Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Okay: So evolutionary biologist Larry Moran does NOT believe in evolutionary psychology …


Responding to something I wrote at the Post-Darwinist about the popularity of evolutionary psychology among atheists, Moran (a textbook co-author you may well have suffered through in school), responds:

Just for the record, Denyse, I’m one of those evil atheists that you like to rant about but I’m totally opposed to evolutionary psychology.

But you already knew that many evolutionary biologist were against evolutionary psychology, didn’t you?

No, I didn’t, Larry, and if that’s true, it’s high time more of them voiced their objections. The only sustained critiques I have seen are Hilary and Steven Rose’s unjustly neglected Alas, Poor Darwin and David Buller’s also unjustly neglected Adapting Minds. Steven Rose is a neurobiologist, but Hilary Rose is a social scientist, and David J. Buller a philosopher. 

No doubt, there are many critiques out there that I haven’t seen, but I wonder what proportion comes from evolutionary biologists, as opposed to social scientists who know the difference between research and speculation.

Evolutionary psychology obviously lacks any systematic body of knowledge to match its grandiose ideas, so one might  expect the evolutionary biologists to shout it down pretty loudly.

But then, come to think of it, isn’t there something to be said for evolutionary biologists  fronting the nonsense? After all, the evolutionary psychologists keep the bar for demonstrable evidence nice and low for everybody.

Are you an evolutionary biologist who does not believe in evolutionary psychology? Write in and tell us, will you? If, for whatever reason, you’ve been banned at Uncommon Descent, go to the Post-Darwinist and put a comment in any story.

Recently at the Mindful Hack, O’Leary’s blog on neuroscience issues,

The Spiritual Brain provides lots for some people to like and others to be hopping mad about.

Canadians tiring of atheist tirades?

Frank Tipler tries to prove Christianity through physics

Recently at the ID arts site:

A mammoth sculpture, a major new find in early human art (35 000 ya) suggests that sophistication in art appears suddenly.

Thanks, I look forward to seeing the review. nemesis
Nemesis: Re Frank Tipler as Christian: I am nearly halfway through Physics of Christianity, and he seems to take orthodox Christian doctrines at face value. I am not a fan of his style of argument or his conclusions about quantum mechanics, but I think he raises some very interesting issues. I do not want to say any more until I have got through the book, at which point I shall post a review. - d. O'Leary
I didn't realize that Frank Tipler is a Christian, which is what you said at your weblog. He says in the Physics of immortality that he isn't a Christian because he didn't trust the Gospels. So what is Tipler's real stance on Christianity? I know his theistic views are unorthodox, but is his soteriology "Christian"? Just wondering. On another note, the whole matter of people accepting biological evolution while rejecting psychological evolution seems to me a funny conclusion. Materialists want to do bio evo but realize where it leads with respect to the brain (a coerced brain which simply takes what nature gives it, so it can't willfully discriminate between what is true and what is false), so they reject psychological evolution to try to retain the rational capabilities of the brain, because this willful discrimination is necessary in order to make an educated inference about science in the first place! This is a funny conclusion because theists have been telling materialists for awhile that their worldview undermines itself. This simply corroborates that statement. nemesis
bornagain77 "I heard that the Guy who wrote “A Natural History Of ” defended himself from all the women he infuriated on a Radio program by saying, “Since Evolution is true this must be true also.”" Ya, Thornhill actually stated on a TV talk show that, "this is not debatable" based on the 'fact' of evolution. So, just too bad for those ladies eh - it's not debatable. :-o That's the typical escapist route they take when cornered with their own - offensive to any one who is not dead from the neck - BS. You really can't blame these poor souls though, they are only taking Darwinism to it's true conclusions by way of implication. Wait till that kind of pseudo-sci coswallop reaches the courts (smart and shady lawyers & dumb Jonesish judges) and then let's count the victims of rape watching their aggressors get off for "genetically determined" causes!!! Not their fault! What a ruddy mess that will be! Borne
It seems Larry can't stomach the moral implications of his precious Darwinistic-Materialistic theories. If he can't stand the heat, maybe he should get out of the Fundamentalist Archmaterialist kitchen. Anyway, thinking that the mind could arise from evolutionary processes is silly. The empirical philosophy of science (taken to its materialistic extremes) demands that we subscribe to phenomenalism, and phenomena like information can't exist without intelligence. So where did the brain and the mind, with all of their rich information content come from? Surely not evolution, since there would have been no-one to create the phenomena. Evolutionary psychology is a compound of illogical nonsense. NoeticGuru
When I first read up on evolutionary psychology, I just wrote it off as a joke. It seemed so ad hoc - while at the same time being advanced by many people who purport to be devout lovers of science. It's almost as if, so long as you have a PhD and are an atheist, you can say whatever you please and certain people will eat it up. nullasalus
I heard that the Guy who wrote "A Natural History Of " defended himself from all the women he infuriated on a Radio program by saying, "Since Evolution is true this must be true also." bornagain77
I've heard several evo biologists say they don't like evo psy. Hmmm... it is the evo biologists that have provided the evo psy nuts with all the fuel they need to be flying on so much hot air. ;-) Seems pretty obvious - can't have one without the other. I still can't get over the nerve and idiocy of Thornhill & Palmer's 'A Natural History of Rape'. But they were merely taking materialist NDE to it's logical conclusions. Borne

Leave a Reply