Nature vs. nurture

June 08, 2005

Nature Vs. Nurture - Evolutionary Psychology, Part II
Bonnie Alba

The old debate about nature versus nurture still rages but has
now been relabeled: “Genes vs. Environment.” The study of
Darwin’s theory of evolution has passed beyond the physical into
the social realms of societies and culture, religion and
education.

Some evolutionary scientists just couldn’t confine themselves to
the evolutionary mechanical box. In the last decade of the 20th
century, books such as The Evolution of Culture and Darwinizing
Culture appeared, asserting that if all things arrived from
physical evolution, then culture had to be part of evolutionary
forces also. According to the classic critique of Sociobiology
by Dr. Howard Kaye, this system is the “secularizing of natural
theology.” In a two-part process, he claimed that:

One: Traditional morality (illusion produced by our genes) is
reduced to genetic self-interest; and Two: It constructs a new
morality with all the authority of science.

Evolutionary psychologists study human patterns of behavior and
extrapolate to the past. But the most striking change in today’s
research is not the past, but the imaginative concept that our
patterns of behavior today “must be changed” for the future.
Whole belief systems including religion and morality are
considered by some scientists as illusions, mechanical systems
of brain wiring that helped man survive as a species. These are
now considered outdated and must be overcome in order for the
human species to “progress-transform” into some better life
form.

In Robert Wright’s book, The Moral Animal, he claimed “our genes
control us.” What disturbed many of us were his other claims:
“free will is an illusion,” a “useful fiction,” part of an
“outmoded worldview.” Wright then proceeded to a leap of faith
to “correct the moral biases built into us by natural
selection.” Nancy Pearcey asked the right question: “But if we
really are ‘machines’ created by natural selection, how can we
‘correct’ the force that created us?”

The problem arises when science offers no explanation nor
physical evidence for ridding us of rather doubtful genetic
illusions (religious and moral). Yet their intention is to
interfere with “natural selection” to electively do away with
these supposed “genetic illusions?” They are experimenting with
mankind. Can they show us one scrap of biological or genetic
evidence that proves religion and morality are illusions?

Here’s a few of the news headlines: “Tendency to be Prejudiced
is a Form of Common Sense, Hardwired into the Human Brain” or
“Evolution Made Humans Marathon Runners.” My favorite chuckle is
not about humans: “Crocodile Evolution, The Bite Came Before the
Body.”

What is true about the above titles? None of them is proven,
biologically or otherwise, but simply “inferred” from
present-day studies, then extrapolated into the dim past as
evidence of natural selection or adaptation. Yet we are to
believe these speculative, at worse imaginative, scenarios
because Science is supposed to give us all the answers to life
on Planet Earth.

Take the article on prejudice. Hardwired? In our brains? Does
this mean they have pinpointed the exact place in the human
brain where prejudice resides? Or, have they broken the genetic
code and found the combination for prejudice written in the
genes? That is the implied meaning of the title, isn’t it? No,
the sample study consisted of 235 European American students who
were asked to think about nine different ethos groups and rate
them on the threats they pose to American society; then report
the ‘emotions’ they felt toward these groups. It’s really a
no-brainer for those of us living in the real world. Certain
situations will produce different ‘perceived threat’ responses.

This is the danger. Those materialist scientists who believe in
evolution as the only answer are moving to a state of
controlling evolution and “making it happen Un-Naturally.”
Whether it’s behavior modification with or without drugs, gene
manipulation, stem cell research, cloning, chimeras, etc., they
are eliminating the “natural” from Darwin’s evolution. Not that
scientific research has made much headway in that direction,
little steps at most. Humans are very complex creatures and
there remain decades to centuries of research --- if we survive
that long.

Evolutionary Psychology is headed in an uncertain direction to
persuade us to “fight” all we already think we are, to change to
something Un-Natural and unpredictable. Their desire is to
correct present adaptations of natural selection and eliminate
God, religion, morality, values, standards and let “right
behavior” select itself -- their way. Most of us will fight
tooth and nail to keep what has worked for civilization, knowing
that without rules and morality, we have chaos and anarchy.

Doesn’t this whole thing boil down to two worldviews --- “God”
or “no god but certain enlightened men?” As the wise man said,
“There is nothing new under the sun.”

[stay tuned]
© 2005 Bonnie Alba
balba2@earthlink.net

Sources-Books:
“Total Truth,” Nancey Pearcey
“A Christian Response to Evolution,” Dr. Stuart Orr, available
at: www.respondingtoevolution.blogspot.com/
“How Now Shall We Live?” Charles Colson, Nancy Pearcy
“Discovery Institute,” www.discovery.org/crsc

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/balba_20050608.html