In my post below I described as “fabulous” Ed Oakes’ “Atheism’s Just So Scenarios,” and I stand by that description. That said, Oakes never fails to befuddle me when it comes to the topic of evolution. Oakes is a brilliant and insightful writer, whom I almost always enjoy reading. Consider his take on “Just So Stories” favored by evolutionary psychologists:
This, um, scenario reminds me of those Just So Stories so beloved of evolutionary psychologists, who like to speculate that the reason a male wooer pays the restaurant bill when he takes his inamorata out on a date is because in our hunter-gatherer days the menfolk did the hunting, with their meat-consuming wives trapped back at home nursing their bambini and picking nearby elderberries: Bring home the bacon once as a caveman, and you’re stuck with the tab at the local eatery for the rest of recorded history.
Yet, for all his brilliance and clarity of thought on other topics having to do with evolution, Oakes toes the Darwinist line when it comes to evolution of species. Indeed, in a meeting of ROFTERS (Readers of First Things) I attended some years ago, Oakes went so far as to say that he saw no “ontological discontinuity” between humans and the higher animals. If he has changed his mind, I am not aware of it.
How can someone who sees the patent foolishness of Darwinian just so stories with respect to the evolutionary psychology scenario (to use Oakes’ term), fail so completely to see the equally absurd just so stories Darwinists push in their “mud to man” scenario? It is a mystery.