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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! Hugs and *smooches* always!

I agree with you on the types 1, 2 and 3 among the religious. However, type 3 conduct by someone who claims to be Christian ought to challenged with the following passage - because it may indicate a failure to love, and sometimes we need a reminder:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. - Matthew 22:37-40

I agree that the type 3 is the most difficult. The noise factor alone is disruptive to those who came to learn and share.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Great science is one thing. It's also independent of the individual's belief in the unreal. When the scientist starts to permit his belief in the unreal and other irrational preconceptions intrude into his field of study, he finds that his effectiveness is reduced. Enter Einstein's dogmatic refusal to accept the random nature of quantum mechanics. His religious bigotry prevented him from accepting what is now recognized as one of the facts of physics.

Tell me - when a rabbit chews, does it "appear" that it is chewing a cud?

Regardless of what it "appears" to be doing, it is actually copraphagic and whoever wrote that chapter...oh wait, God wrote it, didn't he?...wrote in error. Yes, I know about hygiene...because of 4000 years (actually about 200 years) of technical advancement. And I eat crustaceans as often as possible. They're called shrimp and lobster, and it's a mystery why God would forbid people to eat the most delicious animals on the planet. If God really didn't want people to eat lobsters, he should have made them taste terrible. But there it is, in the Bible, that we're not supposed to have delicious food.

Like I said, rather than ignorance-based prohibitions on eating certain foods, God could have told them, since he was in a telling mood, how to clean and cook meat properly. But since Man wrote the Bible, from ignorance to ignorance, simple things like "cook until it isn't pink inside" aren't mentioned.

If I remember, the death penalty is part of "statutes" I'd have to do more of your homework than needed to call it up. What's wrong with mixing plaids and stripes, anyway? I didn't realize God was a fashion critic.

And there's a hell of a lot of uncertainty whether Liebniz stole from Newton, or whether Newton stole from Liebniz. The fact is that we use Liebniz' notation when writing derivatives because it is simpler than what Newton came up with. Also, the definition of the limit wasn't clear at the time, so much of what Newton did with the calculus wasn't done with the mathematical rigor expected in later times.

I have a lot of respect for Newton, and for other scientists, including many you probably haven't heard of. But I'm also able to seperate their religion from their accomplishments, since the two issues are seperate.

BTW, e-mail me and I'll tell you where to send your paycheck. I'd prefer it if you sent one that includes a recent bonus or raise. Of course I've read the Bible. I spent a week or two as a self-deluded born-again Christian type. Then vacation was over and I woke up.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

BTW: What you have failed to show is how the men on the list needed their religion to establish their greatness. That's a tough job, since scientists become effective only insofar as they're able to advance materialistic explanations for observed natural phenomena. "Scientists" that rely on magic or religion to explain what they see soon vanish from the public scene.

[exmarine]

You didn't answer one of my points (does the sun go down or not?!) - just more assertions that you can't support. I'm tired of this futility. One final point - one invented differential calculus and the other integral calculus. The only dispute is which one came up with calculus first.

BTW, e-mail me and I'll tell you where to send your paycheck. I'd prefer it if you sent one that includes a recent bonus or raise. Of course I've read the Bible. I spent a week or two as a self-deluded born-again Christian type. Then vacation was over and I woke up.

More deprecation of Christianity...it's people like you that motivate me! Oooh-rah! If you read the bible, then you are familiar with 1Cor 2:14 - go read it - it explains why you are the way you are.

[exmarine]

"Scientists" that rely on magic or religion to explain what they see soon vanish from the public scene.

I'm sure Newton and Pasteur would be glad to hear that. Nowadays, they do vanish because the high priests of religious darwinism see to it. Your religious zeal is quite apparent.

[unspun]

The noise factor....

A couple caveats-?, disclaimers-?:

1. It's too bad that the word "fundamentalism" got corrupted from meaning a concentration on the foundational, into being byword for every harmful zealot around and many who are not harmful at all. (There is something of a 'Dirridic' derision here to, it seems, as well as repulsive behavior by some 'fundamentalists.')

2. I tend to think it's good to have the mutual respect to allow one another to spout not only information but some honest emotion --as well as the respect to prevent either from being abusive. But then, I come from a big family.

...eh?

[Heartlander]

"…before Copernicus developed the heliocentric model of our solar system, most scientists believed that the planets and the sun revolved around the earth. Yet many astronomers of the time noticed that planets sometimes exhibited "retrograde motion" where they would temporarily move backwards in circular paths, unpredicted by the geocentric theory. This, according to geocentrists, was the result of "epicycles" where planets not only revolved around the earth, but also around a central point along their orbital path. An epicycle was therefore an additional explanation used to resolve inconsistencies between the scientific data and predictions from the now-falsified geocentric model of the solar system. Had these astronomers had a different sun-centered theory of the solar system, they would have quickly realized that these "retrograde epicycles" were merely the result of the earth's annual orbit around the sun."

"In the same way, proponents of naturalistic theories of descent now develop "epicycle-like" explanations to resolve apparently falsifying data. While descent hypotheses could potentially be falsified by this data, these "auxiliary hypotheses" (i.e. punctuated equilibrium, miraculous genetic duplications and co-optations, lateral gene transfer, hopeful lack of data) do serve to preserve the original theory of descent. However, in the process, they force the primary claims of common descent, namely the fact that all organisms are related through ancestry and evolved by mutation and selection, into an unfalsifiable position."

"In his book, Kuhn notes that a theory in "crisis" will develop such auxiliary hypotheses to save the core tenets of the theory. As seen in the geocentrism example, false hypotheses can survive for hundreds of years before enough "quirks" in the data develop to force some scientists to look elsewhere. However Kuhn observes that scientists will generally not consider abandoning a paradigm or important theory until they are able to replace it with a new paradigm which can better explain the "quirks" of the old paradigm, "...a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternative candidate is available to take its place."

"Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have known about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution and descent with modification. Yet, they have not abandoned it simply because they say, "it's the best theory we've got". Descent, through these "ad hoc" hypotheses, has been forced into an unfalsifiable position, lest it be falsified. "

JOHANN GREGOR MENDEL: WHY HIS DISCOVERIES WERE IGNORED FOR 35 (72) YEARS

Intelligent Design vs. stupid design

Religion:
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

You seem to have one...

[Dataman]

Let's be honest here.

There are some who classify anyone who believes that God is involved with His creation as a fundamentalist.

There are those who classify disagreement as hate.

There are those who needle and ridicule and mock and bait in order to extract a negative reaction.

There are those who think a Christian should back down from debate like a good milquetoast and let the other guy win.

Sure, Christians aren't perfect, but even the Perfect One had his Pharisees.

[exmarine]

Regardless of what it "appears" to be doing, it is actually copraphagic and whoever wrote that chapter...oh wait, God wrote it, didn't he?...wrote in error. Yes, I know about hygiene...because of 4000 years (actually about 200 years) of technical advancement. And I eat crustaceans as often as possible. They're called shrimp and lobster, and it's a mystery why God would forbid people to eat the most delicious animals on the planet. If God really didn't want people to eat lobsters, he should have made them taste terrible. But there it is, in the Bible, that we're not supposed to have delicious food.

How can we trust anything you say now, you made false claims about the bible (Lev. 19:19) and I caught you. Does the sun go down or not? Does hygiene matter when it comes to food? When are you going to tell me what God meant by "kinds" of animals? Show me where the God condemns women because they are childless. Come on Mr. bible expert - show me what you got!

I spent a week or two as a self-deluded born-again Christian type. Then vacation was over and I woke up.

Luther, Calvin, Witherspoon, Spurgeon, Wesley, etc. spent their WHOLE LIVES studying scripture and you got it down in one week! And to think a mere layman like me has to keep studying it! /sarcasm off

[unspun]

Well, I can't disagree with any of those statements.

[Ten Megaton Solution]

Does the sun go down or not?

Down is generally defined to a unit direction vector pointing in the negative direction of the local gravitational gradient. While it has been known for some time that the sun has it's own intrinsic motion about the center of the galaxy, it's hard to say, without being supplied data regarding the gravitational field in question, whether the sun's motion is "down" or some other direction.

The human parochial view from most places on earth is that sometimes the sun appears on one edge of the horizon, goes "up" ("up" is defined as that direction parallel to the local gravity gradient) and over the ground and subsequently goes "down" at some other point on the viewer's horizon.

The true nature of the sun's apparent path in the Earth's sky is of course only understood when one realizes that the Earth is a somewhat spherical body rotating about a relatively stable axis and revolving in an elliptical orbit about a star we call the "sun" that sits at one focus of that orbit. The apparent motion then becomes clear as a matter of perspective. Absent the anthrocentric and false feeling that the earth is stationary, the Sun doesn't go "up" or "down", it's effectively stationary while the planet the observer is squatting on rotates and revolves about it. Additional and scarcely detectable motions of the sun's apparent path are imparted by nutation in the earth's rotation, and tugs and pulls by the moon, the sun, and other solar system bodies, as well as the non-homogenity of the terrestrial globe.

Is that what you wanted to know when asking if the sun "goes down"?

[Heartlander]

FWIW:
What Really Happens When Fruit Flies Fly?

[unspun]

fundamentalism....

Fun with Words for Friday

Here, boys and girls, let's learn what the word "fundamental" means and what those who adhere to them are, from dictionary.com, red+bold is mine:

fun·da·men·tal     P   Pronunciation Key  (f n d -m n tl)
adj.

1. 1. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the fundamental laws of the universe.
   2. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central: an example that was fundamental to the argument.
   3. Of great significance or entailing major change: a book that underwent fundamental revision.
2. Physics.
   1. Of or relating to the component of lowest frequency of a periodic wave or quantity.
   2. Of or relating to the lowest possible frequency of a vibrating element or system.
3. Music. Having the root in the bass: a fundamental chord.

fun·da·men·tal·ism     P   Pronunciation Key  (f n d -m n tl- z m)
n.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2. 1. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
   2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

mil·i·tant     P   Pronunciation Key  (m l -t nt)
adj.

1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

n.  

A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

...shifting to "Thesaurus" here:

Entry:	combative
Function:	adjective
Definition:	aggressive
Synonyms:	antagonistic, bellicose, belligerent, bitchy, cantankerous, contentious, cussed, energetic, fire-eater, gladiatorial, hawkish, manly, militant, ornery, pugnacious, quarrelsome, scrappy, strenuous, truculent, warlike, warring
Antonyms:	agreeable, compromising, pacifistic, passive, peaceful
Concept:	behavior (bad)
Source:	Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0) Copyright © 2003 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

And of course, you all know the politically correct word for what being "combative, antagonistic, bitchy, cussed, and... manly is all about, don't you?  Can you say it?

hate     P   Pronunciation Key  (h t)

I knew you could.

From "fundamental: foundational, central" to hate, in just a hop, skip, and a jump.

Well, that's life, with the derida's of the world.  And of course the "classic case" is Evangelical Christians, i.e., those who believe in the revelation of God according to His Son, Jesus the Messiah.

tortoise, just thought I'd point out what conscious (or unconsciously accepted) efforts at eliminating axioms can do, as per betty boops post about Derrida last evening, etc.

[betty boop]

Great science is one thing. It's also independent of the individual's belief in the unreal.

But TMS, I must protest -- whut the hail does this passage mean? Where: "Belief" is impugned at the outset. "Unreal" is left undefined, as are "science" and even "great." [Not to mention "one."] Sounds like the makings of a field day for an idiot.

Of course, I could just be "missing" some critical piece of information that could make all these elements cohere, to reconcile and make sense of all of the above. If that's the case, then please do clue me in, with my thanks and gratitude.

[betty boop]

Dear Alamo-Girl, methinks your "taxonomy of atheism" is spot-on. I bow to your wisdom in this.

[unspun]

Yes, and as PH points out, it has many uses, does it not? And of course I'm not picking on you AG for the use of the very unfortunately popularized term, "fundamentalist."

[Kudsman]

Amazingly, I know who the girls' mother is. I know that's quite an accomplishment in modern America, but I do.

Thank you for responding. On my ride home I weighed what your possible responses would be. If you chose to respond, I figured you could answer along 4 different lines. Firstly the way you did. (And the one I was expecting, although I did wish the term wife would be in there.) I am glad you did because this shows that unlike HK you recognize some level of indebtedness to something/someone for your good fortune.

Secondly you could have said (and rightly so also) that you thank yourself. Yes it still takes two (+1) for us humans.

Thirdly, you could have madly said No-one. This would have been wrong IMO and the one I really prayed you wouldn't say.

Lastly, you could have righteously proclaimed that you thank __________!(insert your term for the Original Scientist, mine is God.) So in my mind there is hope for you yet grasshopper.

The one I personally thank FWIW is The One. As in 1x1x1=1. And 1x6.6billion=6.6billion. But if 1=0 then, 1x6.6billion does not =6.6billion. It equals zero. Therfore 1=something.

It is to that something that I direct my thanks,prayers and Praise Gods. Call me silly if you will, but that something that could create anything as beautiful as my Wife & Children exists and controls eternity tells me thats the team I want to be on. I will pray that your ears are opened and that you hear the good news. Love.

[tpaine]

Heres a lttle 'clue' for you betty..

--Just as Alamo-Girl wrote, fairly dripping with sarcasm:

Thank you so much for your post! Hugs and *smooches* always!


I agree with you on the types 1, 2 and 3 among the religious.
However, type 3 conduct by someone who claims to be Christian ought to challenged with the following passage - because it may indicate a failure to love, and sometimes we need a reminder:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. - Matthew 22:37-40

I agree that the type 3 is the most difficult. The noise factor alone is disruptive to those who came to learn and share.
-Alamo-girl-

______________________________________


True words. But there's a Catch 22.

--They were written without looking in the mirror.
A bit of soul searching is in order, imo...

[Kudsman]

And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. - Matthew 22:37-40 And I do love You. Its the doubting I don't particularly care for. I apologized in the past for being short with you. I do so again with my only excuse being that there were very emotional extenuating circumstances from the night in question and my mood was foul.

[tpaine]

And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. - Matthew 22:37-40

And I do love You. Its the doubting I don't particularly care for. I apologized in the past for being short with you.
I do so again with my only excuse being that there were very emotional extenuating circumstances from the night in question and my mood was foul.
899 -kudsman-


'Kud', I don't have a inkling about what you're saying above..

I've lived the 'golden rule', -- a form of which you quoted, - for my adult life.
--- I do onto others. Just as my 'loving neighbor' claims to do onto me.
Betty can testify as to some of my 'doing' on this forum.
Your comment that it's my --- "doubting I don't particularly care for" -- mystifies me.
Why would you care that I've been a 'doubting thomas' since puberty?