ragland37{at}webtv.net (Michael Ragland) wrote 

MR:
> How is it (ignorance of evolutionary theory) an evolutionary advantage
Mr. McGinn? 

JMcG:
> Humans are social beings. Our beliefs influence/dictate different social
> behaviors. Different beliefs dictate different behavior. Different
> social behaviors are called for at different points in time. Humans
> achieve the shift in social behavior by way of a shift in belief system.
> Certain realizations, ie. scientific "truths", tend to prevent,
> short-circuit, this ability to shift beliefs/social behaviors. Thus the
> ability to not accept certain scientific truths--which manifests itself
> in a tendency for people to evade such realization--is adaptive.

MR:
> I agree with you humans are social beings but remember this sociality is
> biologically based.

Okay.  I think this is obvious and inconsequential to the point I'm
making.

> It is not as you state, "Our beliefs
> influence/dictate different social behaviors"  but rather our biology
> which determines different social behaviors which in turn makes possible
> and influences different beliefs.

Same difference.

> And although there is latitude for
> these "different social behaviors" which are biologically
based and also
> latitude for "different beliefs" resulting from biologically based
> social behavior, bear in mind our social behavior and corollary beliefs
> are constrained and determined by our biology.

I never said they weren't.

> 
> So I disagree with you, "Different beliefs dictate different
behavior."
> On the contrary, I believe certain social behaviors lead to certain
> beliefs. Depending on the nature of the social behavior, the belief
> system can be more or less constructive or destructive. 

Nobody, certainly not myself, is disputing your supposition that
causation runs both directions from beliefs to behaviors and back
again.  So I think you're missing the point here.

> 
> Whether or not different social behaviors are called for at different
> times depends on one's perspective and the context. In many ways its
> relative.
> 
> I also disagree with your statement, "Certain realizations, i.e.
> scientific "truths", tend to prevent, short-circuit, this ability to
> shift beliefs/social behaviors." As an example you state, "BTW this is
> the reason that people are generally so resistant to evolutionary
> theory."
> 
> On the contrary, I see an accurate understanding of Darwin's Theory of
> Evolution as an "eye-opener" 

I agree it's an eye-opener.  But this isn't the issue.  The issue is
whether or not we can assume that having one's eyes opened on these
issues is adaptive.  I'm saying it's not and/or not in all cases and
the reason it is not can only be understood by way of understanding
how beliefs and the ability to change one's beliefs are adaptive in
the context of society.

Another thing to be aware of is that if my supposition that certain
evolutionary based realizations are counteradaptive then we should
predict the evolution (the emergence) of mechanisms in our
minds/brains that prevent this realization.

> in getting people to understand human
> nature and potentially pondering the consequences of "human nature" if
> there is not a change in our social behaviors and belief systems. In
> other words, I think Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a strong argument
> for the necessity of genetically engineering people 

I would say it (evolutionary theory) can just as easily be employed to
argue that genetic engineering may be far too dangerous,
unpredictable, and lacking in benefit to be pursued.


> and that would
> certainly produce a change in social behaviors and belief systems. As I
> previously stated, our social behaviors and belief systems are
> determined and constrained by our biology. There is no way IMO our
> social behaviors and belief systems can change without tinkering with
> our biology. 

Our beliefs, if only on a subconscious level, change every time we
take in information.

> 
> What you see with the Creationists is actually Darwinian evolution in
> action. They would never admit it. But their beliefs are so primitive
> and simple Darwinian evolution offers the only explanation.  

I agree.  But if you were to tell me that those that believe in
creationism and not evolution are less adaptive (less able to achieve
survival and reproduction) then I would disagree.

> 
> You're argument essentially states it is adaptive to be ignorant. 

Yes.  In some instances.  (Especially when the subject is evolutionary
theory, it seems.)

> Do you
> think in terms of the evolution of the species, ignorance is adaptive?

Sometimes, yes.

> I personally value knowledge even if there are many idiots in the world.

Me too.  But it may not be accurate to refer to them as idiots. 
Afterall, the truth may be that their minds just do a better job of
protecting them from the existential truths associated with
evolutionary theory.

> I admit, however, in terms of man's current evolution the world is awash
> in either a lack of knowledge and/or an unwillingness or incapacity to
> utilize it.

And I'm saying the reason it's awash in such is because it (lack of
knowledge and/or an unwillingness or incapacity to utilize it) is
adaptive.

> 
> I don't see this as being adaptive for us evolution wise. 

I do.

I think
> Darwinian evolution has made it impossible for us to be a pure
> knowledge seeking and implenting species. We are animals and like other
> animals we are territorial and enage in rape, war, etc. 
> 
> Mr. McGinn, you seem to be a big defender of Darwinian evolution

Yes.  On a scientific level.

> and you
> don't seem to have much of any interest in the notion of genetically
> engineering people so that the human species can rise above the
> "struggle of the jungle".

I'm not opposed to it but I think we have to tread lightly before we
impose our
"intelligence" into a process that has been continuing quite
successfully for billions of years.

> 
> If anything, you seem to embrace Darwinian evolution. Fifty years ago I
> may have not liked this but I would have conceded there was no
> alternative. Today, I admit there is still no alternative but there are
> more and more genetic studies being done on rodents. I've posted many of
> these studies and they are interesting. It seems only a matter of time
> before such research is done on non-human primates. Mice share some
> genetic similarity with us. So do pigs which I've read share about 95%
> of our genes. Scientists are studying to make pigs less aggressive.
> Chimpanzees share 98%. Ultimately, it seems likely after many tests and
> trials this research will be done on people.
> 
> So, I would ask if you support the continuation of Darwinian evolution
> or if you are open to the possibilty of intervention.

I'm open to the possibility of intervention, but we should proceed
cautiously.

Jim
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/9/02 7:29:53 PM