No one wants to be called selfish. This is too bad, because according to an increasingly large segment of the scientific-intellectual community, selfishness is an unchangeable part of human nature. We are doomed to it, by the very nature of evolution.

The significance of evolution is widely misunderstood in our culture and the fault lies with the overzealous attitudes and language of some of our most prominent and well-respected science writers.

The unclear and overconfident prose used by these ultra-Darwinists has created a welter of cultural misconceptions about the implications of evolutionary theory. The most pernicious of these myths is the idea that human beings are inherently, and unchangeably, selfish.

“(Humans), and all other animals, are machines created by our genes,” said Richard Dawkins in “The Selfish Gene,” a seminal text for ultra-Darwinists. “A successful gene is ruthless(ly) selfish . gene selfishness . give(s) rise to selfishness in individual behavior.”

Evolutionary psychology takes this ethos to its logical conclusion: all behavior is just a way for our genes to propagate themselves. According to this theory, altruism and love are actually unconscious selfish motives.

“Our generosity and affection have a narrow underlying purpose,” said Robert Wright in “The Moral Animal.” “They’re aimed either at kin, who share our genes, at non-kin of the opposite sex who can help us package our genes for shipment to the next generation, or at non-kin of either sex who seem likely to return the favor.”

The idea that humanity is irredeemably selfish has been a part of Western culture for centuries, from the earliest Christian theologians to Thomas Hobbes. St. Augustine wrote, “there is none free from sin, not even the infant who has lived but a day upon this earth.”

But those who would scoff at original sin take the idea that their genes have programmed them to be selfish very seriously because it is “scientific.” This isn’t an exaggeration – just look at the Aug. 2 issue of The Economist, which claimed that altruism was merely an advertisement for the high quality of one’s genes.

Scientists hold great sway in our society. Their word is trusted above what is perceived as the mystifying relativism of the humanities. Accordingly, scientists have a great responsibility to write clearly and carefully. But the ultra-Darwinists instead misuse language, and create a desperately bleak view of human life in the process.

This is because ultra-Darwinists use words like “selfish” and “manipulation” incorrectly. There has to be intentional purpose behind an action for it to be selfish or manipulative. But the ultra-Darwinists’ writing seems to insist that “selfish” evolutionary motives underlie (and, it is implied, falsify) behaviors such as altruism and love.

Language shapes the way we look at the world and the way we understand abstract concepts. Dawkins could just as easily write of genes cooperating and helping humans. But he doesn’t, and the ultra-Darwinists draw conclusions from his selfish gene theory that they attempt to apply to the real world. Dawkins’ metaphorically selfish genes result in the Augustinian belief that we are born selfish.

The non-intentional forces of evolution have shaped our bodies, and yes, our minds, through hereditary units known as genes (which are also non-intentional). There is no such thing as an evolutionary motive or an evolutionary perspective – there is just the way evolution works. How we got here is not the same as what we are. Humans are intentional. We can choose to act selfishly, altruistically, or anywhere in between.

Evolution doesn’t need to be frightening or disturbing. It has given us a greater understanding of the origins of life than anything penned before 1859, and we need writers who can do Darwin’s theory justice.