Biological Foundations of Morality

[Rose]

The philosophy of morality is based upon the Golden Rule, which states a person should treat others as they wish to be treated, but where does morality come from? I think it is possible to trace the origin of morality to the hormone Oxytocin, also called the “love hormone”. Oxytocin is a hormone that causes females to bond with their young and many studies have also shown a correlation of oxytocin with all forms of human bonding, increases in trust, and decreases in fear. It also evokes feelings of contentment, reductions in anxiety, and feelings of calmness and security around your partner.

The inability to secrete normal amounts of the hormone oxytocin is linked with lack of empathetic feelings in humans, which can manifest itself as sociopathic behavior. Empathy in healthy males has been shown to be increased after intranasal oxytocin, also interestingly; oxytocin does seem to facilitate learning and memory specifically for social information. Healthy males administered intranasal oxytocin show improved memory for human faces, in particular happy faces. They also show improved recognition for positive social cues over threatening social cues and improved recognition of fear. Taking all this into consideration it stands to reason that oxytocin causes an increase in empathetic feelings for others and altruism which is the foundation of morality. In nature a mother who produced more oxytocin would bond better with her offspring, therefore she would take better care of them, making it a trait that would be selected for.

Oxytocin is also produced during sexual arousal which in some species causes pairs to bond for life and evokes solicitous feelings in males trying to win the sexual favors of females; consequently the males that females are most impressed with win the privilege of mating. In the animal kingdom mating only occurs when the female is receptive and allows the male of her choosing to mate with her, so it is to his advantage to be more accommodating, unlike in humans where the male many times uses force against the females will.

It might seem a bit odd at first to think that morality has it origins in a chemical called oxytocin, but when you start comparing the similarities between the bonding nature of female animals with their young and moral characteristics in humans, it becomes quite obvious there is a relationship. By necessity all life forms are selfish, that is the only way survival is assured; the only exception to that rule is the mother/child relationship where the mother always puts the needs of her offspring first…in some species this also applies to the male who helps care for their young. Turn off oxytocin and animal mothers would no longer bond with, or care for their young, resulting in the continuation of life coming to a halt.

Because humans are self-aware beings we consciously understand the benefits of helping others, so we can purposely treat others with kindness and compassion regardless of our relationship to them. Since oxytocin is a naturally occurring hormone that underlies the instinctive reason all animals (including humans) bond with and sacrificially give to others in their species, it becomes a good candidate for the bases of moral laws.

Chemicals seem to play a role in just about every human emotion. When there is a chemical imbalance in a living system it can turn a kind and compassionate person into a raging lunatic, or a person with a positive upbeat outlook on life to someone who contemplates suicide. This is the power of chemicals working on the brain and what seems to in part, create our individual personalities.


Rose

[CWH]

The philosophy of morality is based upon the Golden Rule, which states a person should treat others as they wish to be treated, but where does morality come from? I think it is possible to trace the origin of morality to the hormone Oxytocin, also called the “love hormone”. Oxytocin is a hormone that causes females to bond with their young and many studies have also shown a correlation of oxytocin with all forms of human bonding, increases in trust, and decreases in fear. It also evokes feelings of contentment, reductions in anxiety, and feelings of calmness and security around your partner.

The inability to secrete normal amounts of the hormone oxytocin is linked with lack of empathetic feelings in humans, which can manifest itself as sociopathic behavior. Empathy in healthy males has been shown to be increased after intranasal oxytocin, also interestingly; oxytocin does seem to facilitate learning and memory specifically for social information. Healthy males administered intranasal oxytocin show improved memory for human faces, in particular happy faces. They also show improved recognition for positive social cues over threatening social cues and improved recognition of fear. Taking all this into consideration it stands to reason that oxytocin causes an increase in empathetic feelings for others and altruism which is the foundation of morality. In nature a mother who produced more oxytocin would bond better with her offspring, therefore she would take better care of them, making it a trait that would be selected for.

Oxytocin is also produced during sexual arousal which in some species causes pairs to bond for life and evokes solicitous feelings in males trying to win the sexual favors of females; consequently the males that females are most impressed with win the privilege of mating. In the animal kingdom mating only occurs when the female is receptive and allows the male of her choosing to mate with her, so it is to his advantage to be more accommodating, unlike in humans where the male many times uses force against the females will.

It might seem a bit odd at first to think that morality has it origins in a chemical called oxytocin, but when you start comparing the similarities between the bonding nature of female animals with their young and moral characteristics in humans, it becomes quite obvious there is a relationship. By necessity all life forms are selfish, that is the only way survival is assured; the only exception to that rule is the mother/child relationship where the mother always puts the needs of her offspring first…in some species this also applies to the male who helps care for their young. Turn off oxytocin and animal mothers would no longer bond with, or care for their young, resulting in the continuation of life coming to a halt.

Because humans are self-aware beings we consciously understand the benefits of helping others, so we can purposely treat others with kindness and compassion regardless of our relationship to them. Since oxytocin is a naturally occurring hormone that underlies the instinctive reason all animals (including humans) bond with and sacrificially give to others in their species, it becomes a good candidate for the bases of moral laws.

Chemicals seem to play a role in just about every human emotion. When there is a chemical imbalance in a living system it can turn a kind and compassionate person into a raging lunatic, or a person with a positive upbeat outlook on life to someone who contemplates suicide. This is the power of chemicals working on the brain and what seems to in part, create our individual personalities.


Rose

If Oxytocin is so good, why not we all take large amount of it and we will see everybody loving and caring for each other? Please note that this is usually not the case in medicine...too little it will have no or ineffective effect; too much and it will cause poisoning and death. Important thing is to have balance just like in yin and yang. When we say balance, it means that if there is cold, there will be hot, if there is hatred then there must be love etc. and they must work harmoniously together. That is why when there is oxytocin the "love" hormone, there is also the aggression hormone, "testosterone" and adrenaline. Both work together in order to harmonize. Is aggression always bad? It also means that oxytocin in not the panacea to all hatred and aggression and evil in this world.

Don't be deluded, most hatred, aggression, violence, greed, evil are not caused by a lack of oxytocin but by many other factors such as love for money, jealousy etc. The important thing to solve all hatred, aggression, violence, evil etc. in this world is to be good and righteous. The morality is to love your neighbor as yourself and to love God with all your heart soul and might. To love your neighbor as yourself is to love humanity as yourself and to love God with all your heart, soul and might is to love every creatures and creations in this world. What is the point of loving humanity only without loving everything good that is present in this world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

May God Bless Everybody.

[Rose]

If Oxytocin is so good, why not we all take large amount of it and we will see everybody loving and caring for each other? Please note that this is usually not the case in medicine...too little it will have no or ineffective effect; too much and it will cause poisoning and death. Important thing is to have balance just like in yin and yang. When we say balance, it means that if there is cold, there will be hot, if there is hatred then there must be love etc. and they must work harmoniously together. That is why when there is oxytocin the "love" hormone, there is also the aggression hormone, "testosterone" and adrenaline. Both work together in order to harmonize. Is aggression always bad? It also means that oxytocin in not the panacea to all hatred and aggression and evil in this world.

Cheow, you need to read my article more carefully! I never even hinted at oxytocin being used as a medicine! All I said was that people who are "deficient" in Oxytocin have been shown to exhibit sociopathic behavior. Also I never made mention of "aggression" always being bad; the jest of my article was establishing a biological foundation for morality. Please pay closer attention to what is being said before you jump to conclusions.

Don't be deluded, most hatred, aggression, violence, greed, evil are not caused by a lack of oxytocin but by many other factors such as love for money, jealousy etc. The important thing to solve all hatred, aggression, violence, evil etc. in this world is to be good and righteous. The morality is to love your neighbor as yourself and to love God with all your heart soul and might. To love your neighbor as yourself is to love humanity as yourself and to love God with all your heart, soul and might is to love every creatures and creations in this world. What is the point of loving humanity only without loving everything good that is present in this world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

May God Bless Everybody.

Again, I never said that all hatred, aggression, violence, greed, or evil is caused by a lack of oxytocin...only that certain behaviors can be exacerbated when their is a deficiency in the naturally occurring hormone oxytocin.

The point of my article was to show a connection between a mothers love for her offspring and the hormone oxytocin. The cause of what humans call "moral" behavior in animals has its foundation in a chemical, and this directly maps onto human morality.

Take care,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Cheow, you need to read my article more carefully! I never even hinted at oxytocin being used as a medicine! All I said was that people who are "deficient" in Oxytocin have been shown to exhibit sociopathic behavior. Also I never made mention of "aggression" always being bad; the jest of my article was establishing a biological foundation for morality. Please pay closer attention to what is being said before you jump to conclusions.

Again, I never said that all hatred, aggression, violence, greed, or evil is caused by a lack of oxytocin...only that certain behaviors can be exacerbated when their is a deficiency in the naturally occurring hormone oxytocin.

The point of my article was to show a connection between a mothers love for her offspring and the hormone oxytocin. The cause of what humans call "moral" behavior in animals has its foundation in a chemical, and this directly maps onto human morality.

Take care,
Rose

Excellent points Rose. It appears that Cheow refuses to give any answers that actually address the evidence because he knows that he is totally ignorant of the science and can't refute a word of it. I tried to see if he understood one word of a short video that presented evidence for evolution, and all he did was deny that they gave any evidence at all! He couldn't even explain why the scientists thought their evidence was good, or why almost all scientists agreed that the evidence was convincing. He said that the most brilliant scientists on the planet don't have any evidence supporting their theories at all, but that they are all simply "brainwashed"! I can't think of a more ironic comment, given that it is the creationists who are obviously brainwashed into rejecting science that is totally beyond their ability to comprehend.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This new research adds to the evidence that there is a biological basis for the ability to "put oneself in someone else’s shoes in order to understand their thoughts and feelings." We've seen the same thing with mirror neurons. It makes a lot of sense since we see the rudiments of morality in the higher primates.

From the University of Zurich (UZH):

The volume of a small brain region influences one’s predisposition for altruistic behavior. Researchers from the University of Zurich show that people who behave more altruistically than others have more gray matter at the junction between the parietal and temporal lobe, thus showing for the first time that there is a connection between brain anatomy, brain activity and altruistic behavior.


Why are some people very selfish and others very altruistic? Previous studies indicated that social categories like gender, income or education can hardly explain differences in altruistic behavior. Recent neuroscience studies have demonstrated that differences in brain structure might be linked to differences in personality traits and abilities. Now, for the first time, a team of researchers from the University of Zurich headed by Ernst Fehr, Director of the Department of Economics, show that there is a connection between brain anatomy and altruistic behavior.


To investigate whether differences in altruistic behavior have neurobiological causes, volunteers were to divide money between themselves and an anonymous other person. The participants always had the option of sacrificing a certain portion of the money for the benefit of the other person. Such a sacrifice can be deemed altruistic because it helps someone else at one’s own expense. The researchers found major differences in this respect: Some participants were almost never willing to sacrifice money to benefit others while others behaved very altruistically.

More gray matter

The aim of the study, however, was to find out why there are such differences. Previous studies had shown that a certain region of the brain – the place where the parietal and temporal lobes meet – is linked to the ability to put oneself in someone else’s shoes in order to understand their thoughts and feelings. Altruism is probably closely related to this ability. Consequently, the researchers suspected that individual differences in this part of the brain might be linked to differences in altruistic behavior. And, according to Yosuke Morishima, a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Economics at the University of Zurich, they were right: “People who behaved more altruistically also had a higher proportion of gray matter at the junction between the parietal and temporal lobes.”

[David M]

All we are is a massive concoction of chemicals in which every chemical has some part to play. Science is trying to find out what all the chemicals are and what each chemical does.

An imbalance in a chemical is likely to show as an abnormality. Science might lead us to restore the chemical balance by taking a pill.

What are memories made of?

Are memories purely chemical?

Which chemicals affect our ability to learn and remember?

We need memory in order to reason.

Can we reason the meaning and purpose to life?

Can we reason what is good and bad for us?

Can we reason morality from scratch?

Is morality learned through our own personal experience and learning of the experience of others?

At the end of our life, our brains hold all our memories and attributes; all of which can be defined as our "spirit". It is this "spirit" by which we are known by God and God will preserve until the day of resurrection and judgment. God (through his Son) will chose who to keep and who to discard and who gets a place in His kingdom.

Those are my thoughts evoked by this subject.


David

[CWH]

Morality means knowing what is right and what is wrong; doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. This is equivalent to knowing good and evil. Alturism is just one small part of morality which even animals exhibit them even though they may not know what is good or what is evil. What made the first concept of morality. There are instances in which altruism is instinctive that is in-built with intelligent design. Morality of knowing good and evil is related to nakedness according to Genesis. This is why Humans is the only animal on earth that is ashamed of its nakedness and needs to be clothed. Isn't this strange?

Altruism: an accident of nature?
Bees, bats, ravens and humans often help one another. But usually there's a hidden agenda.

By Sadie F. Dingfelder

Monitor Staff

December 2006, Vol 37, No. 11

Print version: page 44
Bernd Heinrich, PhD, was hiking through the woods in Maine when he happened upon a group of ravens feasting on a dead moose. They were making quite a ruckus, recalls Heinrich, a biology professor at the University of Vermont. In fact, the birds used a loud call that Heinrich had never heard before, a call that seemed to attract even more ravens to the area. Their behavior puzzled the researcher.

"Ecological theory would tell you that a food bonanza would be defended and not shared," he says.

But the birds were sharing. Some of the ravens even returned to their roost to recruit more animals, Heinrich observed. The strange behavior inspired the biologist to conduct a series of field studies, which he eventually published in the book "Ravens in Winter" (Simon and Schuster, 1989).

Heinrich's helpful ravens are now a classic example of animal altruism, says Jeff Stevens, PhD, a psychology professor at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Germany. But like most examples of animal altruism, the apparently selfless act had selfish benefits.

The sharing ravens, it turned out, were juveniles who had found the moose carcass in a mature raven's territory. By bringing other young ravens to the feast, they avoided being chased off by the territory-holding bird. For any behavior to survive natural selection, it needs to help an animal or its genetic material, he notes.

"True altruism...paying a cost to help another individual and never ever receiving any kind of benefit, is not very common," Stevens says. "It wouldn't make much sense biologically for that to happen."

Help a brother out

More commonly, when an animal assists another, there is a hidden reward for the helper, says Nigel Barber, PhD, a Maine-based psychologist and author of "Kindness in a Cruel World" (Prometheus Books, 2004). Perhaps the most widespread form of altruism, he notes, is the case of a parent protecting and feeding its young. Birds will rob themselves of nutrition to regurgitate food into the gaping maws in their nest. But even if an altruistic act endangers a parent's own life, it makes evolutionary sense to increase the likelihood one's young will survive, Barber notes.

"They are acting in the interest of their genes, if not their own lives," he says.

A similar principle is at play when an animal assists its siblings or cousins, says Stevens. This is the case when worker bees devote themselves to feeding the offspring of the hive's queen, instead of trying to reproduce themselves. The bee phenomenon puzzled Charles Darwin, and may be why he sat on his theory of natural selection for more than 20 years. The answer, proposed by biologist William Hamilton in the 1960s, is that sterile worker bees are helping to further their genes because they are so closely related to the young they are helping to raise.

"Most examples of altruism do involve kin," Stevens says.

That's true of humans too, notes Barber. Many studies have shown that while people do help strangers, they are more likely to give money to relatives. Additionally, adopted children, on average, get a smaller share of inheritances than biological children, according to an analysis of 1,538 California estates, published in a 1992 issue of Ethology and Sociobiology (Vol. 13, No. 5, pages 495-522).

"This may support kin selection, but I think that is probably not doing justice to the complexity of the situation," says Barber, noting that some adopted children may enter into a family as toddlers or even teens, and subsequently may not develop as close as a relationship with their parents.

Even for bats, familiarity--as well as their genetic relatedness--seems to increase the likelihood of altruistic behavior.

Primitive insurance policies

Vampire bats have a fast metabolism and a food supply that is high in protein but low in fat. That means that they must feed on the blood of cattle or other animals every 36 hours, or they die.

So it surprised biologist Gerald Wilkinson, PhD, when he discovered, in the 1980s, that female bats would share their blood with unlucky hunters, regurgitating blood into the mouths of female roost mates.

"I had observed a lot of cases of them feeding their own young, which is how they wean their young from milk to blood, but this was the first time I had seen adults feeding other adults," notes Wilkinson, now a program director at the National Science Foundation.

In a 1984 study, published in Nature (Vol. 308, No. 1, pages 181-184), Wilkinson reported that the animals did tend to feed closely related kin. But they also would feed "friends"--unrelated bats they roosted with. The friend would return the favor later, Wilkinson reports.

As a result of the animals' inborn tendency to share, female bats manage to live upwards of 15 years, says Wilkinson. Stingy male bats survive about half that long.

"The adaptive rationale behind all of this is sort of an insurance policy," says Barber. "You pay in a small amount and benefit when you need it later."

Whether the bats are aware of their sharing policy is a matter of contention. It's possible that they are born with a useful rule: help out familiar animals. Most of the time, that rule helps propagate their genes, as most roost mates are related, says Stevens.

In fact, pure altruism may be an accident of evolution, researchers suggest. A vampire bat that feeds an unrelated roost mate is, in effect, mistaking it for a sister. A bird that adopts another animal's chick does so because it's compelled to feed every hungry mouth in its nest. And raven researcher Bernd Heinrich treats his dog as part of the family because the human tendency for empathy has run amok, he says.

"It's part of our social nature to help those that we are associated with," says Heinrich "It's not that we evolved to love dogs, and as a side product we love our babies. It is just the opposite."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Altruistic Animals: Compatible With Evolution?
by Caleb Colley, M.L.A.

The humanistic sociologist Auguste Comte coined the term “altruism,” derived from the Italian altrui, which means “other” (Rhode, 2005). Under Comte’s definition, altruism signified an unselfish regard for the welfare of others (Rhode, 2005). People are not entirely self-interested. If they were, then families would be nonexistent. Yet, 90 percent of Americans marry (Coltrane, 44[4]:395). Modern instances of what we generally call altruism abound. For an example of obvious altruism on a grand scale, over $4.25 billion was raised for Hurricane Katrina-related relief and recovery (“Hurricane...,” 2006).

The animal world also is filled with animals that appear to help other creatures. Eduardo Porter noted in The New York Times, “altruism isn’t an exclusively human trait. Vampire bats are pretty altruistic, too, regurgitating blood for members of the group that haven’t eaten. Sterile worker bees, which are incapable of conscious thought, let alone moral behavior, are about as altruistic as a living creature can be: they give their lives so their queen may reproduce” (2005). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy reveals:

In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in so doing, they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked (Okasha, 2003).

As we ask of all relevant features of scientific data, we ask of the phenomenon of altruism in the animal kingdom: Does it best fit the creation model or the evolution model? Evolutionists categorize altruism as a product of genetic determinism (i.e., genetics explain all behavior), while Christians believe that God instilled altruism as an instinct in animals and a psychological, moral force in humans (see Thompson, 2004, pp. 23-24; cf. Jackson, 1992).

Of course, we are ignorant as to exactly what goes on inside the heads of animals and humans. We do not expect a dolphin to answer intelligibly when we ask, “Why did you help that other creature, even when it created the potential of danger to your own health?” Animal altruism troubled Charles Darwin, who popularized evolution in the 1800s. Darwin wrote that “[n]atural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing any injury to its possessor” (1859, p. 228). As Okasha well noted, “From a Darwinian viewpoint, the existence of altruism in nature is at first sight puzzling.... Natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others” (2003).

Indeed, traditional evolutionary theory has emphasized the individual, to the neglect of any social obligation. McFadden commented, “Altruism—helping others at our own expense—puzzled Charles Darwin, whose theory predicted that individuals should act selfishly to serve their self-interest. Why should wolves share their kill; or sparrows draw attention to themselves by issuing a warning call when they spot a hawk” (2004)? Major observed, “If a bird helps a breeding pair build its nest and feed its young, without breeding itself, then it would seem to be a loser in the struggle for life. While this individual is busy helping others, it is missing out on the opportunity to produce heirs of its own” (1999). How, then, do evolutionists account for altruism in animals?

EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS
Group Selection
Evolutionists have suggested that natural selection involves “group selection,” whereby a member of a group of animals would do something for the biological benefit of its entire group. In this way, evolutionists argue, the fittest group will survive, and natural selection will have met its obligation. Of course, there are severe problems with natural selection (Thompson, n.d.; Thompson and Harrub, 2003, pp. 227-270). Problems with group selection theory further illustrate the flaws in natural selection as a mode of evolution. As evolutionist Bryan Appleyard observed, “[Group selection theory—CC] makes no sense in the context of the selfish gene because all the gene can possibly see is the survival of its own particular organism” (1998, p. 112, emp. added). The selfish gene is Dawkins’ notion, reflective of Darwin, that the individual gene will do whatever it takes to ensure that the individual in which they are stored produces additional copies of the gene (1989; cf. Thompson, 2004).

Even if we were to admit that group selection occurs, however, it would not prove that genetic determinism is responsible for altruism in animals. Major explained:

[Group selection theory—CC] does not explain how the gene for altruism can survive over the long term. If an individual carrying this mutation behaves unselfishly and, as a result, leaves fewer or no offspring, then the mutation will die out. Also, the group needs to discourage cheaters—individuals that take advantage of altruists to further their own selfish interests, and thus neutralize the benefits of altruism for the species as a whole (1999).

By attempting to account for legitimate altruism by introducing a faulty hypothesis that maintains dependence on the genetically selfish individual, evolutionists have moved right back where they started.

Kin Selection
Dawkins (1989) proposed a solution to the problems with the group selection idea: “kin selection” (i.e., since close relations share genes, a gene may prompt its organism to help others who are closely related). The theory of kin selection is responsible for much of the development of sociobiological research. McFadden objected: “Altruism isn’t always restricted to kith and kin. When a female vervet monkey is attacked, non-relatives will often come to her aid. Studies show that the likelihood that a non-relative helps depends on how recently the distressed monkey groomed the helper” (2004).

Even if we were to suppose that some animal altruism occurs due to some “kin selection” mechanism, evolutionists “still have a gaping hole in an attempt to explain altruism. If, for example, I help a blind man cross the street, it is plainly unlikely that I am being prompted to do this because he is a close relation and bears my genes. And the animal world is full of all sorts of elaborate forms of cooperation which extend far beyond the boundaries of mere relatedness” (Appleyard, 1998, p. 112).

Furthermore,

cheating still is possible. A mutation could arise that mimicked the identifying features of individuals that carried the gene for altruism. This introduces the need for some sort of policing strategy.... The problem now is that the difficulties have multiplied. The evolutionists sought to explain a highly complex social behavior in biological terms, and ended up having to explain other complex behaviors, such as cheating and policing (Major, 1999).

Again, if evolutionists merely repackage selfishness and call it “altruism,” they fail to explain how real altruism fits in evolutionary theory. They may insist that altruism is only apparent. But such a notion is untenable, particularly in the wake of such a generous, altruistic outpouring of support to those devastated by Katrina. Evolutionists are forced to dichotomize aspects of beings, artificially separating the biological from the psychological/moral. The fact is, we differentiate between selfish human acts and altruistic acts, because we can identify altruism when we see it. Altruism is real, and even in the light of kin selection theory, remains biologically inexplicable.

Game Theory
A more recent evolutionary explanation involves attributing even more psychological human qualities to biological features of animals that “help”: game theory. “Game theory seeks to make sense of competition by analyzing different moves in as clear a mathematical way as possible” (Appleyard, p. 111). When applied to animal altruism, game theory suggests that various organisms play an instinctive, mathematical “game” to determine what is best for the group. When some lions share a zebra corpse, for example, they are playing a sharing game that involves “subtleties of calculation and...a remarkable distillation of all the complexities in any confrontation” (p. 111). In short, game theory is the idea that organisms cooperate because it is beneficial (p. 112).

Observe that reductionist, evolutionary game theorists again have reduced a discussion of altruism to an explanation of survival tactics. In order to prove that game theory accounts for the altruism exhibited in nature, evolutionists would be forced to prove that animals are capable of solving very complex mathematical equations about which advanced college students study regularly (see “Certificate...,” 2006). Such proof is—and will be—unavailable. Furthermore, evolutionists would need to explain why, on occasion, some members of a particular “kind” of animal help members of another “kind,” which would seem to be excluded from the “game.” For example, dogs occasionally “adopt” orphaned kittens (“Mother Dog...,” 2006).

Game theory cannot explain why animals, with no prior training, occasionally appear to help humans. For example, a group of New Zealand swimmers had to depend on a group of dolphins, which formed a protective circle that kept a great white shark at bay (McFadden, 2004). Moreover, proof that all animals coexist by playing these types of “games” would fall woefully short of proving evolution and disproving the biblical creation account. The Creator endowed animals with instinctive dictates that allow them to live together.

CONCLUSION
Having demonstrated that the major evolutionary explanations of altruism fail, we reach the conclusion that evolution logically implies that altruism, as an instinctive motivation in animals, or as a psychological/moral factor in humans, is imaginary (cf. Lipe, n.d.). However, we observe altruism in nature and in the clear teaching of the Bible (John 15:13; Philippians 2:2-4). Altruism embarrasses evolution, but makes perfect sense in light of the biblical creation account.

This proved to Love God (Creation) with all your heart soul and might and to love one another as yourself is even instilled in animals by the Creator.


God Blesseed Morality.

[David M]

Morality means knowing what is right and what is wrong; doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong. This is equivalent to knowing good and evil. Alturism is just one small part of morality which even animals exhibit them even though they may not know what is good or what is evil. What made the first concept of morality. There are instances in which altruism is instinctive that is in-built with intelligent design. Morality of knowing good and evil is related to nakedness according to Genesis. This is why Humans is the only animal on earth that is ashamed of its nakedness and needs to be clothed. Isn't this strange?

[COLOR="#008000"]Altruism: an accident of nature?
Bees, bats, ravens and humans often help one another. But usually there's a hidden agenda.

Just the other evening I caught part of a TV nature program. The big cats looked like cheetahs or similar and had just killed an antelope. The narrator said that the young cheetah which had made the kill, waited before eating and allowed the elders and weaker in the pack to eat first. Is that an example of altruism?

David

[CWH]

Just the other evening I caught part of a TV nature program. The big cats looked like cheetahs or similar and had just killed an antelope. The narrator said that the young cheetah which had made the kill, waited before eating and allowed the elders and weaker in the pack to eat first. Is that an example of altruism?

David

Yes, alturism to love thy neighbor as yourself is instilled even in animals as well. If it is law of the survival of the fittest, I would expect the fittest to eat first and the weaker and young to eat later.

On the other hand, I have seen on TV, female lions that killed an antelope and it is the chief of the lion tribe which is the strongest male lion who will eat first and all have to wait for him to finish first before they can partake of the food. Is this an example of altruism or survival of the fittest? Evolutionist can say it is the law off the survival of the fittest but I say it is altruism as the female lions leave it for the male king lion to eat first so that his fitness will ensure protection and survival of the lion tribe. The male king lion will fight verociously and selflessly even to his death to protect his tribe thus ensuring survival; this is altruism.

God Blessed.