My problem with Evolution

[VociMike]

Anybody who has read any of my posts on the subject of evolution knows that I am not opposed to it. More accurately, I am not against the true science that may be found there (as opposed to any false science that gets mixed in, and a whole lot of rhetoric and polemic).

But I do get irked when people try to explain every bit of human behavior in evolutionary language, because such explanations involve so much contradiction. It seems that you can choose any aspect of human behavior, take the very opposites of that behavior, and some people will offer evolutionary explanations for both.

A few examples

Offering your food to others, or taking their food for yourself.

Jumping on a hand grenade, or running away from it.

Being religious (usually involving monogomy and often involving celibacy), or being promiscuous.

I’m sure we could think of many other example-pairs.

I think everybody would agree that an “evolutionist” would be quick to offer explanations for each of the behaviors mentioned. Well, they can’t all be right. For example, I don’t see how being selfish can give one enough evolutionary advantage to make it a part of human nature, while at the same time being selfless does the same.

So that’s my rant for today. Anybody have any thoughts?

 

[Sideline]

But I do get irked when people try to explain every bit of human behavior in evolutionary language, because such explanations involve so much contradiction. It seems that you can choose any aspect of human behavior, take the very opposites of that behavior, and some people will offer evolutionary explanations for both.

A few examples

Offering your food to others, or taking their food for yourself.

Jumping on a hand grenade, or running away from it.

Being religious (usually involving monogomy and often involving celibacy), or being promiscuous.

I’m sure we could think of many other example-pairs.

One of the courses I took in university was Human Evolutionary Psychology. The focus of the course was to show how evolution accounts for all human behaviour. This was a few years ago, and I have to say that the whole field has improved a lot since I took the course.

The problem at the time was that people were trying to make a case for all human behaviour being adaptive. They were saying that everything… even killing one’s self… was to aid in reproductive success. Clearly… that’s c***.

An even bigger problem, than it’s being c***, is that none of the theories I was reading were falsifiable or predictive. None of the essays were able to predict ways that people might act in given situations. It was all a tortured exercise in justifying human behaviour in terms of evolution after the fact.

Some useful work has begun since then though. There have been experiments that show what kind of social behaviours will be best for the individual’s reproductive success. For instance, some computer models have found that an optimistic and forgiving tit-for-tat strategy is best for long term results in social interactions where the participants are able to recognize each other, and will make repeated interactions. The whole field is in its infancy though.

In short, I do think that further study will show that human behaviour is influenced by the way they evolved, but it’s not dictated by it. At least, no one has made a predictive science out of it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Human behavior is largely learned, and therefor very plastic. Our evolutionary history provides a very large number of possible behaviors.

Less flexible organisms tend to be more constrained. It is, in those organisms, possible to show that altruism is almost always most beneficial to the genes of the organism (in the sense that the altruism tends to insure the survival of the genes)

On the other hand, there is considerable evidence that apes are genuinely altruistic for no apparent reason, that is, they often aid unrelated others, even at cost to themselves. In humans, it’s even more common.

It seems that empathy is the key to true altruism (only humans and other apes seem to be capable of empathy).

 

[Redactor007]

I’ve read a bit on evolution but never taken any formal classes in it, so if I seem silly please forgive me.

It seems to me that the two basic fundamental forces of evolution (mutation / natural selection) don’t necessarily apply to human behavior. Behavior is controlled by our will and our will is informed by our intellect. Intellect is a function of our souls and is thus immaterial. Something which is immaterial cannot be affected by mutation. At the same time, natural selection implies responding to things in a cause-effect relationship. The intellect is capable of studying a situation, understanding its natural outcome and then devising a way to intervene to counteract an unwanted outcome. This implies the ability to act outside of the parameters of natural selection. Now undoubtedly certain behaviors follow a cause-effect model: I see something dangerous so I run away from it; however, because we are not bound to cause-effect, we can operate in ways contrary to cause-effect: jumping on the hand-grenade.

Now I know I have used as a base premise that we have an immaterial soul, which most materialists will reject based on their inability to empirically quantify it, but there are many reasonable arguments out there about the immateriality of the soul and I’ll leave that discussion in more capable hands.

 

[reggieM]

It seems to me that the two basic fundamental forces of evolution (mutation / natural selection) don’t necessarily apply to human behavior. Behavior is controlled by our will and our will is informed by our intellect. Intellect is a function of our souls and is thus immaterial. Something which is immaterial cannot be affected by mutation. At the same time, natural selection implies responding to things in a cause-effect relationship. The intellect is capable of studying a situation, understanding its natural outcome and then devising a way to intervene to counteract an unwanted outcome. This implies the ability to act outside of the parameters of natural selection. Now undoubtedly certain behaviors follow a cause-effect model: I see something dangerous so I run away from it; however, because we are not bound to cause-effect, we can operate in ways contrary to cause-effect: jumping on the hand-grenade.

Now I know I have used as a base premise that we have an immaterial soul, which most materialists will reject based on their inability to empirically quantify it, but there are many reasonable arguments out there about the immateriality of the soul and I’ll leave that discussion in more capable hands.

Excellent points. These would have to be a challenge to Catholic evolutionsts, at least.

With the presence of intelligence, consciousness, a soul and free will – human development cannot be determined by natural laws alone. Natural selection would therefore be meaningless in the human population because humans are capable of “selection” by their own intelligence and free will.

For the materialist, however, free will cannot exist since everything is determined by natural, unintellligent laws like that of natural selection.

 

[grannymh]

Anybody who has read any of my posts on the subject of evolution knows that I am not opposed to it. More accurately, I am not against the true science that may be found there (as opposed to any false science that gets mixed in, and a whole lot of rhetoric and polemic).

But I do get irked when people try to explain every bit of human behavior in evolutionary language, because such explanations involve so much contradiction. It seems that you can choose any aspect of human behavior, take the very opposites of that behavior, and some people will offer evolutionary explanations for both.

Dear VociMike,

Evolutionary language? Do puppies respond to that like they do to the English or the French, etc. languages? Sorry, lately I have been having trouble resisting things that strike my funny bone.

Seriously, the reason I get irked is that I feel like I’m being considered in the same category as a determined rock in a determined (even if it is somewhat random) universe. Frankly, I am amazed by the evolutionary theory. And like every 5-year-old, I love dinosaurs and am delighted to find that they evolved into such interesting modern creatures. But, just because I agree with the theory, the problems are in the details, doesn’t mean that I am limited by it.

I do have a spiritual (including soul and free will) side and I want it to be respected.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred because a loving Creator brought it into existence.

 

[celluloid]

But I do get irked when people try to explain every bit of human behavior in evolutionary language, because such explanations involve so much contradiction. It seems that you can choose any aspect of human behavior, take the very opposites of that behavior, and some people will offer evolutionary explanations for both.

So that’s my rant for today. Anybody have any thoughts?

I was going to explain my understanding of it but I’ll spare you most of it. All I can say is that I don’t see self-preservation and selflessness as inherently contradicting each other at all. At least no more than I see a contradiction between loving one particular person more than another. The world is complex and one value occasionally happens to run in the opposite direction of another value. Moral dilemmas exist, but usually our deepest desires are compatible with each other.

But one thought: The fact is we do have these impulses that sometimes come into conflict. But if God is responsible for them, they must be a good thing, or they must serve a purpose.

Is it the speculative explanations of the process of evolved emotions or the reductionism that you find irritating, or both? What really irks you?

 

[Valke2]

Anybody who has read any of my posts on the subject of evolution knows that I am not opposed to it.

That’s good. Because if enough people are opposed to evolution, it will cease to happen.

 

[buffalo]

Anybody who has read any of my posts on the subject of evolution knows that I am not opposed to it. More accurately, I am not against the true science that may be found there (as opposed to any false science that gets mixed in, and a whole lot of rhetoric and polemic).

But I do get irked when people try to explain every bit of human behavior in evolutionary language, because such explanations involve so much contradiction. It seems that you can choose any aspect of human behavior, take the very opposites of that behavior, and some people will offer evolutionary explanations for both.

A few examples

Offering your food to others, or taking their food for yourself.

Jumping on a hand grenade, or running away from it.

Being religious (usually involving monogomy and often involving celibacy), or being promiscuous.

I’m sure we could think of many other example-pairs.

I think everybody would agree that an “evolutionist” would be quick to offer explanations for each of the behaviors mentioned. Well, they can’t all be right. For example, I don’t see how being selfish can give one enough evolutionary advantage to make it a part of human nature, while at the same time being selfless does the same.

So that’s my rant for today. Anybody have any thoughts?

How does the selfish gene explain caring for the sick, the elderly and the handicapped?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Excellent points. These would have to be a challenge to Catholic evolutionsts, at least.

With the presence of intelligence, consciousness, a soul and free will – human development cannot be determined by natural laws alone. Natural selection would therefore be meaningless in the human population because humans are capable of “selection” by their own intelligence and free will.

I’m willing to trust God on this one. If He chose to do it through nature, I’m willing to accept that.

Why aren’t you?

 

[The_Barbarian]

How does the selfish gene explain caring for the sick, the elderly and the handicapped?

It really doesn’t. One of the peculiar things is that some animals do things that appear absolutely altruistic. But it seems to be limited to animals capable of empathy, i.e. apes and humans.

Might be some others, but I’m unaware of them.

My dog, for example, if she thinks a person might be threatening, will interpose herself between me and the person and display her teeth. She is not being altruistic, but merely doing what dogs are programmed to do; protect the other members of the pack.

On the other hand, chimps giveing up food or risking their lives for unrelated chimps (or in one case a human) seem to have altruism in the sense humans have it, albeit to a much less developed level.

If it turned out to be a mere by-product of a useful skill (empathy) would that mean that God didn’t do it? Not according to the Church.