[Genes] swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence.
-Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2nd edition, page 21
It is a perennial temptation for scientists and laymen alike to draw unwarranted metaphysical conclusions from scientific theories. Occasionally, some well supported scientific view will have metaphysical implications, but generally these are very limited and difficult to discern. In fact, the same theory can often be interpreted differently to give very different metaphysical results.
Case in point: Richard Dawkins’ quote from The Selfish Gene. Dawkins portrays the gene as the secret master controller of our human reality.[1] Is this just a natural implication of evolutionary theory?
Not according to systems biologist Denis Noble. Here is his parody of Dawkins’ claim:
[Genes] are trapped in huge colonies, locked inside highly intelligent beings, moulded by the outside world, communicating with it by complex processes, through which, blindly, as if by magic, function emerges. They are in you and me; we are the system that allows their code to be read; and their preservation is totally dependent on the joy that we experience in reproducing ourselves. We are the ultimate rationale for their existence.
-Denis Noble, The Music of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome, page 13
Noble shows that it is possible to take the same scientific data (that we have genes) and give a very different account of it. In Dawkins vision, genes are active masters, and are the cause and purpose of our existence. In Noble’s systems biology version, genes are simply tools, dependent on us, and their purpose is to help us.
Neither of these visions is provable by the science. But scientists, science popularizers, and even theologians routinely mix such metaphysical claims with their empirical claims, suggesting that they are a single package and must be taken as such.
The truth could hardly be more different. Typically, metaphysical and empirical claims have very different amounts and kinds of evidence, and it is highly misleading to treat them as though they were joined at the hip. We understand the world by combining our beliefs, including philosophical, religious, and scientific ones, and this integration is good to do. We must remember, however, not to accept the integration of others uncritically.
Because even expert scientists aren’t expert metaphysicians.
Are either Dawkins’ or Noble’s views of the genome compatible with Christianity? Should we find either plausible?
Tags: Biology, genetics, metaphysics, Dawkins, McGrath
[1] I found both of these quotes in Alister McGrath’s new book Darwinism and the Divine: Evolutionary Thought and Natural Theology, pages 38-9. This post is based on his main points, and he in turn is grateful to Denis Noble for pointing out that Dawkins treats genes as active agents.
