A profile of E. O. Wilson in The New York Times, Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans:
Dr. Wilson was not picking a fight when he published “Sociobiology” in 1975, a synthesis of ideas about the evolution of social behavior. He asserted that many human behaviors had a genetic basis, an idea then disputed by many social scientists and by Marxists intent on remaking humanity. Dr. Wilson was amazed at what ensued, which he describes as a long campaign of verbal assault and harassment with a distinctly Marxist flavor led by two Harvard colleagues, Richard C. Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould.
The new fight is one Dr. Wilson has picked. It concerns a central feature of evolution, one with considerable bearing on human social behaviors. The issue is the level at which evolution operates. Many evolutionary biologists have been persuaded, by works like “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins, that the gene is the only level at which natural selection acts. Dr. Wilson, changing his mind because of new data about the genetics of ant colonies, now believes that natural selection operates at many levels, including at the level of a social group.
David Sloan Wilson in Evolution for Everyone, and Ullica Segerstale in Defenders of the Truth, both report that E. O. Wilson has always supported group selection. The recent broadside against the primacy of gene selectionism was only prompted by new empirical data from social insects enabled by DNA fingerprinting. Coefficients of relatedness below the threshold hypothesized by W. D. Hamilton confirmed to Wilson his intuitions that more than inclusive fitness was at work, and allowed him to make a renewed push toward an acceptance of multi-level selection in evolutionary theory.
Finally:
Though Dr. Wilson is a fighter when necessary, he is also a conciliator. In his most recent book, “The Creation,” he calls for scientists and religious leaders to make common cause in saving the natural life of the planet. He has addressed major meetings of Mormons and Southern Baptists to ask for their help in protecting biodiversity. Of the differences between science and religion, he says: “Stop quibbling — I’m willing to say ‘Under God’ and to hold my hand to my heart. That’s recognition of how this country evolved, and that we are using strong language to strong purpose, even if we may not agree on how the Earth was created.”
A few years ago I recall watching a Christan comedian mocking atheists who object to crosses in classrooms; after all he asked rhetorically why are atheists so terrified of crosses if they don’t believe in the power of the symbol in the first place? Of course, this begged the question of how sanguine Christians would be if a crescent, star of David of pentagram were on display in a classroom. They wouldn’t be happy about it because they take their beliefs seriously, so similarly they should be less than surprised when unbelievers object to the intrusion of their symbols into the public space.
All that being said, over the years I have started to become less convinced that the atheist position necessitates such a strong adherence to the principle of the naked public square. My reasoning is simple: I do not believe that belief in particular religious systems and atheism are symmetrical in character. That is, atheism is simply a spare assertion about the existence of God, while religions tend to be elaborated and baroque cultural complexes which accrue a great deal of social capital. The naked public square is ultimately something that is more essential for religionists themselves, who may believe that the domination of public space by a God not their own is blasphemy, than it is for atheists who deny that such supernatural entities exist in the first place.
Comments are closed.