Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Op-Eds

Ben Carson and the evolution-morality debate

Almost 500 Emory University faculty and students have expressed their dismay that their commencement speaker on Monday does not toe the ideological line when it comes to evolutionary biology. Yes — gasp — the renowned Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson does not believe in evolutionary theory. Not only that, but biology professors at Emory and their supporters also accuse Dr. Carson of committing a thought crime because he allegedly "equates acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality."

Since I am a historian who has studied and published on the history of evolutionary ethics, I was rather surprised by the Emory faculties' consternation over Dr. Carson's belief that evolution undermines objective ethics and morality. Last summer, I attended a major interdisciplinary conference at Oxford University on "The Evolution of Morality and the Morality of Evolution." Thus, I am well aware that there are a variety of viewpoints in academe on this topic. Nonetheless, many evolutionists — from Darwin to the present (including quite a few at that Oxford conference) — have argued and are still arguing precisely the point that Dr. Carson was highlighting: They claim that morality has evolved and thus has no objective existence.

One of the keynote speakers at the Oxford conference was the leading philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, who stated in a 1985 article co-authored with Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson: "Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate." Why do biologists at Emory try to make Dr. Carson appear foolish for asserting that evolution undermines ethics, while one of the leading evolutionary biologists and one of the leading philosophers of science admit that evolution destroys any objective morality? Professor Wilson in his book "Consilience" argued: "Either ethical precepts, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience or else they are human inventions." He rejected the former explanation, which he called transcendentalist ethics, in favor of the latter, which he named empiricist ethics.

The whole field of sociobiology, which is a vigorous field of biology founded by Mr. Wilson in the 1970s, presupposes that morality is the product of evolutionary processes and tries to explain most human behaviors by discovering their alleged reproductive advantage in the evolutionary struggle for existence. (Even some evolutionists consider some of their "just-so" stories either speculative or even downright ridiculous). Sociobiologists, and their colleagues in the related field of evolutionary psychology, have explained that many sinful behaviors, ranging from adultery to infanticide to abortion to warfare to homosexuality — and many, many more — evolved because they actually conferred reproductive advantages to those engaging in these behaviors. On the flip side, they have also argued that altruistic behaviors, such as helping the poor, healing the sick and taking care of the disabled, are simply behaviors that helped our forebears get their genes into the next generation.

The idea that evolution undermines objective moral standards is hardly a recent discovery of sociobiology, however. In "Descent of Man," Charles Darwin devoted many pages to discussing the evolutionary origin of morality, and he recognized what this meant: Morality is not objective, is not universal, and can change over time. Darwin certainly believed that evolution had ethical implications.

Ben Carson, then, should hardly be pilloried for arguing that evolution has ethical implications and that it undermines morality. If Emory University professors want to argue that evolution has no ethical implications, they are free to make that argument (I wonder how many of them actually believe this). However, if they do, they need to recognize that they are not just arguing against "benighted" anti-evolutionists, but they are arguing against many of their cherished colleagues in evolutionary biology, including Darwin himself.

Emory University graduates should feel honored to receive a commencement address from Dr. Carson. Aside from the obvious — his path-breaking surgical techniques and medical expertise that landed him a position at one of the most prestigious academic hospitals in the United States — his life story of overcoming poverty and his subsequent dedication to philanthropy are exemplary and inspirational. His willingness to courageously embrace ideas he considers true, despite the ridicule directed toward him, should count as another point in his favor.

Richard Weikart is a professor history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany." His email is rweikart@csustan.edu.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Evolution does not threaten morality

    Richard Weikart is correct that Dr. Ben Carson should not be opposed as a commencement speaker at Emory University, as Dr. Carson's accomplishments provide ample justification for this honor ("Evolution and morality," May 13).

  • The Clinton email scandal: a double standard?
    The Clinton email scandal: a double standard?

    Underpinning the coverage of the Hillary Clinton email scandal is a double standard: She is being pilloried for email practices that are widely used throughout government from local school districts up to the federal level, from junior up to senior administrators and from many past as well as...

  • Kids don't belong in adult jails
    Kids don't belong in adult jails

    When I first visited the Baltimore City Detention Center in 1999, I found an archaic, decaying facility that held people in grim cells with no direct natural light. The detention center held many children who were charged as adults, and they suffered some of the worst abuses — including...

  • Online poker: Deal me in
    Online poker: Deal me in

    We don't outlaw cars just because people have accidents. Rather, we have automotive safety standards, rules of the road and consequences for reckless driving. Similarly, online poker should not be illegal just because there are computer security concerns. Rather, gaming can be regulated and...

  • Liquor inspectors who are afraid of bars?
    Liquor inspectors who are afraid of bars?

    No, it was not The Onion that reported last week that all eight of Baltimore's full-time liquor license inspectors signed a letter saying they are afraid to go to bars at night. That actually happened. It seems that the new sheriffs at the Baltimore Liquor Board have the crazy idea that...

  • What lurks in the shadowy corners of the Internet
    What lurks in the shadowy corners of the Internet

    Ever heard of "doxxing" or "revenge porn"? How about the names Violentacrez or Craig Brittain?

  • Respect the office, if not the man
    Respect the office, if not the man

    I am no fan of President Barack Obama. I have been openly critical of him, particularly of his foreign policy. I think he has led this country in the wrong direction, both when he could reign unopposed during his first two years backed by a full Democratic majority and when we, Republicans, let...

  • Childhood obesity: an epidemic
    Childhood obesity: an epidemic

    During the last legislative session, I introduced a bill to give Maryland's children a better tomorrow. It required restaurants to offer only water or milk with children's meals (included in the meal price) instead of high-sugar and caloric beverages. Other beverages would still have been...

Comments
Loading