Reader Responses to Alone Among Animals

Greg Nesty’s conclusion that it’s a matter of opinion whether the same evolutionary processes are responsible for giraffe’s necks and the human mind is a gross misreading of current evolutionary biology (“Evolution Debate,” What Do You Think?, July/August 2018). We know that natural selection and other evolutionary processes produced both—even if we don’t know yet all the details. I note this as a former evolutionary biologist (I was one of the organizers and assisted Ken Miller in his first debate against a creationist, held years ago at Brown’s ice hockey arena). 

That consciousness has occurred repeatedly on Earth through convergent evolution—with a cephalopod mollusk, the octopus, possessing a mind virtually akin to humans—is among the most noteworthy points of his book. Had non-avian dinosaurs survived the asteroid that wiped out much of Earth’s biodiversity 66 million years ago, how consciousness arose in the sapient dinosaurian mind might now be under consideration. 

Miller’s relatively terse book is much more than a lucid discussion of the mind’s complexity and how consciousness emerged. It is an elegant statement on how evolutionary theory has been misused and abused, especially by those espousing Richard Dawkins’s and Sam Harris’s New Atheism, and others advocating evolutionary psychology; and by those, not necessarily creationists, who fear that evolution denies humanity its special place within nature. For these reasons it is among the most important popular science books on evolution and current evolutionary theory ever published, worthy of comparison with the best from Miller’s deceased friend and former Harvard colleague, invertebrate paleobiologist Stephen Jay Gould, one of the finest essayists of our time.

The recent article about Dr. [Kenneth R.] Miller does not do justice to how inspiring a professor he is (“Alone Among Animals,” The Big Issue, Under the Elms, May/June). In 1988, I took his class with my dear friend Leise Thomason ’92. His lecture about how all mammals have a similar toe structure was so riveting, it led us to take an extremely cold winter field trip to the Roger Williams Park Zoo to observe animal feet. When my son was little, I explained evolution to him just the way Dr. Miller explained it to us. I don’t remember giving a standing ovation to any other professor during my Brown career. Dr. Miller, you may take on opponents at the highest level, but the most valuable work you do is teaching Introduction to Biology to undergraduates. Thank you for lessons vividly remembered 30 years later.

In response to BAM letter writers:  

Having just finished my 38th year of teaching at Brown, I thank Betsy Hyman Hoffmeister ’92 and all of my students over that span. It has been a privilege to be a part of their educational experience, and it is an honor to be remembered in the way she did in her letter.

I’m delighted to assure Al Mullery ’58 that his dog, just like Sawyer, my own Australian shepherd, is “very special.” Indeed, all species are—which is why the conservation of biodiversity on planet Earth is an absolute imperative. 

Greg Nesty ’67 argues that evolutionary processes could have produced human consciousness and free will, and that no “magic” is required. He may be surprised to learn, if he reads my new book, The Human Instinct, or even glances at its subtitle, that I make exactly the same argument. 

And David Goldsmith ’89 wonders how I know that other animals are not as capable as we are of analyzing the world and our place in it.  As the late Carl Sagan pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If Mr. Goldsmith knows of species that have plotted the distance to a star, predicted a solar eclipse, discovered the atom, or worked out their own evolutionary ancestry, he should bring that evidence forward. The uniqueness of the human creature is found in the incredible range of literature, art, music, and science it has created.  We are the literal vehicles by which the Cosmos has, for the very first time we know, become aware of itself. That is our special contribution, and it is worth celebrating.

In “Alone Among Animals,” [Professor Kenneth] Miller argues, “If we’re only the product of evolution, it takes our species down a notch.” This suggests that the cause, and not the outcome, defines human uniqueness. Why would the quality of our consciousness be “dehumanized” if it were the result of amazing neural complexity driven by adaptation, rather than some extra-evolutionary “magic” process? 

In the 1970s it was not uncommon for behavioral biologists to refer to non-human species as “senseless automatons” or words to that effect. Fortunately, our understanding of our place in the world is itself evolving. Over the decades, observations have demonstrated in other animal species cognitive abilities and behaviors that were once regarded as solely human. Could the same evolutionary processes that produced the giraffe’s neck also produce a unique quality or degree of consciousness including the free will to make ethical choices, or do we have to invoke a “magic” unique to humans? Given our current state of knowledge, the answer is largely a matter of opinion.

The article “Alone Among Animals” describes the somewhat lukewarm defense of evolution by Professor Kenneth R. Miller. Miller concludes that the human species is “very, very special.” Indeed. And so is my dog.

I’m glad to read that Dr. Miller believes in and even prominently defends evolution, but there are so many fallacies of both reasoning and understanding in that article. “We are the only species that is capable of looking at . . . the . . . world, assessing it, and determining its place in it”—how on earth does Dr. Miller know that? Is he really Dr. Doolittle, hiding out as a Brown professor? Reading that article, I’m left wondering if he really is an evolution believer or if he just plays one on TV.