The penchant for trying to explain every human characteristic according to the Darwinian theory is something that has gotten too little attention. When theists try to explain something they don't think science explains, they are accused of engaging in the "God of the Gaps" thinking. What no one seems to have noticed, however, is the reverse tendency: "Darwinism of the Gaps."
Darwinism of the Gaps is the tendency to try to explain any area of human behavior they think theism shouldn't be able to explain by supplying a Darwinian or genetic explanation that, no matter how unlikely or counter-intuitive, is to be preferred over the religious explanation--even if the religious explanation is perfectly reasonable.
Morality, which makes perfect sense according to theism, is just one of these things to be explained by Darwinism, and the criteria these explanations are required to meet seems to be uniformly low. In fact, the only operative criterion seems to be that they exclude the theistic hypothesis.
Even though the scandal has caused a lot of fur to fly among the scientific community, one has to wonder why. What is wrong with falsifying data? Particularly when the whole point of the data which Mr. Hauser falsified was to show that nothing can truly be said to be wrong.
And where does this Harvard committee get off wagging their institutional finger at someone like Hauser? I mean, how long have they been around anyway? Maybe they just haven't been around long enough to have evolved the appropriate moral respect for the falsification of data.
According a Wall Street Journal exposé on the issue, this isn't the first time evolutionary psychology has had to be given time out:
Not so long ago, the initial bloom already was off evolutionary psychology. The field earned a bad name by appearing to justify all sorts of nasty, rapacious behaviors, including rape, as successful strategies for Darwinian competition. But the second wave of the discipline solved that PR problem by discovering that evolution favored those with a more progressive outlook. Mr. Hauser has been among those positing that our ancestors survived not by being ruthlessly selfish, but by cooperating, a legacy ingrained in our moral intuitions.It is one of the ironies of modern scientific thought that that those most convinced that we got here through a process of the Survival of the Fittest, a process involving competition, would have become so enamored of a theory that posits the Survival of the Nicest, a process involving cooperation.
It's a testimony to the fervor with which they hold to their theory that they would cling to two completely contradictory theses in order to maintain the Darwinian Faith. The irony is particularly marked given the additional Darwinist tendency to accuse those of other faiths of being irrational.
Then again, maybe the penchant for offering contradictory explanations for the positions you hold is an evolved trait which favors the survival of Darwinists.
It's hard to tell.
7 comments:
So let me get this straight Martin:
When science demonstrates its validity as a methodology of determining truth by exposing, chastizing and denouncing false data publicly and moves to correct the problem - then that is bad thing?
It always surprises me how you can heap indignation on science and scientists and accuse them of following some 'agenda' - yet when science clearly demonstrates its ability and inherent capacity for correcting bad behaviour and misconduct, you use that to make cheap shots against science as well?
Very telling.
'Morality, which makes perfect sense according to theism'
Another gem. Yeah, creating something evil, then commanding it to be good by accepting a human sacrifice in exchange for sins not commited by pain of eternal torture - that makes soooo much sense.
Singring,
When you say you are "getting it straight," it's always a good idea to actually get it straight.
To invent things that I said that I did not actually say (which you have a demonstrated penchant for doing) may make you feel good about your points, but they don't actually make your case.
Where did I say denouncing false data was a bad thing?
Where did I say about an "agenda"?
Maybe you could address what I actually said in the post.
And I'm not even sure of what to make of the final paragraph at all. I guess it's supposed to be a description of theism, but as a theist, I don't recognize it at all.
'I guess it's supposed to be a description of theism, but as a theist, I don't recognize it at all.'
Maybe that should tell you something.
'Where did I say about an "agenda"?'
I quote:
'In fact, the only operative criterion seems to be that they exclude the theistic hypothesis.'
and
'It's a testimony to the fervor with which they hold to their theory that they would cling to two completely contradictory theses in order to maintain the Darwinian Faith.'
That's saying 'they have an stheist agenda'. Or am I wrong?
Forgive me if I am. I was thinking that the author of a blog which links to a whole litter of anti-global warming blogs and even to the Discovery Institute blog (the DI does nothing BUT proclaim there is an agenda in science) was implicitly agreeing that there IS an agenda in science.
I'm sorry if I misrepresented you:
Are you going to state clearly and for the record that you think there is NO 'liberal' or 'atheist' or any other agenda behind modern science?
'Maybe you could address what I actually said in the post.'
I did. You spent an entire posts hopping up and down pointing out how Hauser's falsifying his data proves somehow that scientists will do anything to support their 'agenda' (i.e. morality without God) but somehow ignore the little factoid that he was KICKED OUT by the scientific community for doing so!
Singring,
Oh, okay, so you're defining "agenda" as "any position anyone holds on anything"? Well, if that's the definition, then anyone who ever asserts anything has an agenda.
That seems to me to rather cheapen the word to the point of being basically useless, but it's a free country.
As for Hauser being "KICKED OUT" of the scientific community, maybe you could clarify this procedure the "scientific community" has for kicking people out.
Hauser is currently on leave for one year, but is still supervising the research of Harvard students.
'Oh, okay, so you're defining "agenda" as "any position anyone holds on anything"? Well, if that's the definition, then anyone who ever asserts anything has an agenda.'
Not at all. I define 'agenda' as any good dictionary does:
(from Webster's)
'an underlying often ideological plan or program'
By saying:
'In fact, the only operative criterion seems to be that they exclude the theistic hypothesis.'
you imply that the ONLY operative criterion for a Darwinist in science is to exclude the theistic hypothesis. This clearly accuses everyone you label a 'Darwinist' to be driven by an ideological agenda.
'As for Hauser being "KICKED OUT" of the scientific community, maybe you could clarify this procedure the "scientific community" has for kicking people out.'
Any scientist who is publicly found to have falsified data becomes so tainted in the scientific community that his life's work is in danger of becoming null and void (at leats those parts that have not been replicated by independent reesearchers). It is a catastrophic event in a scientists life and usually means the end to all credibility. You may remember the fate of the South Korean cloning researcher who was found to have falsified data. His career is over.
'Hauser is currently on leave for one year, but is still supervising the research of Harvard students.'
Because Hauser has tenure (I assume at least) it is not easy to fire him, as you should know. Why does an man as involved in education as yourself have to play stupid in this matter, Martin?
If you ant to see what happens to Hauser, do some research in ten years time and compare how much grant money he got before and after this incident and how much he is cited in literature after this incident.
Singring,
I have no problem with the definition of "agenda" you are using here, but I'm sure you realize that in political and cultural debates the word "agenda" often has the sense of "conspiracy." As long as you are not using the word in that sense, we're square.
Thank you for the clarification in regard to being "KICKED OUT" of the scientific community. But I would think that in most other contexts, "Kicked out" means they're gone. He's far from gone. He gets his job back when he comes back from leave, and is probably getting his employee benefits even while he's on leave. And still supervising students?
I don't think that's what most people think of when they think of being "kicked out," but I think you've clarified yourself sufficiently.
However, although you claim to have addressed the main point of the post, you still haven't addressed the point about the two inconsistent Darwinist explanations for human behavior, which was, in fact, the main point of my post.
'But I would think that in most other contexts, "Kicked out" means they're gone. He's far from gone. He gets his job back when he comes back from leave, and is probably getting his employee benefits even while he's on leave. And still supervising students? '
I agree that this can be a problem. But let's not jump the gun here. From reading that WSJ article I really can't tell how extensive and severe his misconduct was. If he indeed published several articles that contained fake data then I would support his dismissal or at least the loss of tenure and anyone who funded him is free to sue him for fraud of course. I agree with you 100% that there must be accountability in science and that misconduct of this kind should be stamped out as much as possible.
However, I think it would be more appropriate to laud the board that is reprimanding his misconduct as a prime example of how science is self-correcting, self-critical and will not shirk from exposing high-level fraud if it is perpetrated.
Take a look at the Catholic Church by means of contrast.
'you still haven't addressed the point about the two inconsistent Darwinist explanations for human behavior, which was, in fact, the main point of my post.'
There are not just two - there are dozens. the field of evolutionary psychology is rampant with different theories as to the origin (or lack thereof) of morals. It is a difficult but very active field and I doubt even Hauser would have claimed with any certainty that he had an iron-clad explanation for anything, including morals. All of science is up for debate if debate is justifiable by the evidence.
Exposing one fraud in a field of thousands does not invalidate every bit of scientific knowledge generated by that field.
Finally: Something you see to ignore time and again is that atheism does not hinge upon having a position about the existence of absolute or objective morals. I have encountered atheists who think there are absolute morals and some, like myself, who think that nothing is absolute.
Post a Comment