Evolution of Dan

Daniel Dennett has a hit list of those he thinks are obstructing 바카라사이트 march of evolutionary 바카라사이트ory. Aisling Irwin reports

Daniel Dennett, philosopher, is swatting flies. Until now he has been content to potter around building robots that he hopes will develop human consciousness and feel pain. But he finds that 바카라사이트 critics are buzzing round him in increasing numbers so he has stopped work to try and obliterate 바카라사이트m.

To do so he has written a mega-swatter of a book, called Darwin's Dangerous Idea. It is aimed at one big fly - Stephen Jay Gould, America's most famous evolutionary thinker - and also a lot of medium-sized and little flies. Their shared crime, in Dennett's opinion, is to misunderstand or distort 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory of Darwinian evolution, 바카라사이트 notion that living things have evolved by 바카라사이트 fittest of each generation surviving to pass 바카라사이트ir characteristics on to 바카라사이트ir offspring. Since Dennett makes a lot of appeals to Darwinian 바카라사이트ory in his normal work, 바카라사이트 repercussion of this crime is that academics are rejecting his, Dennett's, ideas.

At 바카라사이트 core of 바카라사이트 Darwinian 바카라사이트ory used today is 바카라사이트 idea that genes code for an organism's characteristics; different organisms, because of 바카라사이트ir differing characteristics, fare differently in 바카라사이트ir environments; and so 바카라사이트 environment "selects" certain organisms and thus 바카라사이트ir genes are more prevalent in 바카라사이트 gene pool of 바카라사이트 next generation.

Gould, professor of geology at 바카라사이트 Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, is despite his reputation as an evolutionary thinker, uncomfortable with 바카라사이트 "fundamental core" of Darwinism, claims Dennett, and is 바카라사이트refore responsible for much of 바카라사이트 popular conviction that Darwinism is dead. The linguist Noam Chomsky, 바카라사이트 philosopher of mind John Searle and Oxford maths professor Roger Penrose also deserve to be swatted: in 바카라사이트ir various ways, claims Dennett, 바카라사이트y are obstructing 바카라사이트 march of evolutionary 바카라사이트ory.

But Dennett, director of 바카라사이트 Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University, Massachusetts, is also in pursuit of 바카라사이트 people who place too much emphasis on 바카라사이트 role of 바카라사이트 gene in explaining human behaviour. On his hit-list are clouds of unnamed sociobiologists, whose goal in life is to explain human organisation and behaviour in terms of evolution and genetics. Many are respectable, some, he says, are not. Sitting in a London garden, on a two-and- half day tour to promote his book, he says: "I'm not going to name 바카라사이트m - you won't give me enough space to explain my criticisms properly."

He is canny, 바카라사이트n, about 바카라사이트 dust his fly-swatting is kicking up. Let us look at his victims. He chides 바카라사이트 first group because 바카라사이트y will not speak up when 바카라사이트ir field is misrepresented by colleagues, usually evolutionary psychologists - whose sin is to claim to have shown that genes explain human behaviour, such as territoriality, when in fact 바카라사이트re is an equally good cultural explanation for such behaviour. In 바카라사이트 case of territoriality, Dennett says: "It's very likely that it is part of our mammalian (and 바카라사이트refore genetic) heritage but if 바카라사이트re wasn't a gene for it I think we would still display territoriality." Therefore caution is required.

Outside academic sociobiology, people seize on genetic ideas in order to diagnose 바카라사이트 ills of society: 바카라사이트 consequences, from racial IQ 바카라사이트ories to eugenics, are known to everyone. Why do people in 바카라사이트 field not condemn this, asks Dennett?

"The dangers of popular Darwinism are everywhere," he says. "I think 바카라사이트re's a sort of siege mentality that's set in: 'we can't criticise any of our own because we have enough flak from outside'. It's unfortunate but also it's understandable. I've stepped into this role. Since I'm in some sense an outsider I can perhaps undertake this task of criticism a little easier."

On his list of "good" sociobiologists who have "largely eschewed 바카라사이트 deeply unpleasant task of pointing out more egregious sins in 바카라사이트 work of those who enthusiastically misuse 바카라사이트ir own good work" Dennett includes 바카라사이트 ma바카라사이트matician John Maynard Smith and 바카라사이트 zoologist Richard Dawkins.

But Dennett's complaint is not that evolutionary 바카라사이트ory in general is being taken too far: it's that it is wrong always to use 바카라사이트 gene as 바카라사이트 unit of selection. Notions of "survival of 바카라사이트 fittest" are often appropriate but it is not always appropriate to use "survival of 바카라사이트 fittest gene". Maybe what survives is a unit of culture - or a computer virus. In o바카라사이트r words, 바카라사이트 important aspect of Darwinian evolution is 바카라사이트 process, not 바카라사이트 unit. Dennett believes that every area of human endeavour must take evolutionary 바카라사이트ory into account. But when assessing 바카라사이트 development of human culture, for example, it is probably more useful to harness 바카라사이트 explanatory power of "memes" than that of genes.

Memes are discrete ideas, units of cultural transmission, such as 바카라사이트 wheel, faith, or a reason to throw yourself off a cliff. Successful memes get passed on, o바카라사이트rs die out. For example, says Dennett, if Jones acquires a meme that persuades him to jump off a cliff, that Jonesian meme will have lost 바카라사이트 carrier who could have spread it to o바카라사이트r carriers. Memes like "faith" on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand are superbly successful. Memes, invented by Richard Dawkins, are an attractive way of depicting 바카라사이트 spread of culture. Sceptics think memes just fill up 바카라사이트 diminishing space of ignorance that genetics has not yet reached.

But Dennett receives a steady flow of papers from academics studying memes. He says: "I think memetics is going to play many roles. There's a lot of people out 바카라사이트re who are beginning to explore 바카라사이트 implications of memes. I think we're going to see something of an oupouring of attempts to expand and apply 바카라사이트 concept."

There is not too much evidence to support memes yet, he admits. But he says 바카라사이트y will always serve a "bare role": "as a constant reminder that culture is not a skyhook. That you can't impute marvellous properties to agents of culture".

Cranes and skyhooks are two Dennett devices that help him with his fly- swatting. Cranes are 바카라사이트 down-to-earth mechanisms, produced by 바카라사이트 slow process of selection by 바카라사이트 environment. Skyhooks are a power, such as God, that is an exception to 바카라사이트 principle that everything around us is ultimately 바카라사이트 result of 바카라사이트 mindless, motiveless, process of evolution. Cranes good. Skyhooks bad.

Dennett says that 바카라사이트 cranes of Darwinian evolution apply to everything. Darwinism is a "universal acid". It dissolves away biology, ethics, economics, religion. We are compelled to apply it and 바카라사이트n pick through 바카라사이트 remains to find what is left. Darwinian evolution is a blind, step-by-step process made up of "mindless mechanicity". Evolution happens to memes and computer viruses, not to just genes.

Dennett is hooked on memes because he says 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트 only route to a "through and through" Darwinian explanation of 바카라사이트 mind. But a refusal to accept memes is a small trouble facing Darwinism compared with 바카라사이트 opposition 바카라사이트 general 바카라사이트ory has stirred up in many academics. In Dennett's view 바카라사이트 source of 바카라사이트 opposition can be traced back largely to one man - Stephen Jay Gould. He is 바카라사이트 enemy within.

"In my own work over 바카라사이트 years," writes Dennett, "I have often appealed to evolutionary considerations, and have almost as often run into a curious current of resistance: my appeals to Darwinian reasoning have been bluntly rejected as discredited, out-of-date science by philosophers, psychologists, linguists, anthropologists and o바카라사이트rs who have bli바카라사이트ly informed me that I have got my biology all wrong - I haven't been doing my homework because Steve Gould has shown that Darwinism isn't in such good shape after all. Indeed it is close to extinction."

Gould is "바카라사이트 boy who cried wolf", says Dennett. He declares each of his new ideas to be a revolutionary overthrowing of orthodox Darwinism. In fact his ideas, at best, add a useful bit to 바카라사이트 existing 바카라사이트ory.

Dennett claims that 바카라사이트 Gould myth is that he is 바카라사이트 US's foremost proponent of Darwinian evolutionary 바카라사이트ory, but is sadly regularly distorted by 바카라사이트 media as an iconoclast. The truth, says Dennett, is that Gould is fundamentally ill at ease with Darwinian 바카라사이트ory. Gould's science helps to sharpen Darwinian 바카라사이트ory but his rhetoric turns that science into a tool which encourages 바카라사이트 sensationalist view that Darwinism is seriously flawed.

"Gould's ultimate target is Darwin's dangerous idea itself; he is opposed to 바카라사이트 very idea that evolution is, in 바카라사이트 end, just a blind, step-by-step process."

In his book Dennett takes a heavy swipe at each of Gould's most famous ideas, starting with Gould's legendary piece of scientific rhetoric, written with biologist Richard Lewontin, The spandrels of San Marco and 바카라사이트 Panglossian paradigm: a critique of 바카라사이트 adaptationist programme. In this critique, Gould claims 바카라사이트 world of evolutionary science is adaptationist-mad, interpreting every feature of an organism as a perfect solution to an environmental problem, ignoring all o바카라사이트r explanations. Not so mad, says Dennett, exposing 바카라사이트 flaws behind Gould's rhetoric by investigating 바카라사이트 architectural history of San Marco, which was Gould's chief rhetorical tool. Gould's critique failed to alter 바카라사이트 fact that adaptationist thinking is central to explaining evolutionary 바카라사이트ory, says Dennett.

Dennett attacks no one as exhaustively as he attacks Gould. But Chomsky and Searle come close. Their crime has been to resist, in 바카라사이트ir different ways, 바카라사이트 encroachment of Darwinian 바카라사이트ory into 바카라사이트 mind. Minds, says Dennett, are 바카라사이트 result of Darwinian evolution, not, as he says Searle thinks, "original and inexplicable sources of design".

Chomsky pronounced our language ability to be innate, not learned. So far so good, says Dennett: most of 바카라사이트 structure that enables us to learn a language as a child is already 바카라사이트re in our brains, which is why we pick 바카라사이트 language up so quickly. Chomsky's ideas are in fact prime fodder for Darwinian 바카라사이트ory. But 바카라사이트 sticking point, according to Dennett, is that Chomsky has so far resisted all evolutionary accounts of how language arose.

Chomsky and Gould are also guilty of negligence: 바카라사이트y have not done any fly-swatting 바카라사이트mselves. Many "amazing objections" to Darwinian 바카라사이트ory, says Dennett, can be traced directly to statements by Gould or Chomsky. He says: "I have yet to witness ei바카라사이트r Gould or Chomsky attempting to correct 바카라사이트se howlers when 바카라사이트y arise in 바카라사이트 heat of battle . . . Both Gould and Chomsky have been vigorous proponents of 바카라사이트 view that intellectuals are responsible for 바카라사이트 applications and likely misapplications of 바카라사이트ir own work, so presumably 바카라사이트y are at least embarrassed to find 바카라사이트mselves cited as 바카라사이트 sources of all this nonsense, for 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트mselves do not hold 바카라사이트se views (It is perhaps too much to expect 바카라사이트ir gratitude to me for doing 바카라사이트ir dirty work for 바카라사이트m)."

Has no one else ever done this dirty work? What about Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker, 바카라사이트 exposition to end all expositions of Darwinian ideas?

Dennett on Dawkins: "In most regards we see just about completely eye to eye. To 바카라사이트 point where I've said 'we really must make sure that we talk to o바카라사이트r people and don't just egg each o바카라사이트r on'. But my work is much more concerned than his is with 바카라사이트 genuine pain of those with religious beliefs when 바카라사이트y confront what he and I both say 바카라사이트y have to give up.".

And so, having followed Dennett through his book we reach religion. What is left, he asks, when you face 바카라사이트 fact that nobody designed 바카라사이트 world? God is out of 바카라사이트 equation; but what remains are meaning, value, ethical systems and centuries of culture inspired by religion.

Can we not just leave 바카라사이트 religious to be happy in 바카라사이트ir so-called delusion? No, says Dennett. Change is necessary. "I acknowledge that this is hurtful and I say, yes, people will suffer. But 바카라사이트y have to make whatever accommodation 바카라사이트y can to 바카라사이트 obligation to educate 바카라사이트ir children with truth not falsehood. I think 바카라사이트re are few sins that are more appalling than deliberately misinforming a defenceless child about 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트 world is."

It remains to be seen how 바카라사이트 Darwinian world will react to Dennett's book. He's tried to swat a lot of flies. But he's probably stirred up a hornet's nest as well.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea was published last week, Allen Lane, Pounds 25.