Consternation over Ben Carson, Evolution, and Morality

Posted by on May 15, 2012 in Evolution | 9 Comments

By Richard Weikart–

Yesterday, May 14th, almost 500 Emory University faculty and students expressed their dismay that their commencement speaker did not toe the ideological line when it came 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 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 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 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?  Wilson in his book Consilience (1998) 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 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 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, 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 have received a commencement address from 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 professor history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. 

Read other blog articles by Weikart here.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

9 Comments

  1. Doc B
    May 15, 2012

    Excellent analysis.

    I’ve never noticed that ignorance of history and culture has slowed down many academics when they get a burr under their saddle. This case is no exception. It will be amusing to see how some of them justify themselves when they realize they are pooping in their own nest. Most, of course, will just pretend they never said anything at all. That’s how the game is played in this profession.

    Reply
  2. consulscipio236
    May 15, 2012

    What people do on this topic is conflate evolution (a process described by science) with darwinism (which is a non-scientific ideology). It isn’t evolution that undermines morality, but the ideology of darwinism (which was also behind the eugenics movement and the holocaust). Science can’t demonstrate that these “evolutionary” theories of morality are true (or even that they are scientific), and so by conflating the two, an ideology is (wrongly) legitimized by science.

    Reply
  3. Stewart Hough
    May 15, 2012

    Just one more proof that Darwinism is not about the science, it is a belief system (religion) glorifying man even while reducing him to worse than animal status – animals do not lie cheat and steal – by denying “imago dei.”

    Reply
  4. OJ
    May 16, 2012

    I was there at Emory this past Monday, May 15th celebrating my son’s achievement of his doctoral degree. I heard Dr. Carson speech. He addressed the controversy with two or three brief comments. Short and to the point and correcting some misinformation about his statements. He then proceeded with a very encouraging and upbeat commencement address talking about failures and successes in life. One statement that stood out, was, “I returned to the surgery with my scalpel in my hand and a prayer on my lips”. Well done, Dr. Carson.

    Reply
  5. Talking Darwin and Morals | Reading to Walk
    May 16, 2012

    [...] Weikart has written a salty article about Ben Carson’s recent commencement address at Emory University. I saw the link in one of [...]

    Reply
  6. AMW
    May 22, 2012

    In his comments at Emory, Dr. Carson said that no one with any common sense would say or believe that evolutionists aren’t ethical people. I don’t see how that is consistent with the analysis in this article.

    Reply
  7. Dr. Ben Carson, Evolution, and Morality « The Three R's Blog
    May 26, 2012

    [...] Consternation over Ben Carson, Evolution, and Morality- Credo Magazine. [...]

    Reply
  8. jcmmanuel
    August 18, 2012

    I would say Carson is wrong in how he fabricates an argument. Evolution theory does not necessarily imply anything about the way we (that is, our mind) makes sense in this world. The “mindful” process that’s going on ever since humans have been these self-conscious beings who started thinking about meaning, purpose and all the tough philosophical / religious questions, is not exactly subject to an evolution theory derived kind of determinism.

    Reply

Leave a Reply