The Evolution of Vomit
Upchucking “could have an adaptive value in evolution,” wrote Dan Jones in Nature1 in a news feature about moral psychology. Why are we disgusted at certain things, like maggots and rotting food? Evolution, he asserted without a burp, throwing in disgusting things like OPM and OPI (other people’s morals and other people’s ideologies) —
Evolution suggests that the human moral faculty – the psychological systems that make judgements about right and wrong, what’s permissible and what isn’t – was cobbled together from pre-existing brain systems over millions of years of biological and cultural evolution. Along the way, it latched onto disgust as a useful tool. “The experimental data point to the possibility that our disgust system might have been adapted by evolution to allow us to reject or disapprove of abstract concepts such as ideologies and political views that are deeply influenced by culture, as well social groups associated with ‘disgusting’ concepts,” says [Jorge] Moll [a Brazilian cognitive neuroscientist].
Jones also referred to the work of Jonathan Haidt (05/22/2007) and others who attributed all emotions, morals and values to cultural evolution of our apelike ancestors. His piece was copiously illustrated with images of people expressing disgust, and even one of a man vomiting. The first image was from Darwin’s post-Origin book, On the Expression of Emotion in Men and Animals (cf. 11/22/2005 commentary), in which Darwin tried to show evolutionary roots of facial expressions with photographs of people crying, laughing, looking afraid and showing disgust.
1Dan Jones, “Moral psychology: The depths of disgust,” Nature 447, 768-771 (14 June 2007) | doi:10.1038/447768a.
Oh barf, we already awarded Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week to Leslie Mullen (06/11/2007). Nothing could be more disgusting than to see an evolutionist evolutionizing disgust. Why? Because it is self-refuting. Jones claimed (with the support of other evolutionists) that our value judgments, morals and ideologies are evolutionary artifacts of natural and social evolution. If so, they have no basis in truth, and truth itself becomes an evolutionary artifact.
Yet throughout the article, Jones hinted that propaganda (e.g., Hitler comparing Jews to rats to co-opt the disgust response), racial prejudice, sexual stereotyping, religious persecution, and aversion to stem cell research are not good things. By what standard could he make such judgments? According to his own presuppositions, his disgust response is an evolutionary artifact just as much as Hitler’s was about Jews. Moral relativism is inescapable in this view (re-read 05/22/2007 commentary on why this is self-refuting).
This article also gets the Dumb award for its Tinker Bell Theology (01/13/2006, 09/22/2005 commentaries). Our moral sense was “cobbled together from pre-existing brain systems over millions of years of biological and cultural evolution,” he says (maybe this can win Stupid Evolution Quote of Next Week). With one swoop, he just tossed out the Bible, Shakespeare and every great work on moral philosophy. We don’t need to read and think deeply about moral issues any more, use logical arguments about the nature of right and wrong, or good or evil, because Charlie’s little fairy renders all such reasonings obsolete. Tinker Bell zapped some brain cells with mutations, such that old parts came together in new ways for natural selection to work on. Presto: morality.
The arrogance of these people. Disgusting. It’s enough to make you want to up Chuck.