Richard Dawkins stands on his head

Some more comments on 'The Information' by James Gleick. I want to deal with the idea of the selfish gene. Standing on his head, Dawkins imagines he's the only one who sees life in the correct way.

Quotes and comments;

1. 'We use DNA, just as we use lungs to breathe and eyes to see. We use it. “This attitude is an error of great profundity,”Dawkins wrote. “It is the truth turned crashingly on its head.” DNA came first—by billions of years—and DNA comes first, he argued, when life is viewed from the proper perspective." [1.]

- If all is matter in motion nothing can be an error of great profundity; nothing can be profound at all.
Dawkins claims DNA came first. This isn't a fact, this is a bit of theory; a bit of a theory if you will. No one observed this. The fact it's impossible for matter to write code apparently doesn't bother him.

His point is that DNA uses us. This makes no sense to me. The lesser doesn't use the greater. DNA makes no sense without living organisms; that's what it's for, for goodness sake. You don't say the saw uses the carpenter! i.e. we are the slaves of DNA because DNA came first. This isnt a scientific argument, nor is it a logical one. He can offer no proof of his idea. The idea is untestable speculation; a bit of metaphysics.

Truth? If all is matter in motion there is no truth. If DNA is the 'boss' and we have to look at ourselves in that light it makes no sense to speak of the truth. Truth is a human concept, not a 'concept' of DNA. There is no 'truth' in DNA... so why speak of truth then?

Proper perspective? How does he know what that is? That's another human concept by the way. There is no 'proper perspective' seen from the 'vantage point' of dna. Nothing is proper or improper to DNA. (Apparently dawkins had to stand on his head to see things in the proper perspective.)

2. "From that perspective [above], genes are the focus, the sine qua non, the star of the show." [1.]

- This is the idea instructions exist for themselves! This is akin to saying a blueprint for a house exists for itself, and not to build a house with. How Dawkins can get things so wrong is amazing. The man goes through life standing on his head.

3. 'In his first book—published in 1976, meant for a broad audience, provocatively titled The Selfish Gene—he set off decades of debate by declaring: “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” [2.]

- If that's the case why do they need us?
If they (genes, DNA segments) existed for billions of years without us, why do they need us, why do we exist? It makes no sense to me. If genes existed before any animal why do they even need bugs or insects? This is a completely irrational notion.

How do molecules program creatures? This is an absurd use of language. Only intelligent agents write programs. His claim isn't scientific. It's not even science fiction; it's more deserving a place in the horror genre.

Why would a molecule care if it survives or not? Could it? How?

Blindly programmed? What's that when it's at home? Do people write code blind? Can code be written blind? (i.e. without intention, without a goal)

4. "'Genes, not organisms, are the true units of natural selection. They began as “replicators”—molecules formed accidentally in the primordial soup, with the unusual property of making copies of themselves." [2.]

- How anyone can believe this I don't know. Anything's possible in Dawkin's world I guess. (That no-god zone of his perverse imagination.)

Has he forgotten what genes are? Has he forgotten their usual definition?
Gene;
1. 'A hereditary unit consisting of a sequence of DNA that occupies a specific location on a chromosome and determines a particular characteristic in an organism. [AHD]

5. "They are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago." [2.]

- How's that for purple prose? Doesn't exactly sound scientific does it. Dawkins is engaging in personification (anthropomorphism) here. Again; why use this human language to describe the non-human?

Cavalier freedom? Come on. That's a bit rich even for Dawkins. What can it possibly mean? (Not that it isn't a scientific fact :=}

Cavalier; [from Cavaliers]
a. Showing arrogant or offhand disregard; dismissive

- Genes can be arrogant Richard? Did you see that through a microscope?
A cavalier was a soldier or a knight (a chivalrous man one dictionary says) How does this fit in with genes?

Cavalier freedom is such a strange conjunction... I'm not sure it makes any sense at all. A soldier isn't notable for having freedom.
Why would genes give up their freedom? (Assuming matter in motion can have freedom, or that it makes any sense in a non-human context.) How does he know this is what happened? I don't think he has a time machine.

What instructions did these mythical genes have any way? (Does he ever tell us this?) A gene to be a gene has to consist of instructions does it not? Or didn't these cavalier genes have instructions in those free and easy days? Why would they carry instructions they weren't going to use? why would they have instructions to compose other creatures?
- Could such a hypothetical creature even exist independently? I don't see how.

6. ''Now they 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."

- This sounds like something out of 'Astounding Stories' circa 1940. These 'genes' of his sound almost identical to some pulp descriptions of invading aliens.
Safe? Why weren't they safe before this? If they survived billions of years on their own they must have been pretty safe. Wouldn't they be safer in a world by themselves? Why bring in the danger of other creatures.

This isn't science it's twaddle; metaphysical speculation (of an extremely perverse sort).
How can a molecule communicate? Does it speak English or French? What does it mean to say a molecule communicates? Communicates what? Does oxygen have anything to say. ("If only the elements could speak! What tales they'd tell.")

Why did they create such torture for themselves? What does torture mean when applied to a molecule?

7. "They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence...'' [2.]

- This is crackpot theology, not science. If his scenario were true nothing would have a rationale. An entity that's not rational can't have a reason for anything. Without intelligence reason cannot exist.
This reductionism turned into a crackpot religion.

They? Doesn't he mean it? If he changed his purple pen for a grey one this would read; 'The gene is in you and me; it created us, body and mind...' It would still be nonsense, but a little higher class nonsense; having made the move from genre to literature as it were.

Let's see now. A molecule created the mind. I see... but wait; I thought materialists believe only the physical exists. He must mean a molecule created the human brain. That Is impressive isn't it? I wonder where a gene got the information from. Maybe there's a cosmic library that your average molecule can tap into.

8. 'Yet Dawkins’s book was brilliant and transformative. It established a new, multilayered understanding of the gene. At first, the idea of the selfish gene seemed like a trick of perspective, or a joke. Samuel Butler had said a century earlier—and did not claim to be the first—that a hen is only an egg’s way of making another egg.'

- The selfish gene idea Is a joke. It's a joke and nothing more. (A very bad joke; a joke in very bad taste.) It wouldn't surprise me if he came up with the idea as a joke. (It would seem there has to be some reason for him to choose to see things in such a upside down fashion.) It would fit with his unflagging attempts to defame God, Christianity and creation. If he's correct, life is a bad joke... and if there's a god, it's he who has perpetrated this bad joke on us.

Summary;
The selfish gene idea isn't science. It's a bit of rhetoric that tries to convince people that everything the bible tells them about metaphysics is false.

Mike Johnson

Notes;
1. The Information - James Gleick/291
2. ibid; page 292
3. Where's the proof a molecule has a will to survive? Where's the proof this is possible? How is it a molecule can have a will? This is equivocation at best. A molecule is deaf, dumb and blind, and has no mind... but Rich Dawkins seems not to know this.
4. I could play the Dawkins game (really the Butler game) and say Richard Dawkins is just the devil's way of slandering God.
5. The egg story is a good example of how the data and the story are not the same. Stories are interpretations of data. Theoretically there could be an almost limitless number of stories told about a set of data. eg. e.s like to say the fossil record proves evolution over time. It's simply a fact they say. This isn't true. The fossil record composes a set of data, while the idea this proves e. over time is an interpretation of the data. It's not the only interpretation out there, or the only one possible. This interpretation is as impossible to prove as Butler's story of the egg. We're talking about something we didn't observe.
6. DNA creates the cell, but needs the cell to exist... there can be no cell without DNA, but there can be no dna without the cell. More evidence for special creation.
7. Interpretation; or The story of the chicken and the egg
- Samuel butler said the chicken was the egg's way of producing an egg. His views on the egg are just as scientific as Dawkins' ideas on the selfish gene. i.e. neither is scientific.
What we observe is sperm and egg coming together and an egg being formed, and the egg coming out of the chicken. That's science; anything else is spin... story telling.
8. Speaking of eggs; the fact no one can answer the riddle which came first is (I believe) evidence for special creation. I see no other possible explanation. The evolutionist in my opinion, has no grounds for throwing out the best (only) explanation.
- the Biblical answer is that the chicken came first. i.e. special creation