Mary Midgley is a philosopher who has argued that evolution is a
religion. In New Scientist, February 14, 1998, Letters, Page 51,
under the headline: "Dawkins determinant", she writes:
--------------------------------------------------------
Derek Freeman defends Richard Dawkins against the charge of crude
determinism (or fatalism) by citing Dawkins's sudden claim at the
end of "The Selfish Gene" that "we, that is our brains, are separate
and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them...We do
so in a small way every time we use contraception" (Letters, 17
January, p 52).
It is not explained in what sense our brains are independent from
our genes. But the main trouble is that the first page of the book
carries the claim: "We are survival machines - robot vehicles
blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as
genes." Every subsequent page reinforces that fatalistic message.
The machine imagery has to mean that all our acts are programmed by
our genes. And since our supposed rebellion is one of these acts,
it must be pure self-deception to suppose it is independent.
As for contraception, the book admits that many animals do not
breed, but insists that their refusal to do so is programmed by
their genes to increase gene-spread in less direct ways.
Altogether, these fatalistic claims are far too strong to be
cancelled by a deathbed repentance in the last chapter.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dawkins wants to have it both ways. He alternates between
pessemistically declaring us all "robots" that have been
"programmed" by our genes, and later *in the same book* urging us
all to rise up and overthrow our programmers:
"We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if
necessary the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even
discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure,
disinterested altruism- something that has no place in nature,
something that has never existed before in the whole history of the
world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines,
but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on
earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."
(Dawkins R., "The Selfish Gene", 1989, pp200-201)
But then he oscillates back to pessemism, claiming in one of his
latest books:
"DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its
music." (Dawkins R., "River out of Eden', 1996, p155).
But if Dawkins is just dancing to the tune of his DNA, why should
we believe him?
This is the materialist's dilemma. If his theory is true, ie. that
all is matter, then the statement "all is matter", is itself matter.
In other words, if materialism is true, then it is also false! As
Haldane long ago said:
"For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of
atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are
true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them
sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain
to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of
sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am
compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter."
(Haldane J.B.S., "Possible Worlds: And Other Essays", 1927, p209)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------