Replies

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...

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,