Dawkins and the Selfish Gene by Ed Sexton - Paperback

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Introduction

'... man’s way of life is largely determined by culture rather than by genes.'

This is perhaps not a quotation we would normally associate with Richard Dawkins. It does, however, exemplify two points which I hope to make in this book. I hope to show that much of Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ theory has been misinterpreted, and that therefore much of the criticism he has received is misdirected. A few well-chosen quotations can be highly misleading and can bury the meaning of any complex theory, which brings me to the second point: many (but by no means all) of Dawkins’ critics focus on his rhetoric, rather than the theory he describes.

Of course, the rhetoric of ‘The Selfish Gene’ is all too easy to criticise. Dawkins’ metaphorical and often aggressive use of language can alienate readers rather than persuade them. Certain words are downright confusing, such as ‘selfish’ in the title, which the author constantly reminds us he is using in a ‘special’ way. Putting aside our common understanding of these words and replacing them with Dawkinspeak is not helped by the occasional outbursts and anti-religious swipes which litter the book, a point emphasised by Merryl Wyn Davies:

‘Dawkins may maintain he believes that genes make us but do not compel us, yet his “giddying updraughts of rhetoric” are repeatedly and passionately defended by their author; they persuasively convey meaning.’

This is not to say that there aren’t real objections to selfish gene theory. Philosophers and scientists alike have criticised Dawkins for ignoring various aspects of evolution, for advocating a form of genetic determinism, for reducing all social behaviour to the behaviour of genes, and so on. Perhaps the most popular criticism is that selfish gene theory somehow undermines religion and morality. The ‘somehow’ in that sentence will no doubt tell readers that I think this last objection is unfounded. Theories about facts, while undoubtedly informing moral and social debate, cannot serve as a basis for morality. Or, more succinctly, ‘you can’t get an ought from an is’.

There is a problem, of course, if religion claims something factual which contradicts a scientific theory. Thus, creationists seem to be locked into an endless battle with evolutionists, a topic reviewed in Merryl Wyn Davies’ ‘Darwin and Fundamentalism’, another volume in this series. ‘Dawkins and The Selfish Gene’ is not about the arguments for and against evolutionary theory in general. Many evolutionary biologists disagree with selfish gene theory, and those who reject evolutionary theory itself inevitably reject Dawkins’ work. Theirs is an argument concerning the facts of life’s history – Dawkins’ theory concerns the mechanisms behind those facts, if the basic tenets of evolution are true.

You may feel that the first page of ‘The Selfish Gene’ suggests otherwise. Consider the following rhetoric:

‘We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man?’

Dawkins’ atheism is waved proudly here and elsewhere, but it would be wrong to say that selfish gene theory is in itself opposed to all religious points of view. It may tell us what we are for in the sense of what evolution has constructed us to do, but it certainly doesn’t tell us how to live our lives as conscious human beings.

When it was first published in 1976, ‘The Selfish Gene’ was a straightforward science book. It was based on the principles of neo-Darwinism, which reconciled the relatively new field of genetics with Darwin’s insights into evolution by natural selection. Darwin’s theory had shown how organisms could evolve if the hereditary factors passed down by each generation were open to mutation. Some of these mutations would be advantageous, in the sense that they would increase the organism’s chances of surviving and passing on the mutations (for example, faster running ability). Many would be extremely disadvantageous (for example, one leg). Thus, in a sense, nature would select those individuals most able to survive, who would pass on the mutated hereditary factors (with some new mutations), and so on – evolution by natural selection. Darwin had little idea what these hereditary factors were, or how they could mutate and be passed down the generations. Today we know them by the all too familiar word ‘gene’.

Dawkins took this new way of thinking about evolution and applied it to one specific area. It was not to be a grand new theory. Instead,

‘... it will explore the consequences of the evolution theory for a particular issue. My purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism.’

On the way, however, Dawkins developed a new ‘gene-centred’ way of looking at evolution and biology which laid bare the fallacy in ‘good of the species’ or even ‘good of the individual’ arguments. If there was good to be had, it was by the gene. Dawkins’ theory was not merely constrained to genes – it could be applied to any system of replicating entities which undergo mutation and selection. Artificial Life research has felt its implications, and the last chapter of ‘The Selfish Gene’ even suggests that thoughts could be evolving – the infamous ‘memes’.

Meanwhile, as the book’s popularity increased, so did the controversy. Religious and philosophical objections started to appear, fuelled by the media, which only helped to raise Dawkins’ fame. For some, he was – and remains – a devoted and passionate scientist at the forefront of evolutionary theory; for others, he is still the embodiment of the threat that science poses to social values.