In this episode of The Tall Friendly Atheist Dad Podcast, I start reading Kent Hovind's famous (or infamous) PhD thesis and give my erudite opinion on its contents.
Apologies for the lengthy delay in getting this post out. There's a reason.
Some time back, this blog used to be at the URL "idontneedfaithtobeanatheist.com", which was a response to the book by Frank Turek & Normal Geisler. Then, as I expanded my online activities, I decided to change the URL to "tallfriendlyatheistdad.com". The problem that then arose was that every link I had in every draft reverted to an admin page in my Blogger account - this is OK for me because I'm the admin, but that meant that whenever a reader tried to click on a link, they'd get a blank page.
However, I only noticed this AFTER the URL change and hadn't saved an offline copy of my word. I was able to rescue (somewhat) previous drafts I had, but this draft I wasn't able to - and when you're discussing something as scientifically meaty as the theory of evolution, and you're trying to counter scientific ignorance writ-large in the form of Fundamental Evangelicalism combined with Presuppositional Apologetics, dotting your i's and crossing your t's is a good practice - especially because you want to remove any scope for anyone to highlight a flaw and act as if they've defeated your entire case.
After much consternation, I've decided to release the 4th and final part, but with most of the links removed. Not that Creationists care much for them, but they are there to show you, the audience, that the theory of evolution is well-substantiated by the science and that human altruism and the theory of evolution are intertwined.
So here goes - the fourth and final instalment of "Correcting Pre-Suppositionalist Misunderstanding Of Evolution"
-----
In the previous 3 parts of 'Correcting Pre-Suppositionalist Misunderstanding Of Evolution', I discussed what I though were the errors with old mate ApoloJedi's blog article wherein he states why he doesn't believe the theory of evolution can account for human altruism - as if that defeats the theory of evolution itself.
The feedback so far from ApoloJedi directly has been that I have engaged in misdirection and nitpicking, a charge I take umbrage at because, as is evident from the fact that this is a 4-part series, I've actually taken the time to engage the argument as strongly as I can, and I have quoted directly from ApoloJedi's blog.
You can find the previous entries here: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - As well as links to ApoloJedi's blog and original article so you can compare the two sides of the argument to see if I am strawmanning and nitpicking.
In this last entry, I tackle ApoloJedi's last sections in his blog post, as well as get to the heart of the topic: can the theory of evolution explain human altruism?
The next section is what I feel is the actual heart of the matter: theology, not science.
"When man judges something, they're putting themselves in the judge's seat, and no-one is allowed to judge God!" is the ultimate in special pleading, and they need this out BECAUSE the evidence from philosophy, morality and especially the natural sciences all defeat the case for God's existence and his superior qualities when considered strictly on their merits. So the battlefield is shifted away from the merits of the argument at hand, and instead gets moved to weird concepts like having to account for things and proving you're not a brain in a jar.
-----
Can Evolution Account For Altruism?
No. Those who believe in evolution recognize that altruism exists, and in an effort to create post hoc theories for its existence, they must either redefine altruism, revive classic Lamarckism, disregard their own definitions of what evolution means or some chimera Frankenstein fantasy combination of all three distractions.
Which is a bit rich, considering that ApoloJedi has only used a social definition of altruism, 'good done for no thought of reward', not an academic one. If ApoloJedi is trying to convince like-minded believers of his position, mission accomplished, but has he done enough to convince rational skeptics like me? No.
One big mistake so far has been to use the term "those who believe in evolution". No-one believes in evolution. I, alongside numerous other people, accept the theory of evolution as the most scientifically-replete explanation for the biodiversity we see on earth today - but this does not mean we 'believe in it'. We make no decisions about our daily lives based on the theory of evolution; we don't pray to Darwin or Dawkins or Miller as gods; and when a loved one cries, we don't stop and ask "what will help their DNA replicate in a population competing for limited resources?".
I don't even know what Lamarckism is in any great detail, let alone anyone who espouses it as superior to Darwinian mechanisms, so I'll let that slide.
And evolution is actually a multi-factored phenomenon and multi-disciplinary study that incorporates numerous mechanisms and works at many levels. While it boils down to genetic variation in populations, it is a rich and complex field that actually has applications outside of biology as well (see here).
Unfortunately, ApoloJedi's strongest argument AGAINST evolution is to criticise a paper by two economists writing about evolution from a cultural perspective; a book written over 40 years ago; a college textbook, and then (as we'll see shortly) quote Fundamentalist Protestant theology. This is not the academically rigorous discussion of evolution that ApoloJedi needed to make to convince scientifically-literate atheists such as Jackson Wheat or Professor Dave that they're on the wrong path.
Many of you know that this is a blog dedicated to the truth of God’s eternal revelation.
…it is my intent to always revere Christ Jesus as the authority in all matters…
In all matters, especially scientific? But why? Why would anyone hold as a scientific authority a person who - despite being the one who created the universe (Colossians 1:16) - didn't know or care to teach about bacteria or atoms or DNA? What was Jesus' knowledge about electricity or vaccines or neurochemistry? The delicious irony of this is that electricity powered Jesus' body, but he said not one thing about it. Jesus' body hosted approximately 10 trillion bacteria, but somehow rated no mention. Neither the presence of a planet over 300 times larger than Earth just nearby with almost 70 moons - as if Jesus was completely unaware and aloof.
Jesus may have been a nice guy, but he's certainly no authority on anything outside of theology, and he's definitely not the guy I want vetting my scientific beliefs.
…and not put the God-denier in the judge’s seat as if he/she can correctly judge evidence in accordance with a perfect perception of reality. Only God has a perfect perception of all of reality…
This is a common line from Pre-Suppositionalists that I believe actually betrays why they're reluctant to apply the same standard to God as what they happily do every day to everybody and everything else.
It's funny - Pre-Suppositionalists, and even most Protestant Evangelicals, will happily sit in judgement over other people's behaviour, over the morality other religions, the existence of their associated deities, and over the morality and judgement of certain presidential candidates and their families - yet when it comes to their deity, suddenly being in the judge's seat is wrong. You can't have it both ways. Either judge nothing on its merits, or judge everything on its merits.
So now let's ask: does God have a perfect perception of reality? We can't say, because God has never spoken in a way that can be objectively verified in order to ascertain his ability to perceive reality.
But let's assume for arguments sake that God wrote every single word of the Bible and that it has been translated perfectly so that when we read it in English, it's as if we're back in ancient Israel reading from the scrolls.
Now, let's ask the question: from the Bible's perspective, how accurate does God perceive reality? Badly is the answer. For example, Genesis 1:6 describes a firmament, a crystalline dome that divides the sky from outer space and has windows to let the rain in (Genesis 7:11) and covers the earth. And let's be clear: the Hebrew word for firmament, "raqiya", means a solid dome, not simply the atmosphere. Genesis also describes the moon as a "lesser light" in contrast to the sun being the "greater light". The problem? The moon has no capacity to generate light, only to reflect it. The other problem? The moon is only visible at night for a portion of the monthly lunar cycle (think about why we see the moon during daylight hours).
But let's continue to evaluate God's perception of the reality he supposedly created. Isaiah 11:12 refers to the four quarters of the earth, which is a reflection of a classic belief that the earth was a circular disk, not a globe. Job 38:19 asks "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?". Light doesn't live anywhere - light is an electromagnetic wave in certain bands of wavelengths, and darkness is not a thing, it's merely the absence of light.
And the Bible is without any description of our local solar system. God, not once, mentions any other planets or that any of them are up to 300 times larger than ours, or even something as trivial that a smaller planet like Mars has two moons compared to our one. God, not once, mentions that the sun as a very large fusion reaction. God doesn't even mention atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons, bosons…you know, the stuff that makes the stuff!
…but God, who is the source of all knowledge, has revealed some of his knowledge so that we can know those things with certainty
Only if we are willing to cede our intellect (as well as our humanity) to a book written by men who wondered where the sun went at night.
This article could have been very short: Does a mechanism which purportedly replaces God (evolution)…
ApoloJedi now lets slip why he argues about evolution so much - because he thinks the theory of evolution by common descent usurps the giver of his moral authority. Which is strange - why are we using theology to discuss a scientific principle? This is completely backwards - we usually use science to discuss theology, not the other way around.
But no. Evolution is simply a theory that descibes the genetic diversity of life on earth. Also, it has to be said that ApoloJedi is in a minority of Christians who reject evolution. People like Pope Francis accept evolution. Billy Graham accepted evolution. C.S. Lewis accepted evolution. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, is both a Christian and a professionally-qualified biologist.
So, does evolution replace God? Not at all. Even ardent Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig accept human development through evolution.
…sufficiently account for behaviors that God commands (altruism)?
Does God command altrusim? Only when he's not commanding genocide (1 Samuel 15), endorsing slavery (Exodus 21), literally de-valuing women (Leviticus 27), having his people kidnap little girls after their parents and brothers have been murdered (Numbers 31), and much, much more. The Fundamentalist whitewash of God commands altrusim - not the God we actually find in the Bible.
No – evolution cannot account for altruism. So, evolutionists are wrong about altruism being consistent with evolution not only because of the Christian worldview…
1. God’s Revelation in creation and scripture are true
2. Evolutionism is discordant with God’s Revelation
I will actually get in to a proper evolutionary case for altrusim shortly, but what I want to highlight here is ApoloJedi's reasoning for why he says evolution is false:
ApoloJedi isn't saying the theory of evolution is unscientific because he has conferred with those with professional qualifications and done a comparative study of numerous genomes to come up with a competing data set that has withstood scientific scrutiny to the point that it attracts academic attention. No. He is saying evolution is false because it is discordant with his theology.
This is not just a bad argument - this is William Jennings Bryan-levels of intellectual defeat.
ApoloJedi continues the attack:
…but evolutionists are ALSO wrong about altruism because of the inherent contradictions contained within their own worldview
1. Altruism is selfless
2. Evolutionary biologists propose that genes are selfish
3. Genes are unchanged by learned behaviors
4. Altruism is a learned behavior
5. Natural selection is survival of the fittest
6. Altruism is artificial intrusion that prevents the least fit from succumbing to natural selection
Is ApoloJedi correct in his six-point takedown of evolution?
1. Altruism is selfless
No. Selfless acts are a form of altruism, but remember, altrusim is just "behavior…motivated by a desire to benefit someone other than oneself for that person’s sake." (as per Stanford), so it not true that altruism is is strictly defined as selflessness.
ApoloJedi is correct in a social sense, but not an academic one.
2. Evolutionary biologists propose that genes are selfish
No, they don't.
One evolutionary biologist, writing almost 50 years ago, using a word to employ an analogy of genes having an inherent moral and intellectual capacity, did, but as Stephen J. Gould wrote, "Dawkins knows as well as you and I do that genes do not plan and scheme; they do not act as witting agents of their own preservation. He is only perpetuating, albeit more colorfully than most, a metaphorical shorthand "
3. Genes are unchanged by learned behaviors
No. There's a whole field of study called behavioural epigenetics that looks at the link between behaviour and genes, both ways.
4. Altruism is a learned behavior
Yes and no. There is great debate in the field of psychology over how innate altruism is. I agree that the effective application of human altruism has to be learned, but this is not to say that human kindness is not somewhat innate or that evolutionary mechanisms have nothing to do with it.
ApoloJedi is somewhat correct.
5. Natural selection is survival of the fittest
Fittest...in regards to the environment. That is all. It does not refer to notions of value, worth, desirability, or anything else.
ApoloJedi is not the first to confuse the notion of "fitness for the environment" with "perceived social value". He won't be the last.
6. Altruism is artificial intrusion that prevents the least fit from succumbing to natural selection
Wrong, on two counts. First, altruism is to do with individual acts, whereas natural selection acts at a population level, and second, natural selection is to do with organisms surviving in their surrounding environments.
So out of six points ApoloJedi uses to debunk evolution and evolutionary explanations of altruism, he gets two of them half-right.
This article entered into the worldview of the God-denier and using their own assumptions, their own research, and their own conclusions to show that they cannot account for altruistic behaviors as a result of evolutionary processes
The article didn't enter the worldview of the God-denier, for the simple reason that ApoloJedi's article was a theological hatchet job, and evolution is a science issue - not a theological one. Christians such as Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky and Pope Francis see no threat to their faith when looking at the theory of evolution, so why does ApoloJedi?
To be clear, they cannot account for ANYTHING without humble submission to the LORD of glory, who is worthy of all praise.
Again, this is William Jennings Bryan-levels of intellectual defeat.
So with this mind, how about I take you through the science instead to show you what it actually says on the topic on the link between altruism and evolution.
-----
Let's see what the Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behaviour, in a chapter titled "The Devlopment And Evolutionary Origins Of Human Helping & Sharing" (p. 111) says:
"…these factors are ontogenetically ordered: children begin with biologically evolved cooperative tendencies…and then various processes of socialisation work on these…both natural selection and social selection have worked and do work against individuals who do not help and share with others, which means, conversely, they have worked and work for individuals who do. Both phylogeny and ontology thus conspire to temper human's natural self-serving impulses with altruistic impulses that enables them to live in interdependence with others"
What about The Evolutionary Origins Of Human Generosity (Komter/2010, as part of International Sociology Vol 25(3), pp 443-464)?
"The origins of generosity are explored by combining biological, psychological, anthropological and sociological evidence. Kinship altruism, reciprocal altruism, ‘strong reciprocity’, cultural norms and gene-culture co-evolution prove to be major explanations of the evolution of cooperation in human beings." (abstract)
"Since the 1960s and early 1970s evolution theory has acquired two kinds of extensions: the theory of genetic kinship altruism and the theory of reciprocal altruism. The first theory stipulates that by helping one’s relatives one contributes to spreading one’s own genes – which is supposed to increase survival chances – whereas the second theory allows for the explanation of altruistic behaviour among genetically non-related individuals of the same species or even among members of different species. William Hamilton was the first to mathematically model the genetic evolution of social behaviour. He argued that sacrifices involved in parental care can maximize the ‘inclusive fitness’ of the organisms involved because more adult offspring are left as a result; this way, the genes causing its possessor to give parental care will leave more replica genes in the next generation than genes having the opposite tendency (Hamilton, 1964)." (p445)
Or, Neural, Cognitive, And Evolutionary Foundations Of Human Altruism (Marsh/2015)?
"This article considers three forms of altruism from both a psychological and a neural perspective, with an emphasis on homologies that can be observed across species and potentially illuminate altruism's evolutionary origins. Kin‐based altruism benefits biological relatives and, according to the theory of inclusive fitness, is ultimately beneficial to the altruist from a genetic standpoint"
And remember when this God-denier told ApoloJedi in the very beginning:
Altruism is a beneficial trait in social species.
The prosecution rests its case, your honour.
The science is not hard to find. In this day and age where information is shared at the touch of a screen, it's not availability that is the issue - it's the willingness to have your beliefs moulded by the most robust investigation tool mankind has invented. If we care about where the evidence leads, we have to understand it may take us some places we're not comfortable with - and we have to be consistent: we can't say for all these areas of life, evidentialism is best, but then when it comes to theology, pre-suppositionalism is the ONLY way to know about God.
Either the case for God stands on its own merits, or it doesn't. Just like the case for evolution.
Evolution has been tested and tried and honestly examined. Can we say the same about theology?
-----
I hope you have enjoyed reading through this series.
Please leave your comments below, and be kind to one another.
I've had fun writing up this series in responding to the Pre-Suppositional apologist ApoloJedi and his blog post that attempts to refute the theory of evolution by claiming that it can in no way account for human altruism.
Part 1 is here.
Part 2 is here.
And remember, none of this is a personal attack on ApoloJedi himself - it's a counter to claims that were reached by theology, not science.
Do yourself a favour, go to ApoloJedi's Twitter and see if he has posted any pumpkin cutting videos! 😀
-----
Now we get to the meat on the bones - human altruism in light of evolution.
What do Scientists Say About Altruism?
So, scientists have recognized that it is counter-intuitive to assume that altruism fits within the evolutionary explanations…
This is wrong, as well as completely missing the point. No expert on the subject says that altruism is on the whole incompatible with evolution as a mechanism for human development or advancement. Nay, a cursory Google Scholar search for "evolutionary origins human altruism" brings up over 80'000 results which actually tie human altruism to evolution, and I will write further on the topic towards the end of this response series.
In the recent social media encounter that I mentioned above, one of the God-deniers said:
The scientific research would beg to differ. The evolutionary origins of human altruism explained: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&qsp=3&q=evolutionary+origins+human+altruism&qst=ir…
And if you’re not reading science to change your mind, then what are you doing?
That 'God-denier' ApoloJedi is quoting is me, and this was taken from a Twitter spat we had. While I'm chuffed that my words were able to spur ApoloJedi in to action, I resent the label of God-denier when I am clearly a rational skeptic. But this all goes back to Pre-Suppositional apologetics. Anyone who doesn't believe in God isn't doing so because they're not rationally or logically convinced by the available data - they're actively denying God's existence by surpressing the evident truth (presumably because of their unrighteousness). Further to this, I would go so far to say that Pre-Suppositional theology does not value evidence or logic or reason, especially because reason and logic as used in other fields of life can be used to show that the claims of the existence of God are not evidentially justified.
In the numerous online debates I've had with numerous Pre-Suppositional apologists (not just ApoloJedi), they have shown what I would call intellectual laziness by NOT using reason or evidence to counter an argument - the most common counter to tricky questions is to retort "If humans are simply molecules put together, how do you account for the laws of logic/consciousness/morality/reason/etc?", or other variations on the same theme, backed up by the occasional link to a Creationist blog.
This all leads me to believe that Pre-Suppositional Apologetics isn't used as a rock-solid case to convert people to Christianity - it's used as a method of ensuring personal beliefs are kept safe from questioning.
Essentially, he told me that science DOES have answers, and I’m ignorant of those answers because I’ve never read them.
Not quite. I never said he was ignorant of the answers because he's never read them. What I will say is that lousy epistomology utilising intellectually treasonous theology prevents people with theological blinders on from accepting the fact they could ever be wrong about something, particularly when that something challenges their deeply-held religious convictions.
So ApoloJedi is not ignorant because he hasn't read the answers - he's ignorant (to use his word) because his chain of logic prevents him from ever being corrected on any topic he sees as contradictory to his theology.
But I’m an intrepid ApoloJedi and will analyze the writings of scientists who promote evolutionism to see if they can demonstrate altruism to be sufficiently explained by the mechanisms of evolution
Given that ApoloJedi has made evolution a theological issue instead of a scientific one, the best he can say is that he will selectively quote literature to prop up a Creationist strawman of evolution, and then promptly knock it down. No guesses as to the conclusion ApoloJedi reaches.
I will analyze three sources from the modern academic paradigm (which some will conflate with “science”):
The only reason someone would use the snide remark "which some will conflate with science" is if they espouse the belief that the only valid evidence in a debate is anything that lines up with the Bible - the typical Creationist mindset.
The first source ApoloJedi cites from is Human Altruism – Proximate Patterns and Evolutionary Origins, Fehr/Fischbacher (2005). ApoloJedi highlights the below quote:
Current gene-based evolutionary theories cannot explain important patterns of human altruism pointing towards the need for theories of cultural evolution and gene-culture coevolution…
With his own commentary:
They clearly recognize the counter-intuitive nature of the claim that evolution can sufficiently account for altruism.
No they don't! ApoloJedi can quote an abstract, but not read it properly - it said "current gene-based theories" cannot explain, but it did not say evolution on the whole can't account for it.
Fehr and Fischbacher did indeed say the above words ApoloJedi quoted from their paper. But let's actually comprehend what they're actually saying. All they said was that according to current gene-only evolutionary models, no theory sufficiently explains human altruism - hence why they believe the need for a co-evolutionary model that incorporates both genes and culture.
The implication is that a NEW theory/mechanism is needed.
Yes - a new mechanism that incorporates both genes and culture. But again, they did not say evolution on the whole can't account - they just said that gene-only theories can't account. This is an important distinction, and as I said, if you're going to discuss science, you need to be precise.
They call their new mechanism “strong reciprocity”. They define Strong Reciprocity as:
Strong reciprocity is a combination of altruistic rewarding—a readiness to reward others in response to fair outcomes or behaviour—and altruistic punishment—a willingness to sanction others for norm violations
Reward? If there is a reward, it’s not altruism. Right from the beginning, they change the definition of altruism from something that is unselfish to appeal to the inherent selfishness.
Wait up! Earlier on the page, ApoloJedi accepted the definiton of altruism as either:
Altruism is the principle and moral practice of concern for happiness of other human beings or animals, resulting in a quality of life both material and spiritual.
Or:
Behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
At no point do either of these definitons nor the SEP definition consider altruism as "doing something beneficial for no thought of reward".
Also, do Fehr and Fischbacher decide that altruism can't work in to evolution, so they need to make up a new term on the spot? No. The first mention of the term "strong reciprocity" comes in the abstract:
However, human altruism even extends far beyond reciprocal altruism and reputation-based cooperation taking the form of strong reciprocity (Fehr et al. 2002; Gintis 2000). Strong reciprocity is a combination of altruistic rewarding—a readiness to reward others in response to fair outcomes or behaviour—and altruistic punishment—a willingness to sanction others for norm violations
So ApoloJedi makes a mistake when he says:
They call their new mechanism “strong reciprocity”. They define Strong Reciprocity as…
Because strong reciprocity is not a new mechanism. The authors even refer to the original research paper that explains it the very first time they quote it.
Next comes this:
“Fair outcomes”???? Now they have to explain how evolution produced justice so that fair outcomes can be measured. Rather than explaining away the questions, they are multiplying their explanatory deficits.
Ummm, no, they don't. They're clearly using "fair outcomes" in a relative sense, especially since the concept of 'fair outcomes' is relative to the person and the circumstances. The idea of morality and ethics having a strong relative component is nothing new.
Here, it looks as if ApoloJedi is doing what every other anti-evolution Creationist also does - hold the theory of evolution and any discussion of it to such a high degree of scrutiny that any little disagreeable thing is bound to trigger outrage, but then hold the Bible to such a low standard of scrutiny that not even established rules of logic and contradiction apply to their chosen faith text. To quote ApoloJedi's very own blog on the topic of Biblical contradictions:
As we have already pointed out, the skeptic has no grounds to complain about contradictions because naturalism cannot coherently justify laws of logic the misuse of which produces contradictions…The skeptic should familiarize oneself with the nature of contradictions, and before accusing the Bible of being filled with them, be familiar with the reasons why there are no contradictions in the Bible.
This confirms to me that Pre-Suppositional apologetics is not concerned with reason and logic, and no-one follows it because it is where the evidence leads - people adhere to it to shore up a faith position.
He then continues:
They spend the next 20 pages showing data and charts about how there are social rewards for reciprocity and punishment for selfishness for humans. It’s hardly groundbreaking to show data that when people are nice to others, the others are generally nice back or when someone is ungrateful for altruism, that’s the last time they get free generosity.
Yes, but again, it's not reflective of the whole picture. Those next 20 pages actually cite numerous studies that quantify relationships and data sets. For example, the first chart produced is on page 10, and even on that page, they cite a study. The next page, page 11, ten separate studies are cited to back up the claims being made!
And again, ApoloJedi may think "it's hardly groundbreaking", but Fehr and Fischbacher actually go in to great detail as to how they arrive at the conclusions they do. It's not just numbers and thoughts plucked out of thin air - both Ernst Fehr and Urs Fischbacher are professors in their fields of the study of human behaviour.
And it’s definitely not in accord with Merrian-Webster’s definition of altruism from above.
I really don't care about Merrian-Webster's definition - I'd much rather use Stanford's version because it is more academcially rigorous.
So sure, two economics professors can use a definition of altruism that doesn't fit one particular dictionary's definition. I think they care more about academic rigour than what a popular dictionary thinks.
The point is that they are not demonstrating that evolution explains altruism.
No. It only says on page 37:
Recent theoretical models of cultural group selection (Boyd et al. 2003; Henrich/Boyd 2001) or of gene-culture co-evolution (Bowles et al. 2003; Gintis 2003) could provide a solution to the puzzle of strong reciprocity. The interaction between cultural group selection and altruistic punishment (Boyd et al. 2003; Henrich/Boyd 2001), for example, could solve two problems at once: The evolution of altruistic punishment and the evolution of cooperation in relatively large groups (Figure 7a and 7b).
Which follow headings titled "Reciprocal Altruism", "Reputation Seeking", "Altruists With Green Beards" and "Gene-Culture Co-Evolution". No. They haven't explained it at all…
They are NOT demonstrating a gradual process with innumerable slight successive modifications in heritable traits are pushing some mysterious proto-altruistic behavior into fully-developed altruism
And you know why? Because Fehr & Fischbacher are economists with specialisations in human behaviour - not geneticists. Complaining that two economics don't write about genetics? Holy cheese balls!
Some have done the altruistic test on monkeys showing strong reciprocity, but (as I have been reliably reminded over and over by evolutionists) humans did not evolve from monkeys.
Absolutely correct: humans did not evolve from monkeys - we are cousins with them. But we do experiments with monkeys to see how unique humans are in the tree of life, and in some aspects we are unique, and in some we aren't.
At best, these experiments can ONLY assert another rescue device (convergent evolution) proposed by evolutionists to protect their theory from refutation. These experiments do NOT demonstrate the evolution of human altruism.
Convergent evolution ain't no mere assertion - it's a demonstrable fact. Let's think about it - if two separate primate species have overlapping characteristics and genetics, where do you think it's pointing to? The rest of ApoloJedi's discussion of Fehr & Fischbacher overlooks the fact they're economists because he expects them to discuss genetics down to granular detail.
I don't accept this criticism because if you want to challenge evolution from a genetic perspective, you should criticise a paper written by geneticists - not economics professors.
However, next on ApoloJedi's hit-list is none other than…
RICHARD DAWKINS
ApoloJedi's further dismantles evolution by…criticising a book written in 1976? I mean, I'm not calling Richard Dawkins low-hanging fruit here, but surely the research in to behavioural psychology as well as evolution has advanced greatly since then.
ApoloJedi says he wants to "analyse three sources from the modern academic paradigm", but his first two choices are a paper written by economists and a 1976 book that takes license with the word 'selfish', which it looks like ApoloJedi has latched on to. I'm curious as to why ApoloJedi chose The Selfish Gene instead of something like much more recent such as "The Altruistic Brain: How We Are Naturally Good" by Donald W. Pfaff, Christopher Boehm's "Moral Origins: The Evolution Of Virtue, Altrusim & Shame", or even "The Better Angels Of Our Nature" by Stephen Pinker.
After quoting text from Dawkins' book, ApoloJedi writes:
As you can see, Dawkins is unable to sufficiently demonstrate that evolutionary mechanisms can sufficiently account for altruism.
Cool. Go tell Richard Dawkins that. He'll be pleased a Creationist has been reading his books. But Dawkins is an expert in biology, not human psychology.
Dawkins is deficient at the same points of Fehr/Fischbacher – he is forced to redefine altruism as beneficial to the giver…
Which is NOT anywhere near a redefinition of altruism when you consider the academic and philosophical defnitions of the word - which is why I chose the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosohy's definition due to its academic rigour.
Complaining that Dawkins is wrong on a point of human behaviour in comparison to two economists is jarring.
…OR prescribe that altruism be TAUGHT since genes are naturally selfish (Learned).
Correct. Genes/alleles don't have any inherent intelligence or moral capacity, and I don't know anyone who honestly and actually thinks they do. It's the brains that the genes produce that have the moral capacity. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it:
Alleles cannot cooperate with each other; only compete. That is where the “selfish” in “selfish gene” comes in.
ApoloJedi then quotes Stephen J. Gould refuting Dawkins, as if Gould had struck a hammer blow:
…the fatal flaw (in Dawkins’ selfish gene theory) was that “no matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing that he cannot give them – direct visibility to natural selection.
Is this what Gould really said? Is it the complete picture? Was Gould really admonishing Dawkins for such sloppy research?
No. Quoting from page 90 of The Panda's Thumb:
I begin my criticism by stating that I am not bothered by what strikes most people as the most outrageous component of these statements-the imputation of conscious action to genes. Dawkins knows as well as you and I do that genes do not plan and scheme; they do not act as witting agents of their own preservation. He is only perpetuating, albeit more colorfully than most, a metaphorical shorthand used (perhaps unwisely) by all popular writers on evolution, including myself (although sparingly, I hope). When he says that genes strive to make more copies of themselves, he means: "selection has operated to favor genes that, by chance, varied in such a way that more copies survived in subsequent generations." The second is quite a mouthful; the first is direct and acceptable as metaphor although literally inaccurate. Still, I find a fatal flaw in Dawkins's attack from below. No matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing that he cannot give them-direct visibility to natural selection. Selection simply cannot see genes and pick among them directly. It must use bodies as an intermediary. A gene is a bit of DNA hidden within a cell. Selection views bodies. It favors some bodies because they are stronger, better insulated, earlier in their sexual maturation, fiercer in combat, or more beautiful to behold.
Gould is merely saying firstly that Dawkins is using a metaphorical shorthand that doesn't accurately represent the reality, and second, natural selection doesn't choose the genes themselves - it chooses organisms on the whole as represented by the body. Hardly earth-shattering.
With no direct visibility to natural selection, how can genes direct phenotypes to preserve themselves via altruism?
News flash: they don't.
Dawkin’s attempt to explain altruism via evolution is shown to be a failure as well
But hold on - the earlier criticism was that Dawkins didn't explain altruism via evolution - you know, the "altruism should be taught because genes are selfish" line. And now his attempt failed. Which one is it?
OpenStax Rice University
Next on ApoloJedi's hitlist is an open-access textbook from Rice University. Is his criticism valid? Let's see ApoloJedi's first quote from the textbook:
There has been much discussion over why altruistic behaviors exist. Do these behaviors lead to overall evolutionary advantages for their species? Do they help the altruistic individual pass on its own genes? In the 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, scientist Richard Dawkins attempted to explain many seemingly altruistic behaviors…Selfish gene theory has been controversial over the years and is still discussed among scientists in related fields…The lowering of individual fitness to enhance the reproductive fitness of a relative and this one’s inclusive fitness evolves through kin selection. However, these behaviors may not be truly defined as altruism in these cases because the actor is actually increasing his own fitness either directly or indirectly.
Let's back up for a second, and highlight some problems with the quoted tesxt.
At the very beginning of the paragraph titled "Altrustic Behaviours", the source from his above text actually says:
Behaviors that lower the fitness of the individual but increase the fitness of another individual are termed altruistic.
There is an important distinction here that we need to make. OpenStax is not saying that altruism is strictly defined as behaviours that lower the fitness of the individual, but increase the fitness of the group - this would be wrong, especially compared to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. All it is saying that those behaviours are termed to be altruistic.
Again, this comes down to being as rigorous as you reasonably can be when you criticise something,.
Let's look further:
Examples of such behaviors are seen widely across the animal kingdom. Social insects such as worker bees have no ability to reproduce…Meerkats keep a sentry standing guard to warn the rest of the colony about intruders…Wolves and wild dogs bring meat to pack members not present during a hunt…Although on the surface, these behaviors appear to be altruistic, the truth may not be so simple. (paraphrased and emphasis added)
Science is full of debate and conjecture, but there is no doubt evolution plays a part - the only question is what part.
There has been much discussion over why altruistic behaviors exist. Do these behaviors lead to overall evolutionary advantages for their species? Do they help the altruistic individual pass on its own genes? And what about such activities between unrelated individuals? One explanation for altruistic-type behaviors is found in the genetics of natural selection. In the 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, scientist Richard Dawkins attempted to explain many seemingly altruistic behaviors from the viewpoint of the gene itself. Although a gene obviously cannot be selfish in the human sense, it may appear that way if the sacrifice of an individual benefits related individuals that share genes that are identical by descent (present in relatives because of common lineage). Mammal parents make this sacrifice to take care of their offspring. Emperor penguins migrate miles in harsh conditions to bring food back for their young. Selfish gene theory has been controversial over the years and is still discussed among scientists in related fields. (emphasis added)
But again, no-one doubts evolution played a hand. From the same chapter:
What is clear, though, is that heritable behaviors that improve the chances of passing on one’s genes or a portion of one’s genes are favored by natural selection and will be retained in future generations as long as those behaviors convey a fitness advantage. These instinctual behaviors may then be applied, in special circumstances, to other species, as long as it doesn’t lower the animal’s fitness.
Heritable traits that enhance one's odds of survival - that sounds a heckuva lot like evolution to me. So it actually looks like OpenStax, though they refer to a hyper-strict definition not immediately recognised by most people, say that evolution and altruism are related because of the survival and fitness benefits conferred - which is actually pretty much in line with what I said in the original exchange that started the debate.
You can see from their explanations that there is no mechanism for generating altruistic behavior…we know it exists, but it’s mechanism, purpose, and history are all BLIND to science.
This is because Mr. Jedi didn't quote further than the first three paragraphs, otherwise he would have found the headings of Simple Learned Behaviours, Conditioned Behaviour and Cognitive Learning, as well as realised that the whole section he quotes on altruism is part of a larger chapter on Population & Community Ecology - how organisms with brains learn to co-exist, or in other words, the mechanisms for generating altruistic behaviour!
In their first paragraph they invoke a sciency-sounding phrase, kin selection, as if merely naming an observation actually explains it.
Got bad news for you, good sir - kin selection is an observed and documented scientific fact.
Mr. Jedi doubles down on his hyper-critical stance.
Kin selection like convergent evolution like strong reciprocity are terms that hide the explanation under the guise of science. People hear “kin selection” and assume, “well, it’s got a fancy name, so someone must have demonstrated that evolution is the only explanation for it.”
Kin selection, strong reciprocity and convergent evolution are ALL documented phenomena in the scientific literature. Ignore it at your intellectual peril.
And is evolution the only explanation for them? Maybe not. But it's the only explanation worth paying any mind to, and you would be hard-pressed to find another explanation that has as much scientific and academic rigour behind it as what the study in to evolution brings to the table.
Although I have been unreliably told that evolution can account for altruistic behavior, the writings of science publications are devoid of sufficient explanations for it. Notice the concluding sentences of this section:
What is clear, though, is that heritable behaviors that improve the chances of passing on one’s genes or a portion of one’s genes are favored by natural selection and will be retained in future generations as long as those behaviors convey a fitness advantage.
Essentially, they are saying “despite a lack of evidence of altruism at all or a mechanism for developing proto-altruism to fully functional altruism, it’s true. Just believe that evolution has the power to do it! We KNOW it because natural selection ALWAYS conveys a fitness advantage…even if we can’t demonstrate it. Trust us, we’re scientists!”
I love reading, but textbooks are in reality, summaries of a larger body of research. For example, OpenStax's book on astronomy says that impact craters exist on the earth, but it doesn't name the specific comets or meteorites that hit the earth, nor on what exact dates, nor what the nearest schoolteacher had for breakfast - does this mean the whole of astronomy deserves to be dismissed? No. Textbooks are merely summaries.
But again, if it is a deep-dive in to the actual mechanics of evolution and of altruism, you need to get in to the genetics and to a fairly in-depth level. College textbooks and papers by economics professors ain't it.
---------------
This concludes part 3. Part 4 is where I finish my response.
Stay safe, stay rational, be kind.