Re: [asa] Altruism and ID

Various people have suggested that I expand on my thesis as it may be
that Gregory's confusion can be resolved by some simple statements

First of all, Gregory, I thank you for your questions in email, I am
however not interested in pursuing a discussion with you via private
email. I stand by my observation that ID is a negative argument, and
scientifically vacuous. I doubt that there are few reasons to argue
that the first is not the case, and the second issue is almost self
evident.

As to the issue of evolution of concepts, there are of course two very
different issues being confused here. Let me clarify.

The statement: the concept of altruism evolved, refers to how
scientists and philosophers have learned more and more about altruism
and the meaning of altruism has gained various meanings. The
statement: altruism evolved refers to the observations that natural
selection can indeed explain altruism, and certainly kin altruism and
reciprocal altruism, which are two specific forms of altruism. For
altruism to be genetically selectable, there needs to be a genetic
component, and this is what science seems to have uncovered.

Quite fascinating if you ask me.

And no, I am not in favor of evolutionism or any other of Gregory's
ill founded claims.

On 6/11/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/11/07, Gregory Arago <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> (throw in that ID has almost NOTHING positive involved with it)
>
> Self evident. It the set theoretic complement of regularity and
> chance. Nothing much positive involved here. Which explains the lack
> of much of any non trivial scientific contributions, the poor
> scholarship and the doubtful theology from our 'top' IDists.
>
> God Help Us indeed.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jun 13 00:16:45 2007