the psychological case for Evolution

Are children born good or evil? Religious zealots on both sides of this question have wrought considerable damage. Caretakers believing that children are "created in God's image" have allowed children to misbehave for fear of suppressing their natural vivaciousness. Caretakers believing that children are "conceived in Original Sin" have assumed malevolent motives on their charges and thereby taken an unnecessarily offensive stance.Since both views have their drawbacks, perhaps evolutionary psychology holds the answer to this question. Before reading further, I would like for you to take a sheet of paper and answer these four questions:1. What is good for children and attractive to children?2. What is good for children but unattractive to children?3. What is harmful to children but attractive to children?4. What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?Most likely, you were able to list items for all four questions. The created-in-God's-image party cannot be right; otherwise, there would only be items in reply to questions 1 and 4. The conceived-in-Original-Sin party cannot be right; otherwise, there would only be items in reply to questions 2 and 3. John Locke, who held that a child was born as a blank slate, or tabula rasa, cannot be right; otherwise there would not be any items in reply to any of the questions.So let us look at the items which we came up with.For number 1, "What is good for children and attractive to children?" you probably listed friends and family, outdoor exercise, and the milk bottle.For number 2, "What is good for children but unattractive to children?" you probably listed school, sour medicine, and penicillin shots.For number 3, "What is harmful to children but attractive to children?" you probably listed excessive TV and video, junk food, and illegal drugs.For number 4, "What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?" you probably listed wild animals, sharp objects, and high places.Let us compare the items for questions 1 and 4, in which children are attracted in the right direction. You may find that most of those items are found in nature.Now let's compare the items for questions 2 and 3, in which children are attracted in the wrong direction. You may find that most of the items are modern institutions or modern inventions.What does this tell us, then? This tells us that children are born neither good nor evil, but are born for survival in our distant past.Numerous questions about human behavior can be reduced to evolutionary psychology. Why do we bang our fists on the table when we are angry? Likely because that is how we caught our prey during our early days as land animals. Why do we stamp our feet when we are angry? Likely for the same reason. Why do we grit our teeth when we are angry? Likely because that is how we caught our prey during our days in the sea.Evolutionary psychology can also explain gender differences. Why do men consider it disgraceful to ask for directions? Likely because they consider it an affront to their hunting skills. Why do men try to hide their emotions? Likely because they still consider themselves hunters and warriors.Why are men quickly attracted to women whereas women tend to become attracted more slowly? Likely because a wrong choice for a prehistoric woman carried more serious consequences than a wrong choice for a prehistoric man. It is only a man's outer brains which understand such concepts as "alimony," "child support," and "skip traces," not his inner brain.Tribal behavior manifests itself in modern times. Why do we playfully hit and punch each other? Likely as a rehearsal for a confrontation with a real enemy. Why does every community brag about its major industries, its major institutes of higher learning, or its famous citizens? Likely because the citizens regard themselves as fellow tribesmen.Every once in a while, we hear a scientist say "All branches of science point to Evolution--geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology. . ." I realize psychology isn't an exact science, but I wish they would say "psychology," too.

"Just becuase something is natural doesn't necessarily mean it is "good"."If I don't realize that, then why do I list items under Questions 2 and 3?

Sorry. I thought that from the context, you could see that "in the right direction" meant "desirable in modern society" and "in the wrong direction" meant "undesirable in modern society."As for what is praiseworthy and blameworthy in the mind of God, I shall leave that question to experts such as Pat Robertson.

Okay, so maybe it's not all nature and some of it is nurture.
I assume that most children would be frightened if they were fed to the lions.
I don't know, because I have not read of any controlled experiment in which juvenile subjects were fed to the lions.
But do you agree that that is a safe assumption?Edited by tomato, : No reason given.Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

So? What's wrong with hypotheses?

Straggler, if children are not afraid of automobiles, then why do parents have to teach their children not to run out in the street?

"I'm all a little bit dubious about touting evolutionary psychology as great confirming evidence for evolution when it's a subject still too much in its infancy."All the more reason why it should be explored.
What do you guys have against hypotheses?
When you ask a girl for a date, you hypothesize--you don't know--that she will say yes.
When you apply for a job, you hypothesize--you don't know--that you will be hired.
Does that mean you should never ask a girl for a date or apply for a job?

Modulous, you paraphrased my message perfectly.
The next time someone asks about my message, I'll tell them to argue with you, not me--no, just kidding.Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

Hello, Catholic Scientist!"You could be "born for survival" while being inherently good or evil. I guess I just don't get it, what he's really trying to say."That's a dilly. I'll try again.
But it's going to be difficult, because I gradually stopped using the words good and evil when I stopped thinking in theistic terms and started thinking in evolutionary terms.I guess my best definition of "good" is "that which is productive to efficient and cooperative living in modern times."Conversely, my best definition of "good" is "that which is counterproductive to efficient and cooperative living in modern times."
I was taught to believe that the source of the former is a sky daddy with a long white beard. The source of the latter is a red man with horns.After giving the matter some thought, I concluded that the source of the former is instincts which were ingrained in us long before anyone ever built any churches and synagogues. I also concluded that the source of the latter is the wide gap between that rip-snorting technological civilization and that lazy slowpoke, Evolution.I hope a couple of examples will help:There are two factors which determine whether or not a species will favor monogamy: one is susceptibility to venereal disease, the other is length of childhood. Our species is highly susceptible to venereal disease, and we have the longest childhood of all the species. Consequently, we turned monogamous long before anyone wrote all that lofty rhetoric about "holy matrimony."Satan may be blamed for inventing interracial and international prejudice, but if he did, he would have had to invent it by creating a gap between evolution and civilization. A million years ago, the world was more sparsely populated than it is now. It was also less mixed than it is now. There were no apartment houses, much less apartment houses housing families of all shades and hues.Furthermore, we were living a million years before the Industrial Revolution. Nobody knew or cared where all the oil and mineral deposits were. On those rare occasions in which you met someone from another tribe, it was most likely not for purposes of signing an international trade agreement.Furthermore, even if you wanted to understand a different language or different culture, it would be impossible. There were no cassette tapes, no anthropology textbooks, no Berlitz Language Schools. If someone who looked and acted differently from you came up and said something nonsensical like, "Bonjour, monsieur," you wouldn't know WHAT that meant! The safest assumption is that it meant, "I'm going to beat you to a pulp."

"Can you explain what exactly what your point is here regarding kids, fears and nature?"You mean any more clearly than I already have?
I don't think so.
I've already done that best I can.I've never been to a primitive village, but I assume that a child in a primitive village doesn't go out and try to play with lions and tigers the minute Mommy's back is turned.I'm just assuming, but I doubt if a child in a primitive village would even knowingly venture into a lion's den.
And I would consider that equivalent to children running out in the street.
Here in Korea, parents let children play in the street and Korea leads the world in traffic deaths per capita.If you're so confident that your children are afraid of automobiles, I hope your yard is fenced in.Edited by tomato, : No reason given.Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

I never claimed that science could disprove religion.
For that matter, science can't even disprove ancient polytheism.At one time, people believed in a sun god.
We now know that the sun is a mass of hydrogen and helium.
How do we know there isn't a sun god living inside that mass of hydrogen and helium?At one time, people believed in a thunder god.
We now know that thunder is caused by hot air meeting cold air.
How do we know that there isn't a thunder god confronting hot air with cold air?When it comes to defining "good" and "evil," we might be on common ground.
I can think of three explanations for thoughts, feelings, and behavior which is commonly called "evil":1. the gap between evolution and civilization.
We've already discussed this one.2. violation of our instincts.
Inventing a sexual perversion could fall in this category.3. masculine behavior.
Most of the examples in this category could fall in the other categories also.
Aggressive behavior could fall in this category.
Looking at girlie magazines, patronizing prostitutes, or watching a strip tease could fall in this category.
If the man is married, this could fall in category #1.
But even if he isn't, he is considered guilty of "committing adultery in his heart." (Matthew 5:27)Women do not patronize Playgirl magazine, male prostitutes, and male strippers as generously as the other way around because women need time to get to know the other person first.
A woman, therefore, is less likely to feel attracted to a man whom she does not already know.This is because a woman suffers a heavier penalty for choosing the wrong partner.
If a prehistoric man chooses a wrong partner, he can just walk on and find another one.
If a prehistoric woman chooses a wrong partner, she is stuck by herself with a caveful of children.
"Alimony"? "Child support"? "Skip traces"? Never heard those words before!We sometimes hear a woman say "Men are nothing but animals! They have only one thing on their mind, and that's sex!"
Perhaps we should retaliate by saying "Women are nothing but animals! They have only one thing on their mind, and that's relationships!"

"But, babies don't seem to have a great deal of instinctive fear full stop."Then why do they cry when a perfect stranger pounces on them and cootchie-coo's at them?
I say that that is because they are inbred with a perfectly healthy and perfectly natural fear of strangers.Some people, especially those trained in the counselling profession, try to tell us that one should be perfectly honest and spill his guts out to every person he meets.
I say that it is perfectly natural and perfectly rational to test the other person first."With reference to the bolded part, I have to ask 'how do you know?'"Because other species manage to practice monogamy without all this folderol--unless God has been delivering canine and feline Krishnas and Mohammeds to other species.All right, so there is such a thing as polygamy. And if you say that the monogamous instinct is more deeply ingrained in other species than in ours, I will agree.But I still say that monogamy gets the most votes. And I still say that most societies frown on a male who walks off and leaves a mate whenever he takes a notion, as is the norm with most other species.I just did a google search to find out if chimpanzees are monogamous and found that they are not. Since the chimps are our closest cousins, I admit that that weakens my case. But I still wonder why I have lived in three different cultures and all three are monogamous. Is that a mere coincidence?Edited by tomato, : No reason given.Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

. . . fast moving objects capable of killing them might suddenly appear on those strange things called roads that balls and other toys have a habit of rolling into.If you place a kid in the middle of a road and force him to watch a roaring car charge at him then the reaction would be pretty similar to if that car were a lion in my opinion.Okay, I'll change my stance:
It's not the automobiles that children are not afraid of but should be afraid of, it's the roads.I'll even change my initial claim:
I'll say that children are attracted to anything that is good for them or anything that resembles anything that was good for them in the forest primeval.
Conversely, children are repelled by anything that is harmful to them or anything that resembles anything that was harmful to them in the forest primeval.
Roads were not dangerous then, so children think they're not dangerous now.
Huge, ugly things that came charging at children were dangerous then, so children realize that they're dangerous now.
What children fail to realize is that if they venture into a road, a huge, ugly thing might come charging at them.Primitive interpretation of modern technology is not unique to children.
Tree branches and telephone wires are both long, thin, cylindrical, and horizontal, so birds react the same to both.
Tree trunks and fire hydrants are both thick, cylindrical, and vertical, so dogs react the same to both.In fact, no amount of education and no amount of maturity can ever overcome the tendency toward p. i. m. t.
When you watch a monster movie, you can say "It's only a movie" all you want to, but it won't do any good.PS How do you get that dark blue background for quotes?Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

Let's see you explain evolutionary psychology, then.

If I remember correctly, I read How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker several years ago, but wasn't much impressed.
(Do you really think he pleads the case better than I do?
If you do, I guess I'll just have to live with it.)
I decided to give him another chance, so I ordered Blank Slate.I never heard of Robert Wright before, so I'll give him a try.
I also ordered Moral Animal.Edited by tomato, : No reason given.