Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive

TalkOrigins says:

Claim CA001:
Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.

Response:
Evolution is descriptive.

Click to expand...

Is Evolution Normative?:

A lot of people object to the theory of evolution on normative grounds, that is, because evolution says that people should behave in certain ways. To take a radical example, according to the theory of evolution men who rape has gained some sort of evolutionary advantage, and that is why the behavior still exists in many different species today. Speaking in evolutionary terms an individual can gain fitness through rape. Confused people (Russ Tanner in this video is confused on other issues besides this) who mistakenly thinks that the theory of evolution is normative goes on to argue that according to the theory of evolution, rape is good.

This is of course wrong. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how we should behave. The theory of evolution, in other words is descriptive. It describes what the world is like and the mechanisms that are at work, it doesn't say what the world should be like or whether status quo is good or bad.

Click to expand...

Talk Origins Post of the Month: Jun 2005:

Lukens is wrong in implying that evolutionary theory implies "Social Darwinism" of any sort. The theory deals with what has, or does, happen, not with what ought to happen; it is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Arguing that the survival and reproduction of randomly varying offspring is not itself random is no more an argument for oppression of the weak by the strong or for the superiority of one "race" to another, than the law of gravity is an argument for pushing people off rooftops. Natural selection has no goals towards which we can strive and no preferences towards which we can shape social policies. We can change the selective regimes in force from one to another, but evolutionary theory gives us no reason to prefer one selective regime to another (and note that eugenics programs or ethnic purges are artificial, not natural selection, reflecting a certain lack of confidence in purely "Darwinian" mechanisms on the part of social engineers).

Click to expand...

Talk Origins Post of the Month: Oct 2003:

Creationists seem fond of using the term "Darwinism" because it sounds like a belief, rather than an observation. No scientist "believes in" Darwin as such, because Darwin did not propose a prescriptive set of behaviours, only descriptive observations.

Click to expand...

A random comment on Facebook :

"Darwinism is also a political ideology (Social-Darwinism)."

These are two entirely different things that have nothing to do with each other. First of all theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. Therefor your claim is an example of naturalistic fallacy.

Click to expand...

One more quote from TalkOrigins:

The theory of evolution is a descriptive theory - it purports to describe the ways in which things came about. It describes, as it happens, the origins of things.

Moral systems are prescriptive not descriptive. They do not say what does happen, they say what should happen. If nobody ever treated their parents with respect, then if the Ten Commandments are the foundation of morality, the fourth commandment would still be morally right. But if everybody treated their parents badly, that is not the basis for a morality that everyone should.

Why you think the origin of something makes it right or wrong is not clear to me. It is a common view, but it is a fallacy. Good things can come out of bad, and vice versa, and whether the physical world has any moral meaning is entirely distinct from whether the biological world evolved over time or not.

I realise you think this is a knockdown argument against evolution, but all it really is a lack of relection on the basis for moral standards.

Click to expand...

I really want to hammer on this point, because lately I've seen some appallingly bad posts on this forum:

AWPrime:

If you are of the opinion that animals should not be harmed for trivial reasons (for example, you support animal cruelty laws and prohibitions on dog fighting, for example), how can you justify your diet?

Click to expand...

Easy, evolution has made us omnivores. Making eating a bit of meat (not too much and not too little) is healthy.

Click to expand...

Policenaut

I haven't read this thread but I'd just like to say that it's painfully obvious that humans are designed to be omnivores. Sure you can get protein in other ways but meat (and fish also) is the most efficient. People can choose to eat whatever they want but just don't try convincing me that I'm doing the "wrong" thing by eating meat and I'm fine with vegans/vegetarians/etc.

Click to expand...

If you guys sincerely hold the opinions above, by all means, contact the people at TalkOrigins and correct them on their error; tell them the creationists were right all along and evolution is a normative theory after all.

Seriously, people, this is a critical thinking messageboard. No one, apart from a few of the vegetarian members of this forum, corrected those posters on their uncritical comments. As skeptics, we need be aware that conclusions drawn from uncritical thinking are not always disagreeable (for example, Libertarianism might be good, even if someones particular arguments for the philosophy are appalling), and we should not excuse uncritical thinking just because it happens to agree with our prejudices. Uncritical thinking needs to be highlighted and corrected regardless of whether we approve or disapproves from the conclusions drawn from it.


Now, to reiterate more forcefully: evolution is not an argument for or against animal rights, its not an argument for or against laissez faire capitalism, its not an argument for or against any moral dilemma whatsoever. Yes, we all got a kick out of the Selfish Gene and how Dawkins describes how humanity gained success as "selfish replicators", but even Dawkins states in the first 2 pages of the book that he's describing how things happened under evolution, not endorsing them as morally good.

Evolution is not a moral theory of anything, and certain not a theory of human rights, because its perfectly consistent with natural selection to compete against members of your own species. Cooperation with neighbors can be defended under an evolution-derived moral theory, but so can slavery and ethnic nationalism. Fortunately, we don't have to take anyone seriously who tries to argue for slavery using those principles, because evolution is not a moral theory. Once more, with feeling:

Evolution is not a moral theory.

Princess said:

If you guys sincerely hold the opinions above, by all means, contact the people at TalkOrigins and correct them on their error; tell them the creationists were right all along and evolution is a normative theory after all.

Click to expand...

Oh, bullfrog. Stating that "evolution has made us omnivores" is exactly as non-normative as saying "evolution has made us frugivores."

Humans -- and most primates in general, IIRC -- have a defective gene for making vitamin C. Most mammals don't need vitamin C, but humans are a notable exception. Which is why sailors on long trips used to need fruit rations to stay healthy.

Is it a "moral" statement to say "drink your orange juice so you don't get scurvy?" No. It's equally not a moral statement to say "eating meat is healthy" or "eating meat is the most efficient way to get the proteins your body needs."

The Science of Evolution, like all sciences, makes no claims regarding morality. There are no bad morals, nor good morals, implied by the science. No comment of any kind. And, this, of course, is how all sciences should be, if they are serious sciences (with the possible exception of certain ethics studies, maybe?).

That, however, doesn't mean the science can not be used or abused to obtain certain agendas, that may or may not be ethical. It is possible, in principal, to abuse any biological information, to build new breeds of biological weapons (whether or not Evolution was used to obtain the information).

It is also possible for natural sciences, such as (but not limited to) Evolution, to inspire good morality. By recognizing how human are a part of nature, and that our needs and interests change over time, we can optimize our survival strategies, perhaps in ways that will maximize peace and harmony. That's what Humanists tend to do: http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php

Princess said:

Evolution is not a moral theory.

Click to expand...

Your morality is the result of evolution. That you have a moral sense is because of evolution. Much of why you sense what is moral as moral is the result of evolution. Saying evolution is not a moral theory is not saying anything. It's like saying that human progress isn't natural or the result of evolution.

Just because creationists make dumb arguments is no reason to toss the baby out with the bath water.

BTW, evolution has made us omnivorous. That's trivially true. It's not a moral justification for eating meat but denying that is rather silly. It is believed that eating meat is the reason we gained the degree of cognitive ability that we have. Ironic that eating meat gave us the ability to choose not to eat meat.

RandFan said:

Your morality is the result of evolution.

Click to expand...

This at the very most is only trivially true, and in any significant way is untrue, as is easily seen by observation of all the very different moralities that humans evince and create.

Princess said:

... Evolution is not a moral theory.

Click to expand...

Judging from the replies, good luck with trying to teach science here. You left out mentioning the Natural Law Fallacy and more crucially Hume's is/should disconnect observations, which do belong here, and from the sheer logic POV are all-important. But nice OP.

Gurdur said:

This at the very most is only trivially true, and in any significant way is untrue, as is easily seen by observation of all the very different moralities that humans evince and create.

Click to expand...

I don't mind the correction. I wouldn't mind saying that it is, in part, due to evolution but if we are going to be pedantic, according to Dennett all human behavior is the result of evolution. How is it not?

So what if there is diversity? Isn't there diversity in all animal morphology? Doesn't diversity tend to coalesce in communities (see Darwin's finches).

I'm going to have to stand by my statement.

Gurdur said:

Judging from the replies, good luck with trying to teach science here. You left out mentioning the Natural Law Fallacy and more crucially Hume's is/should disconnect observations, which do belong here, and from the sheer logic POV are all-important. But nice OP.

Click to expand...

I think most people who cling to natural law fallacy don't even know what it is. Judging from your reply it seems you would rather attack people personally than provide argument.

So I guess we will have to take that for what it is.

Thanks.

RandFan said:

I don't mind the correction. I wouldn't mind saying that it is, in part, due to evolution but if we are going to be pedantic, according to Dennett all human behavior is the result of evolution. How is it not?

Click to expand...

Actually, what Dennett says is far deeper than that; you should post specific quotations if you want to make claims about what he says.

Moreover, you miss the point yet again. Part of evolution has been to enable humans to make different choices, and thus invent and adopt different moralities.

So your claim about evolution creating morality is empty; evolution gave the basis for the behaviour, but does not determine it.

Evolution gives most of us two arms. It does not determine what we use them for. You might as well claim that evolution determines that humans should go around building Rolls-Royces.

Isn't there diversity in all animal morphology? Doesn't diversity tend to coalesce in communities (see Darwin's finches).

Click to expand...

Morphology is not morality. Category error.

I'm going to have to stand by my statement.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect aything different. I do find it very amusing though when you go through political arguments.


You see, if you really believe what you're saying, then there is no point at all in arguing with others about political choices, which are of course one type of value choice -- and morality is all about value choices. So if your rather shallow claim about evolution determining morality is true, then what you do elsewhere in political arguments has to be the most useless thing in the Universe, apart from the candirú fish, of course.

Or, IOW, elsewhere you behave as if your claim here was not true.

RandFan said:

I think most people who cling to natural law fallacy don't even know what it is. Judging from your reply it seems you would rather attack people personally than provide argument.

So I guess we will have to take that for what it is.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Listen, drop the repetitive personal garbage of yours, will you? Since I have not attacked you personally here, you're lying with that. Can you stick to the point or not?

Natural Law fallacy; also called the Naturalistic Fallacy or Appeal To Nature.

Read all about it here. Learn something, and deal with Hume's is/should observations.

Gurdur said:

You left out mentioning the Natural Law Fallacy and more crucially Hume's is/should disconnect observations, which do belong here, and from the sheer logic POV are all-important.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad she did, since the OP was already full of irrelevancies and didn't need any more. Throwing in the is/should distinction would simply have made her glaring category error all the more obvious.

Evolution has made humans omnivores, just as it has made them binocular. This isn't a moral statement, but an observational description of the world.

We now have the capacity to "fix" both of those; if you don't want to be binocular, a surgeon can take care of that for you. If you don't want to be an omnivore, a dietician can take care of that for you. Hume would agree that humans are (biologically) omnivores, and then tell you that you should eat whatever the hell you want.

drkitten said:

Well, I'm glad she did, since the OP was already full of irrelevancies and didn't need any more. Throwing in the is/should distinction would simply have made her glaring category error all the more obvious.

Click to expand...

Really? Seems to me you're the one making the error (see below), not her, but hey.

Evolution has made humans omnivores, just as it has made them binocular. This isn't a moral statement, but a normative description of the world.

Click to expand...

Normative = to set norms, to prescribe behaviour.

Descriptive = merely describing.

Prescriptive = to state (prescribe) what humans should be doing.

You confuse and conflate "normative" with descriptive. See the dictionary on "normative".

We now have the capacity to "fix" both of those; if you don't want to be binocular, a surgeon can take care of that for you. If you don't want to be an omnivore, a dietician can take care of that for you. Hume would agree that humans are (biologically) omnivores, and then tell you that you should eat whatever the hell you want.

Click to expand...

Seems to me you've misunderstood the OP, badly, owing to misunderstanding of the term "normative".

Gurdur said:

Actually, what Dennett says is far deeper than that; you should post specific quotations if you want to make claims about what he says.

Click to expand...

Which is to say nothing.

Moreover, you miss the point yet again. Part of evolution has been to enable humans to make different choices, and thus invent and adopt different moralities.

Click to expand...

How do I miss this point? I don't disagree with this.

So your claim about evolution creating morality is empty; evolution gave the basis for the behaviour, but does not determine it.

Click to expand...

Never said that it did determine it.

Evolution gives most of us two arms. It does not determine what we use them for. You might as well claim that evolution determines that humans should go around building Rolls-Royces.

Click to expand...

No. Not my point. Great strawman though.

Morphology is not morality. Category error.

Click to expand...

It's an analogy. If Morphology can be varied why can't human behavior?

You see, if you really believe what you're saying, then there is no point at all in arguing with others about political choices, which are of course one type of value choice -- and morality is all about value choices. So if your rather shallow claim about evolution determining morality is true, then what you do elsewhere in political arguments has to be the most useless thing in the Universe, apart from the candirú fish, of course.

Or, IOW, elsewhere you behave as if your claim here was not true.

Click to expand...

You have me confused with some other body. Get back to me when you've cleared up your confusion.

Gurdur said:

Listen, drop the repetitive personal garbage of yours, will you? Since I have not attacked you personally here, you're lying with that. Can you stick to the point or not?

Click to expand...

This is rather disingenuous. Your post is full of invective. You suggest that to simply disagree with you makes a person ignorant of science. It doesn't.

Learn something...

Click to expand...

There ya go.

And right back at ya sport. Look, skip the petty bullying. It's not getting you anywhere.

RandFan said:

.... Look, skip the petty bullying. It's not getting you anywhere.

Click to expand...

Take your own advice, calm down and tackle the logic. You made a claim about people not knowing what the Natural Law fallacy is, so I very kindly gave you a reference. Deal with it, and deal with Hume's is/should observations.

RandFan said:

.... It's an analogy.

Click to expand...

It's illogical. Try dealing with the point instead. You made a claim about people not knowing what the Natural Law fallacy is, so I very kindly gave you a reference. Deal with it, and deal with Hume's is/should observations.

Gurdur said:

Really? Seems to me you're the one making the error (see below), not her, but hey.

Click to expand...

Yes, an embarassing typing error, which you quoted before I could correct.
See above.

Seems to me you've misunderstood the OP, badly, owing to misunderstanding of the term "normative".

Click to expand...

No, I just mistyped.

Let me repeat, so that there's little possibility of misreading.

Princess's OP is wrong beyond the possibility of repair.

"Evolution made us omnivores" is not a statement about how humans "should" behave, nor does it carry any moral weight whatsoever.

On the other hand, if you feel (independently) that people should act efficiently (there's Hume's "should"), then it's reasonable to infer from the observational fact that meat consumption is the most efficient way to get needed amino acids, that humans "should" consume meat.

And Princess's OP is wrong beyond the possibility of repair.

Gurdur said:

Take your own advice, calm down and tackle the logic.

Click to expand...

No logic there to tackle, sport.

The OP is a fundamental category error, and tacking Hume onto the category error doesn't fix it.

Gurdur said:

...so I very kindly gave you a reference. Deal with it, and deal with Hume's is/should observations.

Click to expand...

I've read both. Many times.

So you are not advancing a discussion. You are just being rude. It's a waste of your time and all your hand flailing.

Can we move on?

RandFan said:

I...according to Dennett all human behavior is the result of evolution. How is it not?

Click to expand...

And the answer is....

Look, insulting someone isn't an answer. Human behavior is the result of evolution. That's not a controversial point.

RandFan said:

And the answer is....

Look, insulting someone isn't an answer. Human behavior is the result of evolution. That's not a controversial point.

Click to expand...

Again, take your own advice. Now, since you do not appear to understand the debate, allow me to give an example.

1) Should there be universal healthcare?

2) That question is a political question, and also for many people a moral question.

3) Yet people hold very different opinions on that question, and have even been known to actually change their own opinions on that.

Claiming that evolution is repsonsible for that disagreement is trivially true. Does evolution morally teach us that we should have universal healthcare or not?

Does evolution teach us we should prohibit sexual abuse or not?