Past evolution does not determine our future destiny.
"Evolutionary psychology" is a contradiction in terms -- it is an oxymoron. You know what an oxymoron is, don't you? Remember being introduced to that word in high school English class? It means a contradiction in terms.
By its very definition, abstract concepts such as sociology, society, psychology, cannot be biology. Biology is a definite, distinct, concrete concept. It is actual science. It is not of the evasive, fluid, ever-changing nature that is the "social sciences." That phrase is most likely used euphemistically, to allow the studiers (people that major in those subjects in college, and people that write editorial articles about them) to feel better about themselves. To help themselves feel that they are studying something useful.
We are evolved human beings. We have the capability for conscious thought, willpower, and control over our actions. We have the capacity to control so that all of our thoughts indiscriminately do not turn into actions.
Therefore, I strongly believe that we have evolved to the point that we can decide for ourselves whether or not we want to continue to let evolution determine our human behavior. This is uniquely our gift and our blessing, as a species that has only existed for a few tens of thousands of years. It is also our curse and our burden. We cannot simply use the excuse that our genes made us do it. Or that we have no control over our instincts. To do that would be irresponsible and morally outrageous.
One might ask, why are no other species expected to display this sort of conscious decision-making? Why has no other species been expected to display a conscience? Why are they not expected to deliberately affect their actions? Why can other species simply follow their instincts wherever "evolution" leads them, whereas we should not?
First of all, let us examine the definition of the word "evolution" as it is currently used in evolutionary psychology circles. Evolution, as used in that context, means specifically the evolutionary *history* of any given species. It of course includes the entire evolutionary tree of all species of living things on the planet.
The word should not be used, as is mistakenly assumed by far too many people, as an explanation of *current* human behavior or of *future* human behavior. That is not the correct definition of "evolution." The word is not being used, as it correctly should be, as a study of the molecular DNA and protein patterns expressed in the genotype and phenotype of an animal.
Remember being in seventh grade English class and learning the difference between concrete nouns and abstract nouns? Unfortunately, the word "evolution" is used nowadays as a descriptive of abstract behavioral and social concepts. This is incorrect. "Evolution" used correctly as a term deals purely with the physical natural sciences of chemistry and biology.
The specific definition of a word including its usage has implications. "Evolution" is used by too many sound bite-writers as a descriptive to excuse away any abhorrent behavior. Evolution from a scientific standpoint -- which should be the only standpoint worth considering -- is strictly a genetic descriptor. It is an explanation for genes located on chromosomal material, which contribute to protein synthesis. Evolution is, and should be, studied at the molecular level.
Biological evolution has been the driving force throughout much of the earth's history only because all those other species lacked self-awareness. They did not possess good judgment, nor the ability to weigh options, nor the conscious ability to make decisions. They simply existed.
Raw instinct was the only guiding factor for behavior. The direction of biochemical generation of more members of a given species was what drove reproduction as well as mutations. “The selfish gene” was fine as the primary driver of behavior for all creatures that came before us.
However, this cannot pass muster with us modern-day Homo sapiens.
What are the tenets of evolved, civilized beings?
They must have a capacity for rational thought as well as for abstract thought. Display empathy, compassion, worrying about the feelings of others. Also have a capability for imagination, creativity, daydreaming. Being lost in thought seems to be a peculiarity of humans. higher beings have sentience, they are self-aware.
Evolutionists, this is true whether you want to admit it or not. Simple biological urges do not make a human more evolved than another human who can choose not to succumb to basal urges.
This is what anthropologists study, especially when they compare reasoning processes of various primates. If apes such as gorillas and chimpanzees can display advanced thought, and they are more evolved than reptiles and amphibians and amoeba, then it stands to reason that their ability for abstract thought is a result of evolving to a higher order of life.
Then we must follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusions. Humans are more evolved forms of apes. There is no excuse for humans not to engage in morality, empathy, compassion, and humanity.
Evolutionists must concede with this. If humans are the most advanced, evolved species on the planet, then this is the only logical outcome as a result of determining what is the best behavior.
Simply put -- precisely because we are evolved, is why we cannot simply let our "wants" do our thinking for us. We have the ability not to just follow our instincts blindly. Not to surrender to our basal instincts. Many folks will argue that a penchant for settling disputes through violence and an inclination towards reproducing any time one feels "horny" are artifacts of evolution.
However, as evolved beings, we cannot use those excuses. Humans might still have violent urges, and humans might still have promiscuous urges, but that is not all we have. We also have the ability to deduce the consequences of our actions. If we have a capacity for reasoning and higher thought, then we have a responsibility as the most evolved species on the planet to put those capacities to good use.
The incorrect version of the word "evolution" dictates that any physical superiority of one individual, or of society, outweighs any psychological morality. Anyone with any physical defects, for example heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure -- should all just be conveniently killed. This would preserve all available resources for the optimal specimens of the population.
According to the "wrong" evolution, in the interest of keeping undesirable genes out of the gene pool, anyone with any mental deficiencies would not be allowed to live. This means that
This is not so far-fetched. The ancient Spartans exercised this very practice.
In this instance, the mental health of the population is questionable.
I think we have evolved to the point that we can decide for ourselves if we want to continue letting physical impulses dictate our behavior.
Because we have judgment, we have consciences, we know right from wrong. If we have full consciousness, then we can consciously make decisions.
I know that some stupid evolution-as-excuse-for-immoral-behavior windbag will think they are oh so clever with this query: "If we are just apes, then why do you have to be so judgmental? If we believe in evolution, and therefore that means we came from apes, then why can we not be promiscuous, amoral troglodytes?"
Actually, I can answer that one too: Because we *are* evolved beings.
Precisely because we came from apes, because we can trace our lineage back to primitive hominids -- is why we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Precisely because we came from apes: "from" meaning we are no longer there. We have grown psychologically and morally. We have moved on.
We are sentient creatures. We are self-aware beings. We have evolved to the point that we cannot rely only on physical pre-destined behavior. We have the gift of judgment. We have been given a sense of right and wrong. We have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of a situation, and decide on the best course of action that would have the most moral outcome for the most people.
We are better than gorillas and baboons and other lower apes. Because we are humans, we have morality, empathy, good judgment, compassion. Just because we believe that evolution happened is no excuse to be okay with promiscuity, having casual sex, not bothering to establish a working emotional relationship with a person first before deciding to have sex with them.
more arguments in favor of cooperation. incl members of the same species not violently attacking each other.
in addition to the arguments already put forth by Darwin and others. in Origin of Species (first edition, Ch. 8), Darwin called this behavior the "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory."
Cooperation, empathy, and compassion are the markers of an evolved, advanced species. It is behavior and choices, not raw biological physical instinct, that determine the degree of evolution that a species has undergone. Not being a violent criminal that victimizes another. Evolution is actually quite an ideal argument in favor of absolute morality.
"Evolutionary psychology" is a contradiction in terms -- it is an oxymoron. You know what an oxymoron is, don't you? Remember being introduced to that word in high school English class? It means a contradiction in terms.
By its very definition, abstract concepts such as sociology, society, psychology, cannot be biology. Biology is a definite, distinct, concrete concept. It is actual science. It is not of the evasive, fluid, ever-changing nature that is the "social sciences." That phrase is most likely used euphemistically, to allow the studiers (people that major in those subjects in college, and people that write editorial articles about them) to feel better about themselves. To help themselves feel that they are studying something useful.
We are evolved human beings. We have the capability for conscious thought, willpower, and control over our actions. We have the capacity to control so that all of our thoughts indiscriminately do not turn into actions.
Therefore, I strongly believe that we have evolved to the point that we can decide for ourselves whether or not we want to continue to let evolution determine our human behavior. This is uniquely our gift and our blessing, as a species that has only existed for a few tens of thousands of years. It is also our curse and our burden. We cannot simply use the excuse that our genes made us do it. Or that we have no control over our instincts. To do that would be irresponsible and morally outrageous.
One might ask, why are no other species expected to display this sort of conscious decision-making? Why has no other species been expected to display a conscience? Why are they not expected to deliberately affect their actions? Why can other species simply follow their instincts wherever "evolution" leads them, whereas we should not?
First of all, let us examine the definition of the word "evolution" as it is currently used in evolutionary psychology circles. Evolution, as used in that context, means specifically the evolutionary *history* of any given species. It of course includes the entire evolutionary tree of all species of living things on the planet.
The word should not be used, as is mistakenly assumed by far too many people, as an explanation of *current* human behavior or of *future* human behavior. That is not the correct definition of "evolution." The word is not being used, as it correctly should be, as a study of the molecular DNA and protein patterns expressed in the genotype and phenotype of an animal.
Remember being in seventh grade English class and learning the difference between concrete nouns and abstract nouns? Unfortunately, the word "evolution" is used nowadays as a descriptive of abstract behavioral and social concepts. This is incorrect. "Evolution" used correctly as a term deals purely with the physical natural sciences of chemistry and biology.
The specific definition of a word including its usage has implications. "Evolution" is used by too many sound bite-writers as a descriptive to excuse away any abhorrent behavior. Evolution from a scientific standpoint -- which should be the only standpoint worth considering -- is strictly a genetic descriptor. It is an explanation for genes located on chromosomal material, which contribute to protein synthesis. Evolution is, and should be, studied at the molecular level.
Biological evolution has been the driving force throughout much of the earth's history only because all those other species lacked self-awareness. They did not possess good judgment, nor the ability to weigh options, nor the conscious ability to make decisions. They simply existed.
Raw instinct was the only guiding factor for behavior. The direction of biochemical generation of more members of a given species was what drove reproduction as well as mutations. “The selfish gene” was fine as the primary driver of behavior for all creatures that came before us.
However, this cannot pass muster with us modern-day Homo sapiens.
What are the tenets of evolved, civilized beings?
They must have a capacity for rational thought as well as for abstract thought. Display empathy, compassion, worrying about the feelings of others. Also have a capability for imagination, creativity, daydreaming. Being lost in thought seems to be a peculiarity of humans. higher beings have sentience, they are self-aware.
Evolutionists, this is true whether you want to admit it or not. Simple biological urges do not make a human more evolved than another human who can choose not to succumb to basal urges.
This is what anthropologists study, especially when they compare reasoning processes of various primates. If apes such as gorillas and chimpanzees can display advanced thought, and they are more evolved than reptiles and amphibians and amoeba, then it stands to reason that their ability for abstract thought is a result of evolving to a higher order of life.
Then we must follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusions. Humans are more evolved forms of apes. There is no excuse for humans not to engage in morality, empathy, compassion, and humanity.
Evolutionists must concede with this. If humans are the most advanced, evolved species on the planet, then this is the only logical outcome as a result of determining what is the best behavior.
Simply put -- precisely because we are evolved, is why we cannot simply let our "wants" do our thinking for us. We have the ability not to just follow our instincts blindly. Not to surrender to our basal instincts. Many folks will argue that a penchant for settling disputes through violence and an inclination towards reproducing any time one feels "horny" are artifacts of evolution.
However, as evolved beings, we cannot use those excuses. Humans might still have violent urges, and humans might still have promiscuous urges, but that is not all we have. We also have the ability to deduce the consequences of our actions. If we have a capacity for reasoning and higher thought, then we have a responsibility as the most evolved species on the planet to put those capacities to good use.
The incorrect version of the word "evolution" dictates that any physical superiority of one individual, or of society, outweighs any psychological morality. Anyone with any physical defects, for example heart disease, diabetes, kidney failure -- should all just be conveniently killed. This would preserve all available resources for the optimal specimens of the population.
According to the "wrong" evolution, in the interest of keeping undesirable genes out of the gene pool, anyone with any mental deficiencies would not be allowed to live. This means that
This is not so far-fetched. The ancient Spartans exercised this very practice.
In this instance, the mental health of the population is questionable.
I think we have evolved to the point that we can decide for ourselves if we want to continue letting physical impulses dictate our behavior.
Because we have judgment, we have consciences, we know right from wrong. If we have full consciousness, then we can consciously make decisions.
I know that some stupid evolution-as-excuse-for-immoral-behavior windbag will think they are oh so clever with this query: "If we are just apes, then why do you have to be so judgmental? If we believe in evolution, and therefore that means we came from apes, then why can we not be promiscuous, amoral troglodytes?"
Actually, I can answer that one too: Because we *are* evolved beings.
Precisely because we came from apes, because we can trace our lineage back to primitive hominids -- is why we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Precisely because we came from apes: "from" meaning we are no longer there. We have grown psychologically and morally. We have moved on.
We are sentient creatures. We are self-aware beings. We have evolved to the point that we cannot rely only on physical pre-destined behavior. We have the gift of judgment. We have been given a sense of right and wrong. We have the ability to weigh the pros and cons of a situation, and decide on the best course of action that would have the most moral outcome for the most people.
We are better than gorillas and baboons and other lower apes. Because we are humans, we have morality, empathy, good judgment, compassion. Just because we believe that evolution happened is no excuse to be okay with promiscuity, having casual sex, not bothering to establish a working emotional relationship with a person first before deciding to have sex with them.
more arguments in favor of cooperation. incl members of the same species not violently attacking each other.
in addition to the arguments already put forth by Darwin and others. in Origin of Species (first edition, Ch. 8), Darwin called this behavior the "one special difficulty, which at first appeared to me insuperable, and actually fatal to my theory."
Cooperation, empathy, and compassion are the markers of an evolved, advanced species. It is behavior and choices, not raw biological physical instinct, that determine the degree of evolution that a species has undergone. Not being a violent criminal that victimizes another. Evolution is actually quite an ideal argument in favor of absolute morality.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment