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. |
Depends on what you mean by "needs Darwinism". Except in light of the theory of evolution, there is no rationally accessible explanation for why mitochondria have their own DNA.
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?"
In that case, I think will need some specific examples of what you have in mind before I can begin to formulate an answer for you.
Thank you for relating these facts and your perspectives. It's good that at least those scientists are scientific enough to record their results, even when they drop them in order to go on with what supports theories of and hopes for spontaneous transitions.
I'm going to take my mother to the stores now.
Besides, I think we've made our points in this thread, well enough. Think so? There's still a bit of a weekend out there for me.
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?
Is the book of Genesis literally true? Some folks think it is - I suspect that they will have little choice but to rethink what they mean by "God the Creator", or be forced to simply ignore the ever-evolving truth. If it turns out that belief in the book of Genesis as a literal account of creation is not tenable, is that God's fault? Or theirs?
I agree, Phaedrus. For one thing, the "law" of natural selection explains that species select for the fitness required to survive the negative impacts of environmental change. What the law seems to overlook, however, is that a certain species -- that would be man -- shapes the environment in turn by his decisions and behavior. One might say that man affects his environment about as much as he is affected by it. Certainly the cultural effects of "social[ized] Darwinism" indicated in my earlier reply would be cases in point.
I find it interesting that Erasmus Darwin, Charles' father, articulated another insight in his own work on a theory of evolution. He maintained, not so much that man to some extent "determines" his environment in the sense indicated above, but that human fitness increases, not as a result of blind chance, but because a man can will, and has the capacity, to change in order to adjust to environmental change.
It's easy to see why C. Darwin's theory "succeeded" while E. Darwin's theory "failed": The former was far more in sympathy with materialist opinion -- which was the regnant doctrine of the 19th century (and seemingly still is in many quarters) -- and the latter was not.
So I'm not the first person to doubt that "natural selection" is the only driver of evolution. Stephen Wolfram recently suggested another supplementary idea, and got his head handed to him....
It is actually true in its context. When Christians believe other things than the way God in his integrity meant the truth to be literally related to man, yes, they need to rethink.
However, God being far trickier and not only all powerful (expressed however He as chosen in this universe of limits) but all subtle, the jury is still out as to how all actually got here and that includes any theory of evolution as well as any other theory (and we haven't even come up with a systematic working theory, so it's best to say it isn't even a matter of testing our theory at present --likely to me it will never be). Even then, one must ask the question, "Got here from our perspective, or from His?"
What things God can do in what can be related by the word "day," for example, is unfathomable for us, especially when he can operate on the natural world from outside of its natural limitations.
Goodness & wellness
I think we're talking past each other a bit. An honest investigation into the origins and development of life is what produced the theory of evolution in its current form. You already have what you're asking for, in the form of evolution.
...vs. Charles Darwin's Darwinism, which the "intellectual community" has taken up and run out of the stadium of reason with, in order to shield themselves against God.
But as you say, the two are not the same, and one has nothing to do with the other. The fact that some have taken the theory of evolution and perverted it for their own purposes has nothing to do with the theory itself, and especially has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of biological evolution.
There is no such thing as a process of bringing man about that did not have His intention. To tell people otherwise is both an attempt to lie against God and to murder the person.
So then you would agree that someone who thinks that a "day" in Genesis can only mean a literal 24-hour day, precisely as we understand "day" to mean to us, might have to rethink his conception of God if such a literal interpretation turns out to be contradicted by the evidence around us?
Yes, this is the very point that's so often evaded here. Sometimes I wonder whether Charles Darwin himself, if were alive today, would approve of the usages to which his thought has been put by the ensuing generations.
As the story goes, Charles never read his father's book on evolution until very late in life, long after Erasmus had passed away. He is said to have expressed satisfaction, even delight, in the fact that he and his father's works were so very similar on key points.
But in our generation, Erasmus's theory is rejected out of hand. Still, I think the issues he raised are quite serious ones and worthy of fair consideration. Why is this so resisted?
Well, yes of course - that was my original point. I'd say if there is an isomorphism (of some reasonably high level of precision) between system S1 performing process P1 to another system S2 doing process P2 and we classify S1 as alive then S2 should also be so classified. It is the structure that is important.
it's entirely accurate and fair to describe a volcanic eruption as a "process",
Again yes, but it is a very simple process. Not much more complex really than the hydrologic cycle.
My CPU has more transistors than IBM has employees - is it alive, based solely on its complexity?
100,000,000 transistors all the same isn't complex. Granted that's an exaggeration (they're not all the same) but not a large one. The CPU would fail other criteria too. For example, it can't process without an environment of complexity similar to itself while living things maintain themselves by metabolizing simple inputs.
You keep making these false claims even though you have been corrected before. If you cannot even state evolutionary theory correctly, the rest of your posts become suspect.
I don't focus on biology much. All I can say about this is that insertions and deletions in the DNA of progeny lead to new structure and function though the aciton of the new proteins created. There is also redundancy and a repair process that takes place to maintain the integraty of the DNA code. When I normally look at these things it's in reference to human immunology and in that case it's limited to gaining a general understanding. In that field there is even rearrangement of DNA that is involved in distinguishing between self and other. Most of it I have forgotten(CRS).
As far as stating it in plain language. That can't be done. As far as simplistic explainations go, some fair ones can be found on the web. As far as bio and med knowledge on the web though, I've discovered it's extremely lacking, or theirs a steep charge. Realistically the only way to get a grasp on these things is to read a good text. The amount of data and processes is fantastically huge and you'd need a solid grasp of chemistry to understand it. I can only recommend a text: Biochemistry, 2ed. by Voet and Voet from Wiley. In general Wiley and Saunders are publishers of excellent texts written by authors that understand the material very well to present it in a very well organized fashion. I'm sure my cell bio text is outdated, so...
spunkets said: Your statement indicates you are not familiar with molecular biology and the mechanics of genetics. If you were, you would not have said that.
"You must realize that this is an appeal to authority, an approach that I reject. Again, please state the case in plain language. The physicists do it all the time.
I'm not an authority, just someone that's been there. Perhaps there is someone who is an authority, but that someone could only give a summary of facts and conclusions. That summary wouldn't give the insight that's needed to understand it. It is truely a time consuming endeavor to do that, it takes many years. Just to make sure you know I'm still focusing on the processes that lead to evolution-simple genetics won't give you the whole story. You have to be able to visualize the whole, not just the DNA. Otherwise your just taking the conclusions and claims of an expert.
If it was a physics ?, I could probably give a short answer. Questions in biology though involve complex and extended interactions. They can be simple, but are lengthy in scope. If anyone is really serious about making an educated decision on whether evolution actually happened and continues to do so, they really would have to study the real mat'l, it won't be found on the web, popularized books, or in a short time. Without that effort though, it can't be dismissed out of hand.
Let's see. The citric acid cycle oxidizes fuel and produces energy, fire oxidizes fuel and produces energy, therefore if cells are alive, fire is alive. Additionally, the simplicity of the combustion process suggests that fire is an evolutionary precursor to more complex oxidizers like cells. ;)
100,000,000 transistors all the same isn't complex. Granted that's an exaggeration (they're not all the same) but not a large one.
How about: "100,000,000 transistors people all the same isn't complex. Granted that's an exaggeration (they're not all the same) but not a large one." So I guess any aggregate collection of people, like, say, IBM, isn't that complex either.
The CPU would fail other criteria too. For example, it can't process without an environment of complexity similar to itself while living things maintain themselves by metabolizing simple inputs.
Unless you're synthesizing your own food from CO2 and sunlight, I suspect that your inputs are at least as chemically complex as you are. And your environment too ;)
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.