Skip to comments.Bio-Darwinist Beats Up On Psycho-Darwinists
Posted on 06/27/2009 7:55:19 PM PDT by Fichori
June 26, 2009 Evolution of rape? No way. Sharon Begley wont let the evolutionary psychologists get away with their tales about how rapists, molesters, and cheaters cant help themselves because evolution made them that way. The Science Magazine blog Origins seems to be cheering her on.
Science writer Sharon Begley, who in 2007 returned to her old job at Newsweek after 5 years of writing the Science Journal column for The Wall Street Journal, has long reported skeptically about anything smacking of biological determinism. In the 29 June issue of Newsweek, she pens a 4300-word critique of evolutionary psychology, the theory that modern human behaviorincluding everything from mate choice to child abuse to warfareis the result of evolutionary adaptations that took place 100,000 or more years ago. Her piece, titled Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around? concludes, as the subtitle puts it, The fault, dear Darwin, lies not in our ancestors, but in ourselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Philosophies that would frame us as automatons always seem to produce Frankenstein monsters.
Isn’t that the rag whose editor declared Obama “practically a god” ?
Their credibility is down around that of used car salesmen and ABC news...
Wow! I guess its back to school for me.
Funny how it is that no other animal on earth has “evolved” into faggot pedophiles, rapists and murderers hell bent on destroying their own kind. In fact most mammals have a well defined mating season with rituals which ends in mutual acceptance and mating to propagate the species. Once that season is over, you don’t see bucks ducks or wolves running around raping the females, or engaging in homosexual behavior. (and no, young dogs deer etc. do not engage in homosexual behavior no matter how desperate homo’s are to interpret acts of dominance assertion during play between male pups as homosexual behavior)
Essentially, I think the Darwinian biologist is looking down their nose at the Darwinian psychologists...
Thanks Fichori.Sharon Begley won't let the evolutionary psychologists get away with their tales about how rapists, molesters, and cheaters can't help themselves because evolution made them that way. The Science Magazine blog Origins seems to be cheering her on.To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
And as a believer in creationism, I look askew at both. However, I am more concerned about the concept of Bio-Darwinist as apposed to Psycho-Darwinist ;-)
No need to insult used car salesmen...
Actually there is no sex act (except for those involving batteries) that the Bonobo chimpanzee has not exploited.
I am not sure whether they have the Bonobo as a unique species now or as a subspecies of the Chimp.
I will admit that the battery operated activities are uniquely human.
Note that evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships...
This is one scientific fact a lot of the so-called Darwinists want to run away from.
It is still a scientific fact that evolution can only occur with HETEROSEXUAL relationships. Bonobos probably know this better than a lot of humans...
Wild animals can and do fight their own species to the death as well as destroy their own young. It used to be that “acting like an animal” was a reproach.
My two tomcats, on the other hand, definitely know that “you’re gay” is a taunt. All one needs to do to start a fight with the other is to begin licking his rival behind the ears like he does to start courtship with a female. I’ve seen both of them start fights this way.
A fist fight in The Temple of Darwin? Let’s just stand across the street and let’em have at it.
Theology butts in at this juncture by pointing out this is a fallen creation. Some devilment is to be anticipated as normal. The lion isn’t yet ready to lie down with the lamb.
“Evolution of rape? No way. Sharon Begley wont let the evolutionary psychologists get away with their tales about how rapists, molesters, and cheaters cant help themselves because evolution made them that way.”
Straw-man argument. There aren’t a lot of people who excuse the behavior of violent offenders by contending they are helpless tools of their genes; unless of course their genes gave them a mental disease. Lawyers make deterministic arguments from time to time, but as everyone knows, lawyers are liars.
Here’s the thing. There quite obviously is a biological aspect to rape. Anyone who says differently doesn’t have a penis. Furthermore, it happens too often to be a fluke. Must be inherent to our make-up. Rape occurs, in roughly the same manner, across national and ethnic boundaries. Almost all of perpetraitors are sexually frustrated and lonely males. If it was a matter of choice or random evil, you’d think women would do it more often. Don’t give me crap about the male entering the women and the male sexual organ being essentially a weapon. One cannot turn one’s genitals into a knife at will. At least not for long.
However much you disagree with the truth of natural selection, to say that men are prone to violence, and to “spread their seed” in whatever way they can, is not to excuse the behavior. It is to take note of a universal human phenomenon, and to say, look, this is the way it is, and one of the best explanations we have, outside of “evil,” is the logic of natural selection.
This author has a big problem following the biologist’s distinction between general and individual problems. Just because people in general tend to rape does not mean any particular individual is free from his responsibility not to rape. An explanation is not an excuse. Know what morality tells us? It tells us how things OUGHT to be. The propensity to rape is how things are. No rape is how things ought to be.
“Note that evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships...
This is one scientific fact a lot of the so-called Darwinists want to run away from.”
Wrong, gene mutation happens in asexual reproduction.
That’s fine if you’re a bacterium, a yeast, or some kinds of plant.
Not in mammals... unless you go intercourse yourself...
Flatworms have both male and female characteristics. They do a competitive thing when they mate to decide which is the be the female. Earthworms are also both male and female.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Yes, isn't that the same argument made for the grisly practice of abortion?
Abortion is a ritual murder performed upon an altar of conceit before an idol of vanity. Homosexuality likewise is another sacred cow of the Left... (Sacred cow - - think Exodus and the Golden Calf.)
Are they mammals?
Glad I could clear up elementary school biology for you...
“Funny how it is that no other animal on earth has ‘evolved’ into faggot pedophiles, rapists and murderers hell bent on destroying their own kind.”
Animals are, indeed, often rapists and murderers. Well, okay, I can’t know the inner mind of female animals. But the formal process you describe, presumably with each side knowing its role and doing its duty, is dubious. Certainly appears as if both parties aren’t always equally into it.
As for homosexual acts among animals, I don’t know enough about that, but I could certainly imagine it. I’ve personally witnessed several of my pets confusedly attempt sexual acts with members of their own sex.
Anyway, animals otherwise engage in a lot of activities that injure their own self-interest. Humans do more often, it would seem. But that’s because we have bigger brains, a larger scope for choice, and therefore are freer. There is a host of variance in the behavior of all species, humans more than most. However, there is enough consistency in our behavior, enough of the same choices are being made, that there pop up what can be termed universals.
Rape is one. It appears, I believe, in every recorded society, in much the same manner. And it makes sense when you think about it. Rape is a viable strategy for reproduction for some people. Not ones who can get women to sleep with them naturally. But some are left out. unlike women, one man can do the reproductive work of several men at once. The leftovers are the ones who rape. Except in times of strife (war, riots, etc.), wherein a wider variety are willing to risk it, since the threat of violent reprisal lessens.
But I digress. The truth is, amongst the variablity of human behavior, there are constants. And if you don’t explain them biologically, you have to say it’s all a coincidence, which isn’t very persuasive. Or you have recourse to metaphysics, but then you’re no longer dealing with science, and all new rules of debate apply.
Just trying to be a bit droll, pointing out that the applicability is rather limited. If the sages of biblical times knew about bacteria, we would probably know a proverb “acting like a bacterium” as an even bigger insult than “acting like an animal.”
You didn’t restrict yourself to mammals, so I didn’t.
Nothing confused when my two tomcats taunt each other that they're gay. Both know what that means. Better than some people, let alone bonobo apes.
“Not in mammals... unless you go intercourse yourself...”
Of course mammals reproduced bisexually. We all know that. I was responding to whether evolution was possible without heterosexuality, not whether the evolution of mammals is possible through asexual reproduction.
It isn’t as of now. Not on a large enough scale. But what with cloning and all it could be different in the future.
“Nothing confused when my two tomcats taunt each other that they’re gay. Both know what that means”
Not sure what you mean by taunting. Do they offer up themselves as a trap, then point and laugh? Or do their meows sound vaguely like “F*gg*t!”?
Meh, my question is — why is rape wrong? Let’s hope that the fittest male spreads his seed to the most desirable woman!
That’s sarcasm folks :)
“This is one scientific fact a lot of the so-called Darwinists want to run away from.”
I suppose your point is that scientists don’t often point out that homosexuals can’t reproduce. That may be because it’s so obvious that it goes without saying.
Or perhaps your point is that they fail to condemn homosexuality as perverse for not abiding the evolutionary imperitive. Again, it’s too obvious to mention. Everyone knows. And scientists aren’t in the business of condemning human behavior that isn’t conducive to evolution, outside of Nazi Germany and the early 20th century progressive eugenics movement.
It starts with lick, lick, lick behind the ears. If the object were a female (like my other two cats), the next step would be grab the nape of the neck and mount. It never gets that far before this “friendly” gesture is answered by feline fisticuffs. And both of them do it.
“Meh, my question is why is rape wrong? Lets hope that the fittest male spreads his seed to the most desirable woman!”
Why is anything wrong? Because our parents said so.
Seriosuly though, short answer, inviolable natural rights. Or because civilization operates best the less horrible violence there is. Morality is all about either how an individual treats himself, or about the interaction between people and what’s best for both of them. In either case, evolution has little to say, for evolution is all about the gene. Genes don’t care about what organism they’re in, or how the organisms get along, so long as they get to the next generation (actually, genes don’t care about anything, but for metaphor’s sake).
We, on the other hand, being complex organisms, care about ourselves.
So sin is now an evolutionary feature, huh?
I call this article based on dubious science.
In some old earth creationist worldviews, sin is an express part of evolution.
So sin is now an evolutionary feature, huh? [excerpt]How does science define sin?
Sure, we care about ourselves. We care about reproducing and having sex, and stealing and all of that fun stuff :)
From a cursory study of my children, I’m not exactly sure how we ever created a civilization to begin with. Yikes!
Forget about the chicken and egg — which came first, civilization or children?! :)
On a more serious note: I’m not exactly sure where inviolable natural rights came from. It seems to me a strongman can violate these inviolable natural laws.
If any pill would do the trick, it would probably be something along the lines of Valium and would have to be given lifelong. This kind of behavior shows up in many mammals under conditions of environmental stress. He'd be better off to figure out the sources of stress. Factory farming can't be helping (even PETA gets something right once in a blue moon).
Today’s empirical science used to be considered united with theology under the broader rubric of natural philosophy.
“How does science define sin?
Is science now a religion to define what is moral?”
Science does not define sin. God, society, individuals, or whoever does. The previous poster was saying, I believe, that scientists take what actions have been declared sin by others, and apply to them evolutionary features.
“We care about reproducing and having sex, and stealing and all of that fun stuff”
A lot of us do. Then again, a lot of us become frightened when other people do it too. As such we design ways not to fall prey to them. One way is defend ourselves with violence. Another is to get people to agree to treat us as they would have themselves be treated. It works part of the time.
“Forget about the chicken and egg which came first, civilization or children?!”
Children. They are menaces, yes. Governed by their emotions. But they’re also governed from without, by adults for instance. Children grow into adults, who for the most part are smarter, because they’ve had time to learn. Through a long, slow process of learning over thousands of years and many more generations, adults learned how to live together relatively peacefully and prosperously. They continue to attempt to pass that knowledge on to their children, who sometimes listen, sometimes don’t.
“It seems to me a strongman can violate these inviolable natural laws”
To say that certain rights are inviolable is not to say they can’t be physically violated. It means they can’t be morally violated. Your strongman can take my rights, but if he does so he is no longer abiding the underlying moral system. That’s the theory, anyway.
A necessary corollary to the second item is that the two ideals or role models in the evoloser system are going to be the serial rapist, and the welfare mother.
What is an “evoloser”? Sounds like a schoolyard insult.
“’Survival of the fittest is the only moral law in nature.’”
The laws of nature are not moral. Nature simply is. It is humans, God, or the intrinsic Nature behind the apparent “nature” of science that passes moral judgment. Remember, science is about things as they are, whereas morality is about the way things ought to be.
One can use evolutionary theory to aid in drawing moral conclusions. Lots of people have done it. We usually call them “Social Darwinists”. Despite the disrepute that appelation has met, it barely means anything. A social darwinist could be a libertarian like Herbert Spencer or an authoritarian like Adolf Hitler.
“the two ideals or role models in the evoloser system are going to be the serial rapist, and the welfare mother”
The serial rapist is by no means a repeatedly successful tactic. It is only intermittently successful. As I indicated, most often it is undertaken by men who are already losing the game. Those who are best fit to reproduce begin engaging in sex at a young age, as soon as women become fertile. They are the leaders of their age groups as children and most importantly in the first blush of puberty.
Rapists are commonly loners. Definitely not born leaders. Danger drives away the otherwise successful. Rape is perilous under otpimal conditions. Under conditions of general peace and with birth control, it is hardly practicable at all.
As for welfare mothers, they need an entire civilization—and a modern, socialistic civilization at that—before they can mooch off others. For most of human history, that was nowhere to be found. However, as you may have noticed, welfare motherhood is a good strategy nowadays. Poor people have more kids than the well-off, and subsidized poor people have even more.
Come to think of it, mooching is always a central strategy of the female persuasion. Understandably, since they are physically weaker, especially when with child, and are better off with someone to protect them. Men, on the other hand, are expert exploiters, often leaving women to stew for nine months while they go shop around. Different strategies, roughly equal success rates. That’s why we compliment eachother so well.
The laws of nature are not moral. Nature simply is. It is humans, God, or the intrinsic Nature behind the apparent nature of science that passes moral judgment. Remember, science is about things as they are, whereas morality is about the way things ought to be.
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Nature is pure war, with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so man is civilized by the restraint of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
The argument of some higher purpose is religious fallacy and those who preach it are no different even if they CLAIM atheism. Some just want to set themselves up in a temple for others to genuflect before an assumed divinity.
The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by atheists or by religionists, it is exactly the same.