XI. What the Experts Have to Say
Dogmas
and taboos may be suitable for religion,
but they have no place in science. No theory or viewpoint should ever become
sacrosanct because experience tells us that even the most elegant Laws of
Nature ultimately succumb to the inexorable progress of scientific thinking and
technological innovation. The
present debate over Darwinism will be more productive if it takes place in
recognition of the fact that scientific advances are made not by canonizing our
predecessors but by creating intellectual and technical opportunities for our
successors.
James A. Shapiro, “A Third Way”
(1997)
The
significance of these findings was huge and sparked a complete reappraisal
of developmental theory. It would be
hard to over-emphasize the magnitude of such a game-changing breakthrough; in
their wildest imaginings, no biologist would ever have considered that such a
disparate array of organisms could share virtually identical genes—not to
mention these genes having been conserved for hundreds of millions of years.
It’s not often that the results of a new scientific discovery are so stunning
and completely unanticipated. But evolutionary biology was in need of a good
shake-up.
The staunch
neo-Darwinian faction had been mistaken from the beginning in their unremitting
insistence that each organism is a clear-cut representation of its genes and
that the evolution of new forms depended on specific genetic mutations being
subject to natural selection. There was also the dogmatic contention that
natural selection was almost solely responsible for variation.
There are
several contributing factors in the curious rigidity of neo-Darwinist thinking.
The founders of the modern synthesis were strong-willed men with sizeable
egos—leading experts in their fields and accustomed to having their views taken
seriously. A number of them had worked diligently for years toward a shared
vision of unifying the various disciplines and their competing theories. Once
the synthesis was achieved, and so many fellow researchers found themselves
united in a common pursuit, that coming-together may in itself have fueled
certain inflexible attitudes: uncompromising orthodoxy and dogma often result
when an association transitions to a movement. Tellingly, Ernst Mayr wrote of
the participants at the 1947 Princeton symposium, “Not all…biologists were
completely converted.”
Also
contributing may have been that string of exciting advances, which lent further
credence to the new paradigm. The synthesis was not seriously challenged until
Eldredge and Gould’s theory caused a genuine uproar in the 1970s. Richard
Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene was (and
continues to be) particularly influential even while many of his views are
considered outmoded by geneticists. In fact, the public’s views regarding
evolution and genetics seem to be locked
into obsolete models. And considering the role of genes: contemporary
geneticists have shifted their views considerably, understanding that their work is far
from completion. Finnish-born cell biologist Kai Simons was one
scientist who recognized the shortcomings of earlier conceptualizations.
Science writer Nigel Calder noted that Simons
had for long mocked the overconfident,
one-dimensional view of some molecular biologists, who thought that by simply
specifying genes, and the proteins that they catalogued, the task was finished.
“Was it possible,” he demanded, “that molecular biology could be so boring that
it would yield its whole agenda to one reductionist assault by one generation
of ingenious practitioners?”
As originally
conceived, one of the primary objectives of this work was bringing to light
what I firmly believed to be serious deficiencies in current evolutionary
theory. I was convinced that evolutionary processes had to be far more complicated than currently envisioned—the result
of many competing factors, some of which were possibly unidentified or acting
in ways not yet fully understood. Discovering that the synthesis was overdue
for substantive revision—that my concerns were indeed valid—delivered a gratifying
sense of vindication. Even more so to learn that such a movement was already in
effect and even has a name: the Darwinian
extension.[1]
In the course
of discussions with friends and associates (biologists and science educators among
them) regarding matters pertaining to evolution, I’ve formed an impression that most still adhere to Dawkins’
selfish-gene “theory.” And while many acquaintances voice strong opinions in
its favor—often in reaction to my own skepticism—they appear to be unaware that
the self-seeking gene concept is more akin to metaphor than hypothesis. Among
those with whom I’ve discussed evolutionary theory, few appear to have heard
about contemporary developments in genetics or are aware of findings coming
from evo-devo research. No one I’ve
spoken with regarding these issues has been cognizant that there’s such a thing
as an “extension” of the modern synthesis afoot—or any need for such revision.
I can’t make
any reliable assertions as to what an educated and scientifically literate public
might believe but those of my acquaintance tend to claim, unreservedly, that
natural selection by way of randomly occurring
mutations—classic Darwinism—accounts for all evolutionary processes.
Here are the
words of a few writers who unreservedly believe this to be the case:
Author Robert
Wright: “The theory of natural selection is so elegant and powerful as to
inspire a kind of faith in it—not blind faith, really…but faith nonetheless;
there is a point after which one no longer entertains the possibility of
encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question.” (1994)
Philosopher
and author Daniel Dennett: “It plays a crucial role in the analysis of every
biological event at every scale from the creation of the first self-replicating
macromolecule on up….”[2]
and is “the single best idea anyone has ever had.” (1995)
Evolutionary
biologist Paul Ewald: “That’s the beauty of it. It has to be true—it’s like
arithmetic.” (1999)
Novelist and
essayist Barbara Kingsolver: “[Darwin’s theory is] the greatest, simplest, most
elegant logical construct ever to dawn across our curiosity about the workings
of natural life. It is inarguable, and it explains everything…. As the unifying
principle of natural sciences, it is no more doubted among modern biologists
than gravity is questioned by physicists.” (2002)
Richard
Dawkins: “Perhaps we should entertain the possibility that other principles,
comparable to Darwin’s, remain to be discovered—principles capable of mimicking
an illusion of design as convincing as the illusion manufactured by natural
selection…. I am not inclined to predict any such event. Natural selection
itself, properly understood, is powerful enough to generate complexity and the
illusion of design to an almost limitless extent.” (2006)[3]
These
statements (several of them coming from non-scientists) were made not so long
ago but, even at the time they were quoted, had already been rendered obsolete
some years before by a new generation of genuine evolutionary specialists.
Despite serious resistance, a new picture of the way evolution operates in
nature has finally acknowledged (in particular, due to advances in our
understanding of embryological development) that such matters were never so
clear-cut and unambiguous as they’ve long been portrayed. Back in 1997, James Shapiro
wrote of this shift in understanding:
[O]ur current knowledge of genetic change is
fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates. We have progressed
from the Constant Genome, subject
only to random, localized changes at
a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid Genome, subject
to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new
functional architectures. Inevitably, such a profound advance in awareness of
genetic capabilities will dramatically alter our understanding of the evolutionary
process. Nonetheless, neo-Darwinist writers…continue to ignore or trivialize
the new knowledge and insist on gradualism as the only path for evolutionary
change.
And a bit
earlier in this article for Boston
Review, addressing another important point:
Novel ways of looking at longstanding
problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress.
However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides
appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific
enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse
to recognize science’s remarkable record of making more and more seemingly
miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and
accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be
scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of
inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and
assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the
Creationists’ criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a
science.
Neo-Darwinism,
because of the historical and cultural circumstances that came into play with
the advent of the modern synthesis, led to a notably dogmatic and rigid
attitude among certain adherents, whom Niles Eldredge dubbed ultra-Darwinians.[4]
In a review of Daniel Dennett’s influential book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Gould addresses this penchant for what he considers
unwarranted zealotry:
Why…should Darwinian fundamentalism be
expressing itself so stridently when most evolutionary biologists have become
more pluralistic in the light of these new discoveries and theories?... There
is something immensely beguiling about strict adaptationism—the dream of an
underpinning simplicity for an enormously complex and various world. If
evolution were powered by a single force producing one kind of result, and if
life’s long messy history could therefore be explained by extending small or
orderly increments of adaptation through the immensity of geological time, then
an explanatory simplicity might descend upon evolution’s overt richness.
Evolution then might become “algorithmic,” a surefire logical procedure…. But
what is wrong with messy richness, so long as we can construct an equally rich
texture of satisfying explanation?
James Barham
is an independent scholar, ex-Christian atheist, and a formerly devout
neo-Darwinist. As a secular humanist whose work centers around a strong sense
of the individual’s worth and moral responsibility, he adds this angle: “The
real problem with the evolution debate is not empirical Darwinism. Rather, it
is a sort of theory creep in which a bold but circumscribed scientific claim
becomes conflated with a much more sweeping philosophical claim. The
philosophical claim is then presented as though it were a confirmed scientific
fact.”[5]
In 2003 I
purchased and read Carl Zimmer’s Evolution,
a lavishly illustrated book (and companion to a PBS series going by the same
name). I’d become conscious of my
ignorance regarding a fundamental topic which, for some reason, hadn’t yet
fully engaged my interest. This quickly changed. I was a “blank slate”
regarding evolutionary theory, unaware that there was a thing called
“Darwinism,” with philosophical overtones above and beyond the purely
scientific aspects of the great scientist’s ideas.
Several years
later I read The Blind Watchmaker and
found Dawkins’ arguments quite stirring. At that point in time, still
relatively ignorant but in agreement with the basic tenets of evolutionary
theory, I’d already acquired certain doubts regarding the Darwinist viewpoint.
I had vague misgivings about some of the arguments being presented but, beyond
that, found myself put off by a sort of glib certainty that both Dawkins and Zimmer often displayed. (This, a
characteristic reaction of the natural-born skeptic to firm conviction in any
form). I sensed early on that evolution must be a mysterious and extremely
convoluted affair; starting with my initial exploration of the subject it
seemed evident that a number of matters must surely be far from settled.
The creation science debate was often in
the news around that time and the Intelligent Design (ID) movement perhaps at its apogee. I followed the media accounts with
dismayed fascination, which led me to read two collections of essays refuting
IDers’ arguments. Curious about the commotion over another book, Darwin’s Black Box, I read it as well,
hoping to better understand the ID position from their standpoint—not realizing
its publication had in fact catalyzed the movement. Written by a respected
biochemistry professor, Black Box was
an entertaining read, very educational, and (despite its clear bias) many of the author’s arguments were compelling.
With a slight sense of guilt, I found myself questioning elements of the
neo-Darwinist account of evolution that I’d absorbed without knowing their
logical flaws and limitations. I became
increasingly preoccupied with all these matters and tried to square what I was
learning with a life-long enthusiasm for all aspects of natural history.
It became
increasingly apparent that neo-Darwinism had some serious “issues.” Thanks to
lingering differences between pro-evolution camps (primarily, but not solely,
between gradualists and saltationists), creationists were able to exploit such
conflicts—at least to the extent that complacent mainstream media presentations
helped make it appear that evolutionary science was in a state of confused discord.
This gave rise
to an outrageous situation: scientists forced to go on the defensive in the
face of shocking, willful ignorance. Some pro-evolution individuals’ reactions
displayed an all-too-human hostility and bitterness that—coming, as they were,
from those on the side of rationality—sounded unbecomingly small-minded and
childish. (Several prominent evolutionary scientists have made less than
diplomatic statements in print or interviews, which serves only to fuel the
fire.[6])
Through reading Darwin’s Black Box I
came to see that creationists, despite their fallacious premises, have a number
of legitimate arguments.
It was after
stumbling upon a a collection of essays entitled Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
that I realized there was a “third way.” While William Dembski—the compilation’s
editor—is well-known as a fervent ID supporter, a number of his book’s contributors (according to their brief
biographies) professed no religious
bias. Focusing on those authors, it came as a relief to find other people who, like
myself, were intellectually residing somewhere between two consistently
dogmatic factions.[7]
The more I’ve
learned, the more it appears that contemporary Darwinism (including public
opinion regarding evolution) is locked into an outdated and constrained model.
This, I believe, is an unfortunate result of the coincidence of neo-Darwinian
dogma and scientists unwilling to lose ground to creationists through
expressing doubts or acknowledging theoretical shortcomings. This has created a
unique state of affairs. Practitioners of science seldom need to publicly
defend their findings or shy away from admitting uncertainty and doubt (which,
after all, are integral and honorable elements of all scientific endeavor).
Nevertheless, this doesn’t alter the fact that what we’ve learned about life is calling out for a general reappraisal.
©2016 by Tim Forsell draft 15 Oct 2016
[2] Quoted slightly out of context here; he was referring
specifically to adaptation (natural
selection’s primary consequence—change in response to randomly generated
mutations).
[3] Dawkins, chief modern proponent of neo-Darwinians, has
been called “Darwin’s Rottweiler” and “England’s most pious atheist” for the
vehemence of his unfaltering convictions. He remains an extremely popular
author and scientific figure and is seen as a beacon of rationality and reason
but is probably also the individual most responsible for the reading public’s
oversimplified views on evolution and its tie with genetics.
[4] “My name for the articulators of the gene-centered and
essentially reductionist approach to evolutionary explanation….” Eldredge goes
to some lengths at the book’s outset to explain his position, viz.
ultra-Darwinism.
[5] Barham is directing his criticism specifically at
individuals like Dawkins, whose penchant for making caustic statements such as
the following (Barham believes) invites such reproach: “We humans have purpose on the brain. We find it hard to look at
anything without wondering what it is for…. Show us almost any object or
process, and it is hard for us to resist the ‘Why’ question…. And the same
temptation is often positively relished when the topic is the origin of all
things or the fundamental laws of physics, culminating in the vacuous
existential question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’… The
universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is,
at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind,
pitiless indifference.”
[6] He famously wrote in a book review for the New York
Times that anyone who denies evolution is either, “ignorant, stupid or insane
(or wicked—but I’d rather not consider that).” The quote has been reprinted
endlessly in creationist diatribes, along with condescending words by Dennett
and others, as ample proof of evolutionist arrogance.
[7] I subsequently learned that some of these authors had,
somewhat circumspectly, concealed their religious views.
No comments:
Post a Comment