, therefore no matter how beautiful it all looks..........i'm lost, it may not be what i always thought it was.......anyway i'm rambling. I did like the 'sports events' metaphor though - there is something great about competition and struggle and challenge as well!the cat

Primordial Egg and Peter Borger - thanks for your replies and for suggesting the 'Unweaving the Rainbow' book. I have literally avoided anything written by Dawkins - thinking it would only bother me further, but actually have also thought that i should re-read Selfish gene and other books and really get my head round it and come to grips with it.So as you have both suggested the same book then perhaps i should take a look - thought the title 'unweaving the rainbow' doeasn't sound too promising!Peter i will also look at the other information that you have suggested and thanks!the cat

Just had a thought - if we were merely 'gene machines' and selfish ones at that, wouldn't we embrace the theory rather than feel uncomfortable with it? surely we would never experience 'existential angst', as long as our genes were passed on?'Does the fact that we wonder mean that there is something else or at least a transcendence of our biology?

quote:

---

Thanks for your reply! the Jedi bit - could you explain and sorry to be thick but i've never seen Star Wars!

---

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Primordial Egg and Peter Borger - thanks for your replies and for suggesting the 'Unweaving the Rainbow' book. I have literally avoided anything written by Dawkins - thinking it would only bother me further, but actually have also thought that i should re-read Selfish gene and other books and really get my head round it and come to grips with it.

---

No problem - here's what the Amazon blurb is on it: You probably need to get to the root of whatever it is that is bothering you so anyway. Reading between the lines it seems to me almost as if you've had your expectations shattered in some way. Is this fair? If so what were your expectations?btw, you're not Peter Bonnetti are you? Some people still haven't forgiven you if you are.PE

Hi i'm new and from England. I mention the latter because over here there doesn't seem to be a very open debate about creationism versus evolutionism.I'm from Oxford cat, and I'd agree there's is definately a lack of discussion on the subject over here. The reason? Because most western Europeans either don't know about such a thing as creationism, or think of it as absolutely ridiculous.It was only a year or so ago that I found out there are actually people who exists today that believe the Earth to be 6000 years old. I thought it to be a joke until finding sites like this.You may recall, a number of months ago, the outcry over a School that proposed to teach the ToE alongside creationism. Even members of the church thought it to be wrong - they too saw one as science, and one as religion.

Primordial Egg - thanks again. Peter who? Peter Bonnetti - no i'm definitely not him. Don't blame you for asking though if something i said seemed like something someone had said before - and someone that people have been upset by, by the sounds of it.No, i'm female anyway. I guess over time it'll become clear that i'm not anyone else who may have visited this site. This really is my first time here.Yes - epectations shattered i guess. There are far reaching implications to selfish gene theory - i always thought nature was right about everything and that if we look at what happens in nature that gives us a guide for our own lives - but if at the root of nature is selfishness and dog eat dog - then can i continue with my philosophy? No!............but then nothing makes sense........Also my political and social views have always been very liberal, i've always believed in sharing and people contributing according to ability and receiving according to need. Now it seems there are people who argue that this is wrong that it has been shown to be wrong in the fall of communist countries (not that i'm necessarily communist - i haven't got strong political views really, they were more personal orientations). It seems the more competitive, capitalist systems 'match' human nature - if selfish gene theory is anything to go by - and believers in this theory have suggested this.I always thought everything in life was about balance.I'll work through it eventually.I'll give another example. a woman i was chatting to at christmas, we were talking about the population problem, or over population of our planet. She was saying how wonderful having children was and how she thinks people should have more children. I said i think they should have less because of using up the planet's rescources. She said it's the people being kept alive with drugs and machines and civilised living that's the problem. that we should all be far more natural in our living, that the death rate would be higher if we were living more 'natural' lives. Well i take issue with this - but at the same time feel it fits in far more with a Dawkins theory of what life is about. To me nature provided us with the brains to create the treatments to help people to live longer! and once we know how to, how can we possibly deny people such treatments? but selfish gene theory would say that keeping people alive with genetic problems, such as diabetes, or in my case thyroid problems, actually leads to those faulty genes being spread in the population! Thus compassion can lead to the demise of our population.We talk of mother nature, of nature being compassionate. I take herbal remedies and things, always thinking of 'natural' being 'good.' but some of these theories suggest that 'good' and 'compassion' go against nature...........I think i flicked through a book recently, probably that 'genome' book (not sure) and at the back it said that scientists are worried about the future of the human population because harmful mutations happen far more often than beneficial ones and because we look after each other and keep each other alive (with these harmful mutations) we are spreading them far quicker...............so, yeah i don't know what to think now. Goes against all my values and yet i always valued and revered nature.Anyway sure i'll work it out eventually. Thanks again for your reply and i'm interested if anyone has any comments to this.the cat (please tolerate my ignorance, i'm quite bright for a cat!)[This message has been edited by the cat, 01-07-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the cat:
Thanks for your reply! the Jedi bit - could you explain and sorry to be thick but i've never seen Star Wars!

---

Well the Jedi bit is sort-of meaningless. It is a juvenile way to say 'you are starting to get it but you have a long way to go and the road kinda sucks.'"The Dark Night of the Soul" is a book by Saint John of the Cross in which he describes the collapse of hope. It is a trip through utter darkness and despair.

quote:

---

but in nature, competition is the fight for life!

---

Yup. Always has been.

quote:

---

What i find threatening about selfish gene theory is that, competition aside, the theory is not just about 'selfishness' but about the development of a disregard for life in all organisms unless it is kin - ie unless that life has the same or similar genes to itself.

---

Consider. Pretend we have an utter disreguard for life and slaughter everything to feed our kids, and clear cut the forests for shelter. What happens? We die soon thereafter. The bacteria eat us and life continues. The system is self balancing. We happen to be smart enough to know how to not commit suicide in such manner, but I am not sure if we are smart enough to actually do so.

quote:

---

now it would appear that animals kill the babies of others so that their own offspring will perpetuate.

---

Yes, some animals do, including humans. Infanticide is very common in history.

quote:

---

what sort of intelligence is that?!

---

Indeed.

quote:

---

so to me the threat is that i cannot 'escape' to nature anymore

---

Why? Its fascinating-- vicious and beautiful at once.

quote:

---

it's not the thing i thought it was

---

But it is what it always was...

quote:

---

the theory of which i speak appears to suggest that there is no inherent morality in nature

---

Inherent morality? I propose to you that what you consider 'morality' is drawn from nature, from experience, from life. Though you may not realize it. It is a shift of perspective really. We are taught, I was anyway, that morality is an absolute thing, an essense. When actually, it is just behavior codified.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Besides, it can be demonstrated that he doesn't even know the most elementary stuff on DNA (see my thread: Richard Dawkins...exposed), so let alone genes (He is a zoologist; You don't go to the bakery to buy meat, isn't it?).

---

I don't go to a bakery to buy meat.Nor do I ask an asthma researcher about evolutionary biology.Nor should anyone else.

In my opinion what Dawkins writes is mainly hatespeech. Sure you can criticize Dawkins quest for what's true, why can't you? It is evil to view people as being born selfish in the way Dawkins sets out, why are you unable to criticize it?-- Richard Dawkins, "God's Utility Function," published in Scientific American (November, 1995)
"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."As numerous people have pointed out, on the superficial level which Dawkins is talking about, there is far far more apparent pleasure in Nature, then there is apparent suffering. Dawkins is clearly wrong here. But I think superficial views like those are worthless even if one is more accurate then the other.I also notice that Dawkins actually still posits some kind of emotion at the bottom of nature, namely "blind pitiless indifference". Now actually for his article to be consistent, he should have said that at the bottom of Nature there is nothing, or zero, but he didn't do that, possibly because to say that at bottom there is nothing would be consistent with a "creatio ex nihilo" creationist view.The positing of "blind pitiless indifference" is simply hatespeech about Nature in my opinion. But of course there is an upside to this belief of Dawkins as well. The belief in "blind pitiless indifference" at the bottom of Nature of Dawkins, directly supports his candy-belief in his personal freedom to do as he likes with Nature.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
"The Dark Night of the Soul" is a book by Saint John of the Cross in which he describes the collapse of hope. It is a trip through utter darkness and despair.Consider. Pretend we have an utter disreguard for life and slaughter everything to feed our kids, and clear cut the forests for shelter. What happens? We die soon thereafter. The bacteria eat us and life continues. The system is self balancing. We happen to be smart enough to know how to not commit suicide in such manner, but I am not sure if we are smart enough to actually do so.Inherent morality? I propose to you that what you consider 'morality' is drawn from nature, from experience, from life. Though you may not realize it. It is a shift of perspective really. We are taught, I was anyway, that morality is an absolute thing, an essense. When actually, it is just behavior codified.[/B][/QUOTE]Thanks again John - i must read the Dark Night of the Soul! - or get a flavour for it anyway. I have always been comfortable with the idea that the system on earth is self balancing - probably because to me that suggest some kind of 'intelligence.' - but again i mean within nature itelf rather than a being resembling a human or whatever. Self balancing suggests that conservation and respect for life other than oneself is better than greed and selfishness.I have a book called 'When Elephants Weep,' cannot think of the author now - but it gives many examples of where in the animal kingdom, animals would help out other animals from different species. This doesn't makes sense according to selfish gene theory - but perhaps it makes sense if we consider that all life thrives on other life. We need the diversity on the planet to be able to live ourselves - so perhaps we have some natural programming to be interested in and help out other species - not just humans but animals generally.................i'm rambling againcat