Morals, memes, and gerin oil
BMJ 2006; 332 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.332.7553.1294-e (Published 01 June 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;332:1294
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I don’t think that anyone has said “If Darwinism is questioned, the
story goes, soon there will be no more science, no more intelligent
thought, no more new drugs. Progress will come to an end”
This is an irrational argument referred to as a “straw-man”. Simply put no
one has said anything of the sort.
I cannot understand why the observation of natural selection of
bacteria under the action of antibiotics will not suffice as an example of
evolutions relevance to medicine; I believe that is the fallacious
argument of groundless assertion. I can only direct your correspondent
towards the article concerning A Letter to God, for an answer to his query
about the failure of creation to provide an adequate framework for
medicine. Evolution amply explains these design faults.
I can only reply to the next point with slight wry smile and suggest
that anyone who has read and most importantly understood Dawkins work will
know that he specifically points out that a society based on “Survival of
the fittest” would be repugnant. And that we are unique in being able to
“rebel against our genes”. The naturalistic fallacy has everything to do
with that.
Of course this is assuming there is no evolutionary benefit to caring for
the sick and elderly when there probably is, humans evolved as other great
apes have as group living primates. Traits which cause us to look after
the sick and the elderly may have been beneficial and prospered.
Science provides rational considered answers based on reproducible
evidence to pertinent questions, regretfully other magisteria, overlapping
or not, do not. Indeed one only has to read the above responses to see
ample evidence of this.
Your correspondents last point is simply not worthy of comment other
than to note it is another fallacious argument namely Ad Hominem mixed
with a False dilemma.
I am quite well acquainted with the past; I cannot remember Hitler or
Stalin justifying their actions, by quoting finch evolution. I doubt that
the Somme will be remembered as a battle based on fossil Megatherium or
indeed shall we remember Fugian involvement with the Boar war. I see all
my history books attributing the World Wars to rampant expansionist
nationalism need to be rewritten to include Captain Fitzroy and The
Beagle. It would appear that Basil Fawlty was incorrect; it wasn’t started
by the invasion of Poland!
The problem here is that your correspondent is not distinguishing
accurately between rational and irrational thought. Science is not immune
to irrational thought, although as I have previously stated it does have a
self correcting mechanism inherent in its methods.
Spencerism is now seen to be a rather crude interpretation of evolutionary
thought and has mostly been discarded. Indeed I suggest he becomes
acquainted with the present and accepts that society’s views on eugenics
have moved on considerably since the nineteenth century.
He is also failing to appreciate those societies views of wars and races
were quite different, independent of any supposed evolutionist reasoning.
I suggest he joins Von Ranke and sees history "wie es eigentlich gewesen"
not as he wishes it to be.
He is also unfortunately attributing causation to events on little
evidence. Indeed if I may borrow from Dawkins again, I note that both
Hitler and Stalin had moustaches, which is obviously a direct cause of the
Second World War (1).
I doubt that the Church in Rome or the Archbishop of Canterbury would
accept that evolution is the reason for these conflicts. Indeed both have
accepted to different degrees evolution as “more than a theory”. For some
the acceptance of evolution provides a basis for their atheism, evidently
that is not the case for others.
I did go to some lengths to make in my last contribution to outline
the fallacious arguments sadly utilised by those who simply should have a
better knowledge of the term “Evidence”. Indeed I think we have added
Appeal to emotion/Argument from outrage mixed in with a potent slippery
slope, topped off with the usual loaded language.
I doubt very much whether Hume would have given such a diatribe more
than a moment’s consideration.
1. God’s just too small. THES 2004.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Andy Wood states that:
"I have no doubt that an Ethics based on “Survival of the fittest”
would be repugnant"
as if this were a possibility which might come true at some point in
future time.
Had he followed Santayana rather than Hume and bothered to acquaint
himself with the past, he would have realised that Spencer's catchy little
summary of Darwin's work has already provided the raison d'etre of two
world wars, several rather smaller ones, and widespread domestic
programmes in numerous countries in a number of continents, all dedicated
to eliminating the unfit from the face of the earth. The casualties run to
well over a hundred million; a bloodbath which far outdoes the total
killed in all of the wars of religion in recorded history put together.
From the concentration camps of the Boer War, to the killing fields
of the Somme, and the gas chambers of the Third Reich, the butchers
justified their butchery by asserting that they were simply eliminating
the unfit in accordance with Darwin's precepts.
That and defending themselves. Darwin's belief that the flora and
fauna of one period 'would certainly be beaten and exterminated' by the
flora and fauna of a later period was central not only to the vision of
evolution as progress, but also to the slaughter that followed;
exterminate or be exterminated, there was no other possible choice.
As Spencer, Darwin's most ardent advocate, put it: 'We have
unmistakeable proof that throughout all past time, there has been a
ceaseless devouring of the weak by the strong'. Who could possibly argue
with unmistakeable proof? And who would choose to be devoured rather than
devouring? And so for a century and a half we have butchered away secure
in the scientific knowledge that we have no choice.
Ethnic cleansing, that euphemism for murder, continues to plague the
world; people are persecuted for the colour of their skin, their sex,
their religion, and the principles of eugenics still underpin many of the
arguments which turn up regularly in the BMJ's correspondence columns, and
slightly less regularly in its articles.
All in all, not the sort of scenario to justify asserting the
superiority of the scientific world-view. I suspect Hume would have
agreed.
Stevie M Gamble
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I always find it curious to read that medicine's future is imperiled
to the extent that Darwin's theory is doubted. If Darwinism is questioned,
the story goes, soon there will be no more science, no more intelligent
thought, no more new drugs. Progress will come to an end. The commentator
Andy Wood sums it up with, "Nothing in medicine makes sense
except in the light of evolution."
Perhaps he, or Mr. Dawkins, or someone else can present us with one
example of a part of medicine that does not make sense in light of
creation (antibiotic resistance as a consequence of natural selection will
not suffice). Since nothing makes sense except in light of evolution, they
shouldn't have far to look.
After that, I would be pleased to hear someone explain how medicine,
as a moral practice, makes any sense in light of the Darwinism of Mr.
Dawkins. Why should we spend vast resources caring for the sick, the
crippled, the maimed, the weak, the mentally retarded, the old, and the
helpless. Those are resources that could be turned to helping the
strongest and brightest to reproduce. If we look around at our fellow
products of eons of evolution (the other animal species), do we see any of
them going so far to sustain the members of their species that are weak
and sick?
In his other writings (1), Mr. Dawkins makes a strange turn here by
describing himself as a strict Darwinist with respect to the facts of our
ontology, but a committed non-Darwinist with regard to ethics (2). Mr.
Wood wants to credit Mr. Dawkins for avoiding G.E. Moore's naturalist
fallacy, but the naturalist fallacy has nothing to do with the question.
The question is, why should the Dawkinses of the world be so exercised by
the purported irrationality of those whose science and ethics both begin
with God as a premise, while they themselves insist on living as if what
they claim to be true were false?
We can only hope that the deeper rationality that leads the Dawkinses
among physicians to a non-Darwinian ethic will catch up to and convert
their rationalizing commitment to atheism. Then, they will have sound
reason for caring for those who are ill.
1. Dawkins R. A Devil’s Chaplain. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson;
2003
2. Barr SM. The Devil’s Chaplain Confounded. First Things 2004; 145:
25-31.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I see that the Howling continues. I wonder what Professor Dawkins
makes of it all?
I suspect he will recognise the standard arguments put forth by those who
perceive a threat to their faith or simply disagree with rational thought.
The arguments put forth regarding the actions of well known despots fail
when one applies the rigorous rational approach which Dawkins advocates.
Irrational thought is not restricted to religion, undoubtedly a major
part of theism is the acceptance of fallacious arguments, but other fields
of human endeavour are hardly immune. Indeed science is not immune
although the questioning nature of science acts as a self correcting
mechanism to limit any damage. Sadly such mechanisms are lacking in the
more dogmatic beliefs of this world.
Fallacious arguments are common, indeed so far we have had, Appeal to
the people, Appeal to Unqualified Authority, Argument from popularity,
Quoting out of context, Ad Hominem, scare tactics and scapegoating to name
but a few. I doubt this is a secure evidence base.
I cannot but point out that the beliefs of Mao and Stalin were
irrational and not based on “evolutionism”. Indeed I cannot but point out
that whatever Hitler was, he wasn’t an atheist. Of course he was born and
baptised a Catholic, indeed confirming his adherence to the Catholic faith
throughout his life. He persecuted Catholics, Jews, homosexuals and
atheists whilst quoting extensively from the bible in his speeches and
including Pagan imagery in his deranged politics.
I doubt this is a direct result of sweet-pea genetics, rather the result
of a warped and repugnant political ideology. The same type of
irrationalism which Dawkins I think would disagree with.
I have no doubt that an Ethics based on “Survival of the fittest”
would be repugnant, but simply put anyone who follows such a notion has
fallen into the Naturalistic Fallacy so outlined by Hume and Moore.
Irrationality rears its ugly head again.
Although I understand that peoples adherence to a religious faith provides
a foundation for their lives, it is sadly not based on reliable evidence.
A reading of Hume’s Dialogues reveals the historical record of miracles to
be inadequate and always will be. As the great infidel himself said,
“There is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a
sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned good sense, education and
learning, as to secure us against all delusion in themselves”
The belief in any supernatural entity always rests on as Kierkegaard
put it, “a leap of faith”, sadly when one leaps without looking; one never
knows where one will land. Commonly it appears the end result of such
intellectual gymnastics is the "overheated minds" of those falsely
perceived to be the result of exclusive theistic Creation.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is always great to see a new controversy kicked off by Richard
Dawkins: he is a great writer and communicator.
But his dedication to the belief that religion is a dangerous
delusion (and "the root of all evil") is itself delusional on any
superficial view of the evidence.
He believes, if I understand him correctly, that the world would be a
better place if we could abolish religious ideology and there would be
less death and fewer conflicts. Statistically speaking, however, the three
biggest killers of the last century--Stalin, Hitler and Mao--were secular
ideologues not religious ones.
It looks as though a propensity to kill others for ideological
reasons is part of human nature. Religions have probably done as much to
mitigate this as they have to exacerbate it. Doing away with religion does
not seem like the way to improve things.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I was pleased to see the debate about Religion and science brought up
in this article.I am secular and I hope a scientist. I agree with Dawkins
on Evolution and science. However,as a psychiatrist I am dismayed that
Dawkins persists with his false belief that Religious belief(s) is a
delusion. This is terminologically inexact.If Dawkins wants to be clear
and truthful he should call Religion something else. A false belief is not
by itself proof that it is delusional otherwise he could be said to be
delusional too. There are religious delusions but they are usually bizarre
and held out of keeping with the cultural context and are part of mental
illness. All Religious people are not mentally ill however at odds with
science and evidence they may be.
As an exampleof this fallacy is that chilren are taught that Columbus
discovered America in 1492.Taking into account Native Americans, Vikings
and J.S.Cabot, he apparently only found the Bahamas. Believing Columbus
discovered America is not proof someone is deluded, just lacking in
knowledge.
My point is that I am concerned he will bring not only his own views into
disrepute but also discredit biological sciences and scientists as being
equally fundamentalist and closed. I have written to him at both the Royal
Society and at Oxford and he has not replied to my concerns.
I would like someone to clear up this important psychiatric point with him
before he is shown to be deluded too using his idiosyncratic use of the
word.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The Editor
BMJ
Dear Editor
I write in response to the ‘News’1 item in June 3rd BMJ featuring an
interview with Professor Richard Dawkins. I begin by asking quite what
this article has to do with medicine and why it featured in the BMJ ? It’s
appearance did, however, manage to provoke a reaction in me. I shall
endeavour to be clear and non politically correct in my response given Mr
Dawkins’ aversion to ambiguity. I trust that in the interest of fairness
the BMJ will print responses from what Mr Dawkins describes as
‘undereducated doctors’.
Mr Dawkins opinions symbolise much of what is pernicious (to use his
word) about the arrogance of some modern day scientific opinion. Atheism
is a belief system just as reliant upon faith as religion. When Mr Dawkins
can empirically disprove the existence of God perhaps his arrogance may
have foundation. I am a firm believer in evidence-based practice and
whilst my religious beliefs do require a degree of faith, that faith is
based upon analysis of the available evidence. I am intellectually
convinced regarding the birth, life, death and resurrection of a man
called Jesus who lived 2000 years ago. I cannot categorically prove these
events by scientific experiment but there is certainly far more historical
evidence for these events than for many historical events that are
universally accepted as proven. I certainly base my beliefs on more
substance than attributing ailments of human pregnancy as ‘parent-
offspring conflict in the womb’.
Much of the most meaningful of human experience such as love, hope,
joy, grief cannot be scientifically measured however I suspect that Mr
Dawkins does not deny the existence of these emotions. I suggest that such
an aggressive view about religion as his arises out of a realisation that
human intellect cannot explain everything or perhaps a deep-seated fear
that God may exist after all. Fortunately many of the last two millennia’s
greatest minds had the intellect to accept the finite nature of human
understanding and realise that the mind of the Creator is greater than
that of the created.
Yours faithfully
Dr Colin Rees FRCP
Consultant Gastroenterologist
1. B Ravichandran. Morals, memes, and gerinoil. BMJ 2006;332:1294.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
So, Richard Dawkins was born to “an upper middle class family” –
whatever that is.
It is ironic that in the same issue the letter from Agyemang
highlights the need for use of accurate, well-defined definitions of race
and ethnicity in medical research (1). If social class is a useful
construct, its operational definition should be explicit, too – “upper
middle” or not.
(1) Agyemang C. Ethnic misclassifications hamper progress in
research. BMJ 2006; 332: 1335. (3 June.)
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I have looked with interest at this article and the ensuing
correspondence. As a Christian, I agree very much with a scientific
approach to the universe we live in. After all, it was the Puritans
(especially those in the Royal Society) who laid the foundations for
modern experimental science in contrast to ancient Greek rationalism where
manual work (experiments included) was considered fit only for slaves (1).
Truth is one matter, but ethics is quite another. I tackled this
question in my Presidential Address to the British Society of
Periodontology (also at the Royal Society!) last September. You can read
it on the BSP website (2) at the appropriate heading (3) on the left of
the home page.
It seems to me that the only ethic science has ever produced is
“Survival of the Fittest”, and I consider Hitler and Mao to be exponents
of this. Of course, acceptance of their ethic requires a faith in its
truth. Any other ethic needs another faith. Going beyond my address, my
faith is based on something for which I think there is good evidence. Its
basis is that as God has created us and communicated with us to let us
know his views, we owe him our obedience.
(1) Hooykaas R (1972) Religion and the Rise of Modern Science.
Edinburgh, Scottish Academic Press.
(3) Nov 2005 Newsletter
Competing interests:
I became a Christian at the age of 16, from a background of science and humanism.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Is believing in creation rational and evidence based?
Despite
what Dawkins, Ravichandran, and others may say, it is
perfectly rational to argue, from scientific data, for either creation or
evolution as an explanation of the origin of life. Douglas Futuyma, a distinguished
Professor of Ecology and Evolution, wrote: “Creation and evolution, between
them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things.
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they
did not, they must have developed from preexisting
species by some process of modification. If they did appear
in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some
omnipotent intelligence” (1).
The relevance of
the fossil record to this discussion has been questioned. However, its
importance is fundamental because a) it is the only observable evidence that
life existed in the past, and b) biological and genetic mechanisms must fit the
pattern observed. So what do the data from palaeontology show? Contrary to what
most of us have been brought up to believe, the fossil record does not show
animal life slowly appearing or species gradually changing as we ascend the
geological column. The oldest rocks (Cambrian) in which multi-cellular
organisms are found contain, fully formed, all but one of the more than 30
major animal types (phyla) which exist today (2). Their supposed evolutionary
ancestors are not found. The significance of this “Cambrian Explosion” was
described like this by Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary
Palaeobiology at Cambridge on BBC Radio 4 in 2005: “[the Cambrian explosion is]
really talking about the origin of species which in the end is the origin of
everything ...what we have here is a whole world which has been just radically
transformed” (3). In the rocks laid down over these, most species enter the
record fully formed and remain the same as you move from older to younger rocks
i.e. they do not exhibit gradual change. Harvard professor and leading
evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould: “The history of most fossil species
includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.
Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They
appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear;
morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden
appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady
transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully
formed.'”(4). Therefore, following the logic of Futuyma’s
argument, the data point towards creation.
When you turn to
look for genetic evolutionary explanations for such data, no adequate
explanations exist either for the original source of the genetic code or for a
mechanism to generate the vast quantity and diversity of genetic information
necessary to achieve such a “sudden explosion of complicated animals”(see
3) [the whole 45 minutes is worth a listen]. The organism with the smallest
genome of any self-replicating prokaryote known to us, Mycoplasmagenitalium, has a genome size of 580 kilobases, close to the theoretical minimum for a fully
functional organism (5). The probability that this amount of genetic
information (leaving aside necessary proteins and cellular structures) arose by
chance is similar to the probability that a textbook of around 250 pages could
be generated by random hits on a keyboard – it might happen, but I wouldn’t bet
my life on it – and most people would call it a miracle. And the human genome,
5000 times larger at 3.1 billion base pairs, is awe inspiring. No wonder Dr
Francis Collins, Head of the US Human Genome Project (6) is now “convinced
miracles are real” (7) and says his research has deepened his belief in God.
Engagement with
the hard data on the origin of life leads even hardened exponents of
evolutionary theory to wonder at its order and complexity. Simon Conway Morris
(who rejects creationist views) said on BBC Radio 4 in 2003: “[Science] allows
us to see the world… as an extraordinarily well organised place in all sots of
respects […] There’s no reason why you can’t take an entirely secular view of
what’s going on there, but I think you have to still stand back, and when you
look at the whole set up… it turns out in fact that... the ways you can do it
are extraordinarily limited, and that could all be by accident, it could all be
just the way the world is... or you might just have a sort of thing at the back
of your mind and say ‘Hang on a moment, all this is just a little too odd, the
whole thing is just..well..lets think about this a bit further’.” (6). He
believes such thoughts take us away from science, but others would disagree.
Those who believe
God exists are free to choose either creation or evolution. More and more well qualified scientists are
willing to challenge, on the basis of the evidence itself, the current
scientific paradigm that the observable natural properties of inanimate matter
alone can explain evolution of life from molecules to minds (7). When they do
this, many find the observed scientific data fit comfortably with their belief
that in the beginning God created.
References
1.
DJ Futuyma. Science
on Trial: The case for evolution.
York: Pantheon Books, 1983. p. 197.
2.
Nash JM. When
Life Exploded. Time Magazine, December 4, 1995, p74. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,983789,00.html.
3.
Simon Conway Morris speaking on: In Our Time “The Cambrian
Explosion” 17 Feb 2005 BBC Radio 4 (time 37:00). Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20050217.shtml
4.
Gould SJ. Evolution's Erratic Pace. Natural History
1977;86(5):14
5.
Taylor-Robinson D, Tully JG. Mycoplasmas,
Ureoplasmas, Spiroplasmas
and Related Organisms. In: Balows A, Duerden BI editors. Topley and
Microbial Infections (9th Ed). Vol 2.
1998. p. 813-814
6.
http://www.genome.gov/10000779
7.
Swinford S. I’ve found God, says man who
cracked the genome.
Sunday Times, 11 June 2006. p12. Available at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2220484,00.html
8.
Simon Conway Morris speaking on: In Our Time. “Chance and
Design” BBC Radio 4, 13 Feb 2003 (time 39:50). Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20030213.shtml
9.
John Ashton. In
Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.
Monarch Books, 2001
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests