> I found the comment about "...a powerful ideology..." interesting. The
> well-known founder of sociobiology (a field of study which believes that
> social behavior can be explained by evolutionary processes) E.O. Wilson
> wrote a book called "Naturalist" (1994, Island Pres) which was an
> autobiography of sorts. In it, he recalls how Stephen Jay Gould, his
> colleague at Harvard, was vehemently opposed to sociobiology when Wilson
> first proposed it because of Gould's Marxist ideology (Marxism believes
> in the perfectibility of man while sociobiology implies that we're all
> genetically constrained). Rather ironic when one considers what Gould
> thinks of those who uncomfortable with evolutionary theory for religious/
> philosophical reasons.
Neil Haave (haavn@wildrose.net) immediately replied:
> I think you have completely missed Gould's point in his opposition to
> Wilson's sociobiology. I think that his point does not come out of
> any sense that humans are able to attain perfection. Rather it comes
> out of the heavy emphasis that sociobiology places upon genetics which
> comes out of a commitment to biological determinism. Gould's (and
> Lewontin's) point is that the interaction between the gene and
> environment is too complex to say that such and such a behaviour is
> determined by the expression of a gene(s) (which is what sociobiology
> is trying to establish... and for the matter the Human Genome Project)
> but is also dependent upon the surrounding environment, physical and
> social. In terms of social ideology, Gould's position comes more out
> of a concern for people trying to excuse themselves from social
> responsibility by blaming genes rather than environment and social
> structures. Read Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" and "Not in Our
> Genes" by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin.
Sorry for the delay in responding. I was on a four day field trip over
this previous weekend.
Neil, I think you've completely missed my point. I've read Gould's
thoughts on sociobiology and I would certainly never expect him to say
"I oppose sociobiology because I'm a Marxist." Let me quote Wilson again
as someone who worked with both Gould and Lewontin at Harvard...
"Shortly after the publications of _Sociobiology_, fifteen
scientists, teachers, and students in the Boston area came
together to form the Sociobiology Study Group. Soon afterward
the new committee affiliated itself with Science for the People,
a nationwide organization of radical activists begun in the
1960s to expose the misdeeds of scientists and technologists,
including politically dangerous thinking. The Sociobiology
Study Group was dominated by Marxist and New Left scholars from
Harvard. Two of the most prominent, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard
Lewontin, were my close colleagues and fellow residents of the
Museum of Comparative Zoology." [p. 337]
and...
"After meeting for three months, the group arrived at its
foreordained verdict. In a letter published in the _New_York_
_Review_of_Books_ on November 13, 1975, the members declared
that human sociobiology was not only unsupported by evidence
but also politically dangerous. All hypotheses attempting to
establish a biological basis of social behavior 'tend to provide
a genetic justification of the status quo and of existing
privileges for certain groups according to class, race, or
sex. Historically, powerful countries or ruling groups within
them have drawn support for the maintenance or extension of
their power from these products of the scientific community.'"
[p. 337]
and...
"The sociobiology controversy, I came to realize, ran deeper
than ordinary scholarly discourse. The signatories of the
Science for the People letter had come to the subject with a
different agenda from my own. They viewed science not as
separate objective knowledge but as part of culture, a social
process compounded with political history and class struggle."
[p. 341]
I stand by my implication that Gould perceives science through his
spectacles of Marxist ideology and that it's quite hypocritical of him
to criticize Christians for opposing evolution because of their belief
in the inerrancy of Scripture.
I found it interesting that you also mentioned the book "Not in Our Genes"
by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin. Richard Lewontin is also featured in Wilson's
book. According to Wilson, Lewontin wrote, as a biology professor at Harvard,
that:
"There is nothing in Marx, Lenin, or Mao," he wrote in
collaboration with Richard Levins, "that is or can be in
contradiction with the particular physical facts and processes
of a particular set of phenomena in the objective world."
[p. 346]
Let's substitute "Scripture" for "Marx, Lenin, or Mao". What difference
is there between Lewontin's approach to science and the approach of young-
earth creationists at the ICR?
The ideologies of scientists, be they Christians, atheists, Marxists, or
whatever, may greatly influence how they do science. If Christians are
perceived to be poor scientists because of their Christian beliefs, as
the original _Newsweek_ article which started this whole thread implied,
then let's point out how non-Christian scientists, like Stephen Jay Gould
and Richard Lewontin are also poor scientists as well since their political
beliefs clearly influence how they view science.
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Fides quaerens intellectum