Re: 15. SOCIAL


"NILS BÖRJESSON" <borje@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:QWeBg.12046$E02.4339@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stephen E. Jones: Projects: Problems of Evolution (Outline): SocialStephen
E.
Jones
Projects: "Problems of Evolution" (Outline): 15. Social
[Home] [Site map] [Updates] [Projects] [Contents, 1. Introduction, 2.
Philosophy, 3. Religion, 4. History, 5. Science, 6. Environment, 7. Origin
of
Life, 8. Cell & Molecular, 9. Mechanisms, 10. Fossil Record, 11. `Fact' of
Evolution, 12. Plants, 13. Animals, 14. Man, 16. Conclusion, Notes;
Bibliography: A-E, D-F, G-I, J-M, N-S, T-Z]




"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 15. SOCIAL
1. Social Darwinism
1. Eugenics
2. Racism
3. Nazism
2. Sociobiology (Evolutionary Psychology)
1. `Explains' too much
2. Altruism
3. Ethics
1. Animal rights





"PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 15. SOCIAL
1. Social Darwinism
1. Eugenics

2. Racism
Evolution gave scientific support to racism. The subtitle of Darwin's
Origin
of Species was "The
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (Darwin, 1859,
p.3).

The word "Races" in the subtitle is equivalent to species. Today, the
subtitle would be, "The Preservation of Favoured Species in the Struggle for
Life".

The remainder of this section is irrelevant. Either evolution happened or
it didn't. Either the evidence supports evolution or it doesn't. If we
don't like the results or the implications of a theory, that's just too bad.
Likewise, how someone uses or abuses a theory has nothing to do with its
validity.

[snip]

2. Sociobiology (Evolutionary Psychology)
1. `Explains' too much
Darwinism in the social sciences suffers from the same problem of
Darwinism
in biology, that it `explains' too
much (Leith, 1982, p.27). The problem is that if a theory explains all
observations, then it is unfalsifiable

Actually, a theory that explains all of the available evidence would be
unfalsified, not unfalsifiable. There is a difference. Perhaps you are
confusing a theory that explains all observations with a theory that can
explain any observation.

(Leith, 1982, p.27). "The difficulty ... is that if it explains too much,
it
also explains too little, and ... Posing
as a massive deduction from the evidence, it ends up as an ingenious
argument from ignorance." (Himmelfarb 1959, p.336).
This is particulary so in the social sciences where "any state of affairs
known to exist or to have existed can
be explained by the operation of natural selection" (MacRae, 1958, p.304;
Burrow, 1966, p.115).

This argument doesn't even make sense.

Therefore Evolutionary Psychology (like its near-relative Sociobiology),
"proves to be so elastic that it can explain
just about anything," why "mothers ... kill their newborn babies," and
"why
most mothers do not kill their babies,"
but "a theory that explains any phenomenon and its opposite, too, in
reality
explains nothing," because "it is so
flexible that it can be twisted to say whatever proponents want it to say"
(Pearcey, 2004, pp.57-58. Emphasis in
original). [top]

2. Altruism
Evolution cannot explain human altruism. This is clear in dictionary
definitions that show there are two types
of altruism: "1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of
others," and "2 : behavior by an animal that
is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others
of
its species" (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary, 2004). The first is the original definition of altruism and
the
second is the definition of
sociobiology/evolutionary psychology, which denies that the above
mentioned
first definition can even exist!

Of course it exists. You just printed it. Seriously, many words in the
English language have multiple meanings. Using one definition doesn't mean
that the others don't exist, it just means that we aren't using them in the
current context.

Some of our altruism may be biological, and some may be social. Biological
altruism is easily explained by evolution. Social altruism is easily
explained by risk-reward assessment.

For example, sociobiologist Matt Ridley cites approvingly another
sociobiologist, Michael Ghiselin's,
"Scratch an 'altruist' and watch a 'hypocrite' bleed" (Ridley, 1996b,
p.68;
Ghiselin, 1974, p.247; Brown,
1999, pp.49-50). That is, according to sociobiology/evolutionary
psychology,
in the final analysis there is no
such thing as real altruism, and the belief that there is, is
self-deception
(ReMine, 1993, p.158). But
if there really is altruism, then it is the evolutionists who are
deceiving
themselves!

And why is this a problem? Even if the motivation was not truly altruistic,
it would still result in altruistic behavior.

And of course there is such a thing as "altruism... in which ... I do
something for someone else, without
regard for any actual or possible advantage to me" (O'Hear, 1989, p.103),
and indeed where someone gives his
life for complete strangers:

"A number of years ago, a terrible mid-winter air disaster occurred in
which a plane leaving the
Washington, D.C. airport smashed into a bridge spanning the Potomac
River,
plunging its passengers
into the icy waters. As the rescue helicopters came, attention was
focused
on one man who again and
again pushed the dangling rope ladder to other passengers rather than be
pulled to safety himself. Six
times he passed the ladder by. When they came again, he was gone He had
freely given his life that
others might live. The whole nation turned its eyes to this man in
respect
and admiration for the selfless
and good act he had performed. And yet, if the atheist is right, that man
was not noble - he did the
stupidest thing possible. He should have gone for the ladder first,
pushed
others away if necessary in
order to survive. But to die for others he did not even know, to give up
all the brief existence he would
ever have - what for? For the atheist there can be no reason. And yet the
atheist, like the rest of us,
instinctively reacts with praise for this man's selfless action." (Craig
W.L., 1994, p.68).

Why would the motivation for altruistic behavior be any less strong in
atheists than in anyone else?

The existence of altruism is a major problem for evolution (Cronin, 1991,
p.253). The problem is that,
"Darwinism ... cannot countenance ... variations which are harmful," as
"the
fundamental axiom of the theory,"
contained in "every edition of The Origin of Species, states: `If
variations
which are useful to their
possessors in the struggle for life do occur, can we doubt (remembering
that
many more individuals are born than
can possibly survive), that individuals having any advantage, however
slight, over others, would have the best
chance of surviving and reproducing their, kind? On the other hand, we may
feel sure that any variation in the
least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed (Darwin, 1872, p.81, in
O'Hear, 1989, p.142. Emphasis
O'Hear). Yet, "any educated person can easily think of a hundred
characteristics, commonly occurring in our
species, which are not only 'in the least degree' injurious to their
possessors, but seriously or even extremely
injurious to them, which have not been 'rigidly destroyed', and concerning
which there is not the smallest
evidence that they are in the process of being destroyed." (Stove, 1994;
O'Hear, 1989, pp.142-143). For example,
"some widely acclaimed virtues which have little to do with Darwinian
success (survival and reproduction) and
which are frequently injurious to their possessors in more than the least
degree Darwin argued would lead to their
being rigidly destroyed: feeding the poor, tending the sick, visiting the
imprisoned, modesty, chastity, honesty,
promise-keeping, integrity, respect for the rights of others,
self-sacrifice, honour, and this is without even
mentioning the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity." (O'Hear,
1989, p.143). [to be continued]
[top]

You need to read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. It explains how
evolution operates on genes rather than individuals. A gene that promotes
altruism may put an individual at risk, but it could potentially save copies
of itself in others. Such a gene would spread through a population by
providing aid to the other copies.

3. Ethics
1. Animal rights
It is ironic that science based on materialistic/naturalistic premises,
having rejected its original foundations on
Judeo-Christian premises, that man is uniquely created in the image of God
(Gn 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6; Col 3:10), is
left with no principled justification of why it should carry out
experiments
on animals, especially primates, which
may cause their suffering and death, in order to find treatments that may
save or improve the lives of humans. For
example, Cambridge University (Darwin's almer mater is encountering
resistance from animal rights
activists to its plans to build a new primate research laboratory
(Matfield,
2003). The Darwinists can hardly
complain if, after telling us that we humans are just animals, with no
special status on the tree of life, they are
taken literally by some! [top]

You'll have to explain that one. I'm not even sure what position it is
taking.

The ultimate authority in science is the evidence. Either evolution
happened or it didn't. Either the evidence supports evolution or it
doesn't. The arguments above are an attempt to discredit Darwin and
evolutionists rather than deal with the evidence. As far as science is
concerned, it doesn't matter if Darwin was a racist or evolutionists are
asses, the evidence supports evolution.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is Evolution?
    ... Darwinism accepts unintelligent causation also referred ... objective facts show evolution to be pro-Atheism. ... basic science, or the results of scientific explanations into ... explains the evidence without invoking the supernatural. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dover court decision: results of ID proponents lying to the judge; ID _is_ creationism
    ... What evidence do you have that Judge Jones was a "Darwinist"? ... Which is not what evolution states. ... Judge Jones is a common Darwinist/TEist who shit on the Constitution, ... Ph.D. Stanford University: Darwinism is a penalty from ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: In the News: Darwin Only Had A Theology Degree
    ... questioning the opinions of anyone based on their qualifications. ... You haven't presented anything that hurts the Theory of evolution. ... The point is that degrees don't matter as much as the evidence does. ... T.O. is a subjective slice of Darwinism; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray, are we still looking at a March 2006 release date?
    ... If the evidence for the Bible ... mention evidence against "Darwinism" in the first place. ... against Creationists. ... Neither Creationism or Evolution are scientific. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: evolution explains what?
    ... > altruism, i.e. if ever documented within nature Darwinism (the only ... > valid theory of evolution that we have) stands refuted. ... > 3) Organism fitness altruism has been routinely confused with organism ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)