[00:00:00] Speaker A: So they're kind of setting the situation up where if you want to be taken seriously, then the idea that the human mind was created by God, or that we were created for higher purposes other than mere survival and reproduction, then you have to, you have to reject that view completely if you want to be taken seriously in the scientific community.
Idaho the Future A Podcast About Evolution and Intelligent Design.
[00:00:31] Speaker B: Does evolution adequately account for the reality of human altruism, moral conviction, and cooperation?
Does intelligent design offer a better explanation?
These are the questions on tap in today's episode. Joining me to discuss them is geologist and lawyer Dr. Casey Luskin. Luskin is Associate Director of Discovery Institute's center for Science and Culture. He holds a PhD in geology from the University of Johannesburg, as well as graduate degrees in science and law that gives him expertise in both the scientific and the legal dimensions of the debate over evolution.
Dr. Luskin has been a California licensed attorney since 2005, practicing primarily in the area of evolution education in public schools, as well as defending academic freedom for scientists who face discrimination because of their support for intelligent design.
Welcome, Casey.
[00:01:23] Speaker A: Great to be with you, Andrew.
[00:01:25] Speaker B: Yeah, thanks for catching up with me. This was a great idea. We talked previously and came up with with this idea. Let me just share a little bit of the background for our audience on the inspiration for today's conversation. I recently published an article at the Daily Wire using the latest Marvel movie, Fantastic Four first steps as a springboard to discuss scientific worldview. And one of the post credit bonus scenes in that movie coming after the movie ends, Charles Darwin's book On the Origin of Species makes a cameo appearance in the home of the Fantastic Four. And I was left, you know, kind of scratching my head wondering about that. So I explored whether the experiences of the four better match up with an evolutionary view of the world or one where intelligent design plays a role.
I also look at, you know, some of the ways that the Fantastic Four put the welfare of others before themselves. Examples of sacrificial love, risking their lives for the people of Earth, even willing to die to take the place of another member of their family.
I joined in some lively discussion with readers in the comments section under my article at the Daily Wire, and a few readers in particular engaged with me on the topics of altruism, cooperation, and morality. They were making a case for an evolutionary origin for these these things. One commenter put it this way. Love and morality. These are products of an adaptive process that allow humans to care for one another, improving our population's inclusive fitness and maximizing the spread of genes that improve our survival. These are emergent phenomena premised on biological principles.
Now I love the word emergent. There takes a lot for granted.
Another commenter, who I went back and forth with for quite some time, wrote this near the beginning of our exchange. Heroism and cowardice both exist and both have roots in group survival. We celebrate the selfless acts because they help tribes endure.
Just ask a biologist why so many social animals risk themselves for their own.
There doesn't need to be a cosmic scoreboard. Purpose and value are things we discover, nurture, or maybe even co create.
Okay, Casey, so I know you've written on this topic and related topics before. Let's start by placing all this in the larger framework of evolutionary psychology. Can you define that for us?
[00:03:44] Speaker A: Sure. So evolutionary psychology, which is often called evolution evo psych, is a field that aims to explain all of human behavior, our mental capacities, our intellectual capabilities, everything we do basically, strictly as a result of unguided natural selection preserving beneficial traits. So it's not just that evolutionary biology is explaining the origin of your body, it's also explaining the origin of your brain. And when it's explaining the origin of your brain, it's explaining everything you do. Like why do you like Cheerios? Why do you, why do you like your girlfriend or your boyfriend? Why do you like to go jogging in the morning?
Why do you like to why do you chew on your fingernails? Everything you do, every behavior that you have is supposed to be explained strictly in terms of natural selection and random mutation essentially acting on your brain or your behaviors. Charles Darwin actually sort of got into this a little bit in the Descent of Man where he said that his object was, to quote unquote, show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals and their mental faculties. I like the way that Daniel Dennett, the new atheist philosopher who passed away a few years ago, here's how he described evolutionary psychology. He said everything we value, from sugar and sex and money to music and love and religion, we value for evolutionary reasons, free floating rationales that have been endorsed by natural selection.
So if that's not a pleasant thought to start your day with, then I don't know what is.
[00:05:14] Speaker B: Wow.
Wow. And how long has this been going on? I mean, did this start mid century with the pickup of, you know, the neo Darwinian synthesis? How long has evil psych been around?
[00:05:26] Speaker A: Well again, I mean, I think that even Darwin tried to explain the origin of the human mind and behavior to some extent at least going back to the descent of man in 1871. So this kind of thinking, I mean, obviously it's developed, it's evolved, so to speak, and it's gotten more sophisticated for better or for worse, I think. But though that this project has been around since Darwin first wrote the Descent of Man in 1871.
[00:05:49] Speaker B: Okay, now I was reading a bit from Denise O'. Leary. She's written on this topic as well and just want to share what she, how she defines it. It's helpful. She was writing in the Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith a chapter there and she defines it as a branch of psychology that assumes all human behavior can be explained as evolutionary adaptations developed in the prehistoric past.
Now let's look at three ways that you critique this idea.
First, you say it lacks predictive power. How is that so?
[00:06:21] Speaker A: So yeah, Andrew, the lack of predictive power of evolutionary psychology has long been a critique. In fact, the field of evolutionary psychology is his long faced accusations of purveying basically just so stories. In an article titled how the Human Got Its Spots, one evolutionary psychologist said that evolutionary psychology, while differing in many respects from its predecessor sociobiology, is still subject to the accusation of telling just so stories. And so the question is, are we actually making, you know, strong predictive claims through evolutionary psychology? And in fact, the field of evolutionary psychology has critics even from within.
One philosopher named Sabrina Smith argues that modern evolutionary psychologists cannot merely speculate about why some given modern day behavior may have provided some evolutionary advantage to our ancestors. She says that evolutionary psychology cannot adequately address what she calls the matching problem. Here's what she says. She says evolutionary psychology claims fail unless practitioners can show that mental structures underpinning present day behaviors are structures that evolved in the past for the performance of adaptive tasks that it is still their function to perform.
So in other words, evolutionary psychologists must establish that modern behaviors are similar to ancient behaviors and that they're caused by, by the same, you know, neural modules that evolved in the past to program those ancient behaviors. And she doubts that this can be demonstrated. And she says that this basically poses an existential question for the field of evolutionary psychology. So her paper is actually titled is Evolutionary Psychology Possible? Because she does not think it's possible to establish that modern behaviors are the same behaviors that were present in the past and that they were being caused by the same neural modules that evolved over time from the past to the present to program us in the present to have those behaviors. Okay, but again, some evolutionary psychology explanations, they may have some air of plausibility. So for example, let's say that we talk about snake Phobia. Okay? It's probably not hard for evolutionary psychology to explain something like snake phobia, because if you don't have a fear of snakes, if you're not afraid of dangerous animals like snakes, you're very quickly going to be killed off in the wild. Okay? And so I don't think that's very hard for evolutionary psychology to explain. Or what about the idea that the ability of little children, or maybe perhaps, you know, weaker members of a tribe to be able to scream or wail very loudly when they're in trouble, to be able to attract the attention of others in the tribe and to help come and help them. That's probably something that's very easy to explain. You know, why do little children have the ability to scream loudly and attract attention? It's probably to, you know, you could explain that through saying that allowed them to survive and reproduce. However, you can also make the case that these kinds of evolutionary psychology explanations are also very easy to explain. From an intelligent design paradigm. If a designer wanted their, you know, intelligent agents to be able to survive, it would be a good design strategy to give them survival instincts to avoid dangerous animals or dangerous predators. Right? Otherwise they're just going to get killed off very quickly. Or couldn't a designer find it expedient to give the vulnerable members of some society the ability to call for help loudly and attract the attention of those who can come and defend them? So, so I think that a lot of where evolutionary psychology succeeds, you could also easily explain those traits, those behaviors in design based, intelligent design based terms. But you need to understand that evolutionary psychology, it's a very deceptively simple game to play. All you have to do in evolutionary psychology is just come up with some speculative explanation for how some behavior provided an evolutionary advantage in some given situation in the past. Okay? So all you have to do is basically explain or come up with some scenario to say that, okay, this is how this behavior might have helped your ancestors pass on their genes at some point in the past. And if you can do that, then you can win the game of evolutionary psychology. That's really all that they explain, or that's all that they require you to be able to do. So it is a deceptively simple game. So the question now is, is this actually predictive theory? What does evolutionary psychology actually predict? If all we have to do is come up with some speculative explanation of how a given behavior helped your ancestors to survive and pass on their genes in the past, and so what ends up happening is that evolutionary psychology can Explain both a behavior and its exact opposite very easily. Okay, so, for example, why did fear of water evolve? Well, fear of water probably evolved to keep people from drowning. Okay, then why did swimming evolve? Well, swimming is a behavior that helps you to go and find food in the water. Well, why did sharing be evolved? Well, they'll say that sharing evolved because that's something like reciprocal altruism, where basically I scratch your back today and then you scratch my back tomorrow. I do something nice for you now, and you do something nice for me and my family later on. Okay, fine. We've explained the origin of sharing. Well, then why did stealing evolve? Well, stealing evolved because sometimes it was expedient to not share, to actually go and take things from other people. You know, why did eating yourself silly evolve? Well, that helps you get more calories and survive, pass on your genes. Well, then why did fasting evolve? Well, some people will say, well, fasting, maybe that's a bad actor in some sense. People do fast. A lot of people fast. You got to explain why fasting evolved. Somehow in the past, it must have helped your ancestors to pass on your genes. Or you could say, why did chivalry evolve? Okay, chivalry evolved because maybe that meant that the women liked those kinds of behaviors and they would choose mates who were chivalrous and kind, and then those mates could then pass on their genes. Well, then why did rape evolve? I mean, this is a very serious question. I'm not trying to trigger anybody here, but rape has actually been a major subject of evolutionary psychologists. And there have been evolutionary psychologists who have said, well, actually, it's quite easy to explain the origin of rape in blind, materialistic evolutionary psychology terms, because that is a mechanism by which some people would pass on their genes. Right? It's not a happy thought.
That is what could happen. And so they explain the origin of rape in those kinds of evolutionary terms.
And so we can go on and on. You know, why did monogamy evolve? Why did polygamy evolve? In all these cases, it's because it helped your ancestors or somebody's ancestors to pass on their genes at some point in the past. You know, why did high IQs evolve? Why did low IQs evolve? Why did faithfulness to your mate evolve? Why did cheating on your mate evolve? We can explain anything by just saying, oh, well, it helped our ancestors pass on their genes in the past. So the question now becomes, is evolutionary psychology actually predictive? And I would say it's really not. You can explain both behavior X and the opposite of behavior x. Not X in evolutionary psychology terms, by just envisioning some situation where maybe at some point in the past it helped your ancestors to pass on their genes. I really like the way that Philip Scal put it. Philip Scale was a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and a major critic of Darwinism. And he wrote in the journal the Scientist a number of years ago before he passed away, he said Darwinian explanations are often too supple. Natural selection makes humans self centered and aggressive, except when it makes them altruistic and peaceful. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed, except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. And he says when an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery. So this really has been one of the core fundamental criticisms of Devo's psych, is that it basically can explain anything by just coming up with some just so story, some ad hoc explanation to say this is how this particular trait may have helped our ancestors survive in the past. Therefore we explained, you know, how it, how it evolved. Have you really, have you really come up with a theory that has any predictive value? And I think that there are many cases where actually evolutionary psychology struggles to explain certain behaviors and how they're adaptive or beneficial. We can get into those more. But you know, for the many cases where they can come up with some, you know, care brain scheme as to how it helped your ancestors survive, you can also almost always explain the exact opposite behavior. So I just don't see evolutionary psychology is making for a compelling scientific model. That gives me many good reasons to find it reasonable to accept.
[00:15:37] Speaker B: Yeah, well some great insight there. And that I think is what Sabrina Smith is trying to do is bring it back to, hey, if you're going to offer this story, you need to connect it to a mechanism that is viable to both in the past and now.
So a very good critique in that case. Now a couple of other things that you say about evil psych, right? Evolutionary psychology, you say it, it makes an assumption when it's crafting these explanations, an assumption of worldview. Tell us about that briefly.
[00:16:06] Speaker A: Well, of course, Andrew, I mean modern evolutionary theory as a whole is built upon the idea of logical naturalism. And it's the idea that basically when you are explaining things, you're only allowed to invoke blind material mechanisms. You can never invoke intelligent design, intelligent causation. It was very interesting because back in 2007. This is when the new atheists were sort of at their heyday. A lot of folks were really high on their new atheism horses at that time. The editors of the journal Nature wrote an op ed titled Evolution of the Brain. I want to read this quote to you, Andrew, where they basically are applying the methodological naturalism to evolutionary psychology. Here's what they say. They say, and this is a really funny quote. I'm going to stop and point out some sort of, you know, I, I think some unintentional ironies and contradictions as in this quote, as we read it. They said, with all deference to the sensibilities of religious people. So again, they're being so kind, so deferent to the sensibilities of religious people. They say, with all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be set aside. All right. Oh, that's interesting. That doesn't sound very deferential to the sensibilities of religious people. But anyway, they go on to say the idea that the human mind are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.
Right now, whenever you hear a, you know, the editors of a scientific journal saying that something is quote, unquote, unassailable fact, I think that red flags should be going off in your mind, right? Because you get the sense that they're maybe compensating for not having the greatest theory in the world with a little bit of overblown rhetoric there. You know, it's unassailable fact. You're not allowed to assail this or question at all. And by the way, we're being very deferential to the sensibilities of religious people when we say that the idea that man was created in the image of God can be set aside. Okay, well, whatever. But you know, I think that they're, they're really pushing some hardcore rhetoric here. And they go on to say, it is fairly easy to accept the truth of evolution when it applies to the external world. The adaptation of the orchid to wasps, for example, or the speed of the cheetah. It is much harder to accept internally, to accept that our feelings, intuitions, the ways in which we loathe and love are the product of experience, evolution and culture alone. Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. So here I think they're trying to appeal to the person who already finds, you know, evolutionary biology compelling to explain, say the origin of things like finch beaks or, you know, wasps and so forth. But what about the human mind? They're saying, look, if you accept this, you've got to accept that. So they're trying to put the reader in sort of, sort of a rhetorical vice here, saying that, you know, you have to accept the evolutionary explanations for the origin of the human mind if you accept other evolutionary things. And again, I feel like they're kind of compensating for maybe not having the best model here. But here, here's where it gets really interesting. They say serious attempts to frame them, talking about evolutionary models, serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origin of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution without reference to a divine creation. Okay? So now again, they're sort of using this weasel word, serious. If you're actually a serious thinker, you want to be respected. You don't want to be one of those non serious thinkers who people don't take seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, then they say you have to explain the origin of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution without reference to a divine creation. Okay? So they're kind of setting the situation up where if you want to be taken seriously, then the idea that the human mind was created by God, or that we were created for higher purposes other than mere survival and reproduction, then you have to, you have to reject that view completely if you want to be taken seriously in the scientific community. So this is sort of methodological materialism at its finest, right? Through using social pressures, rhetorical pressure, and just the plain old rule that you're not allowed to invoke anything other than blind evolutionary mechanisms. The idea of quote unquote, divine creation, and I'm sure that they would lump intelligent design within that. This is simply disallowed. Okay? So we need to understand that evolutionary psychology, it's not just a game that tries to come up with some ad hoc just so story about how some behavior gave your ancestors a survival benefit in some situation. It's also guided by this fundamental rule that you are disallowed from invoking anything other than blind evolutionary mechanisms. No intelligent design, no divine creation allowed whatsoever.
So this is a theory and a philosophical approach that is not really seeking truth or following the evidence wherever it might lead. It's following the evidence provided that it falls within, strictly within the evolutionary box. Right? And if you go outside that box, you're no longer a serious thinker. You're no longer really doing the kind of thinking that they want to allow and so this again, shows that they are putting blinders on their philosophical presuppositions and not allowing themselves to think beyond that.
[00:21:14] Speaker B: Yeah. Well, I'm glad you shared that quote. That's very telling.
And I would point out that Denise o' Leary offers another, you know, pushback on evo psych by saying that it's resistant to false falsifiability. You know, if every behavior from murder to meditation can be explained after the fact as evolutionarily adaptive, then the theory can't really be tested in any meaningful way. I think that aligns with with what you're saying.
[00:21:41] Speaker A: Denise has done some great writing on this, and I totally agree with her. That's a great comment that you have from her and very well said.
[00:21:49] Speaker B: That was part one of my discussion with Casey Luskin. As we prove the insufficiency of evolutionary psychology to adequately explain the origin of important human behaviors, and in particular altruism, our regard for others, cooperation and morality.
These are strong desires we have to not just do these things, but laud them when we see them on others. We're drawn to these behaviors. And that demands a better explanation than because evolution look out for the second half of this discussion. In a separate episode, if you haven't yet, hop on over to YouTube and subscribe to our new channel there. We're now able to release many of these interviews as videos now, as well as some of our commentaries. Subscribe to the new
[email protected] d the future d the future when you're on YouTube, so YouTube.com d the future please subscribe. Like the content there? Share it with your friends and family. Let's get this channel off the ground so I can share more video content with you both now and in the future.
Well, I'm Andrew McDermott for it the future. Thanks for joining us.
[00:22:58] Speaker A: Visit us at idthefuture.com and intelligentdesign. Org. This program is Copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
