Selfishness and Responsibility Are Just a Game
It’s become increasingly common for evolutionists to explain human behavior in terms of games. Another entry in this genre was published by Science Daily, which began, “‘Game theory’ is used to predict the behaviour of individuals when making choices that depend on the choices of others. First developed as a tool for understanding economic behaviour, game theory is increasingly used in many diverse fields, ranging from biology and psychology to sociology and philosophy.”
Researchers at the Universities of Exeter and Bristol devised a mathematical model and applied it to humans, in order to provide “a new explanation as to why a wide range of personality traits has evolved in humans and other social species.” Their basic idea is that if you seed the mathematical model their colleague developed with variation and monitoring by others, a diversity of selfish and cooperative individuals popped out as an artifact.
In evolutionary terms, this trend is self-perpetuating: variation begets more variation, increasing the gap between those who trusted and co-operated, and those that exploited trusting individuals….
Although the model focuses on individuals, the findings have implications for understanding whole societies They are also significant because they offer an explanation as to why variation has evolved in human beings and other social species.
They seem to be implying that politics, economics, law, national security, charity, and love have now all been subsumed under the game of evolution. But does a game really qualify as a scientific explanation? It seems to suffer the same flaw as natural selection: just as selection implies a selector, a game implies a game-maker who sets up the rules. Is that not what they did with their mathematical model?
OK, let’s play their little game. Let’s punish these non-cooperators for exploiting the gullibility of individuals. How could they complain? We’re just more clever at the game than they are. While they are scratching their heads about our strategy, we move in for the checkmate: pointing out that, by sacrificing their own queen of rationality, they have exposed King Darwin to self-refutation. For more detail, read the entries from 10/02/2008, 06/03/2008, 05/02/2008, 04/23/2008, 03/21/2008, 03/12/2008, 02/03/2008, and 01/20/2008 – and that’s just from this year. It gets so tiring to beat the evolutionists at their own game all the time when we’re trying to get some work done.