The Universal Acid Becomes Too Universal
By Mike Gene (
I think it is quite clear the
blind watchmaker mechanism (random mutation and natural selection, or as James
Shapiro describes it, “accidental changes captured by selection”) exists and
has been involved in evolution. It has
also played a crucial role in many evolutionary events. But does the blind watchmaker mechanism really
describe the essence of evolution? Those
who think so can be described as “UltraDarwinists.” The UltraDarwinist may recognize other
aspects of evolution (such as Neutral Theory), but to them, evolution is
essentially synonymous with the blind watchmaker. As such, UltraDarwinists are predisposed to coming
up with adaptation stories. While many
such stories may be plausible, and even accurate, the problem is that one can
tell such a story that has a ring of truth, yet it does not intersect with
truth. Adaptation stories are incredibly
easy to invent after the fact, making it very easy to misuse them in an ad hoc sense.
A perfect illustration of
this is found in the growing field of evolutionary psychology, where various
human traits and behaviors are explained with adaptation stories. This whole approach received a devastating
critique from evolutionary biologist, Jerry Coyne. [1] Coyne takes on the particular thesis of Randy
Thornhill and Craig Palmer (T&P), who argue that rape is actually a
Darwinian adaptation. I suggest you
read his critique before proceeding.
In my opinion, Coyne's
review of Thornhill and Palmer's thesis is spot on. But what is more
interesting is that Coyne's arguments against T&P easily slip into generic
arguments against mainstream UltraDarwinian biology (the notion that all
biological features are the products of random mutations and natural
selection).
In what follows, I will
often refer to D&D, which represents Dennett and Dawkins. However, I will
use these names only as metaphors to
symbolize those UltraDarwinian scholars and apologists who popularize their
views in book, web pages, internet forums, etc., rather than the scientists who
simply go about their days in the lab (or field). The latter group uses
Let’s begin.
Coyne writes (in italics):
"In
science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom,
far closer to phrenology than to physics."
This is a quote that stands
on its own. This is not to say that
evolutionary biology is some form of pseudoscience, as it is not. It’s because evolution studies an ambiguous topic.
Coyne explains his reasoning:
For
evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable
imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to
observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder"
scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as
adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.
Coyne then turns his
attention to evolutionary psychology:
"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 by many
UltraDarwinian biologists (D&D). Most of its adherents are convinced that
virtually every
biological feature, including the flagellum, 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. The flagellum, for example, is seen as a trait
favored by natural selection to enable cells to solve motility problems a few billion
years ago 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 UltraDarwinian biology. Books by Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Pinker have sold briskly, and UltraDarwinian 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. UltraDarwinian
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."
D&D have frequently invoked the
authority of science in defense of their UltraDarwinian views about origins. They insist that their
detractors are ideologically motivated, whereas they are dispassionate
scientists whose only priority is objective truth. In their appearances, they have implied that
their science is incontrovertible, and that any dissenter from their
conclusions must be philosophically or politically blinkered.
Coyne:
"Like
so much of evolutionary psychology, Thornhill and Palmer's book is utterly
lacking in sound scientific grounding. Moreover, the authors use rhetorical
tricks that mislead the general reader about their arguments. Once its
scientific weaknesses are recognized, The Natural History of Rape becomes one
more sociobiological "justso" story the kind of tale that
evolutionists swap over a few beers at the faculty club. Such stories do not
qualify as science, and they do not deserve the assent, or even the respect, of
the public."
At this point, I should
mention that UltraDarwinian biologists and scholars don't simply swap just-so
stories over a few beers. They publish them, teach them, and include them in
textbooks. If they can qualify as science, why is a double standard being used
against T&P?
Coyne:
The
"byproduct hypothesis" views rape as a mere side effect of other
adaptations that natural selection built into our ancestors. That is, natural
selection did not favor genes impelling men to rape, but genes for other
features of human emotion and behavior that, in combination with human culture,
allow the existence of rape….. The real problem with the byproduct hypothesis
is its banality. It explains everything about human beings. Since we have an
evolutionary history, everything that we are and everything that we do can be
furnished with an evolutionary explanation…… But such explanations are
crushingly trivial. The triviality of the by product theory may be seen in
Thornhill and Palmer's declaration: When one is considering any feature of
living things, whether evolution applies is never a question. The only
legitimate question is how to apply evolutionary principles. This is the case
for all human behaviors even for such byproducts as cosmetic surgery, the
content of movies, legal systems, and fashion trends…… The key phrase in the
passage that I have just adduced is "whether evolution applies is never a
question." This is an explicit admission that the byproduct hypothesis
lacks the defining property of any scientific theory, the property of
falsifiability, the ability to be disproven by some conceivable observation. An
unfalsifiable theory is not a scientific theory. It is a tautology, or an
article of faith. The byproduct theory may justify the view of rape as an
evolutionary pathology, an indirect consequence of male sexuality and
aggression; and the byproduct theory may also justify the feminist view that
rape is simply a way for males to dominate and humiliate females. And so we can
dismiss the byproduct hypothesis, because there is no observation that could
disprove it."
The by-product theory is
not exclusive to T&P, as it is also commonly found in biology. When T&P
express this trivial, untestable
hypothesis, they merely transplant the UltraDarwinian viewpoint from
biology to psychology.
Coyne:
"The
problem is that they never specify what percentage of rapes need be potentially
reproductive to show that rape evolved. Fifty percent? Eighty percent?…As with
most sociobiological arguments, only some level of concordance with prediction
need be found to brand an act as an adaptation."
The problem is
that D&D never specify what
percentage of
biological feature X need be potentially functional to show that X evolved from
pre-X. Fifty
percent? Eighty percent?…As with most D&D arguments, only some level of concordance with prediction
need be found to brand a
feature as
an adaptation.
Coyne:
"In
this way, Thornhill and Palmer have constructed an apparently airtightcase, an
argument that cannot be refuted. Aspects of rape that seem adaptive must have
evolved by direct selection, while nonadaptive aspects are seen as evolutionary
holdovers or as byproducts. Lawyers call this "arguing in the
alternative." It is not science, it is advocacy."
In this way, D&D have constructed an
apparently airtight case, an argument that cannot be refuted. Aspects of life that seem adaptive must have evolved by
direct selection, while nonadaptive aspects are seen as evolutionary holdovers
or as byproducts. Lawyers call this "arguing in the alternative." It
is not science, it is advocacy.
Coyne:
"And
there is another difficulty that Thornhill and Palmer do not face. For nearly
all of their observations, there are reasonable alternative explanations that
do not involve direct selection."
And there is
another difficulty that
D&D do
not face. For nearly all of their
observations, there is a reasonable alternative explanation that does not rely on random mutations and
natural selection.
Coyne:
"Thornhill
and Palmer can be very nasty about those who differ with their analysis, mainly
sociologists and feminists. "….In fact, Thornhill and Palmer are accusing
others of what are really their own failings: "Not only is the bulk of the
social science literature of rape clearly indifferent to scientific standards;
many of the studies exhibit overt hostility toward scientific approaches, and
specifically toward biological approaches. The message of these studies is
clearly political rather than scientific." It is Thornhill and Palmer who
are guilty of indifference to scientific standards. They buttress strong claims
with weak reasoning and weak data. Their book lacks the measured tone and the
openness to alternative theories that characterize truly scientific work.
(Compare their sledgehammer approach with the moderate tone of On the Origin of
Species.) It is perfectly clear to any fairminded reader of A Natural History
of Rape that its objective is not to test whether rape is an adaptation, but to
demonstrate it. Their evolutionary psychological explanation of rape is not
their conclusion, it is their premise."
D&D can be
very nasty about those who differ with their analysis, such as ID theorists. .Yet it may
be that D&D are accusing
IDists of
what are really their own failings. D&D seem to be guilty of indifference to scientific standards. They buttress strong claims with weak reasoning
and weak data. Their
books and internet postings lack the measured tone and the openness to alternative
theories that characterize truly scientific work. (Compare their sledgehammer approach with the moderate tone
of this web page.) It is perfectly clear
to any fairminded reader
of many of the arguments made by D&D that their objective is not to test whether something like the bacterial
flagellum arose by random mutation and natural selection, but to demonstrate it. Their non-teleological evolutionary explanation of something like the flagellum is not their
conclusion, it is their premise.
Coyne:
"After
all, if one can give a believable evolutionary explanation for the difficult
problem of rape, then no human behavior is immune to such analysis, and the
cause is significantly advanced. The apocalyptic tone that pervades Thornhill
and Palmer's book reveals the party to which they belong: "The biophobia
that has led to the rejection of Darwinian analyses of human behavior is an
intellectual disaster." And "in addressing the question of rape, the
choice between the politically constructed answers of social science and the
evidentiary answers of evolutionary biology is essentially a choice between
ideology and knowledge."
Why blame T&P for
expressing apocalyptic views that tend to define D&D when ID becomes the
issue?
Coyne:
"Amid
this debacle-for A Natural History of Rape is truly an embarrassment to the
field-I am somewhat consoled by the parallels between Freudianism and
evolutionary psychology. Freud's views lost credibility when people realized
that they were not at all based on science, but were really an ideological
edifice, a myth about human life, that was utterly resistant to scientific
refutation. By judicious manipulation, every possible observation of human
behavior could be (and was) fitted into the Freudian framework. The same trick
is now being perpetrated by the evolutionary psychologists. They, too, deal in
their own dogmas, and not in propositions of science. Evolutionary psychology
may have its day in the sun, but versions of the faith such as Thornhill and
Palmer's will disappear when people realize that they are useless and
unscientific."
Evolutionary psychology is
an embarrassment to UltraDarwinian biology simply because it makes it possible
for non-scientists to see the type of argument that so often permeates this
thinking. If the average person hears that scientists have an 'explanation' for
the Darwinian origin of the flagellum, they tend to think there is substance
because the subject material is technical. But if more people begin to learn
that many of those Darwinian explanations for biological features are really no
different from those used to explain rape, the whole field may soon find a new
generation with an even larger pool of serious skeptics.
So, how does one concur
with criticisms against one expression of UltraDarwinian biology (T&U)
without touching another very similar expression (D&D)? It must involve
some rather impressive mental gymnastics.
The most illuminating and
ironic aspect of this whole comparison comes from the way Thornhill reacted to
criticisms of his hypothesis:
Two scientists are criticizing the research behind "A Natural
History of Rape," a book that portrays rape as a natural product of
evolution and suggests all men could be rapists.
In Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, the scientists describe
the book as scientifically flawed. The journal's editors took the unusual step
of releasing the book review in advance.
"The authors' evidence either fails to support their case, is
presented in a misleading or biased way, or equally supports alternative
explanations,'' said the reviewers, Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago
and Andrew Berry of Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology.
The review angered the book's authors, Randy Thornhill of the
University of
"These anti-evolution
critics don't like evolution applied to any feature of life, but especially not
to human traits," said Thornhill, a biologist. [2]
Thornhill criticizes Jerry
Coyne, an expert in evolutionary biology, as an “anti-evolution critic!” This demonstrates the political/rhetorical
use of this label and how easy it is to wield it. If someone critiques a particular
evolutionary hypothesis, you can always label them as an “anti-evolution
critic” or accuse them of “giving ammunition to the enemy.”
Summary
Much of the above comes
with a little tongue in cheek, as it is rather interesting the way so many of
Coyne’s criticisms can be slightly modified to make someone like him sound
awfully much like an “anti-evolutionist.”
Either Coyne is right on many of his points or Dennett’s universal acid
is a little too universal.
One should not make the
mistake of dismissing Darwinian evolution because of the way evolutionary psychologists
can and do misuse the thesis. However,
the ease with which the thesis is misused, giving us an appearance of a scientific explanation, should be cause for
concern. Can we really sequester Coyne’s
criticisms to the realm of evolutionary psychology? Thornhill shows us what will happen if people
begin to use some of Coyne’s criticisms when the topic switches to biological
adaptation stories – they will be labeled “anti-evolution.” And Thornhill also shows us that anyone can
be labeled as such – even an expert in evolutionary biology.
1. The fairy tales of evolutionary
psychology. Of Vice and Men By JERRY A. COYNE
http://www.tnr.com/040300/coyne040300.html
2. http://augustachronicle.com/stories/030800/tec_124-8577.shtml