Why I am not a Christian

[Ben Kenobi]

BTW; I was thinking of the various forms of Creation Science specifically. Scientists have been researching and writing papers about evolutionary theory for a hundred-odd years. Holes as blatantly obvious as people claim exist are very unlikely. The only possible hole I can detect in it is the over-haste to claim natural selection, but that's not some sinister campaign of disinformation, it's just the only naturalistic explanation, hence the name "natural selection." A basic assumption, but provided that basic assumption is correct, it's perfectly consistent.

Well, I'm not a creation scientist, in the sense most of the creation scientists you are thinking of. I tend to look at the scientists' own criticisms of their theories, and the difficulties presented by them. The big problem I have with the current theories is their rationale for adopting punctuated equilibrium. It seems more of a save, than anything else, a patch over the problems of the steady state theories.

[Ben Kenobi]

As for the bible, yes I should read it but it's not convenient to do so at this point in time, if any passages come to mind that actually deal with (and not presume) the existence of God it may well be useful for the debate. At your convenience of course, I'll google in the morning.

Start with the ones in my previous post.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The big problem I have with the current theories is their rationale for adopting punctuated equilibrium. It seems more of a save, than anything else, a patch over the problems of the steady state theories.

But we've asked you several times for specific examples of why you have a problem with it, and you haven't obliged. It's hard to discuss things like this when you won't give examples.

The same holds for your claims to Darwin's "doubts" about his own theory, and asking whether or not those doubts have been allayed by modern science. What were these doubts?

I find it curious that you doubt evolutionary theory through the means of "hole poking" in the theory (which really seems more like minor quibbling to me), but when it comes to things like our discussion of John, you seem to be in the exact opposite position--brushing aside such hole-poking and accepting without question the authorship of the text.

[Sava]

Boris is pwning you BK.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris is pwning you BK.

I have work today...

I want answer his question properly, and to do that, means I have to haul out all my old books again.

Generalities I can do without reference books, but this I need to go back and look things up again.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now this may seem like an odd thesis, but the main problem I have with Stephen Jay Gould is not so much that I disagree with him, but rather that I agree with him on many of the points. Some of his critics have noted, what I have as well, the only thing that seems to separate him from the creationists, is the puppet behind the whole game.

If evolution occurs in fits and starts, and natural disasters are what drives evolutionary change, how difficult is it to go from saying this, to say that God directs evolution through these natural changes?

This is one of the reasons why Darwin tried to get away from the catastrophists who articulated much the same position as Stephen Jay Gould, in insisting that evolution occurs slowly, over time.

I've read a few papers that try to smooth over the differences between the two, but the fact remains that Darwin tried to shy away from those who thought evolution happen quickly, as a result of natural disasters.

The same holds for your claims to Darwin's "doubts" about his own theory, and asking whether or not those doubts have been allayed by modern science. What were these doubts?

1. Is it right to go from species variation, to say that the same changes that provoke diversity within a species, also provoke changes from one species to another?

2. Is it right to say that man is affected in the same way as all other species by the vagarities of evolution?

3. Is it possible for such mechanisms to be acheived by chance, given the time period one has to work with, and the complexity of change?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now this may seem like an odd thesis, but the main problem I have with Stephen Jay Gould is not so much that I disagree with him, but rather that I agree with him on many of the points. Some of his critics have noted, what I have as well, the only thing that seems to separate him from the creationists, is the puppet behind the whole game.

I don't understand this characterization of Gould's views. You're not confusing PE with saltationism, are you?

But I note here and later you stress "natural disasters." You do realize that PunkEk isn't dependent on catastrophic occurences, don't you? A simple case of a branch of a species being isolated from its parent lineage can lead to such effects. Mischaracterizing PunkEk as requiring catastrophic environmental changes is a strawman.

If evolution occurs in fits and starts, and natural disasters are what drives evolutionary change, how difficult is it to go from saying this, to say that God directs evolution through these natural changes?

Ok, you do seem to confusing PE with saltationism. PE is not saltationist at all, it is in line with phyletic gradualism, despite claims to the contrary:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#pe-vs-pg

This is one of the reasons why Darwin tried to get away from the catastrophists who articulated much the same position as Stephen Jay Gould, in insisting that evolution occurs slowly, over time.

Except that Gould isn't the same as a catastrophist, precisely. Nothing in PunkEk, as the above link shows, is in conflict with gradualism. PunkEk does say that evolution occurs slowly over time. Saltationism says they occur instantly in a generational leap. Very, very different things.

I am curious as to why you say "this is one of the reasons." What was one of the reasons? Are you suggesting that Darwin proposed gradualism out of just an aversion to catastrophism? Do you have a cite for that claim?

I've read a few papers that try to smooth over the differences between the two, but the fact remains that Darwin tried to shy away from those who thought evolution happen quickly, as a result of natural disasters.

And can you provide a quote from Darwin (note the one already mined in the above link) where what he says is in explicit conflict to PunkEk?

1. Is it right to go from species variation, to say that the same changes that provoke diversity within a species, also provoke changes from one species to another?

This isn't a quote from Darwin, so I'm not sure how this answers my question about presenting the things Darwin expressed doubts about within his own theory. In fact, neither were the other two. All three seem to be continuations of the PunkEk discussion rather than the Darwin discussion.

I'll ask again, can you cite instances for me where Darwin expressed doubts about his theory, so that I can see just what you're talking about and then we can discuss what scientific discoveries have addressed those doubts since Darwin's time?

[Whaleboy]

Geronimo:
A three dimensional being would not be detectable to us because it’s three dimensions would include two spatial and one temporal, in other words what we perceive as the spatial z-axis (supposedly… could be x or y) would be their temporal dimension. Obviously a two-dimensional being would be impossible to perceive for us, being infinitesimal in depth and accordingly in existence in time. You might also argue that such a being would be split in two along its digestive tract (Hawking’s analogy iirc) though I am inclined to disagree with it, since in our terms it says 3-D is insufficient for complex life but only on our terms.

You are correct in that n dimensions and n-1 dimensions would not be able to perceive each other, as opposed to flat out refuting the existence of one or the other (though of course as far as God is concerned to us Occam’s razor applies). The implication of the simulated environment as you use it to me suggests that they operate along the same temporal dimension (correct me if I’m wrong), but by this a supposed 3d being would have to have time to be, which means a contextual equivalency between space and time.

Regarding your latter point, it would seem to me as though the sum over histories applies. Change one point in n-1 dimensions with n-dimensions, and you create curved alternative universes in n-dimensions (with n-1). Consider that uncertainty principle, for example, gives us one universe but infinite 4-dimensional universes would have to “exist” in 5-dimensions, whereupon every contingent at point time=0 (every curved path) came to be, and any change would create a curved universe from the original which is straight, and to the curved the change was predetermined. While that actual change as far as God is concerned may be possible (I haven’t thought so far ahead as to be sure precisely how), it would require God to have knowledge of us, such as our language or a means of communication subject to our perception and of course for a being finite in 5-d that would be impossible, at it would to implant every possibly iteration of communication in every universe, for that would require a 6-dimensional being for whom not only our time is spatial but our spatial existence is infinitesimal (think backwards to a 2-D being).

I should speak further on this part of your post. I think you need to explain why it matters if the time dimensions are different.

Very well… well we see in special relativity that time is relative, furthermore we see how changes in time affect perceptions externally (the twins paradox) so to me this is just the logical conclusion of you magnify those differences in time to infinity, in other words add or subtract a temporal dimension whereby an infinity in time becomes a spatial manifestation of sum-over-histories and “time” in time (n-1) becomes infinitesimal, and from there the implications for life and communication should become obvious.

From the point of view of god everthing we have to say is said all at once so a give and take style of communication is impossible.

But is also infinitesimal in God’s time, all that renders it existent is its spatial properties, but the same could be said of, I don’t know, *looks around for random object* a doomsday device. It’s quite a stretch to attempt to decipher a physical object into an infinitesimal communication and furthermore to understand it.

BK: Regarding agnosticism. Better arguments should be sought, after all why not, but one must be careful of the original proposition. If there are insufficient arguments there is nothing to distinguish God from a fairy tale (Occam’s razor) and one would presumably consider it an act of faith in a fairy tale to persistently seek to provide a better argument for it. To be an agnostic is, in my view (as previously discussed here), a subject statement of “I’m not sure”, which would ordinarily favour both arguments equally, such a statement is, scientifically speaking, a precursor to finding out, so if one has faith one might attempt to find a better argument (hence theological agnosticism) or look into rationality (hence atheistic agnosticism). With respect to Elok, this is a simple model that doesn’t account for duality between faith and reason, and with respect to me it doesn’t account for dualism between faith and reason, but I’m sure you get my point .

Yes faith, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning all have a different place, a different purpose and a different remit (admittedly deductive is far closer to inductive since all you are doing is replacing a single categorical element with a hypothetical which is contextual but still objectifiable). One of the purposes of my arguments is to go someway to establish those limits, for example you agreed that faith cannot make scientific claims, while science cannot make theological claims. I presume latterly you mean science/reason/my or others argument saying God doesn’t objectively exist? If I establish that God as is theologically defined (traditional sense) is violating the station of faith and is making a scientific statement, then it is surely science’s home turf. Essentially, I have faith as a subjective emotional state, with its propositions and statements equally subjective if they are premised in, or predicated by faith.

Regarding Darwin and the scientists, from what I know of Darwin’s other theories they weren’t nearly as well researched or well reasoned as evolution, some iirc were merely induced from evolution with the lack of evidence that genetics a century later accounted for. Yes the best scientists of the Renaissance and even into the Enlightenment (i.e. Newton) were Christian but science wasn’t at that stage developed enough to challenge the notion of God, particularly since so many including the scientists believed in him. Even Einstein made what he called the “biggest error of [his] life” by introducing the cosmological constant in general relativity because a hyperbolic universe disagreed with his prejudice for God (for reasons unknown to me he thought it would imply either an elliptical or parabolic universe in terms of its rate of expansion, i.e. matter+energy vs. gravitation).

Science is not necessarily contradictory to faith, but faith and religion are different things, so again while science may not be necessarily contradictory to religion, it is a difficult reconciliation, that some scientists mistakenly make with the teleological argument, as has been previously discussed. In my own case however, in my own life it was my rejection of God that put me on a path to clearer thinking and, if I may be so presumptuous, gave me a greater appreciation of cosmology and philosophy.

Popular mistrust of the scientist is an unpremised observation of mine, of course it is contextual, but in my view the “average person” dislikes people that work to a level they cannot understand, as though the scientist, by understanding science, is saying that he is more intelligent than they. Furthermore, that people dislike those that challenge their long-held and widely accepted beliefs is surely a prudent historical observation, be they scientists like Galileo who challenge the Church’s Aristotelian view of the universe (in response to you, geocentricity was an important part of Catholic doctrine since it seemed to imply Genesis’ creationism), or non-philosophical scientists who ad hominem creationists.

I am inclined to concur somewhat with a caution over punctuated equilibrium, since imo it fails to account for reduced numbers of “missing links” as it were, which is better understood if you think of a species slowly adapting to its environment, and then after a specific change the numbers mushroom… shall we say, walking on two legs, and then opposable thumbs respectively. The natural disasters thesis is unnecessary because of constant competition and constant evolutionary stimuli, if there were none then evolution would only therefore work after natural disasters but to me that seems insufficient.

[bayraven]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


But the only one that really seems to indicate it is the "I AM" statement, which is from John. Having not participated in our previous biblical discussions, you wouldn't have known that I consider John to be total horse poop when it comes to any accuracy about the life of Jesus. Considering it was probably written over 70 years after the supposed events by someone who wasn't there, I don't have much faith in its accuracy.

regarding the 70 years lapse (many believe it to be much less, falling well within John's life span), but suppose it was 70 years after the death of Christ, do you think that renders the observations specious? If so, is it also a concern that there are no extant copies of any NT books?

[Ben Kenobi]

PE is not saltationist at all, it is in line with phyletic gradualism, despite claims to the contrary:

Read that essay.

The only way they can bridge that gap is to stretch the word intermittant as used by Darwin. When Darwin says evolutionary change occurs intermittantly, that to me, makes me think of very small changes occuring sporiadically over time. I don't think this perception fits in with PE, since PE requires much less time for the same changes to occur as gradualism, and that was part of the point. PE wanted to better model the sudden changes evidenced in the fossil record, that do not fit in well with Darwin's natural struggle occurring slowly over time.

You have to remember just how much Malthus' idea of the natural struggle and competition between species influences Darwin's theory of natural selection. He does not start along his lines of thought without Malthus' observations, and his observations form the core of his introduction even in the Origin of Species, published after decades of work in the field.

Are you suggesting that Darwin proposed gradualism out of just an aversion to catastrophism? Do you have a cite for that claim?

Yes, and I found it!

Thank you for forcing me to return to earlier years of my education.

That point is made here;

"Darwin, On Evolution"

T. Glick and D. Kohn.

I cite page 159-160

"The Origin's conclusion is notable for Darwin's insight into what the volume accomplishes in natural science and his presciences regarding its impact on its future.

The excerpt reproduced here begins with Darwin's declaration that he has, in essence, freed the species question from metaphysics. Naturalists need no longer waste their time on conjectures about what the essence of a species might be.

Metaphorical terms will now have plain significance, making natural history a more interesting pursuit because it is more realistic in that real realtionships among species, living and dead, can now be established, not merely, for example, some relationship with a putative, but imaginary archetype.

Even more striking are his predictions: His theory would stimulate a search for the causes of variation, presaging the future connection of genetics and evolutionary theory.

Classification will be come genealogical rather than follow some artificial schemes, and the result will be the revelation of the true plan of creation.

To underline the new realism he predicts for biology, he invokes Lyell's uniformitarian view that geological and life history can now be addressed through the study of causes currently operanting, and fictitious catastrophes can be dispensed with.

Now, the actual quote from Darwin, that the book's author comments on:

pg 184 of the book, quoting from the Origin of Species.

I am well aware that this doctine of natural selection, exemplified in the above imaginary instances, is open to the same objections wheh were at first urged against Sir Charles Lyell's noble views on "the modern changes of the earth, as illustrative of geology;" but we now very seldom hear the action, for instance, of the coast-waves, called a trifling and insignificant cause, when applied to the excavation of gigantic valleys, or to the formation of the longest lines of inland cliffs. Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural seelection if it be a true pinciple, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification to their structure. "


First of all, this shows us that Darwin sides with Lyell, in his theory to reject the theories of the catastrophists. Such rejection seems to permeate his entire theory, and is the primary influence in the desire to postulate a singular force directing evolutionary change, that does not vary significantly over time.

Darwin also seems to rule out PE right here. PE denies that evolution occurs over 'infinitesimally small steps over time.'

That is the reason why these apologists are wrong to claim the two theories can be reconciled.

[Ben Kenobi]

This isn't a quote from Darwin, so I'm not sure how this answers my question about presenting the things Darwin expressed doubts about within his own theory. In fact, neither were the other two. All three seem to be continuations of the PunkEk discussion rather than the Darwin discussion.

I'll ask again, can you cite instances for me where Darwin expressed doubts about his theory, so that I can see just what you're talking about and then we can discuss what scientific discoveries have addressed those doubts since Darwin's time?

Read the Descent of Man. See the differences in Darwin there, from when he published the Origins of Species. There are differences, and the differences reflect these doubts.

Commentary, pg. 241, same book.

"Darwin realised that culture tended to mute the action of selection in that, most particulary, morality demanded that the strong help the weak to survive. The sorry state of the social world led him to observe that "the vicious members of society increse faster than the virtuous," a conclusion that tended to support the general evolutionary principle that progress, was not, and could not be, an invariable rule. "

This is a change. From the quote in the last post, infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; demands the constant, an unstoppable progress of evolution. Now Darwin has had to modify that bold statement to acknowledge that human beings can alter the effects of natural selection, simply through their moral actions to preserve the weak.

This results in unprofitable mutations being passed on through society, and is one of the biggest doubts, as to whether or not natural selection truly acts the same way on people, as it does on other animals.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy:

BK: Regarding agnosticism. Better arguments should be sought, after all why not, but one must be careful of the original proposition. If there are insufficient arguments there is nothing to distinguish God from a fairy tale (Occam’s razor) and one would presumably consider it an act of faith in a fairy tale to persistently seek to provide a better argument for it.

Hardly. That requires the opposite view. Your search is initiated through skepticism of the fairy tale, to find something more concrete. That one is unsatisfied with the current theories demonstrates a lack of faith.

If you believe the arguments are insufficient, that implies that there may be a sufficient argument that has not been presented. Such a thought is contrary to agnosticism, which presumes that even if there is a better argument, there is no way for people to understand such an argument. Therefore the search is pointless.

I presume latterly you mean science/reason/my or others argument saying God doesn’t objectively exist?

Yes. Such an argument cannot be scientifically proven. That is one of the limitations of empirical evidence, that it must be replicable, which is not something that can happen with any revelation of God. We cannot make God do anything, no matter how we try.

Essentially, I have faith as a subjective emotional state, with its propositions and statements equally subjective if they are premised in, or predicated by faith.

Subjective elements vary among individuals. Surely the faith in One God, precludes such analysis.

so again while science may not be necessarily contradictory to religion, it is a difficult reconciliation, that some scientists mistakenly make with the teleological argument, as has been previously discussed.

It works for many. Why do you insist that the reconciliation that works for others, does not, in fact, effect a reconciliation?

In my own case however, in my own life it was my rejection of God that put me on a path to clearer thinking and, if I may be so presumptuous, gave me a greater appreciation of cosmology and philosophy.

The ignorant know all, while the wise are full of doubt.

[Whaleboy]

Hardly. That requires the opposite view. Your search is initiated through skepticism of the fairy tale, to find something more concrete. That one is unsatisfied with the current theories demonstrates a lack of faith.

Then surely faith would preclude the desire to rationalise instead of predicating it in the empirical sense.

Such a thought is contrary to agnosticism, which presumes that even if there is a better argument, there is no way for people to understand such an argument.

No I should think agnosticism provisional in that respect, in my opinion you describe something similar to atheism if you say that people won't understand such an argument, which I am taking as an indication of the perceptory impossibilities inherent to the infinite (Occams razor again), as opposed to appeals to complexity.

Yes. Such an argument cannot be scientifically proven. That is one of the limitations of empirical evidence, that it must be replicable, which is not something that can happen with any revelation of God. We cannot make God do anything, no matter how we try.

But Occams razor is key... if you cannot directly scientifically prove it in an empirical "I see you" manner, however you can reduce it to a contingent possibility or an unfounded inference then the razor cut's it out. It would be like me saying I have faith in the giant pixie, with nothing but faith to predicate that objectively, though it could provisionally exist there is no definite false/positive, since the burden of proof is on me, objectively the possibility is a dunce.

Subjective elements vary among individuals. Surely the faith in One God, precludes such analysis.

Other way around, faith precludes the belief in God. From the subjective point of view, any analysis is irrelevant as you have rightly interpreted from my argument, but in a categorical, communicable sense, their statements are as subjective as their predicate... not dissimilar from my "faith" that mint ice cream is the greatest icecream in human history. No amount of reason, science or Occam is going to make me disagree with that, but I'm damned if I try to communicate that view.

It works for many. Why do you insist that the reconciliation that works for others, does not, in fact, effect a reconciliation?

Because something that is popular or has the appearance of being authoratitively accepted (I should postulate for political reasons also, so as not to alienate the religious but that's just a guestimate) doesn't have to be true. I'm not trying to argue each individual subjective point of view away from the intricacies of their faith (which I think is an erroneous presumption you may be making of me), I am claiming (under the banner of cognitive relativism ... don't worry, I'm not god) that the boundary between their subjective and objective means that something predicated in faith is poor grounds for science. Yes that works two ways but the boundary between them lies at that subjective not some familial approximation.

The ignorant know all, while the wise are full of doubt.

That's quite a dangerous and patronising attitude to take imo. And just a profundity of course, you might want to go a little deeper into your arguments whenever the temptation to get axiomatic comes about . That somehow because of "wise" people (whatever that means) devoting years of their life and working extremely hard and exercising some brilliant minds, to understand things, and yes it presents them with doubt and there is nothing wrong with that, invalidates them in that field of work... well to me that's just a shortcut to thinking.

[Boris Godunov]

BK--you are woefully misrepresenting PE. That it occurs at a relatively fast rate is the case, but that doesn't mean that PE doesn't rely on "infinitesimally small inherited modifications" You're making a strawman out of PE--there are no macromutations or saltationism required, which Gould and Elderidge explicitely stated. They also explictely states that no new mechanism beyond Darwinism was required for PE:

"It [PE] represents no departure from Darwinian mechanisms." (Gould and Eldredge 1977, Section IV, "PE as the basis for a Theory of Macroevolution", page 139)


You are continually confusing PE with saltationism. It was saltationism that Darwin argued against in the quote you cited, not PE. Darwin believed, rightly so, that evolution took a long time to occur. PE doesn't dispute that. Indeed, PE fits in fine with Darwin's theory.

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html

The essay linked is quite in-depth on why PE and Darwinism are totally compatible, and also why your claims as to what Darwin believed re: phyletic gradualism are completely wrong.

Contradicts PG tenet #2

But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification. (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 152)

Contradicts PG tenet #2

"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change." (Darwin, Ch. 10, "On the imperfection of the geological record," p. 428)

Contradicts PG tenet #2, #3, and #4

"... natural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed." (Darwin, Ch. 4, "Natural Selection," pp. 140-141)

And in the conclusion:

Eldredge and Gould made three conclusions from their theory that most evolutionists found rather controversial. These are (1) most species experience stasis for most of their existence, (2) all adaptive change usually corresponds with speciation, and (3) natural selection at the species level has important macroevolutionary implications (this is now called "species selection"). These last two points were the most controversial at the time, and many scientists were unconvinced that any of these three conclusions were necessary deductions from PE. Gould and Eldredge explicitly admitted that they are biased in drawing these conclusions. Since their proposal, species selection has been shown to be relatively uncommon (as opposed to individual and genic selection), even though it does seem to contribute in rare cases. The evidence is still mixed as to whether adaptive change usually accompanies speciation; there are clearly some cases where it does not.

Punctuated equilibrium is a valid scientific hypothesis, and when geological strata are complete with good temporal resolution and the fossil record is well-represented, the hypothesis is testable. PE, as construed by Eldredge and Gould, is founded upon the modern allopatric speciation model which lies well within mainstream population genetics. However, PE is not novel, and in large part PE originated with Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species (Darwin credits British paleontologist Hugh Falconer with first proposing that stasis is more predominant in the fossil record than periods of morphological change). Thus, in any meaningful sense of the word, the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is resolutely "Darwinian."

You appear to be quote mining from Darwin to make out beliefs contrary to what he truly believed.

[Boris Godunov]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
This is a change. From the quote in the last post, infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; demands the constant, an unstoppable progress of evolution. Now Darwin has had to modify that bold statement to acknowledge that human beings can alter the effects of natural selection, simply through their moral actions to preserve the weak.

Since human beings are natural creatures, our taking steps to do such things in no way alters the concept of natural selection. On the contrary, that just means that natural selection includes the wilful actions of humanity, just as in the wild the wilful actions of predators against prey is an aspect of NS. Natural selection is nothing more or less than the total environmental influence on a species, no matter what the agents are.

This results in unprofitable mutations being passed on through society, and is one of the biggest doubts, as to whether or not natural selection truly acts the same way on people, as it does on other animals.

How do we know that human society, which has generally driven to protect the weak from the strong, isn't a result of natural selection itself? There are indications that humanity's social nature is a genetic trait. This could in fact be one of the chief evolutionary aspects of humanity that ensured its rise to sentience.

So stronger people helping the weak might just very well be an evolutionary boon that is still a valid part of natural selection.