“Mere Morality” by Dan Barker (Part 3): Morality Genes, Cultural Memes, and More Assertions From the “Evolution of the Gaps”

In my previous post on Dan Barker’s book Mere Morality, I responded to Barker’s attempt to draw a distinction between “religious values” and “human values,” as well as his claim that morality is solely a social issue. In this post, I am going to address Barker’s comments regarding his own “trinity” of what constitutes morality: Instinct, Reason, and Law.

Morality: It’s Just an Instinct

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Barker asserts that our sense of morality ultimately is nothing more than an instinct and the result of evolutionary forces. When he elaborates on that assertion here, he says that although that idea might sound “cold and impersonal,” and although that implies that what we might think are morally good actions are really just the result of blind, evolutionary forces, the fact is (according to Barker), “inside my mind, inside my body, it feels like caring. I experienced compassion when I grabbed that baby carrier. And the fact that it feels good is part of the mechanism for propagating life” (29).

I find that comment astounding, for in it Barker is essentially admitting that his assertion that morality is just the product of evolution means that, in reality, there really is no such thing as actual morally good or bad actions. On top of that, he then argues that feelings of compassion and caring really aren’t real either—they are just propagation mechanisms. Somehow, blind evolutionary forces have produced in human beings things that aren’t really real, but rather are essentially illusions…all for the sake of the survival of the species.

I’ve said it before, but it deserves saying again: not only are such assertions based on no actual evidence, but they contradiction the very ability human beings have to exercise logic and reason. Barker’s assertions basically tell people, “You might think you care for this person or love that person, but you really don’t. Compassion, caring, and love don’t really exist. Evolution has just produced those feelings in you for the sake of the survival of the species.”

Thomas Jefferson and Charles Darwin

Another thing Barker mentions deserves scrutiny. At one point, Barker attempts to argue that Thomas Jefferson and 18^th-19^th century deists, in terms of what they said about morality, were really just pre-Darwinian freethinkers. He writes of Jefferson: “The deists were the pre-Darwinian freethinkers, lacking a model for the origin of life. But Jefferson got it right about instincts, anticipating the theory of evolution by many decades” (30). And in order to show how Jefferson anticipated the theory of evolution, Barker quotes Darwin himself: “The individuals of the same species graduate in intellect from absolute imbecility to high excellence.” 

First, it is simply absurd to claim that deists were “pre-Darwinian freethinkers.” Deism asserted that God created the world, much like a clock-maker makes a grandfather clock. He then essentially “wound it up” to run on “natural laws” that he set in place, and then took off to some other part of the universe, having nothing to do with the created order he made. Deism essentially saw the world as a giant machine. Darwin’s theory of evolution, though, blew that idea completely out of the water. Evolution proves conclusively that the world is not some “giant clock,” but is rather a much more vibrant “tree of life” that is constantly adapting and evolving.

Secondly, Jefferson and the deists claimed that morality was essentially just another “natural law” that God had built within human beings. He was not claiming that morality was a matter of biological instincts. Later, after Darwin put forth his theory, he contemplated the idea that our sense of morality was developed over time by evolutionary means, but even then, what Darwin contemplated simply was not like what Jefferson and his fellow deists proposed. And while we’re at it, take a closer look at the Darwin quote Barker used. Darwin was talking about an evolved higher intelligence in that quote. He was not talking about the topic of morality. Conflating the two is misguided to say the least.

Morality: It’s in Your Genes

After conflating Darwin’s comments about intelligence with the issue of morality, Barker then double-downs on his assertion that morality is a matter instincts and genetics. He writes: “All species on Earth share common genes, and since those surviving genes are the result of ancestors in similar environments needing to protect themselves from harm, it makes sense that there would be a biological continuum, a family tree with common traits. We humans are part of that tree. You might object that the appearance of animal morality is just a thoughtless expression of an automatic instinct and that we could also give numerous examples of animals not caring about each other.  But we could say the same thing about humans. The fact is that some of our moral behavior is rooted in our genes” (32).

Like I said in the first post, merely asserting an “evolution of the gaps” does not make it true. Biologically, yes, human beings share common genes with other species in the natural world. But Barker’s attempt to link biology with morality is simply baseless. Repeating that assertion over and over doesn’t make it true. It cannot be stressed enough: It is not a fact that “our moral behavior is rooted in our genes.”

Related to this claim, Barker makes another curious comment that actually contradicts an earlier point he made in his book. He writes: “Whatever happens in the brains of other species, moral behavior does exist, to some degree, regardless of how conscious the individual might be” (33). There it is, clear as day: moral behavior exists regardless of how conscious the individual might be. This, though, flatly contradicts what Barker said about morality when he said, “Intention is crucial when determining the legality or morality of an action” (24).

If intention is crucial in determining the morality or immorality of an action, then how can moral behavior exist regardless of how conscious the individual might be? Both statements cannot be true—and yet, this is what we find here in Barker’s book: two flatly contradictory statements regarding morality.

Instincts…but Not Really…but Culture!

The fundamental problem with claiming that morality is nothing more than an evolved instinct is that it ultimately denies any sense of free will. And, for all practical purposes, Barker admits this—at least he did in his debate with me. Still, it clearly is something that doesn’t sit right with him. We saw earlier that he tried to justify it by saying evolution gives us feelings of compassion and love. But it is obvious that Barker himself isn’t really satisfied with this notion that there is no free will when he quotes fellow atheist (and evolutionary biologist) Jerry Coyne: “This does not mean we are slaves to our instincts. ‘There is no reason,’ writes Jerry Coyne, ‘to see ourselves as marionettes dancing on the strings of evolution. Yes, certain parts of our behavior may be genetically encoded, instilled by natural selection in our savanna-dwelling ancestors. But genes aren’t destiny’” (34).

This, of course, is nonsense: If you are going to link morality with other biological traits that have evolved over time and over which we have no control, you cannot turn around and say, “Oh, but morality is different! We have free will when it comes to that! Just because we’re calling morality an evolved instinct and implying free will doesn’t exist, that doesn’t mean free will doesn’t exist.”

I’m sorry, but that is simply a lame answer. If you are convinced by that answer, you are not being intellectually honest.

The final curious comment Barker makes in his discussion of morality as an evolved instinct. He writes: “Since the instincts of our social species evolved for a reason, they can be respected as a part of the moral process. I think this is true because culture itself is ultimately a product of evolution” (34). Barker’s claim that culture itself is a product of evolution is basically known as Meme Theory. No, it is not about funny “internet memes.” To cut to the chase, meme theory is ridiculous. I write more about it here, but the gist of it is this: Richard Dawkins came up with the idea to try to explain human culture (i.e. art, literature, music, etc.) via biological evolution. If that sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is. Basically, meme theory claims that there are such things as “memes” (a word Richard Dawkins literally made up) that contain cultural things…like art, music, literature, etc. And, just like genes are locked in a battle of the survival of the fittest on the genetic level, so too are memes locked in a battle of the survival of the fittest on the cultural level.

We won’t even get into the fact that Dawkins’ claim that genes compete for survival is complete nonsense. Francis Collins, the head of the Genome Project and the foremost expert in genetics, has clearly refuted Dawkins’ claims. You can see Collins comment on this question of the “selfish gene” at the 14-minute mark in Part 3 of this documentary entitled Did Darwin Kill God? Incidentally, Part 4 of this documentary series has a segment in which they specifically discuss meme theory.

Therefore, it should go without saying that if genes are not, in fact, engaged in a battle for survival at the genetic level, then the claim that “memes” (again, a completely made up term) are engaged in a similar battle for survival at the cultural level. Again, it is pure nonsense.

Of course, one can see why atheists like Barker and Dawkins make such nonsensical and baseless claims. Being philosophical materialists who are committed to the idea that the material world comprises all of reality, they are driven to appeal to biological evolution in order to explain things like morality and culture. That have to—they’ve made it their only option. Yet when one applies even the smallest about of reason to their claims, it becomes blindingly apparent that such claims are pure nonsense, without any base in any known reality. Sure, Barker and Dawkins might assert their “evolution of the gaps” argument, but that gap they are trying to paper over with evolution is a black hole—and that meme theory doesn’t fly, especially in that black hole.