Evolutionists Reduce Human Ideals to Molecules
Two recent stories illustrate the attempt by some evolutionary biologists to reduce complex human behaviors to chance events among molecules.
- You Are What You Get High On: Michael Balter in ScienceNow asked, “Did endorphins make us more human?” Pondering that question is a photo of a chimp and a naked ape (i.e., man) facing opposite one another in the pose of Rodin’s The Thinker. Balter reported on research by Duke University scientists who found a large difference between apes and humans in the expression of an endorphin-precursor gene. Endorphins are “opiatelike molecules involved in learning, the experience of pain, and social attachment and bonding.” Presumably this implies our chimp brethren are less endowed in those areas. “The team concludes that the pattern is a solid example of natural selection acting on the human lineage after it split from the chimp line from 5 million to 7 million years ago” [emphasis added in all quotations]. Some critics counter that it is “not yet clear what mental or behavioral traits were favored by selection.” Bruce Lahn (U of Chicago) gave only mild criticism: “It is a bit early to say that these changes were key to what makes us human. But it seems like a reasonable hypothesis.” Balter left it at that.
- Patriotic Genes: EurekAlert announced matter-of-factly, “Genes contribute to patriotism and group loyalty.” J. Philippe Rushton of the Charles Darwin Research Institute has found a correlation between genetic similarities and group behavior. At the lowest level, he thinks, this explains kinship behavior between identical twins and family members, but extends all the way up to clans, tribes, races and nationalities. Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, believes this is all clear if we look from the gene up. The article explains: “Human social preferences, like mate choice and ethnic nepotism, are anchored in the evolutionary psychology of altruism. Adopting a ‘gene’s eye’ point of view allows us to see that people’s favoritism to kin and similar others evolved to help replicate shared genes.” Rushton’s article in the October issue of Nations and Nationalism was, according to EurekAlert, about “how genes affect group loyalty and patriotism.”
Is there any doubt left about why we need to “teach the controversy” about Darwinian evolution? Look at what these Darwinists did. Like dispassionate gods on Mt. Olympus, they reduced everything about you and me to our genes, but exempted themselves. Pretentiously and arrogantly, they explained some of the deepest ideals of human behavior in terms of chance consequences of molecular happenstance in some dim evolutionary past. If that were true, their own rationality would be worthless. It’s hypocritical and logically impossible to proffer rational explanations for why rationality is a phantom. If rationality is reducible to molecules in motion, it is not rationality at all.
We don’t need intelligent design moved out of the science class into the philosophy class, we need some philosophy moved into the science class. We need cogent thinkers and logicians to interrupt Darwinists when they make foolish, self-refuting statements. We need them to distinguish between observable science and religious or philosophical pronouncements made in the name of science that go far beyond the evidence. Now read the next entry.