Evolutionists are determined to keep morality from succeeding as a defeater for natural selection.
“Evolving righteousness in a corrupt world” is the eye-catching title of a short summary on PhysOrg of a paper on PLoS ONE by the same title. PhysOrg stated, “Initially cooperative societies devolve toward corruption, but introducing small ‘payments’ in conjunction with punishment can lead to stable, righteous societies, according to a modeling study published Sep. 12 in the open access journal PLOS ONE.”
In their abstract, Edgar A. Duéñez-Guzmán and Suzanne Sadedin of Harvard’s Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology make “righteousness” synonymous with “cooperation” But can’t societies cooperate on unrighteous deeds? Their paper views “righteousness” (cooperation) as merely a mechanical game played by natural selection on any group of organisms, whether humans or ants:
Righteousness, by stabilizing cooperation and providing a higher payoff to cooperative groups, constitutes a mechanism to shift the scale of selection from an individual to a group level. Unlike alternative mechanisms to maintain cooperation, such as reputation, righteousness requires no individual recognition or memory. Righteousness does require some ability to discriminate between punishers and non-punishers, but such discrimination can occur without complex cognition; for example, ant punishers are often larger and more aggressive than non-punishers.
Because the collective payoff of righteousness is higher than that of alternative outcomes, righteous groups are likely to outcompete those that have converged on defection or corruption. As a result, righteousness is expected to spread either culturally or genetically. This mechanism may explain the observation of righteous punishment in some ant species and some human societies….
Continue Reading on crev.info