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. |
Sultan must be watching while we're getting ready to play.
That was not directed at you specifically but at all of you generally.
Once again General, I find myself speaking to you through the indirection of unspuns's cite of you.
If evolution "turned out to be true," then it must have been because it was God's choice of method, not man's. Don't forget, man is only "part and participant." As such, he can never constitute, specify, or determine the whole of which he is part and participant. You need God for that. If you care about Truth at all, that is.
I am well aware of that, General. The knowledge thereof does not exactly make me leap for joy.
Well, the "populist take" on Darwinist evolution forces one into an identical position. With all due respect, General.
This is true, balrog666. But one hopes that mankind can gain by experience and practice in this world, such that he can articulate better understanding of the Truth of God as he goes along. That is, as he gains in experience, insight, and understanding. I think that sort of thing comes under the "law" of evolution, too.
Don't forget you have the great Greeks and Christianity to thank for laying the bases of modern science. Mankind has progressed quite a bit from these origins, and on these foundations -- wouldn't you agree?
FWIW.
The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.
Of course, we are still a long, long way from scientific verification of evolution, whether Erasmus' or Charles' or anyone's. (And if whatever kind of evolution becomes demonstrable, it would be someone else's more well-rounded theory set, not these men's broad-brush hypotheses.)
BTW, bb, (PH would get a kick out of this) wasn't Charles' daddy an alchemist? --into the occult, this family?
Mmmmm. Perhaps I should clarify - I'm not at all sure that changing one's understanding of God's nature is necessary, but it is difficult to avoid changing our understanding of the nature of God's interaction with the physical world. Perhaps the story of Genesis is intended to fulfill different functions at different times. Everyone seeks answers about where they came from, and why they're here, and so Genesis provides comfort to a comparatively simple people with a story of their beginnings in terms that they can understand. But then, as we gradually spread our own wings and begin to explore the wondrousness of the universe, we still see Genesis as valuable for its deeper meaning, illustrating as it does the nature of good and evil, and of God's love for his people. The story doesn't change in the interim, and God doesn't change, but our understanding of its significance changes as our understanding of the nature of God's universe changes. I don't think it's beyond the pale to suggest that God is perfectly capable of tailoring His message to His audience - Genesis provides a simple and understandable tale to a simple people, and a deeper meaning to sophisticated, worldly people like us.
It was passages like this that convinced me that Wolfram doesn't have a very good understanding of biology.
As per the Bible, more meaningful than the issue of "literal" reading vs. what is seen, is the issue of the contextual and Spirit conveyed regard of the truth vs. what is seen. In the case of the latter conflict, the former condition trumps.
So it would appear.
Don't forget, man is only "part and participant." As such, he can never constitute, specify, or determine the whole of which he is part and participant. You need God for that. If you care about Truth at all, that is.
Alas again - Truth-with-a-capital-T does not appear to be in the offing in this life. Until we are provided with a glimpse of it, all of our explanations are doomed to remain ad hoc explanations, subject to revision and expansion as necessary - including the story of our origins, and the story of who we think God is. Not what God is, but who we think God is, in our limited and imperfect way.
How old do you believe the Earth is?
...which is not necessary, whether he had it or not, for all I know. Life without the will to live on some level is pretty lifeless, as are the tenets of evolution, of course. Will ex nihilo is quite the paradox. Think science will solve that one?
Think Commander Data knows?
Why, BB - I do believe you're just as dismayed as I am at the number of people on both sides who seem hell-bent on setting faith and reason in opposition ;)
Well, the "populist take" on Darwinist evolution forces one into an identical position.
Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm familiar with the "populist take". Can you elaborate a bit?
By the time it gets to the gut, isn't that pretty much what it is? In fact we need bacteria to break stuff down to the point that it can be used by our bodies.
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... How complex is complex enough to be alive?
Agreed, alive vs. not alive isn't as simple as just a question of complexity if you'll excuse the pun. But we shouldn't consider it just a question of biology either. There is a structure (actually several) to life independent of any given realization.
The question of how complex is interesting. I recall reading that a theoretical minimal cellular genome would need some hundreds of genes. Granted that some cellular structure is also required, but even so that's not very complex.
On the flip side, there may be a maximal complexity to life. Beyond a certain level of complexity, systems would appear patternless to us, one could justifiably call them random. I don't think we'd consider such a thing alive.
But you said that people aren't functionally the same ... 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.
I don't think I'm being that unclear. In the context of IBM employment, people are different in essential ways - they do different things, have different skills. This is completely unrelated to comparing them structurally as living organisms, then they are essentially the same - heart maps to heart, lung to lung, brain to brain and so on. So in comparing IBM to a CPU, it's the differences between people that count, not their similarities. And in that context, the people and other components of IBM come together in far more and more complex ways than the transistors and lines on a silicon chip.
And there is so much that has been related to us of this, that what the willing don't know won't hurt ultimately hurt us. (Of course that requires decision and faith.) Here again, that deep, satisfying breath....
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.