When Science Is Not Enough

What does science have to tell us about the abortion debate?  In my view, not much.

I mean, first you have to define life. So even if you begin at fertilization, then you must decide how it becomes sacred. The things we use science to tell us about morality are largely non-existent at this stage. In fact, science tells us they don't exist - thinking, feeling aren't happening. And of course there's no evidence of any kind of soul.

That doesn't mean you can't have feelings about it, or come up with definition that make sense. But it will always be an artificial construct you are inventing. For what it is worth, there is much clearer evidence that killing animals for their meat is immoral. Science shows that thinking, feeling, creatures undergo immense suffering - immensely more than a fetus ever could at any prenatal stage.

So the question becomes where we apply our morality. To value human life/suffering over animal life/suffering is a human, not scientific construct. (And of course, any attempt to invoke Darwin here as a moral guide is preposterous. It quickly leads to what we would agree are immoral conclusions. )

I'm reading The Information right now, and there is a fascinating chapter on Dawkins and the concept of memes and cultural evolution. Again, there is no moral prescription, but an explanation of a process. Not only are we a highly evolved physical organism, we are a highly evolved cultural organism. In our lifespans, we are exposed to such an amazingly rich developmental diet of content, many ideas - memes - of which go back thousands of years.

Of course, the fact that they evolved - survived - has no bearing on their morality! However, it does have a bearing on their existence as human constructs, as they have arisen from the fertile soil of previous generations. Generations! You could say in both senses of the word - our biological ancestors, as well as their ideas which generated our ideas today.

So, here's a question: what does free will have to say about the meme? I've long felt that defenders of contra-causal free will tend to sound very similar to creationists. And in a way, they are making the same argument. The claim that God is the originator of human biology, or evolution, is similar to the claim that the individual is the originator of his own memes.

So as to deny that there is a purely physical process of random mutation of DNA that gives rise to evolved life forms, is similar to denying that there is a random mutation of memes within the individual's neural net. In fact, the notion that the individual is in control of his own mind is about as absurd as the notion that God is in control of mutating DNA. To take this further, one might ask why God would create so many absurdly inefficient mutations. So too, would one ask why humans make such absurdly poor "choices"? Of course, the evolutionary explanation makes perfect sense, as seen in the fossil and DNA record, etc. So too does the determinist explanation, as seen in developmental, sociological and brain science.

At best, science can tells us the mechanics of how life develops, as well as the physical world in which our feelings exist.  It can also tell us about how our thoughts develop.  But can it tell us whether or not an embryo is "sacred"?  At the very least, it would seem to tell us that it is not.  Yet for many, having embraced greatly evolved historical traditions that stretch deep into the unconscious minds, science will not be enough. 

Shoveling Towards Consciousness

I've been reading Richard Dawkins', The Greatest Show On Earth.  In a playful and joyous manner, he does an excellent job explaining the nuanced brilliance of natural selection.

A particular point he spends time on is the differences between artificial and natural selection.  Or rather, the lack of differences.  He notes that when the horticulturalist or pet breeder selects for some desirable characteristic, he is simply doing consciously what natural selection does unconsciously.  He points to the fact that certain flowers have been bred relentlessly, owing to some natural beauty or perfume the strength of which can be heightened by selection.  Yet other flowers, such as the corpse flower, which smell like rotting flesh in order to attract the flies and carrion beetles which are their pollinators, are of obvious disinterest to horticulturists.

He gives numerous other examples of the ways in which natural selection in nature is driven by a continuous, back-and-forth relationship among organisms, each placing what is ultimately reproductive pressure on one another.  When a flower grows brighter or more nectarous to attract a particular bird (those mutations leading to brighter colors or sweeter nectar being pollinated further), the bird is actively selecting for those characteristics which please it most: color and taste/caloric content.

I haven't finished the book.  And for all I know Dawkins has already or will make this next point.  But it occurred to me while reading about this similarity between natural and artificial selection, that there is no small degree of anthropocentrism going on here.  Because, aren't we all simply selecting for the things which please us?  Or to go further, aren't we being selected for by the things which would please us?

A man wants to plant a tomato plant, so he digs a hole.  The soil is firm, and so he devises a tool to make the job easier: a shovel.  As shovels don't generally exist in nature, you might say that he selected for, or designed the shovel.  Yet could you not also say that his shovel was designed by the firm soil into which the hole must be dug?  Just like the hole itself was designed by the tomato plant?  And the tomato plant having been designed by the man's desire for tomatoes?

So now we come to the classic creationist argument for an intelligent designer: does not a watch need a watchmaker; does Mt. Rushmore not need a sculptor?  Just like shovels, neither occur naturally in nature. 

Yet is man not nature?  When man selects for a particular trait that pleases him, he is behaving just like the bee that selects for the tastiest nectar.  The only difference, it seems to me, is that man's brain is considerably larger, and thus is able to have something called "consciousness" about the whole thing.  Although, as any post-modern deconstructionist will tell you, man is often quite unconscious of what he is - knowingly or not - selecting for.

Now, consciousness is certainly an amazing process.  It is likely one of the most amazing things we know of existing in the universe.  But the actual act of consciousness is largely unconscious (just ask yourself how you thought what you just thought!).  And while the conscious mind can do some pretty amazing things - the Parthenon, the Mahabharata, Hamlet - these are but child's play compared to the staggering complexity of the eukaryotic cell, or the eyeball, both of which were selected for and "designed" over the course of millennia.

At this point it might also be fun to observe that consciousness itself has evolved by a process of natural selection.  Our ancestors a million years ago likely could not have dreamed of the Labradoodle.  Yet the structures in their brains responsible for the inevitable desire to breed such a creature were well under developmental way.