Dancing in the Dark

Evolutionary Psychology and the Argument from Design
  • Karola C. Stotz
  • Paul E. Griffiths


The Narrow Evolutionary Psychology Movement 1 represents itself as a major reorientation of the social/behavioral sciences, a group of sciences previously dominated by something called the ‘Standard Social Science Model’ (SSSM; Cosmides, Tooby, and Barkow, 1992). Narrow evolutionary psychology alleges that the SSSM treated the mind, and particularly those aspects of the mind that exhibit cultural variation, as devoid of any marks of its evolutionary history. Adherents of narrow evolutionary psychology often suggest that the SSSM owed more to ideology than to evidence. It was the child of the 1960s, representing a politically motivated insistence on the possibility of changing social arrangements such as gender roles:

Not so long ago jealousy was considered a pointless, archaic institution in need of reform. But like other denials of human nature from the 1960s, this bromide has not aged well (Stephen Pinker, endorsement for Buss, 2000)).


Natural Selection Evolutionary Theory Cognitive Science Natural Kind Evolutionary Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahouse, J. C. (1998). The tragedy of a priori selectionism: Dennett and Gould on adaptationism. Biology and Philosophy 13, 359–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. (1979). Darwinism and Human Affairs. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, R. (1987). The Biology of Moral Systems. New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Amundson, R. & Lauder, G.V. (1994). Function without purpose: The uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy, 9, 443–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barkow, J. H. (1979). Human ethology: Empirical wealth, theoretical dearth. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Book.Google Scholar
  7. Bolker, J. A., & Raff, R. A. (1996). Developmental genetics and traditional homology, Bioessays, 18, 489–494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandon, R. (1990). Adaptation and Environment. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brandon, R. N. (1999). The units of selection revisited: The modules of selection. Biology and Philosophy, 14, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M. (2000). The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy is as Essential as Love and Sex. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  11. Callebaut, W. & Stotz, K. (1998). Lean evolutionary epistemology. Evolution and Cognition, 4, 11–36.Google Scholar
  12. Christensen, W. D. &Hooker, C.A. (forthcoming). The ascent of endogenous control: Autonomy-theoretic foundations for biological organization and evolutionary epistemology. Paper presented at Bringing Life to Mind, 2nd Altenberg Workshop in Theoretical Biology, Konrad Lorenz Institute, Alternberg,Austria, July, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1987). From evolution to behaviour: Evolutionary psychology as the missing link. In J. Dupre (Ed). The Latest on the Best: Essays on Optimality and Evolution (pp. 277–307). Cambdrige, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cosmides, L., Tooby, & Barkow, J.H. (1992). Introduction: Evolutionary psychology and conceptual integration. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (Eds.). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, (pp. 3–15). New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Finlay, B., Darlington, R. B., Nicastro, N. (2001). Developmental Structure in brain evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 263–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An Essay in Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Griffiths, P. E. (1990). Modularity & the psychoevolutionary theory of emotion.. Biology & Philosophy 5, 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffiths, P. E. (1993). Functional analysis & proper function. British Journal for Philosophy of Science 44, 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths, P. E. (1997). What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Squaring the circle: Natural kinds with historical essences. In R.A. Wilson (Ed.). Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. (pp. 208–228.) Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Griffiths, P. E. & Gray, R.D. (2001). Darwinism and developmental systems. In S. Oyama, P.E. Griffiths, and R.D. Gray (Eds.). Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. (pp. 195–218) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hall, B. K., Ed. (1994). Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biolog y, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hamburger, V. (1980). Embryology and the modern synthesis in evolutionary theory. In E. Mayr and W.B. Provine (Eds.). The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology; with a New Preface by Ernst Mayr. (pp. 97–112). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hendriks-Jansen, H. (1996). Catching Ourselves in the Act: Situated Activity, Interactive Emergence, Evolution and Human Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hooker, C. A. (1995). Reason, Regulation and Realism: Towards a Regulatory Systems Theory of Reason and Evolutionary Epistemology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hull, D. (1984). Historical entities & historical narratives. In C. Hoowkay, (Ed.). Minds, Machines & Evolution (pp. 17–42), Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hull, D. (1987). Genealogical actors in ecological roles. Biology & Philosophy, 2, 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jablonka, E. & Lamb, M.J.(1995). Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarkian Dimension. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-Organisation and Selection in Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Knight, R. D., Freeland, S.J., and Landweber, L. F. (1999). Selection, history and chemistry: The three faces of the genetic code. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 24, 241–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lauder, G. V., Armand, M.L., and Rose, M. R. (1993). Adaptations and history. TREE, 8, 294–297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewontin, R. C. (1978). Adaption. Scientific American, 239, 212–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lorenz, K. (1966). Evolution of ritualisation in the biological and cultural spheres. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 251, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marr, D. (1982). Vision. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  37. Mueller, G. B. &Wagner, G.P. (1996). Homology, Hox genes and developmental integration. American Zoologist 36,4–13.Google Scholar
  38. Odling-Smee, F. J. (1996). Niche-construction, genetic evolution and cultural change. Behavioural Processes 35, 196–205.Google Scholar
  39. O’Hara, R. J. (1988). Homage to Clio, or towards an historical philosophy for evolutionary biology. Systematic Zoology, 37, 142–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oyama, S. (1992). Ontogeny and phylogeny: a case of metarecapitulation?, P.E. Griffiths (Ed.)Trees of Life: Essays in Philosophy of Biology,(pp. 211–240). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Palumbi, S. R. (1997, Dec. 11). A star is born. Nature, 390, 556–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raff, R. (1996). The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Seligman, M. E. P. & Hager, J.L. Eds. (1972). Biological Boundaries of Learning. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts.Google Scholar
  44. Sterelny, K. & P. E. Griffiths (1999). Sex and Death: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Stotz, K. (1996). The psychology of knowledge in the context of evolutionary theory: Reflections on the link between cognition and sociability. Evolution and Cognition, 2, 22–37.Google Scholar
  46. Stotz, K. (1999). Interaction and Construction: Organizational Constraints in Evolution and Cognition. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
  47. Strohman, R. C. (1997). The coming Kuhnian revolution in biology. Nature Biotechnology, 75, 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tinbergen, N. (1963). On the aims and methods of ethology. Zietschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tooby, J. &Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides and J. Tooby. (Eds.). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. (pp. 19–136) Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1997). Evolutionary Psychology. A Primer. [On-line] Available: Scholar
  51. Tooby, J. &Cosmides, L. (1998). Evolutionizing the cognitive sciences: A reply to Shapiro and Epstein. Mind and Language, 13, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wagner, G. P. (1994). Homology and the mechanisms of development. In B.K. Hall (Ed.). Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. (pp. 273–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. Wagner, G. P. (1995). The biological role of homologues: A building block hypothesis. Neues Jahrbuch der Geologischen und Paläontologischen Abhandlungen, 195, 279–288.Google Scholar
  54. Weber, B. H. &Depew, D.W. (1996). Natural selection and self-organisation. Biology and Philosophy, 11, 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wray, G. A., & Raff, R. A. (1991). The evolution of developmental strategy in marine invertebrates, Trends in Ecology and Evolution,6, 45–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karola C. Stotz
  • Paul E. Griffiths

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations