Does Evolution Explain Human Nature?
This was a question asked
of a number of scientists on the Big Questions Essay Series by the John Templeton
Foundation. Francisco Ayala, Francis Collins, Eva Jablonka, Lynn Margulis,
Geoffrey Miller, Simon Conway Morris, Martin Nowak, Joan Roughgarden, Jeffrey
Schloss, Frans de Waal, David Sloan Wilson, and Robert Wright all shared their
opinions in forms of essays, all of which can be found on the Templeton Website. Corey S. Powell, Editor and Chief of Discover Magazine, Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology at Brown University, Laurie Santos, Professor of Psychology Yale University, and David Sloan Wilson, SUNY Distinguished Professor of Biology and Anthropology at Binghampton University, discuss how we got to be the way we are.
Their conclusions were
varied. From “obviously” to “not yet”, this distinguished panel of biologists and
leading religious figures had fantastic arguments for every range of answers. While some like Dr. de Waal and Dr
Wright answered with a conclusive affirmative, some of the others seemed to
believe that there are large areas of human nature that genetics and evolution
alone cannot explain (Dr. Nowak, Dr. Collins and Dr. Ayala).
These essays centrally challenge the four major reasons why this theory is rejected in most circles. An evolutionary basis to human nature is supposed to a) discourage religious belief b) automatically assumes genetic determinism c) undermines humanity and d) defies the enigmas of existence.
A unifying theme in all their essays is their acceptance of the complexity of human nature in itself, and the role of cultural evolution (particularly through symbolism and communication) defining it. Many of the authors write about their dissatisfaction with genetic determinism alone explaining human behavior. But all of them accept that a proper theory to understanding human nature would lie in a complex interaction of both cultural evolution through “symbiogenesis” as Dr. Marguilis calls it, as well as genetic change.
At the same time, many of
them talk about how religiosity plays an evolutionarily significant role in the
development of human nature, by inhibiting behaviors detrimental to the social
group and promoting altruism. Six of the authors (Ayala, Collins,
Jablonka, Margulis, de Waal, Wilson, Wright)
emphasize the importance of morality for human evolution. Although the capacity
for human morality is rooted in human genetic evolution, the development of
moral experience depends on human cultural evolution.
While an evolutionary
perspective to human nature is said to diminish the wonder of human complexity,
many authors (especially, Collins, Nowak, and Wright) write about how it magnifies our ignorance of the
topic. Collins states: “We see science as the way to understand the awesome
nature of God's creation and as a powerful method for answering the 'how'
questions about the universe. But we also see that science is powerless to
answer the fundamental 'why' questions, such as “Why is there something instead
of nothing?”, “Why am I here?,” and “Why should good and evil matter?” ”. Nowak
talks about "the mystery and purpose of life, which cannot be answered by
natural science alone." And Wright talks about two "awe-inspiring
mysteries" - the mystery of the cosmic First Cause and of consciousness.
In my opinion, all of these essays make powerful arguments. I cannot agree wholeheartedly with those that have a resounding “yes” to this complex question, simply because I begin to feel that Darwin’s theory of evolution then begins to gloss over the small discrepancies observed when talking about the evolutionary explanation to human nature. It becomes a circular argument, where any species that survives is explained by Darwin’s theory of natural selection and the theory is further consolidated by the fact that this particular species survived. This can be seen in Dr. Wright’s overview of Darwinist explanations of everything about human nature, from altruism to gossip.
In my opinion, all of these essays make powerful arguments. I cannot agree wholeheartedly with those that have a resounding “yes” to this complex question, simply because I begin to feel that Darwin’s theory of evolution then begins to gloss over the small discrepancies observed when talking about the evolutionary explanation to human nature. It becomes a circular argument, where any species that survives is explained by Darwin’s theory of natural selection and the theory is further consolidated by the fact that this particular species survived. This can be seen in Dr. Wright’s overview of Darwinist explanations of everything about human nature, from altruism to gossip.
