>
> Somebody: It's precisely the role of science to probe beyond truisms
> like the above and determine the down-and-dirty specifics of gene
> function, epigenetics, social conditioning and how they *interact*.
> But you're closing off that pursuit by preemptively declaring any
> conclusions as "Just so" stories. That doesn't seem very fair minded
> to me.
I agree wholeheartedly that evolutionary theory should be systematically tested; I have no interest in closing that off. What I am ridiculing is simplistic speculation that has no basis in evolutionary theory and research (e.g., the notion that our sense of justice is a product of natural selection).
>
> By contrast, I feel like some of his followers would have responded
> to those "shortcomings" by rejecting the entire theory of natural
> selection as so much capitalist propaganda, were they alive in the
> mid 19th century.
I don't know if you consider me among the "some", but let me make my position clear: I consider evolutionary theory a rich, empirically validated theory with impressive explanatory power. After studying evolutionary theory and research for some years, I grow increasing impatient with poorly informed people who engage in simplistic, data-free speculation and then--ironically--consider themselves "defenders" of evolutionary theory.
Miles