Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini are known as philosophers and cognitive scientists. They are neither biologists nor creationists. The book may get a lot of attention in the mainstream as it purports to be a scientific/conceptual critique of evolution by natural selection, the distinguishing idea of Darwinian evolution (evolution was not a new idea in the 19th century; Darwin’s genius was in discovering a plausible mechanism – natural selection – for evolution). And, in fact, Salon published an interview with Fodor which, in a simple form, lays out their criticism (Fodor’s article, linked to above, goes into more detail but also rambles quite a bit).
Essentially, Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini start with Gould and Lewontin’s famous spandrel article – urging biologists to beware of concocting “just-so” stories to explain all inherited traits via recourse to natural selection- and radically extend the argument. Unlike Gould and Lewontin, Fodor/Piatelli-Palmarini assert that it is impossible to know which traits of an organism were selected for via natural selection and which are by-products or free-riders. By denying that it is impossible for scientists to discern which, if any, traits can be attributed to natural selection, they’re not saying that Darwin got some things wrong. For all intents and purposes, they’re saying that Darwin got everything unique about Darwinian evolution wrong.
I have to say that I was rather shocked to learn that such presumably smart people as Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini could make what seems like such a terrible argument (and that a quality press like FSG would publish it). But what do I know? I’m just a fellow who’s studied Darwin and taken elementary stats. I’m no scientist or philosopher.
But the flaw seems obvious – a failure to understand the real meaning of the Statistics 101 cliche: Correlation does not necessarily imply causation. Indeed this is true. The crux of the matter is in the “necessarily.” Among the most basic – and difficult – things scientists do is try to tweeze out when there may be causation, and when it’s unlikely.
Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini appear to believe, when you boil it down, that it is impossible to know whether natural selection is responsible for some animal’s features unless you could, as you can in domesticated breeds, query the designer. And, since there is no intelligent designer – as mentioned, they are not creationists – they believe there is no way for scientists to know for certain whether any particular trait was selected for… or simply a spandrel.
Here’s an (admittedly crude) example as why that strikes me as a bad argument. While we may not know beyond all doubt that, for example. a giant asteroid was the only reason all the tyrannosaurs disappeared at the K-T boundary, we can be pretty sure that “their arms got too short and they couldn’t indulge in exciting foreplay” is not among the major reasons. It may have played a role – hey, why not? a sexually frustrated T. Rex couldn’t have been a happy sight – but the asteroid collision and the catastrophes that ensued were far more likely to have had a larger role in the extinction of T. Rex.
Again, discerning what are plausible causes, and estimating the level of plausibility of a given cause, is one of the main things scientists, including evolutionary biologists, do. Absolute certainty is rarely at issue, if ever. But that’s what Fodor/Piatelli-Palmarini claim is wrong with the the theory of natural selection. That’s how basic the mistake is. Or at least, that’s what I thought when I read the interview, and Fodor’s article.
And, as it happens, in a review of Fodor/Piatelli-Palmarini’s book, a philosopher and cognitive neuro-scientist see the same flaws I saw, but they are much more fluent in examining all the nuances of this type of assertion about causation. Accordingly, in their detailed, and fascinating, discussion, they completely eviscerate Fodor/Piatelli-Palmarini’s arguments. It’s well worth reading if for no other reason than to watch two fine minds laser in on a fallacy and explode it.
Of course, Darwin got some things wrong but 150 years of intensive biological research has confirmed that the crucial importance of natural selection to evolution is not among them. For all the new theories and emphases that evolutionary biology investigates today, Darwin’s essential insight stands. As he wrote, “Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.”
And rarely has anyone come up with an idea half as good, or as true. And, if you take the trouble to read Darwin – and you should – rarely has any single person gotten so much right.