----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Grimes" <cgrimes at rawbw.com>
>
> If you believe any of this stuff, you might want to reflect on the
> possibly that others, don't. Just because it's in print and called
> biology or science, doesn't make it so. Appeal to authority doesn't
> cut it.
>
> Just start with the definition, ``the surrender of personal genetic
> fitness for the enhancement of personal genetic fitness in
> others''. Personal isn't the only loaded word in that
> sentence. Surrender? Fitness? Enchancement? Others? The only
> non-controversial words in that sentence are the articles.
>
> In the past, in other sciences there were great philosophical
debates
> that went on for decades before some of the words and concepts were
ever
> considered well understood and accepted. That is not the case here.
>
> If you want, why don't you post an article or put up a url and let's
go
> into this.
>
> Chuck Grimes
=======================
http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/~eyeghiay/Philosophy/Colloquia/taylor.html