Is It Justifiable to Speculate About the Evolution of Murder?

Sharon Begley, writing in the Wall Street Journal May 20, was pretty angry that an evolutionary psychologist tried to give an evolutionary explanation for why men murder women.  She called the theory by Dr. David Buss (U. of Texas, Austin) a just-so story and bad science.  In his book, “The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill,” Buss had portrayed murder of women as an adaptive strategy for some males to leave more offspring than competitors.  Not only is this theory “offensive and wrong,” Begley charged, it it is a ludicrous idea – even in evolutionary terms:

As evolutionary theory, this is ludicrous.  Killing the owner of the uterus that is your only current chance to get your genes into the next generation (the evolutionary imperative), especially if she is caring for your current children and has a father or brothers who take exception to your uxoricide, is an excellent way to a dead end personally and genealogically.  Being the target of angry in-laws, not to mention life imprisonment or lethal injection, tends to limit one’s reproductive opportunities. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Why would this adaptation, she continues, work only in humans but not other species?  She quotes Jaak Panksepp, who counters, “Only a few species [like insects] kill their mating partners, and the killing is usually done by females.”  He called the ideas of Buss “ugly evolutionary icing with no basis.”  Begley ends by discounting the scientific objectivity of such storytelling:

The claim that works like “Murderer Next Door” are merely following data objectively in a search for truth is getting tiresome.  The very decision to seek a “scientific” validation for killing women represents a value judgment.  The fact that the claim makes no sense scientifically is almost secondary to that.

And now, the rebuttal.  Dr. Buss wrote back in an attempt to justify his position scientifically.  He was “dismayed” to see Begley’s “sarcastic, emotional and misleading depiction” of his theory, saying the issue “demands sober scientific analysis.”  Attributing murder to “poverty, pathology, exposure to media violence, poor parenting” cannot explain its predictability in certain circumstances, he said.  By comparison, he claimed, “My book presents the most comprehensive and scientifically cogent theory of why people kill, anchored in evolutionary psychology.”  In addition, “The book’s theory is based on sound evolutionary biology, anchored in the clear logic of reproductive competition,” he continued.
    He continued by arguing that the only way to deal with murder was to understand its evolutionary basis:

The unfortunate fact is that murder has proved to be a disturbingly effective solution to an array of adaptive problems in the ruthless evolutionary games of survival and reproductive competition.  It’s undoubtedly deeply disturbing to think that humans have homicidal circuits that get activated in certain circumstances, but that in no way implies approval or justification of murder.  Nor does it imply that murder is inevitable.  Rather, knowledge of the deep psychology of killing is required if we ever hope to prevent it.  Those who attempt to avoid this deep understanding by strident emotional appeals and cartoonish ridicule tread on dangerous moral ground.  The problem of murder can’t be solved by wishing away dark sides of human nature that we would prefer not exist.

This high-visibility debate in the Wall Street Journal seems destined to sharpen the acrimony between those evolutionists and non-evolutionists over the question whether evolutionary psychology has any scientific validity.

“Anchored in evolutionary psychology” he says?  Ha.  That’s like a paper anchor in soft silt.  “Sound evolutionary biology” is an oxymoron.
    Buss’s theory is self refuting.  As an evolutionist, he cannot appeal to morality, yet look: he uses the words unfortunate, ruthless, disturbing, approval, justification, moral ground, dark sides of human nature, prefer and solved.  Each of these words rest on the assumption that we can make moral judgments between good and evil, right and wrong, and that murder is a moral problem needing a solution.  Why should murder be labeled “disturbing” or “dark” or a problem at all if it is a successful adaptive strategy?  Why, we should applaud the murderer for his evolutionary success.  Yet Dr. Buss says that it is his critics that are on dangerous “moral” ground for not comprehending his deeper understanding!  That shows how deep his understanding goes.
    Evolutionary psychologists are the gnostic gurus of naturalistic religion.  Who is Dr. Buss to offer us “knowledge” or “deep understanding” if it means that murder is hardwired into our circuits?  How is he to prove that just-so storytelling is not hardwired into his own circuits?  If we are the product of circuits that get activated by the environment, then knowledge and understanding do not even exist, and there are no problems to solve.  If people react to such foolishness with strident emotional appeals and cartoonish ridicule, well, if the shoe fits….
    Christianity teaches that murder is evil, that it is a consequence of the disobedience and rebellion against our Maker.  The Bible teaches that we are responsible to God for our actions.  Out of selfishness and lust and anger, murderers violate their conscience and act on their dark side of human nature.  Unredeemed human nature that leads to lying and murder really is dark, because it follows the lead of Satan, who was a murderer from the beginning.  All sin, including murder, incurs the righteous judgment of God, because we are each accountable for our deeds.  Evolutionary psychology gurus, on the other hand, claim that selfishness and ruthlessness are amoral, and ultimately good, because they are intrinsic factors in the mindless processes that produced our minds in the first place.  Choose you this day whom you will serve.