Blinded by Science

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

[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.

[cornelis]

In one sense you might be right, dialectical materialism retained a humanism.

[betty boop]

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.
-- Adolph Hitler, creationist

Man, PH, how can you be a sane man and still buy that propaganda? Who the hail do you think wrote Hitler's book? Do you believe a single word he ever said? Why should you believe him here? Pul-eeeze -- Wake. Up.

[cherry_bomb88]

But to believe in evolution, you must believe the earth is millions of years old which contradicts the teachings of the Bible, unless your reasoning goes along the lines of the seven days could have been more like millions of years based on the scripture that time to us is like the blink of an eye for God. That was my dad's justification for how both existed.

[unspun]

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?

I think he would, just like so many Materialists and evolutionists, have to give God more space. It's all his story, afterall, not ours, so when He with the vast and unfathomable mind speaks things to us (or dictates or gives people concepts to write in their words) we need to be careful not to engage in eisegesis, while we're attempting a faithful exegesis. As with all truth (which is God's truth) we need to humble ourselves, to take either nipple or spoon, and grow up from there in that truth. Fortunately, one who does humble oneself and as for the truth is granted tne passionate attention of God's Spirit.

I do think in this case that he would have to rethink his concept of how God did what he did, if he believes God's days are exactly like our days, and especially while taking the Logos in the context of the whole Logos, including this (link to audio provided in case you like me get tired of reading --although I think you're a lawyer;-` the whole chapter is very much worth the read and applicable):

2 Peter 3 :: New International Version (NIV)
Listen to this  Printer-Friendly Page See this passage in  Previous chapter | This chapter | Next chapter

2 Peter 3


The Day of the Lord

¹Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. ²I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
³First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. ⁴They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." ⁵But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. ⁶By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ⁷By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
⁸But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ⁹The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.^[1]
11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives ¹²as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.^[2] That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. ¹³But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
¹⁴So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. ¹⁵Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. ¹⁶He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
¹⁷Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. ¹⁸But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Footnotes

1. 3:10 Some manuscripts be burned up
2. 3:12 Or as you wait eagerly for the day of God to come

© Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
All rights reserved worldwide

Previous chapter | This chapter | Next chapter

[Tribune7]

good answer

[unspun]

Sorry...
Fortunately, one who does humble oneself and asks for the truth is granted tne passionate attention of God's Spirit.

[balrog666]

The Bible is not the only holy book in this world and not the only creation fable in mythology.

[edsheppa]

And if I reduce you down to your constituent chemicals, what do you expect that I will find that you are composed of?

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of composition?

So which is it - structure, or function?

I guess you don't know what isomorphism is. Look it up then you'll understand the relationship of structure and function in this context.

when fire oxidizes fuel to produce energy, it's similar to when cells use the citric acid cycle to oxidize fuel

True, there is some similarity, but isn't it the case that ordinary combustion is a far simpler process than the citric acid cycle? One obvious dissimilarity is that the latter involves a cycle and the former does not. And aren't there some ten steps in the cycle while combustion is one step that reacts a heated fuel and oxygen?

[Phaedrus]

Thank you for your long explanation at 419. I agree that there is much to know of a technical nature that I don't. But when it comes to communicating Evolution to the layman, there is so much in the way of unwarranted assertions, unfounded conclusions, sophistry and flat misrepresentation that I don't trust any of it. I don't think the biologists really have clue and that they're making it up for popular consumption. For example, the chief popular proponents of Evolution are/were Dawkins, the Atheist First, and Gould, the Sophist.

Facts are simple things and can be communicated in simple ways. The facts in the forms of the fossil record and lab results do not support Evolution's major claims. I simply throw out its overreaching claims, such as abiogenesis.

[Phaedrus]

Let me back away from the blanket statement that Nihilism and Atheism kill. These structures of belief open the door to mass murder. And "survival of the fittest" leads to "might makes right".

Athists are not natural born killers. I don't think anyone is. But atheists are, at minimum, glaringly wrong. Nonetheless an apology is given herewith if anyone feels one is needed.

[balrog666]

Nonetheless an apology is given herewith if anyone feels one is needed.

Well, I knew that asking for one wouldn't work.

[unspun]

If Hitler and Goebles had a trainging manual: "Promise her anything... but give her me and my occult driven master race."

Also, from the Asimov mockery of Christians thread:

To: PatrickHenry

There are many interesting hypotheses and theories about how the universe got just where it is today.

There are also many kinds of bigots.

I just posted this in a thread debunking the false claims that the Vatican and Hitler were buddies. But fans of Asimov's writing here may actually find comraderie with Hitler's sources (well, aside maybe from the occultists) so I'll post it here, too:

Hitler and the occult:
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual3/chap09.html
http://www.dropbears.com/b/broughsbooks/military/occult_nazism.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7069/hitler.html
http://logosresourcepages.org/hitler.html

Hitler and Social Darwinism (socialism combined with eugenics and racism):
http://www.toolan.com/hitler/fuhrer.html
http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm
http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~wmills/course203/8Racism.html
http://www.gennet.org/metro15.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4871/Darwin.html

Hitler and Nietzsche:
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Nietzsche.html
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/nietzsche.html
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/nietzsche/nietzsche.html
http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Reference_Links/Reinventing_Nietzsche.htm
http://www.needham.k12.ma.us/high_school/cur/Baker_00/baker_1800_soc/baker_jw_gg_p3/friedrich.htm

Finally, I suggest this book/documentary, about how such evils grow in cultures....
http://www.rationalpi.com/theshelter/live.html
http://www.freemedia.org/videos/howshouldwe.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0891072926/ref=ase_rationalpi/002-0567108-0640019
232 posted on 02/16/2003 2:08 PM CST by unspun (After the beginning, the people God created ate the forbidden fruit & called themselves enlightened.)

[unspun]

Reference of above:

232 posted on 02/16/2003 2:08 PM CST by unspun (After the beginning, the people God created ate the forbidden fruit & called themselves enlightened.)

[tpaine]

Why do you feel that socialism, agreed to be our common enemy, is fed by evolutionary theory?
If anything, I find that some of the more communal aspects of some religions are more akin to the socialistic agenda, than any stretch of dog eat dog theory.

Great question, tpaine. For one thing, socialism deals with man only "in the mass" -- justified in this principle by Darwinist theory, which deals with him only at the species level.

The theory is not supposed to 'deal with man' politically, as is socialism. Thus, you make a inane, even illogical anology. A straw man construct.

That is, it has zero regard for individuals (or of individual outcomes or "fates") other than as members of a class. Which effectively means: the individual is of concern to neither, for all practical purposes.

Now you knock down the illogical straw man ou constructed.
- Sorry Betty, but your concluding words are nonsensical babble, for all practical purposes.

Darwinist theory feeds socialist theory its core principles in many others ways, just like momma bird feeding her chick. For instance, its "survival of the fittest" has been bastardized into "the class struggle" (as in Marx) or "race purification" (as in Hitler).

Again, you are simply stringing together bafflegab buzzwords, tarring evolutionary theory as a political agenda, with no real facts evident that back you up. This is not logic, it is a type of agit-prop tactic.

Its "natural selection" puts blind chance (crudely put, luck) in charge of outcomes, not rational choice or personal morality. It justifies force, conflict, struggle as proper ways for man to ensure his survival, rather than negotiation and rational compromise. Man is never let free of his supposed status as a wild beast, who must "kill or be killed." In fact, neither "Darwinian" materialism or socialism has any room or rationale for human freedom at all.

Quite the neat little opinionated rant. No factual, logical basis to it however..

Now in an all fairness, Darwin probably had none of this in view when he was developing his theory. But an idea whose time has come (in terms of broad, popular receptivity) gathers momentum and takes on a life all its own. Especially if some of the greatest mental manipulators of all times are constantly nursing it along (to their own advantage, of course). Well, them be my views, tpaine. FWTW

Sorry Betty, it's not worth all the time you put into composing it, imo.

You have a real talent for rhetorically fancy footwork, but there is no solid punch of fact to back up your opinions, -- or your imaginings..

I asked for logical reasons why you see this theory as a threat.
You responded with great emotion. - Thanks.

[Phaedrus]

Balrog, if you're going to insult me, the least you could do is exercise a little wit.

[cherry_bomb88]

The Bible is not the only holy book in this world and not the only creation fable in mythology.

Impassioned pagan/WICCA arguments are not a logical way to win your debate. Funny, evolution is supposed to be founded (so say the evolutionist) in logic and reason, not emotion...it appears to me your "beliefs" in evolution have become impassioned to the point where it IS a religion.

I'm very well read in mythology as I was a literature major, I loved the stories of Greek mythology...however, the more I study of mythology, the longer I live and the more God has done for me in my life, the more I study theology and the world, the more I believe in the Bible.

Keep your illogical attacks out of a logical discussion, you are not making your side look any better.

[betty boop]

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?

General, I assume it was you said this. The above is pure nonsense. The Bible itself never gave a definition of "day." Therefore, whatever time unit "day" may refer to in Holy Scriptures, it is not nailed down as "law." Meaning: We are free to speculate as to what "day" means as a temporal frame.

Lest we get too carried away with this problem I think we shouldn't forget that God does not operate within the time order that is familiar to humans. He is outside the space-time order altogether. So when God says "Day", how in hail would we humans have any idea what that means to Him?

Certainly, this does not appear to be a problem worthy of bleeding and dying over, for Heaven's sake.

Why would anyone have to rethink his conception of God over a mere quibble like this?

[balrog666]

Balrog, if you're going to insult me, the least you could do is exercise a little wit.

Why is it always about you??

[general_re]

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of composition?

I'm only working with what you've given me thus far. You said structure was what matters. So, let's look at the structure of what you eat and see if it's really less "complex" than you are. I'm betting you don't content yourself with protein gruel, and hence, it isn't. Of course, your steak is (we hope) no longer "alive" - it's function is now to be food for something else. Someday you and I will be functionally equivalent to the steak, in that respect ;)

I guess you don't know what isomorphism is. Look it up then you'll understand the relationship of structure and function in this context.

I'm familiar with it, in both the biological and mathematical senses. You said structure matters, so 100,000,000 identical transistors didn't form a complex, living whole - but then, neither do 100,000,000 million structurally identical people. Then you said function matters, so I pointed out that the Krebs cycle and a burning log were functionally equivalent. Now you appear to be saying that if we define something as alive, and find something both structurally and functionally similar, we can call that alive as well. But you said that people aren't functionally the same, or functionally similar enough, anyway - so even though I am alive, and you appear to be structurally similar, I can't say that you're alive by this process you seem to be developing.

Look, I'm not really pursuing all this as a serious argument - I'm merely suggesting that this whole "alive" versus "not alive" thing is a bit more complex than it might appear to be at first blush...

True, there is some similarity, but isn't it the case that ordinary combustion is a far simpler process than the citric acid cycle? One obvious dissimilarity is that the latter involves a cycle and the former does not. And aren't there some ten steps in the cycle while combustion is one step that reacts a heated fuel and oxygen?

Agreed. But then we have to ask ourselves, what is this magic level of complexity, above which something is "alive", and below which, it is not? How complex is complex enough to be alive?

[balrog666]

Keep your illogical attacks out of a logical discussion, you are not making your side look any better.

It was not an attack, it was a correction so that you could improve your posts in the future.