A Puzzling Reduction

The pure competitor.
The pure cheat.
The pure altruist.

There are others.

The evolutionists have identified many behaviors and questioned whether they could survive given natural selection. For them these behaviors are genetically determined, with genetic origins similar to those for blue eyes or black hair. But are they not mistaken to reduce human behavior to genes? Are they implying that human behavior is only genetic?

Certainly the genetic models can be predictive for physical attributes. But are these models equally predictive for human behavior?

Questions must first be asked regarding what exactly constitutes any of these behaviors. What (or who) is the standard? Who sets it? Is the individual expressing competitive behavior always in all cases competitive? Does he never act altruistically/cooperatively? Are there variant cultural interpretations of these behaviors--couldn’t one behavior also sometimes be interpreted as another? Do cheaters always trump altruists over time in the manner of dark hair trumping red?

And what does it mean that these supposedly weaker behaviors continue to exist? What does this mean for the evolutionist’s models?

What of Darwin’s statement that natural selection was only one force acting upon the evolution man?


  1. On many levels out species is defined by the uniqueness of our weaknesses--attributes which are preserved by strong economies, attributes which would only hinder the species in raw conditions. Indeed, lions are fascinating and beautiful creatures, but there habits and techniques grow tiresome. They rarely contemplate suicide. They rarely draw. They rarely burn dollar bills on the lakeside.

  2. Anonymous6.10.11

    where is your "like" button? Also, where is your "like" button for comments posted beneath your articles?


Copyright © Moraline Free