Darwinism; a Spell check

Although Daniel Siegel is one of my favorite psychologists, his allegiance to Darwinism sometimes leads him astray. The following quotes come from his discussion of working with a twelve year old girl in therapy.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'The activation of survival reflexes and the emotion of fear push our cortical areas to find danger - sometimes when a threat is truly there, and sometimes when the sense of danger is only our brain's creation. Because this brain system checks for danger I call it the ''checker. The checker has survived over hundreds of millions of years, I said. It was helping [sic] animals long before there were humans, and it takes its job seriously.' [1.]

- This is an example of evolutionary indoctrination at its worst. What chance does a 12 yr old have to defend herself against the spell of such such authoritative pronouncements? The statement is a mess of personification, equivocation and wild speculation. None of it is empirical science. (Need we add that only persons have jobs, and that only persons can take things seriously?)

He tells her, ''these brain circuits have evolved over millions of years to keep us safe.'' (He's ignoring the fact that in textbook theory nothing in evolution happens for a purpose.) He knows nothing of the sort; all he's doing is quoting the latest biology textbook.

One can argue with him even from an materialist perspective; e.g. are these circuits the same now as they were at various points in the past? as they were a million years ago? 500 thousand years ago? five thousand years ago? five hundred years ago? He has no idea, nor does anyone else. (He has no idea if even cosmic evolution is true.) One should not teach children that x is a fact when it is only a hypothesis.

According to Siegel, we're supposed to believe that the 'crowning glory' (p.233) of our prefrontal capacity just happened by accident, but a series of mutations (or copying mistakes); but no one tells us how this would have been possible. The great unanswered question for E. theorists is how one can progress from pond scum to professor by a random series of mistakes - mistakes which amount to the Loss of information. To call Evolution a fact in the face of such a conundrum is without warrant.

All this Darwinian spin adds nothing to what he's doing - it's superfluous and non-scientific. (i.e. non-empirical.) These Darwinian tales are the ghosts of a secular world.

We're to believe that one day there were no humans, just animals, and then one day there Were humans. Okay. Where did all this brand new (exquisitely complex and profound) information come from? Had it been hiding under a rock? Tucked away in some library vault? He's handing his young patient a fantasy, as what he's claiming is impossible. This is not the way the world works and we all know it.

The evolutionary scenario of progressivism is akin to placing a string in your vest pocket and then later pulling it out to find it has a watch attached to it.

In this rather silly interview he tells her that animals without 'checkers' didn't survive while those that had them did. There is of course no evidence such deficient creatures ever existed or ever could exist. This is pure storytelling. The sad part of this Darwinian add on is that it is unnecessary and superfluous. One wishes Siegel (and others) would stick to the empiricial and avoid the metaphysical spin.

3. 'The 'checker' is devoted to our survival - and to passing along our checker genes for another hundred million years...' [3.]

- How Siegel came to write such a wondrous statement I don't know; neither do I know how he managed to attribute devotion to a program of the human brain. (Perhaps it was his devotion to Darwinism.) Devoted means to dedicate oneself to another with a vow. We see here another example of Darwinian smuggling; e.g. personification, equivocation, teleology, prophecy, reification, and speculation are all smuggled into the discussion... and all (supposedly) in the name of science.

Siegel apparently can't decide which evolutionary camp he wants to join; i.e. is the 'checker' interested in us humans or in these so called checker genes? (Ah; evolution; so many theories, and so little time to decide which of them is right :=}

4. 243. '...deep inside the 'checker' just wants to protect you.' [4.]

- This example of equivocation is more like incantation than observation. Only living creatures want things, and only persons want to protect human beings. [4.] It seems Darwinists can't resist the temptation to engage in equivocation and similar fallacies. (The monism of cosmic evolution makes this virtually inevitable. If you ignore the creator/creature distinction you have monism; and if you have monism you have personification and equivocation. Monism makes logical fallacy unavoidable. i.e. if all is one, there can be no differentiation, and logic depends upon differentiation.

- M. Johnson

Notes;
1. Mindsight - Daniel Siegel p. 243
- I realize I can be criticized for overreacting to an evolutionary account that was tailored for a twelve year old's understanding; but I think this is how most children come to believe the veracity of Darwinism. I suspect someone like Siegel can have much more influence than a biology teacher who is being paid to recite textbook orthodoxy. My big complaint it that there's no reason to add the Darwinian speculation to what he's saying. i.e. one doesn't have to speculate on the origins of the brain to discuss how it seems to work.
2. ''
3. Mindsight p.245
4. p.243
- Some animals (e.g. dogs) will 'protect' human beings, but we're dealing here with instincts and bonding not with the human desire to help.
5. One the one hand Siegel has a positive model of psychology to present; but at the same time he teaches that the brain is controlled by circuits that are hundreds of millions of years old and that get us to behave in destructive ways. So his foundation is a pessimisitic one, but he seems to just ignore it and tell us all will be well with a little meditation!
- The way I see it; the fact 'mindsight' can be so effective is evidence the Darwinian speculation he adopts is false.
- If man were what S. claims he is, the techniques he teaches couldn't possibly work. It's impossible for me to imagine these human capacities somehow 'emerged' from some copying mistakes, by random chemical accident. This concept makes no sense to me.
6. While atheists talk about the 'need' to separate science and religion, I'd like to advocate a separation of science and darwinism.
7. Devotion;
-early 13c., from O.Fr. devocion "devotion, piety," from L. devotionem (nom. devotio), noun of action from pp. stem of devovere "dedicate by a vow, sacrifice oneself, promise solemnly," from de- "down, away" (see de-) + vovere "to vow," from votum "vow" (see vow). In ancient Latin, "act of consecrating by a vow," also "loyalty, fealty, allegiance;" in Church Latin, "devotion to God, piety."
8. For fellow fishermen out there; progressive evolution is akin to towing a rope behind a boat and then having the rope turn into a net, complete with corks and leadline and outfitted with a buoy on the end :=}
9. One wonders what evolutionary indoctrination has to do with therapy for OCD. As I've said before; I see E. theory as utterly superfluous to 99.99 percent of science and medicine (let alone anything else). It's no more relevant to life as we live it than a novel by Arthur C. Clarke.