[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, if I wasn't clear but all I am saying is that evolutionary theory is at the gene level not the person level. If the 'smart' person was saying that evolutionary theory means that parents love their children because of some possible future benefit to the parent he is wrong. Parents have evolved to love their children for the benefit of their genes.

It is a scientific theory so I can't prove it but its pretty succesful as science goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree with phil's points, with regard to your posts on this thread, but not necessarily agree with his reasons for the points he makes. As to your posts: you are making (wrong) semantical arguments that have nothing to do with "science" of any kind. For instance, this sentence: "all I am saying is that evolutionary theory is at the gene level not the person level", is simply very confused. I'm not sure if you are aware of it, but the concept of "genes" in itself is not related to the basical idea of evolutionary theory at all. As a matter of fact, the theory of evolution was originated long before any idea about "genes", and the "discovery of genes" did not change the basic thinking behind the theory of evolution, as it did not affect it, since it only "helped" to explain the "mechanics" of it. The evolutionary theory is certainly not on the "level" of genes (more than any other "level"), because when you apply evolutionary theory explanation to specific human behaviours, you are assuming some way of transmitting the "genetic" inoformation, and your assumption is there in any case (clearly, you might simply say that there are "genes" for different abilities to love, as persons, and groups that have people with "improved" genetic love ability for their children survive better. It's only a semantical difference).

Also, saying that "If the 'smart' person was saying that evolutionary theory means that parents love their children because of some possible future benefit to the parent he is wrong", is nonsense. He might be wrong, he might be right, nobody has good enough tools to judge, since he's just offering an "evolutionary interpretation". Parents might love their children because of some possible fututre benefit, and it might work very well with an evolutionary theory, since the circle of 'giving love-getting love back when you're old' might be very useful in terms of long term survival of a species, or a group, that might be in need of the wisdom of the older members, and therefore, it is crucial to keep them around as long as possible. And by giving love to their children, the parents "secure" some possible benefits in the future, to keep them alive and in good shape, which might help the whole group and speicies in return.

Of course, this is only one line of thinking. You can take any human behaviour, and give it several very different interpretation that might get along with evolutionary theory. In fact, that's one of the great weaknesses of evolutionary theory, and why it is not a theory in the same sense that certain theories in physics, for instance, are scientific theories.