What I find most interesting in Coyne's critical review of
Thornhill and Palmer is that it takes only the slightest
nudge to use the very same arguments against Darwinian
biology (the notion that all biological features owe their
origin to random mutations and natural selection).
Coyne writes:
"The latest deadweight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary
psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies
the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong
with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories,
particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that
evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of
megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human
action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and
consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In
this view, evolution becomes the key--the only key--that can unlock our
humanity."
The megalomania seen by evolutionary psychologists is really no
different than that seen from Darwinian biologists (DBs). Most of
its adherents are convinced that virtually every biological feature,
including photosynthesis, the eukaryotic nucleus, the various
metazoan body plans, and large brains capable of consciousness, were
directly put onto this planet by natural selection. In this view,
non-teleological
evolution becomes the key --the only key-- than can unlock natural
history.
Coyne:
"Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and
speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding
its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are
hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural
selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and
hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically
testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then
evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly."
Unfortunately, evolutionary biologists routinely confuse theory and
speculation. Unlike bones, origin events do not fossilize, and understanding
their occurrence often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but
are
hard to test. Photosynthesis, for example, is seen as a trait favored by
natural
selection to enable cells to solve metabolic problems by capturing solar
energy and
hence enhancing their future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically
testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then
darwinian
biology is its flabby underbelly.
Coyne:
"But the public can be forgiven for thinking that evolutionary biology is
equivalent to evolutionary psychology. Books by Daniel Dennett, E.O. Wilson,
and Steven Pinker have sold briskly, and evolutionary psychology dominates
the media coverage of the science of evolution."
But the public can be forgiven for thinking that biology is equivalent
to evolutionary and darwinian biology. Books by Daniel Dennett, Richard
Dawkins,
and Stephen Jay Gould have sold briskly, and evolutionary biology dominates
the media coverage of the science of biology.
Coyne:
"In view of the scientific shakiness of much of the work,
its popularity must rest partly on some desire for a comprehensive
"scientific"
explanation of human behavior. Evolutionary psychology satisfies the
postideological hunger for a totalistic explanation of human life, for a
theory
of inevitability that will remove many of the ambiguities and the
uncertainties
of emotional and moral life."
In view of the scientific shakiness of much of the work,
its popularity must rest partly on some desire for a comprehensive
"scientific"
explanation of natural history. Darwinian biology satisfies the
postideological hunger for a totalistic explanation of natural history, for a
theory
of inevitability that will remove many of the ambiguities and the
uncertainties
behind how we got here.
Coyne:
" Thornhill and Palmer have frequently invoked the authority of science in
defense of their evolutionary conception of rape. They insist that their
detractors are ideologically motivated, whereas they are dispassionate
scientists whose only priority is objective truth. In their media appearances,
they have implied that their science is incontrovertible, and that any
dissenter from their conclusions must be philosophically or politically
blinkered."
Darwinian biologists have frequently invoked the authority of science in
defense of their metaphysical views about origins. They insist that their
detractors are ideologically motivated, whereas they are dispassionate
scientists whose only priority is objective truth. In their media appearances,
they have implied that their science is incontrovertible, and that any
dissenter from their conclusions must be philosophically or politically
blinkered.
:)
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 08 2000 - 20:42:09 EDT