Darwin's Missing Link

Since my political commentaries aren’t always publishable here at the Filipino Freethinkers site, I decided to just focus on themes that seem to be prevalent here such as Religion and Science. In a non-religionist environment “Evolution” is quite a popular topic to discuss. While I do not intend to join a choir singing praises to evolution I also do not intend to throw a monkey wrench into it. The purpose of this article is to critically analyze the pitfall of reductionist thinking when it comes to Evolution.

Did you guys know that, Charles Darwin – the father of evolution, shares the same birthday with me? Wow! Isn’t that something? I used to think that my birthday was quite special because every birthday I celebrate the whole United States of America celebrates it (Lincoln’s birthday) too! Now it is even more special because not only do I have Americans celebrating on my birthday, I also have all the Darwinian atheists in the world celebrating, as well. Quite a big deal, huh?

So in one of the godless groups I used to frequent, Darwin’s birthday was always celebrated. Take note that I said Darwin’s birthday was celebrated, not mine. No one in that godless group cared enough to greet me on my birthday, but that’s alright. I certainly am not holding it against President Barack Obama for not giving me a birthday greeting, as well.

Anyway, it is just very much expected to find a discussion on evolution and Charles Darwin in an atheist forum or atheist group. Of course, in an atheist group evolution is treated as some sort of dogma. No one can question it… evolution explains everything in our lives! To question evolution and sometimes even Charles Darwin himself is a heresy! If you are stupid enough to question evolution and Charles Darwin in an atheist forum, you might end up being branded as some sort of an idiot mystic who cannot think freely outside the box of religious credulity.

So what is so special about Darwin and Darwin’s “evolution” that seems to trigger some sort of a Cognitive Dissonance amongst some “atheists”?

I came across an assertion by a self-professed atheist that said Charles Darwin’s Evolution through Natural Selection also answers the “why” questions in life. These “why” questions, he said, were once solely under the affairs of religion. Darwin has shattered religion’s monopoly for the “how” questions and now we are told that it has the “why” questions covered, as well.

I have no problems when it comes to Evolution trumping religion when it comes to the “how” questions. But I would like to take a pause for a moment and think about whether I can jump in the bandwagon with atheists on the claim for the “why” questions. So I pondered on the question whether Evolution based on Natural Selection can really answer some of the “why” questions or more abstract questions in life. Was Charles Darwin able to answer the question why humans have morals?

In the investigation, it is important to have a clearly defined scope. The empirical data needs to be within the scope of interest, which is Evolution through Natural Selection. In light of that, we need to establish a definition of terms – what is Evolution and what is Natural Selection?

As I understand it, Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Natural Selection is the mechanism behind evolution and it is a theory of local adaptation to changing environments. Local environments change consistently. The Earth has become hotter and colder throughout time. Environments have become wetter and drier; grassy, more forested, more arid… etc. The empirical data we have certainly shows how different species have adopted to the changing environments. The evolutionary history of the elephant family gives a good insight for how natural selection worked. (Please see: http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html )

So in essence, evolution by natural selection tracks changing environments by differential preservation of organisms better designed to live in them.

Now, does Darwin have any empirical data that shows how the changing temperature throughout the planet’s history, for instance, has changed morality? Or why morality emerged from the change in our planet’s historical climate? Can fossils of Australopithecus afarensis and Homo habilis and Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens be correlated to the changing climates from their respective periods for us to see why morality is what it is today? Does Darwin have empirical data to show that morality is directly proportional to natural selection from changing local environments?

Darwin indeed offered evidence that suggests Natural Selection as the basis for humans’ morality. In his book, “The Descent of Man”, Darwin discussed in chapter 5 of that book, the “Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties during Primeval and Civilised Times”. Here is the link to that chapter:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-05.html

I do not see anywhere from the link above any empirical evidence to support Darwin’s claim of Natural Selection accounting for morality. The chapter, however, offers explanations and rationalizations, but no empirical data is presented.

As he described somewhere in the beginning of chapter 5, the lower animals must have their bodily structure modified in order to survive under greatly changed conditions. This certainly fits well within the scope of natural selection (which is the mechanism behind evolution and the theory of local adaptation to changing environments). This can be shown through fossil records. We have empirical data to support such claims by looking at the difference in skeletal structure of similar organisms from different places with different climates/conditions. That is fine and dandy. However, when it comes to morality, we do not see any data from him that shows how, say the change in climate, has triggered the formation or even refined our moral sense. Instead, he offers anthropological data to support his theory. But the anthropological data presented merely builds up his inferences. Testing the inferences is another story.

I am not suggesting that anthropological studies are worthless. However, I would caution about depending on mere anthropological data to readily conclude on something abstract. We see the value in taking a pause in making conclusions right away with critiques to Ruth Benedict’s Ethical Relativism defense using anthropological data. Our Philo 101 course has taught that lesson already.

Anyway, around the seventh paragraph, he avers to natural selection as “survival of the fittest”. He intimates that “survival of the fittest” points to reproductive success or success in the increase in population.

“Therefore, it hardly seems probable that the number of men gifted with such virtues, or that the standard of their excellence, could be increased through natural selection, that is, by the survival of the fittest; for we are not here speaking of one tribe being victorious over another.”

But how does Darwin define “fitness”? In the way he described it from his writing, it seems that he defines “fitness” in terms of survival success. So… the survival success of those who survive? Isn’t that a tautology? Sure, we can probably grant that tautologies sometimes are used for statement definitions ( e.g. “My father is a man.” ), but not as testable scientific statements – there can be nothing to test in a statement true by definition.

In the same book (The Descent of Man), Darwin also expressed his racism and sexism. Darwin argues that the male is an intrinsically more dominant figure than the woman. Darwin argues that because of the woman’s maternal instincts, women are more tender and selfless. But he also adds:

“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization. The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” ( The Descent of Man, p. 576)

Does Darwin have available empirical evidence using natural selection (featuring changing environments) to support his claim of why men attain a higher eminence in pretty much everything… including intellectual powers?

I do not see anything that gives empirical and objective data to support Darwin’s conclusions. What we can see are mere rationalization that tries to fit all observable human behavior to the Natural Selection framework. Was Darwin able to rationalize how morals could cohesively fit into the Natural Selection framework? Perhaps. Was he able to empirically and objectively test it? Well… there appears to be no evidence for it (at least not in the link provided).

Sure, we may grant that Darwin, from his “The Descent of Man”, concluded that man’s morality stems from the development of social instincts through natural selection. Sure we may grant that Darwin suggested that men are superior over women from the same book. Sure we may also grant that Darwin did write that the characteristic advantages of women are characteristic of “lower races” and “lower state of civilization”. We may even grant his explanations to be plausible. But his empirical data to support his conclusions is another story. I don’t think Darwin’s words ought to be treated as inerrant nor sacred. But then again who the hell am I, huh? For “freethinking atheists”, I’m just a stupid idiot sophist mystic who cannot think freely outside the box of religious credulity.

If that’s not the case, I guess we can just think that we just need more empirical data to support Darwinian claims on abstract questions such as questions regarding morality. With this, I guess the quest for the “missing link” continues.

* * * * *

DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this article represent the views of the author (hgamboa) and do not necessarily represent the editorial position of www.filipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com.

35 comments

  1. Great post, I always enjoy a good laugh.
    I don't see how you can claim evolution is "a non-religionist environment " as EVOLUTION itself is a RELIGION.
    To make it clear, DARWIN SAID HIMSELF, IN ORIGINS OF SPECIES THAT THE ABSENCE OF INTERMEDIATE LINKS BETWEEN SPECIES IN THE GEOLOGICAL FORMATION IS THE MOST OBVIOUS AND GRAVEST OBJECTION WHICH CAN BE URGED AGAINST HIS THEORY. It was so wrong, and even he knew it, why have modern scientist embraced this flawed and very objectionable assumption??
    See my site for my side of this argument.
    Thanks!

    • [DARWIN SAID HIMSELF, IN ORIGINS OF SPECIES THAT THE ABSENCE OF INTERMEDIATE LINKS BETWEEN SPECIES IN THE GEOLOGICAL FORMATION IS THE MOST OBVIOUS AND GRAVEST OBJECTION WHICH CAN BE URGED AGAINST HIS THEORY]

      A quick look around the net will reveal that there plenty of discoveries of these so-called "missing links" that you and other creationists insist on.

      Visit Panda's Thumb, the Richard Dawkins forums, or join the discussions at the Pharyngula blog if you're really after the answers.

      [It was so wrong, and even he knew it, why have modern scientist embraced this flawed and very objectionable assumption?? ]

      If the theory of evolution was so flawed as you assert, it would have been disproven and forgotten long ago. The fact is that its general explanation of how organisms develop is accurate enough to be a foundation for contemporary research.

      We don't worship religion you fucking twat – we respect is as a scientific theory that works.

      Creationists like you, on the other hand, seems to find it convenient to pretend that the ever-growing data by the scientific community just so you can peddle your bullshit to the gullible.

      For everybody else reading this, an example of how faulty creationist assertions are:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

      • -ON the worship darwin-
        Please cite examples said worship of Darwin.

        What is your definition of Worship?
        How is it different from the Respect and Attribution to Any Authoritative source that has Proven and has best sources of Proof and Empirical Evidence?

        Please cite Statistics by which you can say Atheists Worship Darwin (More than 50% atheists). Otherwise this argument is null and can be deemed a cleverly disguised attack (since it makes unsubstantial claims to in order to argue against the credibility of a group of people and a scientific theory. Also note that in order to successfully debunk a scientific theory based on evidence and proof, you require the same not claims.

        –I came across an assertion by a self-professed atheist that said Charles Darwin’s Evolution through Natural Selection also answers the “why” questions in life. These “why” questions, he said, were once solely under the affairs of religion. Darwin has shattered religion’s monopoly for the “how” questions and now we are told that it has the “why” questions covered, as well.
        I have no problems when it comes to Evolution trumping religion when it comes to the “how” questions. But I would like to take a pause for a moment and think about whether I can jump in the bandwagon with atheists on the claim for the “why” questions. So I pondered on the question whether Evolution based on Natural Selection can really answer some of the “why” questions or more abstract questions in life. Was Charles Darwin able to answer the question why humans have morals?–

        Who said "Why" Evolution only explain How? Please Cite your source. Who are these Atheists you speak off that said "why". Your claim requires you to bear the burden of proof.

        As for those Atheists that did answer why, where did you get that idea that MOST atheists have the same idea? Please cite proof as to where you gut the statistics that allow you to make the Generalist statements (like greater than 50% of atheists).

        Many errors in Assumptions. Although it is you Opinion, if the burden of Proof is not brought out and your fallacies not answered, by logical formula, these makes your conclusions meaningless.

        • Hi Tanod,
          Thanks for reading. Reading your comment gives me the impression that you are quite bothered by the touch of sarcasm in my writing and you seem to have quite a hard-on when it comes to busting a little atheist chops. Thing is, Tanod, 3, 4, or 5 years ago I would have probably entertained your requests. However, I’ve been around already and this really ain’t the first time I’ve seen the rodeo so I’m just going to choose to leave you alone with that hard-on you got. Splitting hairs on definitions that would lead to corner painting just ain’t worth the time and effort. Sorry, Tanod… but I’m going to have to pass. If you think I’m full of fallacies and meaningless glib then by all means… knock yourself out! Frankly I just don’t have the time and patience to engage you in a lightweight banter. But again, thanks for reading. 🙂

          • So you don't like being made accountable to your own actions. Your answer is acceptable. Your aversion to the burden of proof is acceptable.

            "you in a lightweight banter." thank you for assessment and dismissal of my objections. I saddened you cannot reciprocate my efforts in being as accountable and choosing neutral language. I'm sorry you cannot overcome the idea of your own fallibility.

            –Part idealist, part realist… Liberal thinker appreciative of Conservative views… A Situational Relativist who is impressed with Objective Morality…—
            In your self description, idealism and realism is a false dichotomy when it comes to the grasp of reality. One can be entirely unrealistic, failing to take an objective view of reality yet assume he is being "realistic".

            I'm curious how much Idealist vs Realist are you assuming about yourself? Are you 50:50, 1:3, 10:1? If your 90% idealist and 10% realist doesn't that make one less in touch with reality, assuming being realist is being in touch with reality.

            My observation that such a lack of discipline and hard work, in making such claim as fair, responsible and informed are a negative traits in one's credibility and character.

            Hope you become more grounded and responsible regarding the claims you make.

          • So you are now taking the argument about my personhood, Tanod? 🙂

            Tanod, I wrote an article without the intent of converting you or anyone else to embrace my sentiments and point of view. If you don't like it, that is fine and dandy.

            Frankly I don't really care about your curiosity. I'll leave it up to you to put perecentages as you deem fit.

    • Thanks for reading, creationDOTws,

      I reviewed what I wrote and I notice that I never claimed that "evolution is a non-religionist environment". What I said was… "In a non-religionist environment “Evolution” is quite a popular topic to discuss".

      Whether Darwin doubted his own theory is not really my concern. When it comes to physical development of organisms and species, I think any doubt he may have had were addressed by scientists who came after him. But anyway, again… thanks for reading. 🙂

      Cheers!

    • Hi creationDOTws,

      Thanks for reading.

      I reviewed what I wrote and I believe I never claimed that "evolution is a non-religionist environment". I believe what I said was…

      "In a non-religionist environment “Evolution” is quite a popular topic to discuss."

      Take care!

  2. [Anyway, it is just very much expected to find a discussion on evolution and Charles Darwin in an atheist forum or atheist group. Of course, in an atheist group evolution is treated as some sort of dogma. No one can question it… evolution explains everything in our lives! To question evolution and sometimes even Charles Darwin himself is a heresy! If you are stupid enough to question evolution and Charles Darwin in an atheist forum, you might end up being branded as some sort of an idiot mystic who cannot think freely outside the box of religious credulity.]

    With all due respect Hector, I don't think youget around much on the net.

    Most of the more popular atheist blogs/sites that I know don't worship Darwin, much less treat his theory of evolution as gospel truth. And if they do come off as dogmatic, perhaps it's because they're busily stomping yet another ID or creationist.

    May I recommend blogs like The Panda's Thumb? http://pandasthumb.org/

    • Hi Twin-Skies,
      Thanks for the comment. You're right… maybe I don't get around much on the net. 🙂 hehehe

      No but seriously, if you look back at the article, you will notice that I was writing about a personal experience I had in a forum I used to frequent… you will also notice that the tone of the writing has a touch of "attitude". That is merely my way of adding a "human touch" to my writings to stir up emotion and conversation. 🙂 Anyway, maybe there are lots of other atheist blogs/sites or fora out there that don't worship Darwin. However, based on my limited net exposure… my dumb luck has taken me to non-religionist sites where Darwin is pretty much worshipped. I'll surely check out your recommended blog and hopefully I'll get to see more of the kinds you mentioned.
      Cheers,
      Hector

    • Hi Twin-Skies,

      Maybe you’re right… perhaps I don’t get around much on the net. 🙂 hehehe

      Anyway, the article was based on my personal experience. I wanted to share what I encountered from the previous forums I used to frequent. But if this is merely a case for myself having not enough exposure to atheist blogs or sites out there with members who do not worship Darwin or evolution, then that’s fine with me. I will surely visit that site you recommended to see more of the kind of atheists you described.

      Take care,
      Hector

      • –Anyway, the article was based on my personal experience. I wanted to share what I encountered from the previous forums I used to frequent.–
        Yes anecdotal evidence tempered with emotional argument is the most balanced way to promote an idea while giving an uninformed audience the best tools for confirming– which is nothing.

        • And your point is??? See, Tanod, the fact that Darwin was not able to provide empirical evidence to account for the explanations he made about morality isn’t going away just because you are offended by sarcasm. If you want to be cute with me… at least try to do a better job. 🙂

          • My point is it that the article trying to "fast talk" an audience to a point of view, instead of presenting facts and a clearer logical formula as to why it comes to its conclusion.

            Do you know the meaning of Empirical Evidence? Here is a very useful reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research. If you still don't understand how much science has added to the evidence of Darwins theories, please check The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. He goes a very long way to explain the matter and providing an extensive set of credible sources to validate his claims. As for Evolution being Testable the domestication of Animals and Plants are physical evidence of the matter, even in darwin's time. Also note that Breeding Dogs for their temperament also supports Darwin's initial thesis of evolutionary psychology and the sister field Cognitive Evolution.

            I cite no true scotsman for your "defense" of sarcasm and appeal to ridicule for belittling an honest attempt of neutral and level headed discussion, as an attempt to make valid objections ridiculous.

            I hope you take no offense at my observations since I've done a lot of support them, with my other post citing where there lacks support for some claims.

          • And noone has still yet to reply to the central point of hgamboa's article. That Darwin's evolutionary theory can account for morality.

          • XIII – What is there to address? His claims are being criticized (and thus the form of his reasoning suspect and incomplete in proof) and he said that he has no plans of being answerable to them. It was he who ended any discussion on the matter.

          • Tanod, what I told you was.. I dont plan on responding to your requests. I can entertain (and I do) folks who respond to the article in a respectful and civil manner. But you come out as a very combative Darwin or evolution apologist which I do not feel ought to be taken seriously. Your line of questioning can easily be responded to but the anwers and explanations would be longer than the article itself. I have better options to use my time on rather than dwell on addressing your hard-on.

          • Hi XIII,
            Tanod, is interesting to deal with. Tanod, in defense of Darwin (and I presume evolution, as well), comes barging in itching for a debate in hopes of discrediting the author (moi) and not the article. He even pokes at my profile and uses his “curiosity” in his response against my article. His line of thought comes to me as a classic Dawkinian model, a strong dichotomist mode. It is either A (evolution accounts for morality) or B (morality isn’t supported by evolution); B sounds utterly stupid so it must be A! While he yells how stupid I am here at FF, he seems to forget addressing the article’s message that Darwin was not able to support his claims on morality from evolution through the natural selection framework. His book “The Descent of Man” merely offered explanations and rationalizations but no actual, direct, and measurable evidence was offered. Anyway, thanks again for reading, XIII. 🙂

          • The problem is, Tanod, is that you are quick to jump to a conclusion that the article aims to fast talk to a POV. I did say that I do not intend to join the evolution choir but I don’t intend to throw a monkey wrench in it either. You seem to be such a Darwin apologist that you are even making a fool out of yourself. The Dawkins work you mentioned showing domestication of animals doesn’t account for morality! Has Dawkins (or Darwin) shown that domesticated behavior IS morality? Where has Dawkins or Darwin shown from their work, say, teleological or deontological ethics from domestication?

            Jesus H. Christ, Tanod… are you really this stupid?

    • Hi Twin-Skies! I finally found some time to check out those sites you recommended. PZ Meyers’ objections seem to be about his adversary’s overall critique of evolution. Like I said, I am not attacking evolution itself. My article is about was skepticism over evolution determinist thinking and its shades of reductionist thinking. I am with PZ Meyers on his critiques of the legislator he was responding to. Regarding Panda's thumb, I found a lot of interesting posts there. However, after doing a quick search on topics in the archives that are related to evolutionary accounts to morality/ethics, I did not see any. As I said, I have no problems with evolution itself when it comes to physical development of organisms. What I am skeptical about are claims about abstract subjects as morality just like Darwin's claims in his “The Descent of Man” work. His work just did not have any empirical evidence to support his claims regarding morality. By the way, I’m sorry to hear that you find my understanding of evolution (and perhaps science as well) to be stupid. Take care!

  3. “Of course, in an atheist group evolution is treated as some sort of dogma.” It most certainly is not treated as dogma. Scientists welcome challenges to the theory of evolution by natural selection with open arms, but of course only as long as they have substance. As they stand, your objections have no substance. But do not worry, I think you are just a victim of our country’s awful science education system. This is why I enjoy being a science teacher. Now, speaking of science education, let me sample a few of your many shaky claims.

    “As I understand it, Evolution is a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form…” Strictly speaking, nothing changes. In evolution, it’s not individuals that change, but rather populations over time – in other words, gene pools. So there is no single thing that changes. Actual evolution has nothing to do with Pikachu evolving into Raichu. And the change is not toward more “complex” or “better” forms. True, increasing complexity is a common feature of evolution, but it is not an essential feature. Increasing complexity arises only from the fact that descendants improvise on what they got from their ancestors. Now, better is not even in the story, since it is a value judgment and it has no place in science. If you want a solid fact, then here it is: traits which lead their bearer to be well adapted to a certain environment get passed into future generations more often and hence proliferate.

    “I do not see anywhere from the link above any empirical evidence to support Darwin’s claim of Natural Selection accounting for morality. The chapter, however, offers explanations and rationalizations, but no empirical data is presented.” What’s with the fixation on empirical data? It is true, empirical data are the foundations of science, and rightly so. But empirical data are not the be-all and end-all of science. Science cannot take flight if it does not project, if it does not make risky guesses that take it beyond the scope of the available data – in short, if it does not formulate theories and models.

    “But how does Darwin define “fitness”? In the way he described it from his writing, it seems that he defines “fitness” in terms of survival success. So… the survival success of those who survive? Isn’t that a tautology? Sure, we can probably grant that tautologies sometimes are used for statement definitions ( e.g. “My father is a man.” ), but not as testable scientific statements – there can be nothing to test in a statement true by definition.” The saddening phrase “Survival of the fittest” is due to the philosopher Herbert Spencer, not to Charles Darwin. Now, Darwin’s version of “survival of the fittest” is a lot more subtle, and it certainly does not lead to a tautology. For Darwin, it’s not so much about survival as it is about passing on one’s genes to the future generation. In short, Darwinism is founded on the simple (but not simplistic) fact that heritable traits which allow their bearer to produce more or better offspring tend to increase in frequency in a population over time. That’s the distinction between simple and simplistic: Spencer’s phraseology is simplistic, and it certainly is empty, while Darwin’s is simple but not simplistic, and it certainly bears a lot of (scientific) weight.

    I want to point out more of your errors, but I will opt to answer your challenge by writing an article on evolution and morality instead. I hope you will take all my criticisms constructively.

    • Hi Pecier,
      Thanks for reading. Of course I always take your criticisms constructively. We've had quite a few pleasant exchanges in the past, if you remember. 🙂

      Anyway, if evolution, as you claim, all boils down to gene pools…then how can gene pools account for our moral development? I am not aware of any "morality gene" that has actually been isolated and has shown to be actually responsible for moral judgments and actions. If we are to embrace evolution or genetic determinism for things like the "why questions in life" or "morality" then I would at least hope that we can have empirical evidence to back that up. That is actually the gist of the article. If we are to accept that evolution has conquered the "how" and "why" questions in life, would our acceptance be backed up by empirical evidence that is demonstrable and repeatable? If the answer is no, then shouldn't that at least make us pause for a moment? I'm not questioning the validity of evolution… my intent is to caution my readers in embracing evolution (or even genetic) determinism.
      Cheers,
      Hector (M_Y)

    • Hmm… I replied a few minutes ago but for some reason my response wasn’t posted. Maybe I’ve angered a few atheist gods. 🙂 hehehe Anyway, I’ll just re-post…

      Well, first things first… I hope you realize that the intent of the article is not to question evolution itself but rather… evolutionary determinism.

      Okay, let’s proceed…

      If evolution, as you claim, is pretty much all about gene pools, then has there been a “morality gene” that has been isolated and has been shown to account for morality? I am not aware of any. Thing is, Pecier, if we are to embrace the notion that evolution has conquered the “how” and “why” questions in life, I would hope that we would be able to back up our choice with empirical data that is repeatable and verifiable. We criticize religionists for not being able to provide us with empirical evidence to support their claims… why should non-religionists be exempted from it?

      Take care,
      Hector (M_Y)

    • By the way, Pecier, of course I will welcome your criticisms as "constructive". I've grown to appreciate your posts in another forum where we both participated in. So yes… please go ahead… write an article on evolution and morality and do point out "more of my errors". However, I just want to request that if you are going to make some claims accounting morality to evolution… please provide references to actual empirical evidence/data and not just "explanations". There are lots of plausible explanations, I'm sure…. but as a scientist yourself… I'm sure you know that it all boils down to empirical data that is repeatable and independently verifiable.

      Thanks!

  4. @Hector Gamboa

    The difference between the scientific community and fundamentalists is that the former has a comprehensive set of checks and balances to ensure that said biases from the research are kept to a minimum. Any data from a study is always open to questioning and inquiry, provided that the person making the inquiry has also done his/her research

    • Agreed. However, the problem may lie with the interpretation of data. One’s interpretation may be susceptible to personal bias. Darwin’s case shows that although he offered explanations regarding morality, he didn’t really actually have any empirical data to back-up his claims. His claims were merely based on rationalization to fit into his personal bias for Natural Selection. We can grant that his explanation may be plausible, but with regards to the question on whether he was able to support his explanations with empirical data is a different story. Thanks for reading and Happy Holidays! 🙂

      • [His claims were merely based on rationalization to fit into his personal bias for Natural Selection. We can grant that his explanation may be plausible, but with regards to the question on whether he was able to support his explanations with empirical data is a different story.]

        There is of course the ever-growing body of work from other researchers over the years that continually confirm Darwin's theory of evolution.

        If you've got the time, may I recommend reading this rebuttal letter by PZ Myers for a creationist regarding the finer points of evolution. I also recommend not drinking anything while reading it – Myers' is damn funny to read when he's being mean XD
        http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/when_d

        • I agree. Darwin's Theory of Evolution propelled by Natural Selection has been confirmed all over the years. However, it is his claims such as for morality that he (or any other scientists) has not supported with direct and empirical evidence. Evolutionary psychology does not exactly offer the same kind of empirical data and proof that evolutionary biology offers.

          Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll check it out when I get the chance! 🙂

  5. The response would be the same caveat you'd give to a religious person who says "there are things that science can't explain." Natural Selection cannot explain everything… YET.

    For example, Noam Chomsky once said that our current understanding of evolutionary psychology has been tainted by our acceptance of Ayn Rand-style capitalism. This has caused us to overlook important phenomena such as cooperative evolution.

    As such, Darwin was also subject to the scientific and social biases of his day. This of course doesn't call evolution or natural selection itself into question, but rather, our interpretation of it.

    • Res ipsa loquitur seems like a popular dogma for people. In other words, “evidence, and evidence alone, is the sole determinant of truth”. The problem is that people tend to seek out, recall, and interpret evidence in a manner that sustains their beliefs. The interpretation of data is often deeply shaped by the beliefs of the researcher. These implicit beliefs are often so deeply held that they affect the way in which people process information and arrive at judgments. This is for both religious and anti-religious belief systems. Both can be resistant to anything that threatens to undermine, challenge, qualify, or disconfirm strongly held beliefs. Certainly, we see this in religious fundamentalists as their worldviews seem to be detached from empirical evidence. But the worldview of Charles Darwin (and even Richard Dawkins) can also be as detached from empirical evidence as religionists. For RD’s case, he certainly has his own views about what religionists believe and he proceeds to trash those views with such gusto. He seems to have concluded that religion has been judged to be false. However, whether the judgment can be sustained on the basis of evidence is another story. Happy Holidays! 🙂

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here