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.

[Phaedrus]

Oh, balrog, give it a rest. There a good things going on here.

[betty boop]

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

Yet again, tpaine, we see things differently. I hope we can continue to disagree without being disagreeable. God bless you, friend. Good night! -- bb

[general_re]

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.

An eminently sensible answer. In any case, the fault for improper interpretation or improper assignations about God's nature lies solely within those who do it. God is not changed a whit if evolution turns out to be true - the only thing that might have to change is how we think about God. And that's hardly God's fault ;)

[unspun]

I see the drums are beating in the deep and balrog666 arises, even as if to challenge a servant of the secret fire.

Ho hum.

Pay no attention to the image (but take a look at the dude behind the curtain).

[cherry_bomb88]

Pay no attention to the image (but take a look at the dude behind the curtain).

ROTFL!!!

balrog666 is JUST the evolutionist type I was referring to last night when I said that they are only evolutionists so they don't have to have accountability for doing wrong....if they do not believe in God, they do not believe in hell, so therefore they are free to live a sin-filled life without consequences....what a surprise they have waiting for them at the end of their life's journey.

I think that is what makes them so emotional...they have some fear that we *might* actually be right but they don't want to let go of whatever sin they are beholden to.

Nine Inch Nails said it best...."Bow down before the one you serve, you're going to get what you deserve...."

[general_re]

By way of response, I must merely point out that your argument here lies not with me, but with those who insist that a six-day creation means six literal days exactly as we understand them. And I'm sure you know that this is hardly a strawman construct of my own invention - there are plenty of people who insist on the literal truth of every bit of the book of Genesis, right down to six literal 24-hour days of creation. As you excellently point out, such a hyperliteral reading of the book of Genesis is tendentious at best, and I have little choice to agree with you on this point.

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?

Alas, some folks are just not as eminently sensible as you, BB, and have invested a great deal in what you rightly call a "quibble" - to them, it is far from a trivial matter, for some reason. And thus they are forced into the increasingly uncomfortable position of choosing between their literal reading and the evidence of their eyes. Abandoning such a reading seems like the sensible thing to do, but that means rethinking one's conception of what the nature of God is - and people tend to find that difficult for one reason or another...

[unspun]

...the fault for improper interpretation or improper assignations about God's nature lies solely within those who do it. God is not changed a whit if evolution turns out to be true - the only thing that might have to change is how we think about God. And that's hardly God's fault ;)

Well we could all split up and tell all involved the differences then, between what we can derive from science and what we can gain from the one who gave us all our means to understand truth (including the way more important than even science: relation with Word and Spirit).

We can also take a deep satisfying breath (hey, just like Adam did) and realize that nothing will fundamentally change how we think about God, where we are faithful to think of what the God of integrity and revelation tells us about Himself.

I'm pinging balrog666 here too, for the enjoyment.

[tpaine]

No the 'rub' is that you believe the theory is somehow a threat to you. -- Why?

How can a theory that has been refuted by both fact and logic be a threat to me? And it is the Darwinists who behave as though threatened (name calling, jeering, Creationist-bashing etc.).

I asked for a logical answer. I see you cannot comply.

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, granted. They have a reason. There is no reason to lie for a theory. You imagine one.

Beyond those who without much thought feel they must defend "the scientific mainstream", there is an Atheist agenda at work AND, as shown by the 20th Century, Nihilism and Atheism kill. I thus oppose the "theory".
Let me back away from the blanket statement that Nihilism and Atheism kill. These structures of belief open the door to mass murder.

~Hype~. Any fanatical belief can lead to mass murder.
Evolutionary theorists are not fanatics, [most could care less what individuals believe, imo.]; -- but groups of zealots prove the opposite to be true..

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.

Your zealous, almost fanatical convictions are apparent.
Heed the words of a wise man:

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion."
-Arthur Koestler-

[unspun]

Ya gotta serve somebody, yes indeed ya gotta s-e-e-r-r-r-ve somebody....
B. Dylan

You can take your diamonds and lock them in your room,
and you will loose everything you save.
You can take your flowers and lay them on his tomb,
but I know he rose up from the grave....
L. Norman

[spunkets]

"millions of years based on the scripture that time to us is like the blink of an eye for God"

That's right. God didn't write any science in that book that I know of. His teachings are of Himself, His moral code and the nature of man and in all of it, I have never found a contradiction. All else is irrelevant. They are the things of this world that we were told not to fret over. God never decieves, so if you see something in this world, not only did God create it, it is exactly what it is. So if the Universe looks like it's billions of years old, it is.

He said that the only sign He would give is that of the resurrection. So the original gift of life, becomes eternal life. The key here is how much do you love yourself, your children and others, to make sure their lives are eternal as God hoped. There are those that never knew God, but will have eternal life and those that reject the Holy Spirit, that will not have it. God, the Holy Spirit is the one that told us about Himself in the Bible.

It's not what men tell you that's important, it's what the Holy Spirit tells you that is. In an earlier post, I said the brain is the machinery of the mind. It can also function as a transreciever. IOWs it's like a radio that can recieve revelation from the Holy Spirit. That's how it was done with Jesus, the prophets and everyone else. The details of mechanics aren't important, just that it occurs as God said it did and would.

In Genesis it is written that God created the Universe out of the void. The void is empty space, or vaccuum. Physics tells us this space is loaded with energy. The presence of that energy can even be measured. Still it can't be used, by anyone in this world. That energy and the structure therein is what causes and limits the speed of light to be constant and have it's particular value.

The world has these things to consider, so they can never say, "you're crazy, that's just supernatural hogwash" with certainty. His teachings of Himself, His moral code and the nature of man, that is all that's important.

[cherry_bomb88]

I'm pinging balrog666 here too, for the enjoyment.

Antagonizer!!!!!! ROTFL

Here's the thing, unspun, even IF they turned out to be right (which I KNOW they aren't) I will have lived a better life full of truth and morals.

Want to come play Literati with the sultan and me in a bit????

[cherry_bomb88]

spunky, you remind me of my dad.

You are not the kind of evolutionist for which my disdain grows daily. ;o)

[balrog666]

I'm pinging balrog666 here too, for the enjoyment

Over here! See the dancing balrog! Only 10 cents a show ...

The only point I tried to make was that everytime you start getting Bibical on the thread (or blaming every past ill of communism and socialism on Darwin's little book), a great many people will tune out and for obvious reasons.

And, if I may suggest it, if your ONLY argument is to try to whack someone on the head with your holy book, I think you need to find another way to express your opinion.

[spunkets]

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

LOL! The nature of man.

[spunkets]

Thanks.

[unspun]

In case bb is busy, g_r, please be invited to tell us what you're thinking regarding a believer's thoughts of the nature of God being changed. I can see a change in one's understanding of the history of how God has interacted with creation until breathing spiritual life into the nostrils of Adam. From that point onward, we have much more specific information, though the principles of Biblical interpretation hold fast.

[unspun]

Literati?

[cherry_bomb88]

You have FReep Mail!

[unspun]

...sigh

Has it ever occured to you that multiple contradicting testimonies don't necessarily rule out one of the testimonies (although they rule out all but one)?

But, I don't tend to whack people over the head with God's Holy Book; could hurt the binding. I love sharing its truths though.

cb, are you telling me you aren't watching the Cubs beat the Yankees on ESPN?

[sultan88]

Thanks for the ping. Looks like an interesting thread. Bumping for later reading.