Harvard Biologist Admits: We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution

Science journals have featured countless stories aboutpessimism in the study of human origins. Science
the evolution of the human brain. Scientists are puzzledreporter James Randerson of Britain's Guardian
since humans have much bigger brains than any othernewspaper was even more brunt, saying, "We know
species. Their suggested explanations have oftennothing about brain evolution." Randerson went on to
been mutually exclusive. For instance, the old text booksummarise Lewontin's reasons for pessimism. "The
explanation relied on eating meat but a few years agohandful of hominid fossils stretching back 4m years or
an article in New Scientist, a popular science magazine,so" cannot tell us whether any of them were our
suggested that eating starch was the secret of brainancestors. We "do not have the have the faintest idea
growth. But both explanations fail to answer why otherwhat the cranial capacity [of a fossil hominid] means".
meat or starch eating species do not have big brains.Moreover, we do not even know which hominids
At the recent AAAS (American Association for thewalked upright and which did not.
Advancement of Science) annual meeting in Boston,Lewontin is well-known for his outspokenness. In 1997
Richard Lewontin, a distinguished biology professor athe wrote in The New York Review of Books that
Harvard University, acknowledged that stories aboutscientists often choose to make up "unsubstantiated
human brain evolution have not been based on facts.just-so stories" because they "have a prior
Reporting on the meeting for the journal Science,commitment, a commitment to materialism... Moreover,
Michael Balter quoted Lewontin as saying, "We arethat materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a
missing the fossil record of human cognition, so weDivine Foot in the door."
make up stories." The title of Balter's article seems toObviously, the scientific community cannot ignore
be an admission of sorts: "How Human IntelligenceLewinton's recent conclusions. If the ruling paradigm
Evolved--Is It Science or 'Paleofantasy'?"(naturalism or the view that nature is all there is) leads
According to professor Lewontin, it is fantasy.us into a blind alley, might there be something wrong
Lewontin suggests that there is much cause forwith it?