Is Evolutionary Psychoogy the Problem?

[Notedstrangeperson]

It seems that the primary reason Creationists oppose evoution is not so much lack of evolutionary evidence (i.e. transitional fossils, mutation inheritance, irreducible complexity) as this can be easily refuted . Their main argument is that evolution - or rather, living your life according to evolution - is immoral:




From Creationist websites:

• In its simplest form, evolution represents the view that the ordering principle of reality is "the survival of the fittest ... Whether you want to call it survival, dominance or superiority, the standard is simply "what works."
• Evolutionism provides the same basis for discarding or ignoring moral values ... Many evolutionists also seek unbridled freedom in every area. Evolution justifies freedom from morality, using science to avoid consequences such as pregnancy, STDs, etc. The only remaining obstacle is Christianity.
• Evolution in and of itself is not immoral but it tends to remove the foundation for morality, thereby leading to immorality.

Instead of dismissing it, might not their arguments be directed more at evolutionary psychology rather than 'concrete' evolution? Here for example is a very small collection of EP claims:






From books on evolutionary psychology:

• The Murderer Next Door by David Buss - argues men have evolved to kill their unfaithful partners.
• Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard / Arthur Desmond - advocate of social Darwinism and heavily anti-Christian.
• The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins - argues that genes, not individuals, are the focus of evolution.

What do the theistic evolutionists here think of evolutionary psychology?



Note: The title should say Evolutionary PSYCHOLOGY. My bad.

 

[gluadys]

It seems that the primary reason Creationists oppose evoution is not so much lack of evolutionary evidence (i.e. transitional fossils, mutation inheritance, irreducible complexity) as this can be easily refuted . Their main argument is that evolution - or rather, living your life according to evolution - is immoral:


From Creationist websites:

• In its simplest form, evolution represents the view that the ordering principle of reality is "the survival of the fittest ... Whether you want to call it survival, dominance or superiority, the standard is simply "what works."
• Evolutionism provides the same basis for discarding or ignoring moral values ... Many evolutionists also seek unbridled freedom in every area. Evolution justifies freedom from morality, using science to avoid consequences such as pregnancy, STDs, etc. The only remaining obstacle is Christianity.
• Evolution in and of itself is not immoral but it tends to remove the foundation for morality, thereby leading to immorality.

Instead of dismissing it, might not their arguments be directed more at evolutionary psychology rather than 'concrete' evolution? Here for example is a very small collection of EP claims:




From books on evolutionary psychology:

• The Murderer Next Door by David Buss - argues men have evolved to kill their unfaithful partners.
• Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard / Arthur Desmond - advocate of social Darwinism and heavily anti-Christian.
• The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins - argues that genes, not individuals, are the focus of evolution.

What do the theistic evolutionists here think of evolutionary psychology?

I think one has to be careful about demonizing evolutionary psychology as much as evolution itself.

Either aspect of denouncing evolution or ep depends on some seriously questionable philosophical (and theological) assumptions--whether held, and promoted by some militant atheists, or held and denounced by anti-evolutionist Christians.

The basic assumption I see here is genetic determinism. To some extent genes determine what we are. We did not choose to have blue eyes or red hair or a snub nose. But in a great many cases, the interactions of genes only make it more probable that we will have a certain character e.g. we may have a higher risk of developing breast cancer. That does not mean we WILL have breast cancer.

Psychology, it seems to me, falls far more into the second category than the first. Say Buss is correct. Say that males who murdered unfaithful spouses were more successful reproductively then men who did not. Say that as a result, there is a built-in genetic bias toward males killing an unfaithful spouse.

We then have to pose a few questions:

1. Does that mean that men cannot help themselves---that they cannot resist this inclination to kill? Genetic determinism would say yes. But lived experience says no. We all know men who have gone through the trauma of infidelity and have not even thought of murdering their unfaithful partners.

2. Does the genetic bias make such a murder morally excusable? Even, some might say, praiseworthy? After all, some cultures mandate "honour killings" of women. It seems to me that only a person who seriously subscribes to genetic determinism could take such a position, even if they don't go so far as to praise it.

3. Is knowing about such a genetic bias helpful? I think it well could be. After all, knowing about a genetic risk factor for a physical or mental disability allows prospective parents to take precautions-perhaps choosing to adopt rather than have biological children. Or, if they go ahead and have a child, being prepared to deal with raising a disabled child if necessary.

Why not treat a genetic bias toward murdering an unfaithful spouse as a social disability?. Forewarned is forearmed. If such a predisposition exists, and we know it exists, we can take precautions to prevent it being acted on through a) timely counselling of men whose spouses have been unfaithful, b) protection of the women concerned and c) teaching people that genes are not irresistable determinants of behaviour.

This, it seems to me, fits right into Christian theology. After all, we acknowledge that we are all inclined to sin. But we do not excuse sin on that basis, but rather look for the remedy provided in Christ.

Genes may contribute to temptation, but they don't validate immoral behaviour.

 

[mark kennedy]

"An itinerant selfish gene
Said 'Bodies a-plenty I've seen.
You think you're so clever
But I'll live for ever
You're just a survival machine.' " (Richard Dawkins)

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[Assyrian]

Doesn't it depend on whether we are descended from irate husbands or successful sneaks? It is also not in a woman's interest to be murdered by an irate husband if she does decide to shop around. And while there may be questions about paternity we certainly are descended from all those women who would not want to be murdered for real or suspected infidelities.

Of course there certainly is a powerful instinct for males to be attracted to any female of the same species, or judging by genetic evidence, even similar species. And an equally strong instinct to protect your mate from other predatory males... or sabertooths. But what is more interesting psychologically is the instinct that we shouldn't betray our friend by sleeping with his wife, no matter how attractive she is, the knowledge that betrayal is somehow wrong. Along with all the selfish instincts is a deep seated understanding of how we should relate to each other, a concept of justice and fair play, a concept of courage and self sacrificial love that leads people to lay down their lives to protect family and friends. It is this that allowed a physically frail hominid species to work together and survive in a world full of leopards and sabertooths. And I think it is how God used evolution to create man in his own image and likeness, because laying down you life for your loved ones is what we have seen God is really like too.

 

[Papias]

Evolutionary psychology doesn't justify anything. It only explains why we have certain urges and not others. Acting on one's urge is always your own moral act, and so you are still just as responsible for what you do as you were before anyone mentioned evolutionary pyschology.

Let me illustrate this with an example.

Few people will deny that sex drive has clear evolutionary advantages, and is hence selected for. It's obviously a result of simple selection that we have a desire for sex. This has been obvious for 150 years. Now, no one credibly defends their rape charge by saying "evolution selected this sex drive, and so I'm not guilty for raping her". In the case of sex drive, nearly all of us recognize the evolutionary origin of the desire, and nearly all of us can see that we are still responsible for deciding whether or not to act on that drive.

It's the same thing with evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology just points out other, smaller drives and desires than the ones we already know about. It's the simple and unavoidable recognition that just as evolution has shaped our hands, it has also shaped our heads, both of which are part of our bodies.

Since for a stronger drive (the sex drive), you can already morally uncouple the desire and the result of acting on that desire, you should have no problem doing the same for the other evolutionary drives, like females being attracted to rich men or males being attracted to younger females.

Yes, creationists will, as usual, feign confusion over that simple process so as to argue against science. Big surprise.

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

It seems that the primary reason Creationists oppose evoution is not so much lack of evolutionary evidence (i.e. transitional fossils, mutation inheritance, irreducible complexity) as this can be easily refuted . Their main argument is that evolution - or rather, living your life according to evolution - is immoral:

It's the evidence. Moral implications may or may not follow "Additionally,".

 

[shernren]

And just what would a "creationist psychology" tell us? Consider, for example, the example of the genetic basis for sex drive that Papias has already brought up. Clearly our genetic makeup enables us to lust after, and even mentally and physically enact intercourse with, people who are not our spouses. So how did these genes enter our genome?

Either God is directly responsible for the presence of these genes, or He is not. Now, if God is omnipotent (and if He isn't, the creationist has bigger fish to fry than Darwin!), then He must be providentially though not directly responsible for the presence of these genes, and so the creationist has no less of a problem explaining the presence of these genes than the theistic evolutionist, both of whom believe that the propensity to adultery is present in the genome of man by the providence of God.

And if God is directly responsible for the presence of these genes then creationist psychology is a hundred times worse than evolutionary psychology. At least evolutionary psychology will be hard pressed to find a reason for an animal to, say, abort its young or practice homosexuality (since these confer no obvious reproductive advantage); but in creationist psychology, God could at His pleasure give us any kind of genome He wanted. He has apparently already given us genetic predispositions towards adultery, violence, greed, and gluttony, after all. Is that really the way for a genetic psychology to go?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The basic assumption I see here is genetic determinism. To some extent genes determine what we are. We did not choose to have blue eyes or red hair or a snub nose. But in a great many cases, the interactions of genes only make it more probable that we will have a certain character e.g. we may have a higher risk of developing breast cancer. That does not mean we WILL have breast cancer.

Author David Bus argued that men kill unfaithful wives, presumably to avoid being duped into taking care of a child which isn't his. Gluadys mentioned that that such men should be treated to avoid these tragedies happening. Assyrian pointed out it would be beneficial for the women and her potential children to avoid such men.

Similarly -

Few people will deny that sex drive has clear evolutionary advantages, and is hence selected for. It's obviously a result of simple selection that we have a desire for sex. This has been obvious for 150 years. Now, no one credibly defends their rape charge by saying "evolution selected this sex drive, and so I'm not guilty for raping her".

It's good you mentioned this because it was once argued that some men (female rapists were often left out of the picture) did indeed have some kind of genetic disposition towards rape - from an evolutionary point of view this argument was more convincing that the idea of a 'gay gene' as it resulted in reproduction. But don't these ideas assume there are - to put it bluntly - some kind of 'spouse-killing' or 'rapist' gene in the first place?

I don't think many of the assumptions EP make are correct as it often completely leaves out cultural and historical differences. It focuses almost entirely on modern 'Western' culture and behaviour.

For example: some Mongolian nomads practice ployandry, one woman married to two or more men. In some ancient cultures a woman paid for her dowry by prostituting herself at the temple, and her future husband was proud of a wife who earned herself a small fortune - something which doesn't fit in with David Buss' idea of men being genetically programmed to kill unfaithful wives.

 

[gluadys]

It's good you mentioned this because it was once argued that some men (female rapists were often left out of the picture) did indeed have some kind of genetic disposition towards rape - from an evolutionary point of view this argument was more convincing that the idea of a 'gay gene' as it resulted in reproduction. But don't these ideas assume there are - to put it bluntly - some kind of 'spouse-killing' or 'rapist' gene in the first place?

Yes, and that is another problem (along with the genetic determinism approach) with this scenario.

We know enough about gene expression now to know that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between genes and traits (whether morphological, behavorial or whatever). Genes don't act singly--they act in concert with many other genes. They don't act on just one trait but impact many traits. And their expression is further modified by regulatory arrays and epigenetic effects. The notion of a "spouse-killing gene" has no place in our current understanding of gene expression.

The most one could possibly say is that a woman is at a slightly higher risk of being murdered by her husband if she is unfaithful to him (or he thinks she is) than otherwise. And even if there is some genetic basis for that, it practically fades away beside other equally likely non-genetic causes. How would one single out a genetic impact from cultural, social and emotional causes?

One interesting case along the same line is the murder of children by a parent. A Canadian team theorized that a parent may be more inclined to murder step-children than biological children. At the time, police were not distinguishing biological from step-parents in such cases. When the records were examined with that factor in mind, it was found that step-parent/step-child murders outnumbered biological parent/child murders 30-1.

But again, how much of this is genetic? Especially when any murder of any child by any parent is quite rare. A male lion who takes over a pride make routinely kill all nursing infants of his predecessor. But among humans,the overwhelming majority of step-children are perfectly safe with a step-parent.

We are looking at tiny differences of probability here even if there is a genetic component.

 

[solarwave]

Believing evolution has nothing to do with acting in an evolutionary way.

 

[Bushido216]

This is why I lie about my profession whenever creationists or scientologists ask.