The Delusion of Darwinian Natural Law

Acton Institute ^ | 12/27/03 | Marc D. Guerra

[cornelis]

There was a poster here once, jollyrogers I think, who made the claim that: "love was a function of reason."

No doubt, and more. I guess the dogmatists and purists must sacrifice the parts for the whole, or the better part. Aristotle might have said something like jollyrogers, and that's probably why he wasn't the one who wrote the Symposium.

[Dimensio]

So...you get called on for attacking evolution based upon points that it doesn't make, and your only rebuttal is to claim that the poster was insulting you?

Evolution says nothing about the assembly of the universe. Your "argument" implying that it does is pure nonsense. Why did you make it?

[Dimensio]

My mistake, those weren't your original arguments. My question then becomes whether or not you agree with those intellectually bankrupt arguments.

[Ichneumon]

By the standards of natural selection, the cockroach would have to be the most moral creature on the face of the earth -- which is absurd.

That is truly absurd, but only because you're absurdly making a mish-mash of several different concepts.

By the "standards of natural selection", survival is an end in itself. It doesn't automatically become "morality", as you bafflingly seem to think. Morality is a separate issue from survival.

It's as if you had said, "by the standards of a compass, the North Pole is the most moral thing on the face of the Earth".

It's not only apples and oranges, it's apples and typewriters.

Just because natural selection drives survival, that hardly makes survival equal to "moral".

While it's true that some of the inborn behaviors, emotions, and tendencies we have which we consider to be part of our inherent morality (motherly love, etc.) are the result of evolution-derived genetic "programs" we have inherited, it's also true that other parts of our sense of morality are based not in genetics nor sourced in evoltuion, but instead as a result of our ability to think things through and choose a "higher purpose" for our lives than just mere survival. Human culture (including our moral system) is often influenced by our genetic tendencies, but to a great degree we choose our own destinies -- and most people choose to adopt a course which is based on lofty principles and respect for ourselves and others. A moral life.

[Ichneumon]

Yes, if explaining something necessarily meant explaining it away, then everyone who falls in love must necessarily become more & more disappointed or disgusted with the other. ("Familiarity breeds contempt.") And yet, for many couples our love deepens as we understand more & more why our spouse is the way they are. Only if we conclude that our initial attraction was based on something false can increased understanding lead to contempt instead of stronger love.

Very well put, thank you.

[cornelis]

By the "standards of natural selection", survival is an end in itself.

As is extinction, we presume.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Really? You can prove things in science? I think not. Science has no axioms from which something can be proven; that is the job of mathematics."

I guess you think proving the helical structure of the DNA molecule wasn't science?? There is MUCH in science (particularly biology and biochemistry) for which no mathematical "proofs" exist. Some day there may be.

"The mathematically deriving properties of real systems allows you to do something that you cannot do with simple science: it lets you prove things about systems for which science has no experience. Science spends a lot of time these days doing experiments to demonstrate things in the lab that have already been derived mathematically. If it wasn't for the fact that many of these things were mathematically derived, we might not have even been aware that our universe had these properties for a very long time or even looked for them."

A "mathematically derived concept" has no scientific validity until said mathematics is confirmed by experiment. The math proves nothing--all it does is point out possiblilities that then must be experimentlly confirmed. You've got it just ass backwards. You must be a "math modeler" of some sort.

A good line about "math models" is: "Math modelling is like masturbation---the more you do it, the more real you think it is."

[cornelis]

A "mathematically derived concept" has no scientific validity until said mathematics is confirmed by experiment.

As Ortega y Gasset put it, if it "mates happily." Obviously mathematics, as a theoretical field, is to a degree independent and has its own reasons.

[bdeaner]

It's not only apples and oranges, it's apples and typewriters.

Exactly. That was precisely my point. Principles of natural selection and principles of morality are independent domains of inquiry. We're actually on the same page, but you were responding seriously to my comment that was supposed to be ironic.

[cornelis]

Principles of natural selection and principles of morality are independent domains of inquiry

Yes and no. The pretended autonomy of theoretical principles is very modern, as you know. And post-modern--if there is any good in it--is the discovered sham in that pretense.

[bdeaner]

You're mixing things up here. Nothing can go "against" natural selection. If you go against it, you die, and you aren't selected anymore.

First, we're discussing things at a number of different levels of analysis. Let's clarify first.

1. Individual vs species
Principles of natural selection do not really apply to individuals. They are principles that describe the 'evolution' of species. Individuals can and often do go against principles of natural selection. That is, they often engage in behaviors that, if performed by the species as a whole, would probably lead to extinction of the species. But the same behavior may or may not lead to the death of the individual.

For example, many couples decide not to have children, as a personal preference. This behavior defies the principle of natural selection, which would predict that all couples would want children in order to pass off their genes to another generation. This couple doesn't want to do that. They don't care. Their behavior cannot be explained by principles of natural selection. It doesn't make sense within that framework. AND their behavior does not lead to the extinction of the species, because a lot of other humans are having children. The species lives on. The only way this behavior would impact the species is if this behavior was a general trend in the entire population of humans.

So, people can have personal preferences or beliefs about what is "right" or "good" conduct that defy the principle of natural selection.

But you're right: we're not particularly interested in personal preference. When we discuss moral principles, we are concerned with universal principles of right or good conduct. We are concerned with concepts that transcend individual lives.

2. Is morality dependent or independent of natural selection?

This is the meat and potatoes question. When we are discussing principles of right or good conduct (morality), is it meaningful to explain or justify right or good conduct based on principles of natural selection? I say no, it isn't meaningful. Why? Because principles of natural selection are indifferent to moral concerns. They just are what they they are. That a behavior increases or decreases the chances of a species' survival says nothing about the moral justification for that behavior.

But more importantly, issues of morality are largely independent or unrelated to principles of natural selection. Only a relatively narrow range of behaviors involve issues of survival (life or death issues). What about everything else? Can't a behavior be moral without having conseqences for survival of the species? Surely.

In this sense, morality can be interpreted independent of principles of natural selection. Moral issues are concerned with good behavior, and good behavior can be defined in a variety of ways, but it need not be defined in terms of natural selection, unless issues of the survival of the species are a central concern. In these cases where survival of the species is a central concern, I would concede that natural selection is relevant, but otherwise, no, it is not. Morality must otherwise be founded on a more intrinsic set of principles of right conduct.

[cornelis]

we're not particularly interested in personal preference

I am.

[Stultis]

The name to go after, if you want one, is Bacon. No, I don't think so. There's nothing particularly in Bacon's philosophy of science that suggest that causes transmit their qualities to their effects (i.e. that if a an effect can be described by some adjective, the same can be presumed to apply to its result) but there is something along that line in scholastic thought (and of course the aristotelian ideas of causation).

[MattAMiller]

Actually, information theory, which is based on the 2nd law, can be used to make an apparently irrefutable refutation of Darwinism. If you are curious, which you aren't, look it up yourself.

I think we're streaching the definition of information here but natural selection can be seen as feedback from which a genome can build on it's own information.

[bdeaner]

I am.

Okay, then at the level of the individual who is faced with a moral decision, the principle of natural selection means diddley-squat. Don't you agree?

[bdeaner]

Personally, I don't mind the idea that humans, including myself, were descended from apes. I find apes to be appealing creatures, in the scheme of things. Cats, on the other hand, I don't know. Cats annoy me.

[bdeaner]

So to say that evolutionary theory fails as a foundation for morality because it itself is amoral, misses the mark, IMO. The ultimate reason for having morality in the first place is the preservation of that which we value. Our biggest & most immediate value is our own lives, but we also value the lives of our loved ones, etc., even (for some people) up to all humanity & far into the future.

When I say that evolutionary theory fails to found morality because it is amoral, I mean to imply that evolutionary principles are indifferent to notions of right and wrong, good and bad. Natural selection has no telos; it is a blind process with no intrinsic purpose. Species evolve by accident, simply because certain characteristics helped a species to survive a harsh climate at a particular point in time. But they do not 'evolve' in the sense of making progress toward some ultimate purpose or Good.

Human beings, on the other hand, care. We care about the future, and not merely survival. We have purpose. Natural selection does not. And it is this sense of meaning and purpose -- this basis in care -- that is the foundation for morality, not natural selection. Care may be an accidental by-product of natural selection, but human care transcends the blind, mechanistic bumbling of natural selection by becoming purposeful. Because human beings are purposeful, we can make progress, and we can judge a behavior as good or bad depending upon whether or not we believe it helps or hinders our progress toward the Good; as such, behavior becomes moral or immoral. But natural select does not progress; it just happens. It is amoral.

[AmericanVictory]

Some years ago, went to hear Sir Peter Medawer when he came to lecture at the Smithsonian. He most emphatically said that there was nothing whatsoever to support the notion that "ee-volution," as he pronounced it, had any application to human beings in their behavior.

[Iris7]

Natural selection does of course occur. Random variation occurs. Genetic drift occurs. The Galapagos finches look to be by my poor calculation the product of random variation and natural selection. Life is as opportunistic as possible, to say the least(!), and possible ways of life, ecological niches, are exploited impressively. Variation as Darwin described, fairly continuous variability functions of time, fit reality quite well in the curve fitting sense. Useful theory, that is.

The problem with assigning the complexity observed in the natural world to random processes is that any numerical attempt to assign probability values to randomly generated required events on the biochemical level results in large improbabilities. Remember that "random" means utterly discontinuous functions of time. At some point if the improbabilities become too large then theory becomes insufficient. My own analytical attempts to get a grip on the combinations involved, and derive probabilities therefrom, have lead me to this point. Hey, my grip ain't too hot, don't claim to "know" the "truth" about this stuff!! Don't think anybody else does either! Who needs Creation Myths, anyway!

[Iris7]

Don't doubt you a bit. Mostly just a skeptic here, anything striking me as "belief" instead of attempts at curve fitting reality, with the intention of making predictions, gets a poke with my stick. Be fun to really study math, makes me feel stupid, of course, though!!