Exploring Ecumenism

What do we mean by Design?

Let me be clear from the start: I do not believe in creationism or intelligent design.  The latter I think is a particularly deceptive doctrine and theologically both are deeply flawed.  The problem is with the concept of design.

Non-Human Conversations

In an earlier post, I mentioned in passing the possibility of conversations without human involvement.  At this stage I cannot follow this theme as far as I would like, as I have more issues to explore first, but it might be helpful to indicate something of what I mean.

Nothing Evolves on its Own

Survival of the Fittest focuses on the evolution of single species.  Competition is expressed in terms of what happens within each species.  The fittest individuals survive to breed.  Relationships with other species are of interest solely in terms of any influence they have upon natural selection within a particular species.  So if we focus on rabbits their survival might depend upon foxes and grass and a few other species but the focus is on rabbits bravely evolving away.

Survival of the Fittest

In an earlier post I introduced the formula: phenotype equals genotype plus environment.  In my last post I argued against ascribing selfishness to genes and that genes are not selected in isolation from other genes.  The same applies to species, they are not subjected to natural selection as individual species.  Nothing evolves on its own, species evolve together as ecosystems.

For some reason we tend to think of natural selection acting upon individual species (or individual genes).  If a species (or a gene) survives loads of other species (or genes) survive with it.  There is complexity and a dynamic to evolution, we do not observe isolated objects evolving.

Can Genes be Selfish?

In the autumn of 1972 I started a degree course in Biology at the University of York.  One of the first things we were told in no uncertain terms was we must at all costs avoid the use of teleology.  It is easy in biology to ascribe conscious purpose to things that do not have a purpose. 

The Not-So-Selfish Gene

I want to start my exploration of evolution with an article The Not-So-Selfish Gene, by Bob Holmes in the New Scientist, 7 March 2009.  Near the beginning, on page 36, he writes:

This relentless focus on the gene may not tell the whole story, however.  A small but growing coterie of evolutionary biologists argue that it leaves us blind to crucial evolutionary processes at higher scales - among groups, species and even whole ecosystem.  If they are right, the popular view of evolution and the biological world needs a radical shake-up.

My first response to reading this was 'too right it does'.  What on earth is going on here?