And he got the grant money, who is laughng now laughing boy?

The study is all find and good in my view, but to call it 'important'? Who are they kidding?

To those who object that the tinker-toy Darwinism we decry on this site doesn't actually exist, I have only this to say:

Hah. In your face. Whadya say now, huh?

David:

You want to see something even funnier? Here's creeper's explanation of why man evolves religion:

1. Since religion is a human creation that by and large codifies what benefits a society and as such has been found to be a useful means of maintaining social control and group cohesion (which in turn benefit the survival of the group), it is hardly surprising that it is beneficial as a whole, and as such attractive to many members of the group. [...]

Given that religion requires both an organized society and higher intelligence (conceptual thinking, speech, to some extent writing), I don't find this odd at all.

But the interesting question is: is your laughter at this story "self-generated and strategic" rather than "stimulus-driven"?

The use of the word "important" at the start of the story might be open to question, but why should laughter - or any other physical behaviour - be less of a valid subject for scientific enquiry than, say, the human digestive system?

Brit:

The others can speak for themselves, but I know that while my laughter at the inanities of darwinism itself is often strategic, my laughter at the typical comment of the darwinists around here is usually stimulus-driven.

Brit:

Because science has nothing to say about the soul.

You fellows just fall over yourselves looking for some crayzee story from those whacky Darwinists, don't you? What will they come up with next?

I don't read this particular one as "STOP PRESS: DAWKINS PROVES THERE IS NO SOUL AND RELIGION IS WRONG!"

It's an interesting issue: Why do we make that particular odd noise on those occasions? We all know genuine, helpless laughter when we see it. But watch schoolchildren when the bully taunts some hapless weakling, and his fawning cronies do that desperate, wide-eyed guffaw thing? Ghastly: like shrieking baboons - why do they do that?

OJ:

Even granting Darwinism, that explaination of religion is silly. Evolution favors traits good for individuals, not the group. Hasn't he at least read Dawkins?

Brit:

No. I just post every one I find. They're all hilarious.

We left at things like you mention because they represent disorder.

Mike:

If they understood Darwinism they wouldn't believe in it.

[editor's note:

non-responsive.

You still have a task to complete before your Darwinist comments stay up:

Okay. we'll simplify this: if beliefs are merely a function of evolution then why isn't belief in evolution a mere affect?

Any responsive comment will not be deleted--the rest will be.]

"Once upon a time... ...and that's how the hyena got its laugh. Just so."

Heh.