Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Professor Kent.
THE EVILS OF SOCIOBIOLOGY?
Brother David,
After my angry kneejerk response to your post last night, I spent some time in prayerful contemplation of how best to respond to you. I don’t know whether I am capable of eliciting from you a more conciliatory tone.
I believe that your attitude toward Sociobiology stems from a complete lack of understanding of what sociobiology is all about. Sociobiology is a very simple, straightforward discipline: the study of the biological basis of social behavior. To take the position that such study is illegimate or anti-Adventist presupposes that there is something wrong for us to study social behavior. Is this the position you really want to take?
There have been many stereotypes about sociobiology, and I suspect you have fallen into accepting these without taking the time to learn what the discipline actually examines. Sociobiology, through the testing of alternative hypotheses, offers very elegant explanations for the following:
– When and why male primates, lions, and mice kill the infants of others and not their own
– Why vampire bats share blood meals with cooperating individuals, but not those who defect (take from others and never give)
– Why the haplo-diploid genetic system and high levels of inbreeding predispose the worker caste of eusocial insects to give up their own personal reproduction
– Why tit-for-tat is a superior strategy for iteractive interactions that involve a decision to either cooperate or defect
– Why some reef fishes change sex from female to male as they grow, and others change from male to female (the reverse sequence), and how local population density of fishes can influence the production of “supermales”
– Why the live-and-let-live system of World War I trench warfar emerged in some situations and not others
– Why females of many animal species enter “false” estrous to protect their existing offspring
– Why some sea lions on a beach acquire virtually all of the matings and others are left with essentially none
– Why children are at statistically far greater risk of suffering violence from step-parents compared to biological parents
– Why female toads prefer to mate with the largest males, who give the lowest-pitched calls
– Why male peacocks and widowbirds have exceptionally lengthy tails despite the fact such tails predispose them to higher rates of predation
– Why expropriative crime can increase the number of offspring an animal (non-human or human) leaves in the next generation
– Why forced copulation is directed primarily toward the most fertile females
– Why some bird flock sizes are more stable and optimal than other bird flock sizes
– Why your Uncle Ted should be willing to give his life for a minimum of 2 brothers or 8 cousins
– Why a small “runt” deer is more likely to produce a female fawn, whereas a female deer in good condition is more likely to produce a male fawn
– Why male dolphins and male primates form coalitions to accompany, defend, and allow just one individual to mate with a selected female
To state the obvious, David, you simply cannot produce a single statement from the Bible, from Ellen White, or from official Church writings that informs us that any such explanations are incorrect, or that God or the SDA Church disapproves of studying social behavior in animals and humans. I suspect that you object to some of the evolutionary explanations that have been reached regarding human behavior (a narrower discipline within Sociobiology known as Evolutionary Psychology). I personally do not accept all of those explanations as well, because, like you, I think many attributes of human behavior are created rather than evolved (an exception being why someone would repeatedly make a spectacle of himself by declaring that I am lying about my beliefs). Nevertheless, to concede that human skin color has changed in different populations over time (surely you accept this), while denying that human behavior has similarly changed over time (is this really what you think?), reflects nothing but uninformed prejudice against the straightforward attempt of sociobiology to understand why animals, including humans, behave as they do.
Please do not make prejudicial accusations toward others based on an inadequate understanding of what sociobiology is all about. It’s a BIG discipline with PLENTY of legitimate questions that can be answered using elegant experimental and comparative studies. If you don’t believe I am characterizing sociobiology fairly, then you need to pick up a few books on the discipline and get yourself informed. I just happen to teach a class on the topic at a private Christian institution that condones and appreciates my approach to the discipline. Through the course, I am able to point out to students how we have inherent sinful tendencies that starkly reveal our utter dependence on Jesus–because in and of ourselves, we cannot escape the downfall of human nature since Adam and the disease of sin. Is it inconceivable, David, that I could be a brother in Christ who provides a credible Christian witness to the younger generation?
“But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you.” – Job 12:7-8
Professor Kent Also Commented
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Let’s not forget that sin started in heaven long before mankind came into existence. So far as we know, death came into existence as a consequence of mankind’s sin.
Professor Kent
Professing Christ until the whole world hears
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
Lydian, I greatly appreciate your perspective, and could not agree more. And I love the message you ended with: “Even so, come Lord Jesus!” Amen to that.
A big reason why so many people are leaving the church
By the way, Bob, who made the claim that “Creationists should not be ALLOWED to ask questions of an evolutionist in an interview format.” Who are you quoting? Your own mind?
Recent Comments by Professor Kent
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: Science isn’t about “cold hard facts.” Science is about interpreting the “facts” as best as one can given limited background experiences and information. Such interpretations can be wrong and when shown to be wrong, the honest will in fact change to follow where the “weight of evidence” seems to be leading.
Much of science is based on highly technical data that few other than those who generate it can understand. For most questions, science yields data insufficient to support a single interpretation. And much of science leads to contradictory interpretations. Honest individuals will admit that they have a limited understanding of the science, and base their opinions on an extremely limited subset of information which they happen to find compelling whether or not the overall body of science backs it up.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The process of detecting artefacts as true artefacts is a real science based on prior experience, experimentation, and testing with the potential of future falsification. Oh, and I do happen to own a bona fide polished granite cube.
Not from Mars. Finding the cube on Mars is the basis of your cubical caricature of science, not some artefact under your roof.
Sean Pitman:
Professor Kent: If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.The question is not if one will catch a fish, but if one will recognize a fish as a fish if one ever did catch a fish. That’s the scientific question here. And, yet again, the clear answer to this question is – Yes.
I think I’m going to spend the afternoon with my favorite scientist–my 8-year-old nephew. We’re going to go fishing at Lake Elsinore. He wants to know if we might catch a shark there. Brilliant scientist, that lad. He already grasps the importance of potentially falsifiable empirical evidence. I’m doubtful we’ll catch a fish, but I think he’ll recognize a fish if we do catch one.
While fishing, we’ll be scanning the skies to catch a glimpse of archaeopteryx flying by. He believes they might exist, and why not? Like the SETI scientist, he’s doing science to find the elusive evidence.
He scratched himself with a fish hook the other day and asked whether he was going to bleed. A few moments later, some blood emerged from the scratched. Talk about potentilly falsifiable data derived from a brilliant experiment. I’m telling you, the kid’s a brilliant scientist.
What’s really cool about science is that he doesn’t have to publish his observations (or lack thereof) to be doing very meaningful science. He doesn’t even need formal training or a brilliant mind. Did I mention he’s the only autistic scientist I’ve ever met?
As most everyone here knows, I have a poor understanding of science. But I’m pretty sure this nephew of mine will never lecture me or Pauluc on what constitutes science. He’s the most humble, polite, and soft-spoken scientist I’ve ever met.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: I don’t think you understand the science or rational arguments behind the detection of an artefact as a true artefact. In fact, I don’t think you understand the basis of science in general.
I’m amused by this response. I don’t think you understand the limits of a philosophical argument based on a hypothetical situation, which is all that your convoluted cube story comprises, and nothing more. Whether the artefact is an artefact is immaterial to an argument that is philosophical and does not even consider an actual, bona fide artefact.
Sean Pitman: You argue that such conclusions aren’t “scientific”. If true, you’ve just removed forensic science, anthropology, history in general, and even SETI science from the realm of true fields of scientific study and investigation.
Forensic science, anthropology, and history in general all assume that humans exist and are responsible for the phenomenon examined. Authorities in these disciplines can devise hypotheses to explain the phenomenon they observe and can test them.
SETI assumes there might be non-human life elsewhere in the universe and is nothing more than an expensive fishing expedition. If you think my brother-in-law who loves to fish in the Sea of Cortez is a scientist because he is trying to catch a wee little fish in a big vast sea, then I guess I need to view fishermen in a different light. I thought they were hobbyists.
The search for a granite cube on Mars is nothing more than an exercise in hypotheticals. Call it science if you insist; I don’t see how it is different than a child waiting breathlessly all night beside the fireplace hoping to find Santa coming down the chimney.
I guess the number of science colleagues I acknowledge needs to grow exponentially. I apologize to those I have failed to recognize before as scientists.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Sean Pitman: The observation alone, of the granite cube on an alien planet, informs us that the creator of the cube was intelligent on at least the human level of intelligence – that’s it. You are correct that this observation, alone, would not inform us as to the identity or anything else about the creator beyond the fact that the creator of this particular granite cube was intelligent and deliberate in the creation of the cube.
Your frank admission concedes that the creator of the cube could itself be an evolved being, and therefore you’re back to square one. Thus, your hypothetical argument offers no support for either evolutionism or creationism, and cannot distinguish between them.
Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
I have taken much abuse by pointing out the simple fact that SDAs have specific interpretations of origins that originate from scripture and cannot be supported by science (if science is “potentially falsifiable empirical evidence”). The beliefs include:
o fiat creation by voice command from a supernatural being
o all major life forms created in a 6-day period
o original creation of major life forms approximately 6,000 years ago
None of these can be falsified by experimental evidence, and therefore are accepted on faith.
Sean Pitman’s responses to this are predictably all over the place. They include:
“[This] is a request for absolute demonstration. That’s not what science does.” [totally agreed; science can’t examine these beliefs]
“The Biblical account of origins can in fact be supported by strong empirical evidence.” [not any of these three major interpretations of Genesis 1]
“Does real science require leaps of faith? Absolutely!”
I think it’s fair to say from Pitman’s perspective that faith derived from science is laudable, whereas faith derived from scripture–God’s word–is useless.
Don’t fret, Dr. Pitman. I won’t lure you into further pointless discussion. While I am greatly amused by all of this nonsense and deliberation (hardly angry, as you often suggest) for a small handful of largely disinterested readers, I am finished. I won’t be responding to any further remarks or questions.
