[lostmsu]

I did not know about neo-Darwinism prior to your comment. I was addressing specific statement.

Because of your request, I skimmed through parts of the article again, and again only found tautology: "Why do some people believe some things over others? Because some ideas spread through their minds better than others."

I can not claim it is illogical, but because it is highly tautological, it is very useless, and I don't wish to spend any more of time on it.

[dchacke]

I'll respect your wish not to spend any more time on it, and will leave you with two closing comments:

1. Like I said, the article is aware of and addresses the tautological nature of neo-Darwinism generally.

2. The part you quoted is not useless because, if true, it refutes other (en-vogue but false) theories about "reasons for belief," such as higher/lower numeric credences, stronger neuronal connections, etc.