Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
|
Blinded by Science |
| Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, & What Makes Us Human, by Matt Ridley HarperCollins, 336 pp., $25.95) This is a very strange book, and I am not quite sure what the author is attempting to achieve. At the very least it appears that he wants to shore up genetic determinism as the key factor in understanding human nature and individual behavior. Genetic determinism is rational materialism's substitute for the religious notion of predestination; taking the place of God as puppet master are the genes, whose actions and interactions control who we are, what we think, and how we act. This reductionist view received a body blow recently when the mappers of the human genome found that we have only about 30,000 genes. Because of their understanding of human complexity, the scientists were expecting at least 100,000 -- and that means there are probably too few genes for strict genetic determinism to be true. Ridley, a science writer and former U.S. editor of The Economist, tries to ride to the rescue. In doing so, he adds a twist that he hopes will overcome our apparent genetic paucity: Yes, he says, our genes decide who we are, what we do and think, and even with whom we fall in love. But, he posits, our molecular masters are not rigidly preset when we are born. Rather, they change continually in reaction to our biological and emotional experiences. Hence, 30,000 are more than enough for a soft genetic determinism to be true -- which means that the battle between those who believe we are the product of our biology (nature) versus those who believe we are the result of our environment (nurture) can now end in a truce in which both sides win. We are indeed controlled by our genes, but they in turn are influenced by our experiences. Ridley says that the mapping of the genome "has indeed changed everything, not by closing the argument or winning the [nature versus nurture] battle for one side or the other, but by enriching it from both ends till they meet in the middle." To Ridley, the core of our true selves isn't soul, mind, or even body in the macro sense; we are, in essence, merely the expression of our genes at any given moment. If this is true, then my perception of Nature via Nurture as so much nonsense was the only reaction I could have had, given my original genetic programming, as later modified by my every experience and emotion from my conception, through the womb, childhood, high school, college, practicing law, the death of my father, indeed up to and including the reading of this book. If that is so – if I was forced by my gene expression of the moment to perceive this book as I have -- what have we really learned that can be of any benefit to humankind? We are all slaves to chemistry and there is no escape. Even aside from such broader issues, Ridley does not make a persuasive case. Maybe it is my legal training, but I found his evidence very thin. He doesn't present proofs so much as resort to wild leaps of logic predicated on questionably relevant social science and facile analogies based on a few animal studies. These are simply not strong enough to be the sturdy weight-supporting pillars that his thesis requires to be credible. Let's look at just one example. He cites studies of monogamous prairie voles to suggest that humans only think they fall in love, when, in reality, what we call love is merely the expression of genes resulting in the release of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin. Claiming that he is not going to "start extrapolating anthropomorphically from pair-bonding in voles to love in people," he proceeds to do just that. Citing the vole studies and Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream -- in which a love potion makes Titania fall in love with a man with a donkey's head – Ridley writes: Who would now wager against me that I could not do something like this to a modern Titania? Admittedly, a drop on the eyelids would not suffice. I would have to give her a general anesthetic while I cannulated her medial amygdala and injected oxytocin into it. I doubt even then that I could make her love a donkey. But I might stand a fair chance of making her feel attracted to the first man she sees upon waking. Would you bet against me? But shouldn't it take far more than measuring the physical effects of oxytocin on prairie voles to prove that something as complex, maddening, unpredictable, and wonderfully and uniquely human as romantic love can, in reality, be reduced to the mere expression of genes leading to chemical secretions? Not, apparently, to Ridley. "Blindly, automatically, and untaught, we bond with whoever is standing nearest when oxytocin receptors in the medial amygdala get tingled." Gee, if he'd known that, Bill Clinton could have purchased fewer copies of Leaves of Grass. The most fascinating thing about this book is that Ridley inadvertently makes a splendid argument for intelligent design. At this point, I am sure Ridley's "I am utterly appalled" genes are expressing wildly. He is, after all, a scientific materialist in good standing. Yet, throughout the book, in order to make his arguments understandable, he resorts explicitly to the imagery of the guiding hand. He even gives it a name: the "Genome Organizing Device," or "G.O.D." Ridley claims that the G.O.D is "a skillful chef, whose job is to build a souffle," consisting of the various parts of us and all other life on the planet. Note the language of intentionality in his description of the evolution of the human brain: To build a brain with instinctive abilities, the Genome Organizing Device lays down separate circuits with suitable internal patterns that allow them to carry out suitable computations, then links them with appropriate inputs from the senses. . . . In the case of the human mind, almost all such instinctive modules are designed to be modified by experience. Some adapt continuously throughout life, some change rapidly with experience then set like cement. A few just develop to their own timetable. But according to my lay understanding, this violates the theory and philosophy of evolution. The hypothesis of natural selection holds that species origination and change are promoted by genetic mutations. Those mutations that change the organism to make it more likely than its unchanged peers to survive long enough to reproduce are likely to be passed down the generations. Eventually, these genetic alterations spread among the entire species and become universal within its genome. It is through this dynamic evolutionary process of modification, the theory holds, that life fills all available niches in nature. It is also the process, although the details are not known, by which the primates now known as homo sapiens became conscious. The philosophy of Darwinism posits that this evolutionary process is aimless, unintentional, purposeless, and without rhyme or reason. This means it has no biological goal: It just is. Hence, G.O.D. would not want to "build a brain," develop nature via nurture in species, or do any other thing. Yet, throughout the book, Ridley seems able only to describe what he thinks is going on using the language of intention. Could this be because Ridley's theories would require interactions that are so complex and unlikely that they would seem laughable if described as having come together haphazardly, by mere chance? So what are we to learn from his insights? In terms of how we live our lives, not much beyond what common sense already tells us: Parents matter and should engage with their children; human teenagers enjoy doing what they are good at, and dislike doing what they are bad at; and so on. That much is harmless; but Ridley's deeper point is subversive of human freedom and individual accountability. He denies the existence of free will: Our actions are not causes but effects, "prespecified by, and run by, genes." Indeed, he claims unequivocally, "There is no 'me' inside my brain, there is only an ever-changing set of brain states, a distillation of history, emotion, instinct, experience, and the influence of other people -- not to mention chance." Ridley asserts this as if it would be a good thing to learn that the complexity and richness of human experience could accurately be reduced to merely the acts of so many slaves obeying the lash of chemical overseers acting under the direction of our experience-influenced gene owners. "Nature versus nurture is dead," Ridley concludes triumphantly. "Long live nature via nurture." Sorry. Maybe it's my genes, but I just don't buy it. |
Personally, I find that attempt at being clever rather humorous. But, sadly, many people trust scientists absolutely, pretty much the same way they trust medical doctors. But there are dangerous doctors just like there are scientists with ill motive.
A-G, you've hit my double concern right on the head here: the cultural effects of scientistic popularization of a bastardized evolutionary theory, and damage done to the integrity of science itself in the process.
Yet somehow, arguments based on such concerns get translated into "proof" that I am engaging in the defense of creationist doctrine. To me, that looks like a gross (and possibly willful) misdirection. I wonder why it seems to happen so often.
Thanks so much for your post, A-G! Hope you're enjoying your company this weekend! Hugs!!!
Don't hold your breath, Phaedrus. They'd have to dump quasi-religious social indoctrination and get back to doing science. Some of them don't even seem capable, let alone willing, of making such a transition.
I'm in such a cheerful mood today! Thank you for your brilliant post.
You are making the usual false evolutionist claim that because science knows something, it supports evolution. This is not the case here. Genetics has in fact taught us that it is very hard for a new mutation to spread throughout a species. In fact, unless it has a very high selective advantage it will never do that. The problem that DNA has created for evolution is that because a mutation affecting only one bit pair of DNA would necessarily not achieve much, it would provide only a very small selective advantage and instead of spreading throughout the species to provide a likelihood of further gradual mutations accomplishing a large change, it would most likely dissappear from the individuals that had it and thus provide no basis for further gradual change.
"Well, isn't that special."
Thanks for the interesting information, gore3000.
I have, Brother Arlen: The doctrine of survival of the fittest has had enormous cultural consequences. It has fed every species of racism and eugenics; and, making struggle and conflict the basic norms of human life, justifies force and brutality.
I don't think it's inaccurate to regard a "process" as merely a sequence of causally-connected events, though. That notion covers the sorts of things that biological organisms do, to be sure, but it also opens up the field to a whole host of things that have nothing to do with biology - I think it's entirely accurate and fair to describe a volcanic eruption as a "process", so what we're going to end up doing is discussing where life begins and ends, probably.
I'd say fire is too simple to be considered alive. Similarly prions and an automobile assembly line.
Based on what? Complexity? The number of discrete processes that happen to occur comtemporaneously? My CPU has more transistors than IBM has employees - is it alive, based solely on its complexity?
Of course. It's useful for answering questions about why things are the way they are. What could be more useful than beating back the borders of ignorance?
Yes, exactly, this is the rub. And this doctrine would be only barely tolerable even if it was science.
Something makes me doubt that Darwin Fish is an evolutionist, although he does mock what he considers to be false doctrines quite a bit. Personally, I think he's a crackpot, but then again, he's not an evolutionist, so that's someone else's mess to clean up...
Well, since utility is a matter for objectivity, can you relate instances?
(Keep in mind, that I'm not talking about open minded research of life sciences and origins, within the eschatological boundaries of theoretics, 'forensics,' and the modicum of actual science involved. I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.)
Is knowing why mitochondria have their own DNA better than remaining ignorant about the matter?
I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.)
Your turn - got any specific instances of what you wish to dispute here?
And this is something we wouldn't have learned from an honest investigation of life sciences? How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?
I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.
Pinging a few others, due to my limits of knowledge of cellular biology.
It's something that was learned from an honest investigation of life sciences.
How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?
If an exploration of the development of life obviates God, then I submit that this is because our understanding of God is limited and imperfect. We will simply have to rethink the nature of God, given that our current understanding is inherently flawed. Needless to say, this is our fault, not God's.
Beating back one's own borders of ignorance first?
You asked a rhetorical question, and I answered it rhetorically. So no offense intended.
What a beautifully stinging statement!
Sounds like general_re found religion. Welcome home, brother. : )
And this is something we wouldn't have learned from an honest investigation of life sciences?
Indeed the investigation of life proceeds in spite of evolution. Scientists did not ask themselves before discovering DNA if it was in accordance with evolutionary theory or not, they went to try to find out what made humans tick regardless of what any theory might say and regardless of what the new discovery might disclose.
As to mtDNA, the evolutionists use it to prove evolution, but only when it fits the theory. A quite interesting example of evolution "science" can be found at Mammalian Genome. First evolutionists tried to use mitochondrial DNA to show the relationships between the monotremes (platypus), the eutherians (kangaroos) and the placentals (all other mammals). The mtDNA did not give them the desired results "The value and accuracy of decades of morphological study have been discounted recently by mytochondrial DNA evidence". So of course the evos could not let that happen, so they had to try again. They then tried DNA hybridization. However, under this method also Darwinian theory was refuted "It is significant that apomorphies of the theran ancestors, such as the braincase, cranial nerve architecture, and reproductive physiology" had to be reclassified as convergences under these two tests. So of course they had to pick another test to get the results they wished - a totally new one called MP6/IG2FR!
When evolutionists claim that DNA of any kind supports their theory it is because they have been very selective in their choices.
Well good. Then it didn't need Darwinism afterall now did it? Just an intellectually honest investigation within the proper eschatological boundaries of such systmatic methods as science and such theories as those of evolution.
If an exploration of the development of life obviates God, then I submit that this is because our understanding of God is limited and imperfect. We will simply have to rethink the nature of God, given that our current understanding is inherently flawed. Needless to say, this is our fault, not God's.
No, that is of course, not what I referred to when I asked "How does the attempt to obviate God by overextending what we may imagine and/or research of evolution provide unique impetus for the research you cite?" This is what I said:
(Keep in mind, that I'm not talking about open minded research of life sciences and origins, within the eschatological boundaries of theoretics, 'forensics,' and the modicum of actual science involved. I'm talking about Darwinism the ideology masquerading as science, not intellectually honest engagement to actually ascertain what we can make of the various elements of evolution and creation theories.)
None of this requires anyone who believes about God only what is revealed in the Bible and by the Holy Spirit, for example to rethink the nature of God the Creator. Did someone tell you it would? Darwinists?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.