TORONTO, ONTARIO - If I didn't know better, I would think that the staff of WNYC's Radiolab also recently read Francis Collins' "The Language of God" and wanted to explore the topic I raised in my blog entry about altruism not being so clearly counter to evolution. This week's podcast (and show), entitled The Good Show, explored the idea of how goodness might have a biological basis.
While much of the show could be summarized as exploring different forms of Richard Dawkins' selfish gene theory, the key final segment focused on the work by Robert Axelrod. He decided to set up mathematical models of different one-on-one competitions in which cooperation was most rewarded, but one of the individuals could defeat the other. Various strategies were tested for participants, ranging from the "Jesus" participant that always cooperated to the "Lucifer" participant who always tried to defeat the other party. It turns out that a "tit for tat" participant, who cooperates if the other party cooperates but attacks if the other participant attacks, survived in basically any environment, even if surrounded by mostly "Lucifers". Indeed, as long as there were at least a few "tit for tat" participants that could find each other and cooperate, they would rout out even the "Lucifers" over the course of generations.
Granted, this is a greatly simplified model that assumes that cooperative behavior is beneficial and that the behavior of individuals is consistent. However, this implies that if a population of "Lucifers" has a few mutations into "tit for tat", the mutants that have some goodness in them can thrive. Furthermore, Axelrod found that the ideal participant seemed to be the default "tit-for-tat" but adding about 10% of its decisions as being always cooperative ("tit-for-tat" with 10% "Jesus")--that allowed the potentially-cooperative individuals to better find one another and gain the advantages of the cooperation without making them too vulnerable to "Lucifers" that would take advantage of their demeanor.
Radiolab makes the comparison of "tit-for-tat" with the Old Testament "eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth" and "Jesus" with the New Testament "turn the other cheek." However, from the standpoint of Collin's book, I think this may be the "moral code" in mathematical form. The reality of the human being "moral code" is not that of the "Jesus" stance from the Axelrod experiments. Human beings don't feel the need to be nice to people that attack them--they only tend to be nice to other people that are nice back. The "10% Jesus" represents a default stance to offer kindness until the other entity proves not to be worthy of cooperation. I think Axelrod has come up with a reasonable mathematical approximation of the "moral code"--and furthermore, demonstrated that under natural selection, it wins out.
Granted, the Axelrod experiments were simplistic simulations, and don't explain pure altruism. Yet, I don't think it's a large logical leap to go from the Axelrod experiments to the idea that the "moral code" (at least the "tit-for-tat with 10% Jesus" form) could have evolved. Furthermore, knowing that most animals have a range of traits, it's not hard to believe that the average human might be "tit-for-tat with 10% Jesus" but that certain individuals would be "Jesus" (seemingly pure altruism) or "Lucifer" (seemingly pure evil) with many along the spectrum in between.
This Radiolab episode has solidified my stand that Francis Collins is probably not correct when he makes the assertion that natural forces cannot explain the "moral code." It seems to me that Robert Axelrod has come close enough that it doesn't take much imagination to come up with a plausible evolution process.
Showing posts with label Francis Collins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francis Collins. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Culture: Disagreeing with Francis Collins
TORONTO, ONTARIO - I recently finished reading the The Language of God by Francis S. Collins, the well-known geneticist that amongst other things led the government portion of the Human Genome Project. I'm probably one of the few readers who started the book without any wonderment about the fact that a prominent scientist like Collins could be religious--I've long held that there isn't necessarily a conflict between the two, and on Collins' key points in the book on the potential harmony, I essentially found myself in agreement. Instead, I read the book to find out what had compelled him to have faith--and found it quite unconvincing.
The key part of Collins' argument for the existence of God is the idea of the "moral code," or the nearly-universal tendency of human beings to exhibit a degree of selfless altruism. I agree with him when he points out that it is contrary to evolutionary theory in that "it cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves" since many exhibiting this behavior die before reproduction. Clearly, something other direct natural selection as described by Darwin or even Richard Dawkins' selfish gene theory is at work in creating this behavior.
Yet, I found Collins quite quick to dismiss possible explanations. He completely discounts the possibility of selflessness being a positive attribute in mate selection. He cites studies of "nonhuman primates that often reveal just the opposite--such as the practice of infanticide by a newly dominant male monkey, in order to clear the way for his own offspring" but fails to recognize other studies often held up Robert Sapolsky at Stanford that show "Alan Alda" male chimpanzees having reproductive success simply by being around females more often, rather than by being the alpha. It seems that even amongst non-humans, there are multiple paths to reproductive success, and altruism might actually help in attracting mates in some of them, thus potentially perpetuating itself.
What really surprised me, though, is that a geneticist would overlook the argument that a mutation that created altruism might also create another trait with a more clear evolutionary advantage and thus be perpetuated even though it might be harmful itself. The most common example of this kind of situation is sickle-cell anemia being linked with malarial survival--the same mutation that causes the sickle cells affords that person malarial resistance, which might actually be a net positive trade-off in survivability. Considering that we have yet to determine the chemical mechanism of altruism, it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that we will not, and that it might not be linked to something else that confers emotional strength, disease resistance, or some other clear advantage.
Furthermore, I find it rather ironic that Collins spends an entire chapter pointing out how new scientific discoveries are rendering the arguments made by intelligent design advocates moot--such as gaps in the fossil record (many of which have now been filled in by later discoveries). Could not the same process of continued discovery and improved theories eventually render his own arguments about the "moral code" being divine look unnecessary if a scientific explanation eventually comes forward? I don't know if that will ever happen, but the fact that Collins doesn't even seem to see the possibility is rather disappointing.
While I've never met him, the ideas expressed by Francis Collins in his book suggest to me that he is exactly the kind of deeply religious person with whom I could get along. He thinks about his beliefs in profound ways, applies critical thinking to his faith, and reconciles it with the world around him. I might reach a different conclusion based on the same facts, but there would be no arguing about the facts themselves, and any argument about the conclusions would be educational. People trying to reconcile science and religion should find value in his perspective, and more importantly can respect his leadership in trying to point out that reconciliation is not such a difficult task. In the end, that's why I was so disappointed in his reasoning in favor of faith--it doesn't offer much challenge to those who start out from an atheistic perspective.
The key part of Collins' argument for the existence of God is the idea of the "moral code," or the nearly-universal tendency of human beings to exhibit a degree of selfless altruism. I agree with him when he points out that it is contrary to evolutionary theory in that "it cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves" since many exhibiting this behavior die before reproduction. Clearly, something other direct natural selection as described by Darwin or even Richard Dawkins' selfish gene theory is at work in creating this behavior.
Yet, I found Collins quite quick to dismiss possible explanations. He completely discounts the possibility of selflessness being a positive attribute in mate selection. He cites studies of "nonhuman primates that often reveal just the opposite--such as the practice of infanticide by a newly dominant male monkey, in order to clear the way for his own offspring" but fails to recognize other studies often held up Robert Sapolsky at Stanford that show "Alan Alda" male chimpanzees having reproductive success simply by being around females more often, rather than by being the alpha. It seems that even amongst non-humans, there are multiple paths to reproductive success, and altruism might actually help in attracting mates in some of them, thus potentially perpetuating itself.
What really surprised me, though, is that a geneticist would overlook the argument that a mutation that created altruism might also create another trait with a more clear evolutionary advantage and thus be perpetuated even though it might be harmful itself. The most common example of this kind of situation is sickle-cell anemia being linked with malarial survival--the same mutation that causes the sickle cells affords that person malarial resistance, which might actually be a net positive trade-off in survivability. Considering that we have yet to determine the chemical mechanism of altruism, it seems a bit presumptuous to assume that we will not, and that it might not be linked to something else that confers emotional strength, disease resistance, or some other clear advantage.
Furthermore, I find it rather ironic that Collins spends an entire chapter pointing out how new scientific discoveries are rendering the arguments made by intelligent design advocates moot--such as gaps in the fossil record (many of which have now been filled in by later discoveries). Could not the same process of continued discovery and improved theories eventually render his own arguments about the "moral code" being divine look unnecessary if a scientific explanation eventually comes forward? I don't know if that will ever happen, but the fact that Collins doesn't even seem to see the possibility is rather disappointing.
While I've never met him, the ideas expressed by Francis Collins in his book suggest to me that he is exactly the kind of deeply religious person with whom I could get along. He thinks about his beliefs in profound ways, applies critical thinking to his faith, and reconciles it with the world around him. I might reach a different conclusion based on the same facts, but there would be no arguing about the facts themselves, and any argument about the conclusions would be educational. People trying to reconcile science and religion should find value in his perspective, and more importantly can respect his leadership in trying to point out that reconciliation is not such a difficult task. In the end, that's why I was so disappointed in his reasoning in favor of faith--it doesn't offer much challenge to those who start out from an atheistic perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)