The Psychopathic Chicken: Evolutionist David Sloan Wilson Kicks Off the Darwin Project at SAU

"It really is the case that evolution has become a set of basic principles that really explains life," he said. "As that becomes ever more apparent and ever more powerful, then it's clear that something's got to give with respect to our own species. Tell me exactly why humans are an exception."

The conclusion that will surprise most people is that there's altruism in hens, too, and there's an evolutionary reason for it.

"All of this could be explained by these very simple principles," Wilson said. "The theory of everything is, I think, what made evolution so remarkable to begin with."

By turning it into a 'theory of everything' they've ensured that it explains nothing, in 'heads I win tails you lose' fashion. Wilson just rationalizes that whatever exists must provide a benefit to fitness (despite major gaps in demonstrating this in the real world, and seemingly obvious contradictions to this belief - it takes a lot of faith to believe that the nuances and sacrificial aspects of morality are driven by natural selection, for example.) From his rationalization he then fits it into his evolutionary preconceptions, ignoring the fact that they can as easily be set within creationary preconceptions.

From the article: "And the reality is that a majority of Americans do reject evolution. Wilson notes in his book 54 percent don't believe that humans developed from earlier species. "That is up from 46 percent in 1994," he writes."

Bye, bye, Darwinian fundamentalism...

I can’t seem to face up to the facts
I’m tense and nervous and I can’t relax
This Colonel Sanders job is getting me down
a crazy chicken chasing me all over town

Psycho Chicken (What the cluck?)
Buc buc buc buc buc buc buc buc buc buc
Psycho Chicken

COLONEL SANDERS WANTS TO COOK HIS GOOSE
BUT PSYCHO CHICKEN’S STILL ON THE LOOSE
They caught him down in Ohio
the cut off his head and they put him in an oven
Put him in a box right next a roll
Put cole slaw near his head and someone took him home
ate him for lunch and he tasted real fine
But the guy who ate him
JUST LOST MIND!

Psycho Chicken (What the cluck?)

Wilson just rationalizes that whatever exists must provide a benefit to fitness (despite major gaps in demonstrating this in the real world, and seemingly obvious contradictions to this belief

One of the contradictions is apparent in his futile and question-begging attempt to explain morality from a naturalistic perspective, i.e. "whatever exists must provide a benefit to fitness". He just assumes the existence of the very things he's supposed to be explaining; namely good and evil:

"First, consider what might happen if a good person and an evil person are stranded together on a desert island. As Wilson writes: "The good person will become shark food within days."
"Second, consider what might happen with a group of good people on one island and evil people on another island: "The good group will work together to escape the island or turn it into a little paradise, while the evil group will self-destruct."
"Third, what might happen if one of the evil tribe is allowed to "paddle over to Virtue Island" - a hypothetical that comes closest to reality? That's a little messier (just like our society), but the point is that Darwin's theory is a lot more robust than most people give it credit for.
"Evolution should make us more selfish, to survive and reproduce better than our neighbors, not to help our neighbors survive and reproduce," Wilson said. "But with just a little bit of thinking, you can show how the traits associated with goodness can evolve by a purely Darwinian process."

Since it's impossible to explain or derive something like moral obligation from purely descriptive accounts of of what has happened in the past, without presupposing or smuggling in a moral rule, he just assumes the very thing he is supposed to be explaining in the first place. What he ends up with is so dumbed down as to be unworthy of the appellations, "good" and "evil". Statistical observations about the past cannot account for why one ought to be good in the future.

The notion that a purely descriptive Darwinian science offers a single solution to philosophical issues relating to teleology, morality, ethics, the claims of religion, and all of reality, no less, is nothing but hegemonistic, overbearing, insufferable, self-vitiating arrogance of a darkened mind.

Cordially,

Arguments like the Psychopathic Chicken project tend to do more harm than good, since they are essentially an embodiment of the "Invisible Cat" fallacy, viz

If that chair had an invisible cat in it,
that chair would look empty
But that chair DOES look empty

Therefore that chair has an invisible cat in it

Compare to

If evolution were true, those things which have survival value will be prevalent

But these traits which look like they have survival value are prevalent

Therefore EVOLUTION is proved

This does not refute evolution, it just refutes an invalid argument *for* evolution.

Cheers!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.