The implications of this if correct seem profound.  Yet many who believe the Darwinian theory of natural selection argue that "what is is not the same as what ought to be".  Here is one of their own in disagreement. 

If reductionist science is correct and life in this world is a result of modification and natural selection, if materialism account for life from non-life and humans are nothing more than overachieving worms, then how can one say that it ought not be this way?

If reality sucks, then humans are attempting to improve reality (by "improving the unfit" to use Dr. East's euphemism). But evolutionary theory holds that modification together with natural selection efficiently works to make improvement.  If this is true, one should suppose that the process (and the effects of the process) does not suck.  One should suppose that the process is good and useful. 

It is interesting that when we take these observations with us to experimental biology we find that modification with natural selection does not generate improvement.  There is no single example of new or improved function.  What we see is evolutionary processes breaking and harming useful function in a desperate attempt to exploit a weakness in the entity that is applying selection pressure.   When pressure is removed, the gene pool reverts back to its former configuration.  Only neutral changes that affect diversity of appearance for example carry forward.  Sickle Cell trait remains in humans as a harmful example of evolutionary processes because it also exploits a weakness in the malaria life-cycle, so those with sickle trait can defeat malaria.  As long as malaria exists, so too will sickle cell trait.  In the lab we see that evolution is tit for tat trench warfare.  We don't see any progression of improved or new function.

Because what is really isn't necessarily what ought to be. That life, outside of civilization, is a terrible, bloody struggle no one but sociopaths would care to live in, doesn't mean we ought to go around creating more suffering, destroying society, and living like jungle beasts. That should be obvious.

Sociopaths exist. That is the case. That doesn't mean it ought to be the case or what we should herald as good.

Under 'reductionist science' our tendency to "save the unfit" is also a result of natural selection.

Also, interestingly, had we not decided to save the unfit, by creating societies, communities etc. where we look after our weak, then we would never have discovered natural selection since Darwin would most likely have been fishing or hunting deer.

Clearly this evolutionary biologist does not see it that way.  Whay do you suppose that is?


Natural Selection is a premise not a discovery.  Do you have any interest in answering the question I posed?  I am wondering how someone who sees the world this way also seems to have this idea that it "ought" to be better than it is.

(A)  What 'trouble'?

(B)  Always worth looking for equivocation or conflation of ideas.  Looks like a simple opposition of fit/unfit but is it?  Without an answer to A we can't be sure, but for NS 'fit' means better adapted to ones environment.   However, our environment consists of at least two parts - the physical (which NS is pretty good at handling, even if it takes some time), and the social (which, because it is a second order construction,  NS does not handle).  Those who are 'fit' for the first are not necessarily 'fit' for the second (hunky football players, who are physically exceptional may not make the best president):  those who are 'fit' for the second by dint of say exceptional mental abilities are not necessarily 'fit' for the first (Stephen Hawking is hardly the sort of physical specimen we should all aspire to be...).  In fact, one could argue that success in the social environment is, in our western society, pretty high in the survival value stakes, and the underlying abilities (intelligence, charm, ruthlessness, focus, compassion, selfishness...) are worth preserving for the good of other genetic traits in the organism.

So even if one wishes to take this simplistic view of NS, one can speculate that there is some survival value for the gene for promoting care of the 'unfit'.