I'm not sure about that. It sounds like you're referencing evolution, which, as a Christian, I don't doubt. When it's used as an all encompassing theory as a worldview however, there are insurmountable difficulties.
I'm sure, as a christian, you feel that way.
In terms of morality, I don't think evolution fits; the view that altruistic genes were passed down to us and now the great majority of us feel that unselfish behaviour is "right".
OK.
An individuals self-sacrificing, altruistic behaviour toward his or her own blood kin might result in a greater survival rate for the individual's family or extended clan, and therefore result in a greater number of people.
Generally, yes.
However, for evolutionary purposes the opposite response - hostility to all people outside ones group - should be just as widely considered moral and right behaviour.
In many societies, it is. Including our own. Don't confuse peace-time moral platitudes with the way people really think and behave. The reality is that we all are xenophobic to some degree, and when our "group" feels threatened, we will respond with righteous moral outrage at the aggressors and will try to kill them.
Yet today we believe that sacrificing time, money, emotion and even life - especially for someone "not of our kind" or tribe - is right.
That's a good example of the peace-time moral platitude I referred to. Thanks.
If we see a total stranger fall in the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so.
Yes. Altruism in peaceful conditions is selective for a number of reasons.
In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if the person in the water is an enemy.
Don't be rediculous. You watch too much TV.
How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection?
Read some books. It's entirly possible and, in fact, is what happened.
Such people would have been less likely to survive and pass on their genes.
Really? Why? Those that help others generally don't find themselves in life threatening situations and the reciprocal altruism results in
higher survival.
[/QUOTE]On the basis of strict evolutionary naturalism, that kind of altruism should have died out of the human race long ago. Instead, it's stronger than ever.[/QUOTE]
1) The kind you mentioned (saving enemies in a lake) is not common.
2) There any number of likely evolutionary mechanisms for the development of altruism in a group-living social species.