Polemical titbits against creationism

River out of Eden:
A Darwinian View of Life
By Richard Dawkins
Weidenfeld & Nicholson
Science Masters Series
1995, $19.95
Reviewed by Dot Tumney This river is a river of DNA flowing through time. Genetic information flows through living things in the process of perpetuating itself. Genes are either passed on or not during the reproductive process of the organism. Each bit of genetic information remains unaltered apart from replication errors during transmission. It is a digital process which produces the effects seen in heredity by various combinations of the actions of genes, not an alteration of the make-up of each gene. Genes in a particular species have to get on well together to produce successful bodies. In Dawkins' scenario different species are represented by diverging streams. Separate species arise as increasing divergence prevents successful reproduction. Variation within a species may be very wide. All humans are inter-fertile but present a range of features. This has sparked great interest in the origins of the present humans. Dawkins' explanations of the mechanism of heredity and the methods used to track it includes deliciously polemical titbits for those annoyed by creationism(s) and the nuttier versions of cultural relativism. For those fashionable salon philosophers who insist that science is no more than our modern origin myth, Dawkins separates the shared features (the claim to answer deep questions about origins, the nature of life and the cosmos), from the contradictory ones, arguing that scientific beliefs are supported by evidence and get results, while myths and faiths are not and do not. Of course, creationists who take the bible as literal truth are at least consistent. Those who end up mixing and matching are on a slippery slope. What Dawkins calls the "Argument from Personal Incredulity" — the argument that something has to be perfect, and hence created, to work at all (what use is half an eye, they would argue) — requires a lot of assumptions. In this example it requires assumptions about what an eye is, whether visual systems turn up as a package, and so on. Developing light sensitive systems, or anything else, requires a developmental gradient of the type illustrated by the layering of species populations in oceans, and the overlaps and blurring between those layers, rather than a god. An eye developing out of context, as it were, has not yet been observed. Given the habits of social Darwinists, it is hardly surprising that Dawkins' selfish gene and the whole concept of natural selection have been seen as a logical explanation for the occurrence of social inequalities. After all, original sin isn't selling too well these days; they need a better image. In the process of finding one, they end up having to attribute motives to things that, by scientific logic, need none. The universe does not have intentions. Natural forces are not determined by good or evil. Genes are indifferent. People, however, are purpose-driven. The inclination to attribute purpose to inanimate objects is disappearing as society develops, but it persists when contemplating the whys and wherefores of living things, especially as complexity increases. If there is no agreement about something as simple as eyes, the probability of agreement when it comes to consciousness is even lower. As the processes of self-replication become better explained, the staring point gets further back. It is only 42 years since Watson and Crick deciphered DNA structure. DNA is a very uniform replicator. All DNA has the same four components but they produce an enormous variety of structures with them. Four is a nice simple number which even the most determined mysticist should feel comfortable with. But there is still the matter of where the first self-replicator came from. Perhaps the creationists has better go after the physicists since the mysteries of biology seem to be untangling. Richard Dawkins is presently the Professor for the Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Whether or not this book was submitted as part of his application for this appointment I don't know, but it would have got him the job.