Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blinded by Science
Discovery Institute ^ | 6/2/03 | Wesley J. Smith

Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander

Blinded by Science


Wesley J. Smith
National Review
June 16, 2003


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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; wesleyjsmith; wesleysmith
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 981-984 next last
To: unspun
Fine. Of course, there are laws governing the behavior of such things.
201 posted on 06/05/2003 11:26:25 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: js1138
It teaches us that in the presence of an energy gradient, complexity can increase. We find, for example, complex organic compounds in meteorites and in the gasses between stars.

Thank you. While not answering my question, it provides information about the scale of available data which a big-e Evolutionist could use to support his ideas scientifically, if there were only enough.

202 posted on 06/05/2003 11:43:14 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; betty boop
Many predictions of evolutionary theory are testable. For example, the lack of human fossils in pre-Cambrian strata and the tree structures arising from almost any cladistic analysis of morphological or genetic data. (And that these structures are generally all consistend with other.) Historical sciences (such as forensics and geology) are well-understood. Complaining of a lack of an observer is akin to playing Defence Attorney. (Neither O.J. Simpson nor Scott Peterson were "observed.")

Thank you. This provides information about the scale of available data which a big-e Evolutionist could use to support his ideas scientifically, if there were only enough.

203 posted on 06/05/2003 11:47:00 AM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Perhap you would care to clarify and expand on your question. If you are searching for some evolutionary equivalent of a purpose or goal, you won't find one. That would be like searching for a purpose in the specific arrangement of the stars and planets. There might be on in God's eye, but we are still looking through that glass darkly, remember. If evolution is leading in a direction, we mortals are not likely to be able to perceive it. We can, however, perceive the process.
204 posted on 06/05/2003 11:50:17 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Yet everything else is the product of chance, of a "stochastic event."

Just because we model something as stochastic does not mean that the event is intrinsically stochastic. It is a very real possibility that our ability is limited to stochastic measurements of a deterministic process.

This is a not often talked about issue. The amount of information in a system and the amount of information we can measure in a system are not the same thing, and it has been suggested that in the case of QM this is exactly what we are dealing with. This idea is old (there are references to Fisher information and physics going way back), but the concept of deterministic processes behind QM has been gaining a lot of traction lately, mostly because it both makes a lot of sense if done correctly and really cleans up the theoretical landscape. This doesn't mean that this is correct, but one can destochastify (new word -- Woohoo!) QM in a clean and theoretically reasonable fashion.

205 posted on 06/05/2003 11:55:47 AM PDT by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Did someone notify the moderators that another crevo thread has been started? They must just cringe. I'd hate to be refereeing these.
206 posted on 06/05/2003 11:57:35 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138; betty boop; cornelis; Alamo-Girl; Dataman; Rachumlakenschlaff
I like your observations (thought the same material that speaks of the dark glass speaks clearly of some of God's purposees).

But the question was about how much actual scientifically demonstrable evidence there is out there in the universe for either stasis, or on the one hand, changes toward ever increasing complexity, or on the other hand, changes towrard degradation.

This is important of course, if one attemptes as betty boop, cornelis, etc. pointed out, to extend (overextend) what we know of any evolutionary processes into being universal explanations of our existence.

(Alas, Rachy seems to be out of FR space.)
207 posted on 06/05/2003 12:11:01 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: tortoise; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; cornelis; Phaedrus
This is a not often talked about issue.

And that in itself, is revelatory.

208 posted on 06/05/2003 12:13:16 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: unspun
I don't think biological evolution speaks to the condition of the universe. There are physicists and biochemists (and information theorists) that worry about cosmological constants and such, and whether the laws of physics and chemistry are purposefully tuned to allow evolution to happen.

These are independent lines of inquiry and do not directly affect research in biology, except that it is possible for discoveries in chemistry or physics to falsify biological evolution by depriving it of sufficient time to operate. Should this happen, someone will get a Nobel prize and a lot of textbook manufacturers will get rich printing corrections.

This brings to mind a famous scene fron "the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in which a computer is programmed to calculate the answer to life, the universe, and everything. At first the (unionized) philosophers and pundits are horrified by the prospect of their jobs being automated. But when it is explained to them that the answer will not be revealed for several million years, they are content to go on making their living predicting the outcome.

If some new theory replaces traditional concepts of evolution, it will first have to explain all the existing data. This in itself will take decades to catalog and verify. No one will be out of a job. Second, it will open up vast new lines of research. No one will be unemployed. In fact, science writers and pundits will get rich attempting to describe the new ideas to the public.
209 posted on 06/05/2003 12:29:15 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Thank you so much for your great posts and questions!

I was trying to get a handle on which way you were going with your question, i.e. inflationary model or second law of thermodynamics.

I gather from js1138's reply it is second.

The theory of evolution requires autonomy, self-organizing complexity and symbolization from the inception, and that IMHO is the biggest "hang up" because to have all of this speaks against randomness.

210 posted on 06/05/2003 12:35:44 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Appreciate your observations, js.

But then why do so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following?:

- God's existence
- God's mastery
- God's creation
- God's immanence in his creation
- God's control, as he chooses
- God's constant involvement in the lives of man
- God's judgement of sinners
211 posted on 06/05/2003 12:58:10 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: unspun
But then why do so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following?:

- God's existence
- God's mastery
- God's creation
- God's immanence in his creation
- God's control, as he chooses
- God's constant involvement in the lives of man
- God's judgement of sinners
211 -Spin-


It is your delusion that -- "so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following".
-- Ranting on and on, over & over that this imaginary opinion is true, does not make it true, in fact..
-- But by all means, continue to do so, if it makes you 'feel' better.
212 posted on 06/05/2003 1:31:16 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

"The self awareness [mirror] test."

Is there a link that discusses a scientific study on this test?

There's an article from Johns-Hopkins about dolphins here.

213 posted on 06/05/2003 1:36:39 PM PDT by forsnax5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
tpaine, tell me:

How did life come to exist?

Are you accountable to anyone for your life?
-- Why or why not?
214 posted on 06/05/2003 2:15:12 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
BTW, here's just a bit about what I posted:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/evolutio.htm#In%20Modern%20Philosopy
215 posted on 06/05/2003 2:33:30 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Pretty much - natural selection is a mindless process, with no more purpose or goal than gravity has.

The Theory of Common Descent uses natural selection as a mechanism for the vast diversity of life we now observe. Now, by calling this process 'mindless' and 'without purpose or goal' you have created two options in regard to a Prime Cause (or God):

1. there is no God (i.e. atheism, materialism)
2. if there is a God He never intervened in life's history (i.e. practical atheism, naturalism)

Note: I do not state any specific Prime Cause (or God). Moreover, if someone would like to bring a belief of the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, etc. into this discussion - make sure you attribute them with the qualities of creating the universe, giving intelligence to life, and giving you consciousness.

A 'mindless' process 'without purpose or goal' that is responsible for all life is a philosophy or a religious belief. This form of science is not religiously neutral. Ref Post#55

But let's look at Natural Selection

A pack of wolves have a set order and an alpha male. The set order, regardless of how it came about, is a 'set order'. The alpha male is not necessarily due to size alone, skill and intelligence factor into the equation. Now consider the 'set order' in the pack as well as the 'skill and intelligence' of the alpha male. Is this a mindless process without purpose or goal?

What is currently happening in China in regard to the amount of children that are allowed… Is this mindless and without purpose or goal?

My wife and I 'decided' to have a child. Is this mindless and without purpose or goal?… OK, I set myself up here so let me instead ask how does it compare to gravity?

216 posted on 06/05/2003 2:33:32 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: unspun
But then why do so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following?:
- God's existence
- God's mastery
- God's creation
- God's immanence in his creation
- God's control, as he chooses
- God's constant involvement in the lives of man
- God's judgement of sinners
211 -Spin-



It is your delusion that -- "so many choose to embrace Evolution as the guiding force of all that is and use it to attempt to obviate any or all of the following".

-- Ranting on and on, over & over that this imaginary opinion is true, does not make it true, in fact..
-- But by all means, continue to do so, if it makes you 'feel' better.
212 -tpaine-

tpaine, tell me:
How did life come to exist?
Are you accountable to anyone for your life?
-- Why or why not?
-unspun-


Sorry kid, but imo, no one knows how life originated. - Yet.
-- Thus, I can hold no gratitude to a supposed 'Creator'.

-- Now, what does my statement have to do with your erroneous beliefs about those who "embace evolution"?
217 posted on 06/05/2003 4:05:13 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The link I gave you should tell you about how feasible paramaters of evolution have been abused.

And speaking of abuse, why are you being so ad hominem?
218 posted on 06/05/2003 4:08:09 PM PDT by unspun ("Do everything in love.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: general_re
without affecting the fact of its existence a whit..

This might be true of that rare impeccable breed of disinterested knowers called Aristotelian. Nowadays the deeper answers are floating visibly at the top as homo sapiens engage the imagination to increase, interrupt, or otherwise disturb gravity in order to render its status as "natural" irrelevant.

219 posted on 06/05/2003 4:23:56 PM PDT by cornelis (ghost of Archimedes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: unspun
The link I gave you should tell you about how feasible paramaters of evolution have been abused.

No, I doubt that it will. You claim abuse, make your case. Preferably, show me some abuse from people here at FR.. Name some names of those banned..

And speaking of abuse, why are you being so ad hominem?

Again, -- it is ~your~ imagination that I'm being 'abusive'. You don't like what I'm saying, - so now you intend to attack the way I'm saying it, rather than the issue itself.

-- The issue is, -- who on FR is abusing these "feasible paramaters of evolution"?

As I noted at #163:
The 'blind bias' is being shown by Creationists, not scientists.. ~You~ people imagine that separating "science and spirit into mutually exclusive categories" is somehow someones goal..
-- Lighten up. No one here has that agenda, to my knowlege.
163 -tpaine-

220 posted on 06/05/2003 4:47:47 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 981-984 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson