[snip]: I'm not opposed to the notion of evolution, it is preferable to the ignorance of lieteral beleif in religious stories which are being proved everyday through the discover of new evidence should really be considered as allegories or even the simplistic view that things happen by chance.
: I'm really more opposed the ideas of struggle and survival of the fittest/strongest/most brutal in neo-Darwinism or contemporary evolutionary theory anyone can see the one thing that ensures survival is mutual aid and the innovation allowed as a result of mutual aid.
[snip]
Actually, the whole "survival of the fittest" concept, as it's often interpreted (size + brutality = survival) is not originally a Darwinian concept at all, it's Spencer's misinterpretation. Darwin didn't even use the term S. of the F. until, I think, the sixth edition of Origin (Chapter 4), and then only grudgingly. The first edition doesn't include the term.
Darwin's concept of "fitness" was simply reproductive output, and had none of the "nature red in tooth and claw" connotations that are often associated with it. In fact Kropotkin's _Mutual Aid_, and nearly the entire corpus of (pre-Bolshevik) Russian evolutionary literature followed a tradition of analysing mutualism that was perfectly Darwinian. (See Kropotkin was no Crackpot by S. J. Gould, Natural History; reprinted in _Bully for Brontosaurus_, sorry, I don't have the dates handy)
IOW, the brutality, savageness, and violence implications are not central to Darwinian theory. It's true that being the best hunter is one way to be successful, but there are many other ways. Being a member of a cooperative community is also an effective strategy, and also very Darwinian. In our particular case, has even allowed us to outcompete some of our predators. I might add that being a desirable prey has proven to be a pretty good strategy for rice, wheat, maize, cows, chickens, and pigs, among others. These species originally existed as small, isolated populations, but thanks to a certain highly mobile parasite that preys on them, (;-) they have managed to colonize the entire planet.
Many people make the mistake of associating "fitness" with violence, but the proper association is with reprodution. In other words, to Darwinians, "gettin' some" is more important than killing.
IMHO, this may be one of the reasons why some of the less enlightened strains of Christianity oppose Darwinian evolution so strongly, because it is so fundamentally sexual. At least that's my suspicion.
-Floyd
