Chouraeshkenazi's Argument Analysis

398 Words1 Page

Kim: This discussion question response is being directed to a “no” respondent simply because there are insufficient students in the course with surnames M-Z. Although Bins and her classmate, Chouraeshkenazi, have both responded with “no” relative to this week’s discussion question asking whether evolution provides an adequate explanation for psychological concepts, she seeks to respectfully talk through some of Chouraeshkenazi’s argument. In this regard, Bins is interested in Chouraeshkenazi’s response to her response. Chouraeshkenazi argued that religious and socio-political ideologies seem to be on a collision course with evolutionary psychology, leading to plenty of negative reactions to the latter. It is acknowledged that Christian Fundamentalists are bound to take issue with evolutionary …show more content…

It is also acknowledged that the majority of Christian Fundamentalists are largely unaware what precisely evolutionary psychology is. According to Buss (2009), the inauguration of evolutionary psychology proclaimed the realization of Darwin’s vision for the future accenting natural selection. Buss also declared (Grace, 2001) that evolutionary psychology’s central theme is to discover, report, and explain the nature of cognitive organs and to communicate their function(s). Critics of evolutionary psychology not only take issue with this discipline’s Darwinian underpinnings, they rebuke its human nature universality position. Even Christian psychologists are uncomfortable with evolutionary psychology’s claims. This is all, indeed, important to know. But, the bolder argument, in conjunction with the worth of evolutionary psychology, zeroes in on its lackluster science. Looren de Jong and Steen (1998), Gould (2000) and Rose and Rose (2000), all well respected scientists in their own rights, have dismissed its principles, emphasizing that EP is

Open Document