In 2010 Jerry Fodor, a philosophy professor at Rutgers University, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a biophysicist, molecular biologist, and cognitive scientist at the University of Arizona, published What Darwin Got Wrong. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini (FPP) are, by their own admission, died-in the-wool atheists and committed to a fully naturalistic account of evolutionary development. And yet, they admit that they do not know how evolution proceeds. One thing they are sure of is that Darwin’s account of natural selection cannot be it. Natural selection fails as an explanation on both scientific and philosophical grounds.
The heart of FPP’s argument is that adaptationist theories of evolution—such as Darwin’s—all make the mistake of inferring that creatures are selected for their adaptive traits from the observation that creatures with adaptive traits are selected. Such an inference brings an element of intentionality (mind) into the picture, which is inconsistent with naturalism. It would require agent selection, rather than purely natural selection.
There is also the problem of free-riders. Some traits are not selected for their adaptive quality, but come along for the ride because other traits are adaptive. But how can we ever know which traits are adaptive and which ones just came along for the ride? And if we can’t distinguish one from the other, then all explanations that trait X was selected because it helped the animal survive in its ecology are a house of cards.
This books is an important critique of Darwin’s unique contribution to evolutionary theory. And given the fact that it was written by evolutionary atheists, its critique cannot be dismissed as the whimsical musings of crazy creationists. If you are interested in a thorough critique of natural selection, this book is a must-read.
Thinking to Believe 
July 18, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Darwin did a pretty bang up job given the knowledge at the time.
So that we understand the process better and can explain it with scientific understanding that is 150 year since Darwin, doesn’t mean Darwin was wrong – it means he made teh best arguement on the information at hand
the purpose of science it to continue to add data and adjust for new data.
natural selection that results in mutations was only part of what Darwin wrote
there was also a need for some population stressor to favour or disfavour an adaption
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 7:01 am
Random,
“natural selection that results in mutations was only part of what Darwin wrote”
True statement and what did he write to compell you to believe in his theory?
No fossils have been found to prove evolution. Look into it – you will be surprised what you find (or do not find!)
LikeLike
July 19, 2011 at 4:48 pm
I don’t think the book stands for the things you’re stating.
LikeLike
July 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Are you speaking to me Arthur? If so, I disagree. The book couldn’t be clearer on these points.
Jason
LikeLike
July 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Jason,
It’s obvious that you are reading this book with a certain type of bias in mind (I know for a fact that you’re a fundamentalist Christian). This particular book just represents yet another non-mainstream attempt to discredit Darwin such as; “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe. Over time, the critiques of Behe’s book surmounted because there were majorly fatal flaws an misinterpretations of evolution. “What Darwin Got Wrong” is just another one of those books and I challenge you to read criticisms pointing out what those flaws are. Although these types of books can sometimes be very well written to the point where it takes an expert eye who has a very solid understanding of how evolution works in order to discredit them. I’m a graduate student in evolutionary studies and it’s very easy for me pick apart Fodor’s and MPP’s argument. But for someone, such as you Jason (a theologian), who has never taken an evolution-based class in their entire life but has instead spent hours upon hours being brain washed in church as to why evolution is wrong, it would be very difficult to understand why that book is flawed. Fodor and MPP are not, “evolutionary atheists” they are instead a philosopher (i.e. armchair theorist) and a molecular biophysicist/cognitive scientist (i.e. no word ‘evolution’ in that job title). Don’t be such a tool; I understand why you think a stupid and lame book could disprove one of the best supported theories in biology, you are after all, used to accepting that one book can explain humans and existence for that matter. But to truly make a legitimate scientific conclusion, it takes much, much more effort.
You cannot fathom how much work has been done in evolutionary studies and the authors of this flawed book put a lot of emphasis on Natural Selection (i.e. the external process) and have completely ignored explaining internal mechanisms such as genetics. Co-related traits are OLD NEWS to geneticists (new news to people who aren’t school in biology though!) and this book does present that fact deceivingly.
In 1984 Elliot Sober wrote:
“Selection of” pertains to the effects of a selection process, whereas “selection for” describes its causes. To say there is selection for a given property means that having the property causes success in survival and reproduction.”
In other words, SELECTION FOR DOES NOT IMPLY SELECTION OF, which is easily understood to those who actually study biology.
It’s great you’re reading more than one book Jason, but please, read things without flawed arguments.
PS Are you still teaching the, “Alphabet Method of Understanding DNA and why Evolution can’t happen” in church. Lol. You should post your lessons on youtube so more people can laugh at you.
LikeLike