Group selection theory attempts a comeback

Over the past few weeks, in commemoration of the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday, we've seen many articles published on the topic of evolution. The November 20, 2008 edition of Nature contains a drawing of Darwin on the cover, and the entire issue is titled "Beyond the Origin." Inside this issue is an article by Marek Kohn titled "The Needs of the Many," an article summarizing current thinking on group selection. Kohn carefully sets out some definitions at the beginning of his article. For instance, he recognizes that modern evolutionary theory is based on the idea that selection "sees" individuals and acts on them through the genes they embody. Compare that to "group selection":

The idea that evolution can choose between groups, not just the individuals that make them up--has a higher profile today than at any time since its apparent banishment from mainstream evolutionary theory. And it gets better press, too. This is in part owing to the efforts of David Sloan Wilson of Binghamton University in New York, who argues that the dismissal of group selection was a major historical error that needs to be rectified. And it does not hurt that he has been joined by Edward O. Wilson, the great naturalist and authority on social insects. They and many others have worked to reposition group selection within the broader theme of selection that acts simultaneously at multiple levels.

Buried in the dispute about the extent to which group selection occurs are numerous definitional issues such as the proper way to define "group," "altruism," and "selfishness."

Continue ReadingGroup selection theory attempts a comeback

Giving religion its evolutionary due

If you’re tired of hearing heated yet worn-out arguments regarding religion and science, check out this intellectually nimble and energized exchange published by Edge.org: Responses by David Sloan Wilson, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, P. Z. Myers and Mark D.  Hauser to Jonathon Haidt’s “Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion.”  Here’s a link to Haidt’s original article (“Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion.”).

David Sloan Wilson sets the tone by challenging “the new atheists” to answer all four of the following questions:

1. Is there any empirically verifiable evidence for the existence of supernatural agents?
2.  If not, how can we explain the phenomenon of religion in naturalistic terms?
3.  What are the impacts of religion, good or bad, on human welfare?  and
4.  How can we use our understanding of religion to advance the goals of a stable and peaceful society?

Wilson argues that the new atheists sometimes neglect questions 2, 3 and 4.  “This is like a debater leaving the debate after the opening round.”

For his part, Sam Harris reaches even deeper than usual in two his arsenal of weapons to present the many stupidities exhibited by many religions.  In the process, Harris suggests that Haidt had incorrectly argued that all religious ways of life contains some wisdom and insights.  In his response, Haidt makes it clear that he is suggesting no such thing.  I won’t review the challenges and criticisms issued by the other reviewers point by point, but I’ll skip to Haidt’s …

Share

Continue ReadingGiving religion its evolutionary due

What does evolution really have to do with religion? David Sloan Wilson argues that it’s time to find out.

The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, is a runaway bestseller.  Dawkins is a relentless one-man religion wrecking-crew.  He carries a sharp knife for the many arguments that religions are somehow useful or worthy.

But isn’t religion sometimes good? Doesn’t religion sometimes heal the sick and feed the poor?  When it comes time to complement religion, Dawkins tends to give only backhanded complements.  When people are good, they are not really good because of religion.  To the argument that religion makes people happy, Dawkins cites George Bernard Shaw’s words: “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.”  (Page 167).  Indeed, Dawkins really doubts whether religion is worthwhile at all:

It is hard to believe, for example, that health is improved by the semi-permanent state of morbid guilt suffered by a Roman Catholic possessed of normal human frailty and less than normal intelligence. . . . . the American comedian Kathy Ladman observes that “All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with different holidays.”

When it comes time to applying evolutionary theory to religion, Dawkins doubts that religion is an evolutionary adaptation. He suspects religion is only a wretched byproduct of evolution.

Moths fly into the candle flame, and it doesn’t look like an accident.  They go out of their way to make a burnt offering of themselves.  We could label it “self immolation behavior” and, under

…
Share

Continue ReadingWhat does evolution really have to do with religion? David Sloan Wilson argues that it’s time to find out.