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. |
On the subject of origins, I invite any who are willing to post their view to this compilation: Freeper Views on Origins
Reminiscent of "ancient astronauts." ;-) (astro-naught)
One of the most profound discoveries of science is that there was a beginning, which of course is the first phrase in the Bible - and is a great difficulty to metaphysical naturalism.
I wonder if it was to counter the obvious theological importance of that discovery - that the multi-verse theories were proposed. At any rate, even under a multi-verse, there must be a beginning.
Robert Jastrow's book God and the Astronomers underlined the significance:
JASTROW: Oh yes, the metaphor there was that we know now that the universe had a beginning, and that all things that exist in this universe—life, planets, stars—can be traced back to that beginning, and it's a curiously theological result to come out of science. The image that I had in my mind as I wrote about this was a group of scientists and astronomers who are climbing up a range of mountain peaks and they come to the highest peak and the very top, and there they meet a band of theologians who have been sitting for centuries waiting for them.
So? How many times do you have be told that science is not built upon philosophy?
Unless, of course, time doesn't mean what we assume it does.
"I was in fact a naive believer (of sorts, I suppose) in Evolution for some 3 decades before looking into its claims. When I "woke up", I was quite angry at being lied to by "society"."
Socialists lie, [about society] granted. They have a reason.
There is no reason [for society] to lie for a theory. You imagine [that society has] one.
Dataman, you too have an overactive, paranoid imagination. Find help.
Diamond:
Hmmmm... tpaine, the idea of dysfunction implies some sort of original purpose, does it not? It's a notion for which evolution can give no adequate accounting. If evolution is purportedly responsible for everything that is, what basis is there for condemnation or criticism of the neural activity of Dataman's brain (or anything else for that matter)?
You have your own 'disfunction' diamond me boyo..
No one here is claiming evolution can give an adequate accounting for the relative unfitness of your or datamans brain.. These malfunctions/sicknesses happen. No disgrace to it.. Just be aware that nature will take its course, and the flaws you two share will affect your lines reproductive capablities, at some point..
Life is not fair fellas.
"I was in fact a naive believer (of sorts, I suppose) in Evolution for some 3 decades before looking into its claims. When I "woke up", I was quite angry at being lied to by "society"."
Socialists lie, [about society] granted. They have a reason.
There is no reason [for society] to lie for a theory. You imagine [that society has] one.
Dataman, you too have an overactive, paranoid imagination. Find help.
Dataman said none of the above. Help with cutting and pasting.
Me? Disagree with your ad hominem fallacies? How droll!
LackingDataMan posting a real point - BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
What about the Nylon-eating bacteria
AG: Indeed, there are many such false presumptions on these threads. Intelligent design supporters are frequently not young earth creationists. And some are neither ID nor YEC, but are also not comfortable with evolution theory for speciation.
(me): Seems clear to me there is at least in part an intentional (sometimes subconsciously intentional as Dallas Willard might just say) corruption of words here, often I think, by fundamentalist Christians, but also by those antagonistic to Christianity. Someone who believes the universe is created, by the face value of the word (as well as Merriam-Webster) is a creationist. I think we should work to maintain straigtforward meanings of words, lest meaning suffers "incredibly."
(As for me, if I find a theory of evolution fully formed and substantiated enough to be worth my confidence, I think I will be a evolutionist creationist. ;-` Annnnd, I tend to lean, albeit, very apperceptively-go-lightly toward the hypothesis I mentioned in the post referring to Ez. 28, which is one reason AG, why I was so interested in what you 'first' related about kabbalah stuff vis-a-vis the creation and evolution. If you'd like to summarize that some week, I'd be interested, though I find post-classic mystic judaic philosophy to be, well, pretty much what you find it to be, I think. ;-` Dead Sea Scrolls type stuff is significantly more interesting, eh? Thank you very much again for your tenderhearted patience with that set of subjects.)
You said: By the same reasoning, the same goes for God, unless, of course, time doesn't mean what we assume it does.
The only way to get perspective on time is to understand the mathematical constructs of dimensions – or more directly, the spiritual realm and God – i.e. that which is non-temporal, non-spatial and non-corporeal.
For Lurkers: the term cosmological constant is used to describe what is necessary to achieve critical density of Omega at 1. The going theory is dark energy, to account for some 70% of the mass of this universe. However, dark energy does not show up in local space, i.e. the laboratory. This gives even more weight to string theory (multiple dimensions) to account for the observed mass of the universe (among other things.)
For more information: Beyond Cosmological Parameters - Tegmark (ps)
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.