Why is criticism of Evolutionary Economics so passionate ?

Passion and fervour abound as economists, scientists, political analysts and religious believers debate the idea of universal Darwinism - there is no comfortable consensus - even Darwin's fundamental theory of biological evolution is rejected by many. 

Criticisms of evolutionary economics as the science of choice can be grouped into broad categories - 

* evolutionary economics is descriptive and not an orthodox predictive mathematical science (cf. ancient v. modern debate)

* rational hard nosed economic theory has little to contribute to normative ethical decisions which should dominate policy choice (cf. faith v. reason debate) 

* the process of evolution leads to a deterministic future which precludes economic choice and precludes the inheritance of acquired characteristics through cultural learning (cf. linear v. non-linear mathematics)

* human intention leads to purposeful planned decisions and designs which are not part of an evolutionary process (cf. Cartesian dualism v. neural Darwinism)

Evolutionary economics is a very different way of thinking, leading to a better understanding of the way things work, it cannot and doesn't claim to - 

* predict an unknowable future

* provide unknowable 'causes' of the immense /complexity of economic growth. 

Before 1859 there was no evolutionary theory but since Darwin there has been a constant stream of science that has provided supporting evidence - here are just a few which seem to be important - a golden thread of understanding biological evolution - 

* Darwin & natural selection

* Mendel & genetic inheritance 

* Crick and Watson & DNA

* Hamilton & inclusive fitness

* Maynard Smith & evolutionarily stable strategies

* Trivers & reciprocal altruism

* Axelrod & positive sum games

* Sanger & molecular biology

* Edelman & adaptive immune systems

* Dawkins & universal Darwinism

* Pinker & language, culture and the brain  

* Santa Fe & computer simulations, non-linear mathematics and the phenomena of 'emergence' ..

but all this doesn't 'prove' anything ... 

Mary Midgley has reminded us that misunderstanding good evolutionary biology results in bad policy - 

* the 'naturalistic fallacy' - what is natural is not necessarily good 

* facts about what 'is' cannot tell us what 'ought' to be 

* nature is not always 'red in tooth and claw'

* evolution is not an 'escalator to some Panglossian pinnacle' 

David Hume and Karl Popper also pointed out 'the problem of induction' - just because you've seen 1000 white swans it doesn't mean the next one won't be black ...

Edith Penrose pinpointed the uncomfortable issue that Darwin appeared to exclude purposeful behaviour and inheritance of acquired characteristics -'human intentionality' seems to be an essential part of all economic and social theory.

Nevertheless the evidence relentlessly mounts ... 
... evolutionary explanations for economic growth seem more and more plausible. Economic activity in institutions seems to become better and better adapted to changing environments. Patterns of statistical uniformity emerge from around the world and scientific method suggests the process is not random - alternative, less responsive, wealth creation strategies die out.

Science is a spectacular method for better understanding the evidence we observe. Successful practical economic policy is underpinned by 'normal' science - mathematical theory, with testable hypotheses, which can be validated by repeatable experiments and reviewed by peers not by elites. These robust empirical elements are absent in alternative a priori knowledge acquisition systems and learning is faster as experimental evidence is immediately available for analysis whereas revealed beliefs have to die out.
Criticism of science as 'only a theory', based on 'unreal assumptions' and with 'no moral foundation' becomes an irrelevance if the consequences of evolutionary economic behavioural strategies is a drop in infant mortality?

Evolutionary economic concepts are not difficult but 'the penny has to drop'. 

The giraffe's long neck has no meaningful 'cause' it emerges from the death of short necked giraffes. And there is no known physical way that deliberate stretching, purposeful entreaty, intentional instruction nor planned design by the most intelligent can make it thus. 

Read that last paragraph again if you really want to understand evolutionary economics ...  
... and grasp the Darwinian concept of survival emerging from the elimination of inferior alternatives - nothing supernatural, nothing unethical, nothing pre-determined, nothing anthropocentric, nothing about diving future success ...

The great achievement of evolutionary economics has been to identify a precise process by which imperfect competitive global markets in 'know how' can efficiently and equitably ameliorate some individual problems without harming others. That process is adaptation - 'the giraffe effect' - just as short necked giraffes died out so too do uneconomic choices - Joseph Schumpeter called it 'creative destruction' - there is no known physical alternative -

* 'intelligent design' cannot do it because nobody knows how

* it is 'know how' itself that is evolving

and eventually, after many false dawns and wrong turnings the orthodox economic scientists provided confirmation -

Paul Romer's 'Endogenous Growth Theory' explained how economic growth and wealth creation could result from the evolution of 'know how' ...  

Robert Axelrod - ‘The key to doing well lies not in overcoming others but in eliciting their co-operation. Individuals don’t have to be rational; the evolutionary process alone allows successful strategy to thrive, even if the players do not know why or how. No central authority is needed, cooperation is self policing’. The Evolution of Co-operation.

In this way a remarkably complex world can be understood, not in detail, but by process ...