MATERIALISM AND THE PRIMACY OF DNA

"The spread of [Darwinian)]evolution was truly world-wide. The Origin of Species was translated into the languarge of the 'newly awakened' Japan and that of hardly emancipated Hindustan. The scientists won on vaccination and vivisection, Bible teaching and table rapping. By won, I mean that opposition to their views on all these things put one in a minority even in the opinion of the ignorant. Materialism, conscious or implicit, superceded all other beliefs." --Jacques Barzun

"Materialism," in our present context, may be defined as a theory that the primary cause or causes of life are material. Materialism would thus be the opposite of "supermaterialism," or supernaturalism, or "idealism." Idealism is the theory that the first cause is "idea," or thought. After Einstein and his E = mc2 formula (energy is a highly accelerated form of matter), neither materialism nor idealism can be considered a valid basis for biology. Physics is the science that establishes the basis for the life sciences, and what the "New Physics" tells us is that the material and non-material realms are interdependent. Physicists (after David Bohm) now speak of the non-material realm as "the implicate order" and the material realm as "the explicate order." Today, only a holistic, integrative philosophy can serve as a sound basic framework for biology and derivative sciences. Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism are expressions of materialism. After 1915 or thereabouts, they are thus--from a methodological point of view--obsolete. That Darwinism exists today as our orthodox evolutionary theory has little to do with its -1-

scientific validity, and much to do with other factors. Especially important is the fact that Darwinism, having replaced the Biblical view of existence, now stands in the Bible's place, as The Authority on the subject of existence. Underlying every civilization, as we have discussed, is a picture of life, a generally agreed upon vision of "what life is all about"; and this vision we call the civilization's basal paradigm. The triumph of Darwinism in the last century is that it effectively replaced the Bible at the level of basal paradigm, and this is the principal reason why (in this century) Darwinism has been so "unassailable." Indeed, in 1976, more than fifty years after the dawn of the New Physics, Ernst Mayr could claim that Darwinism had triumphed absolutely. "Among specialists," Mayr writes, "almost complete agreement has been reached in recent decades. Whether they are botonists or geologists, paleontologists or geneticisits, all.... interpret the results of the evolutionary process in the same [Darwinian] manner...." [1] This is the equivalent of the Pope claiming, some fifty years after the establishment of Newtonian physics, that the Roman Church had become the universally recognized authority on the subject of physical existence. Today, nearly eighty years after the dawn of New Physics, our biology and derived sciences (orthodox medicine, for instance) are still materialistic. For this reason, it is necessary that we reconstruct, to some extent, the history of modern materialism. We need to understand better its origins and its unfoldment in the history of modern science and civilization.

There was a time when the Roman Catholic Church was a great tyrant. The founders of the Church sifted through the records of early Christians and from these records compiled what they regarded as the one and only true account of existence, of the origin and history of life on Earth, of God's plan for humankind. This compilation was called the "Holy Bible."

-2-

A principal way by which the Church "proved" that its doctrines (beliefs that are regarded as laws) represented "the one and only true account of existence" was by subverting and destroying oppositional points of view. The first targets of this policy were the "gnostic" Christians, followers of Christ who claimed to be able to "know" God and God's plan directly, without the intercession of a church hierarchy. The claim that one could know God directly was labeled, by the orthodox, as a big "heresy" (a great crime). This condemnation of direct knowing is still influential today. In a small group of friends, say something like "I can channel God," and see what response you get. Say "I am God," and certain of your friends may recommend that you see a psychiatrist. Modern Western civilization begins with the establishment of Roman Catholicism as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The doctrines of the Church were as important to its authority as the legions of the Emperor were important to secular rule. These doctrines comprised a basal paradigm, a widely promulgated and accepted view of existence. Let us consider existence to be a "system." Any system has four major components-an input, a process, an output, and memory. In the Biblical basal paradigm, the input is God the Source, the output is personal salvation and the salvation of humankind; the process by which salvation is accomplished is "faith" in the Word of God (as expressed in the doctrines of the Church. The memory of the system (the knowledge of the entire system) is encoded in the Bible. The leaders of the Catholic Church regarded themselves as the "keepers" of the sacred basal paradigm; their mission, they believed, was to "entrain" the entire world to their point of view. All those who had "other points of view," other understandings of existence, were current or potential enemies of the paradigm, which is to say, enemies of God. For early Church leaders, to slay the enemies of God was no crime; it was simply "purification" of the world, the work of building God's temple. -3-

In the contemporary period, the Catholic Church has been, in many ways, a progressive, enlightening influence. Prior to the contemporary period, however, the Church was a tyrant. It regarded itself as the possessor of the truth of existence, and it was adamant in its insistence that all the world believe the truth of the Catholics. The infamous Inquisition, a tribunal for the discovery and punishment of heresy, lasted six hundred years. Among those who were "corrected" by the Inquisition was Galileo. The eminent Galileo was brought before the Inquisition and forced to recant his view that the Earth revolves around the sun. In the Catholic view, it was the sun that revolves around the Earth. The inflexibility of the Church in the case of Galileo did much to destroy its authority among thinking Westerners. In response to Church tyranny, Martin Luther and others precipitated the P:rotestant Reformation, which dates officially from 1529. By that time, the Roman Church had been at war against anti-Church dissidents in Europe for over a hundred years. What the Protestants protested was the claim of the Roman Church that it was the one and only legitimate representative of God. The revolt did not challenge the basal paradigm. Catholics and Protestants worshipped the same God. For both factions, God the Source was not only the creator of the physical universe, He was the day-to-day regulator of the universe. "His eye is upon the sparrow." Both factions accepted the Bible as the definitive Word of God. The Biblical paradigm itself did not face serious challenge until modern science was invented in the middle of the seventeenth century. On a pleasant spring day in 1633 (give or take a few years), the French philospher Rene Descartes was taking a stroll in the marvelous royal gardens at Versailles when he had a bright idea. Now the royal gardens were the Disneyland of the Middle Ages, famous for their ingenious machines. One might step on a certain stone, for instance, and mechanical nymphs would begin to play in a nearby fountain--and a giant Neptune, complete with trident, might advance -4-

menacingly. [2] What was Descartes' bright idea? It occurred to Descartes that the universe is an immense organic machine, a machine that may not require the constant governance of the Almighty. This intuition was quite a radical one. If the universe was, as Descartes believed, an immense self-regulating machine, then it was conceivable that the creator of the machine might perhaps have lost interest in His creation and gone off on some other business. Equally radical was an idea that sprang from the concept of universe-as-machine: The best way to find out all about the laws of existence is to study the machine. The universe is a machine; machines operate on mechanical principles; define those principles and you have true, scientific insight into the workings of life. The doctrines of the Church faced a serious challenge: The laws of nature. Modern "materialism" originates with the Cartesian view of the world as machine. "Mechanicalism" is a somewhat awkward term for the Cartesian view. Materialism came to be the preferred label. Descartes discovered that the world is a machine; the great Isaac Newton (1642-1727) discovered the laws (some of the laws) by which the machine works. Sir Isaac established the science of mechanisms, appropriately called "Mechanics." Mechanics was the foundation of "Natural Philosophy." Natural philosophy, in time, was subdivided into three sciences--mechanics (later known as physics), chemistry, and biology. Physics is the master science, as it provides an understanding of the basic laws of the universe. For a long time Newtonian physics (or "classical physics") was our only physics. The laws of Newtonian physics apply to physical pheonomena; they do not concern the realm of energy or the relationship between energy and matter. Newton, by the way, hated the Catholic Church. What he detested most was its arrogant insistence that it had a monopoly on truth. And what was the basis of this "Truth?"--nothing but baseless conjectures, hypotheses without proof. -5-

In contradistinction, Newton declared "Hypotheses non fingo"--"I do not make hypotheses." Understood in context, this statement is primarily a criticism of theology and other metaphysical disciplines. In the history of scientific philosophy, it acquired great importance as foundational principle of valid scientific inquiry. Objective evidence is the basis of scientific truth, and not hypothesis. We may be tempted to alter Newton's dictum into a statement more in accord with our common understanding of scientific investigation as always involving a degree of hypothesis; but such alteration may conceal the important fact that Newton's scientific method is entirely in accord with his physics. Neither the physics nor the methodology permits metaphysical considerations. Both physics and methodology are severely materialistic. As experience indicates, physicality and mentality, hypotheses and the physical facts, cannot be separated without violation of the whole truth. The idea they can be separated is itself simply conjectural. Newton's phrasing of his famous dictum ("Hypotheses non fingo") conceals the fact that the dictum is itself hypothesis. It maintains, as a matter of fact, that scientific investigation can be conducted without recourse to hypothesis. The declaration is a hypothesis, one with which any seasoned professional would not agree. Whatever its merit as philosophy, the Newtonian dictum had a very great political value, as it drew the line clearly between the realms of religion and science. It was, in effect, a division of the world of thought. Religion would rule absolute in the sphere of metaphysics; and science would have dominion in the fields of matter. Newtonian physics and scientific methodology established themselves quickly as the foundation of modern science. Given the severly materialistic nature of the foundation, it is not surprising that the biology which proved most convincing, most acceptable to nineteenth century scientists was Darwinian materialism. Species come from other species by mechanical means. Darwin himself nodded occasionally to the "Creator," as

-6-

the original source, but his followers did not follow him in this deference. Darwinism acquired the reputation of being a refutation of the God concept. Having convinced itself of the "primacy of material causation" (let us call it), late nineteenth century biology felt obligated to come up with some sort of proof. What was the final "scientific" answer to the Genesis myth?--and the other primacy of God folklore? What physical items could science offer as the real "genesis factors" underlying the creation? The answer to this question, in two words, is "the genes." In the early and midnineteenth century, scientists had no inkling of the existence of genes. The discovery of the specific physical mechanism of reproduction had to wait upon the refinement of the microscrope. The first description of the chromosomal details of mitosis (the cellular formation of new nucleii) dates from 1876. The first laws of heredity, including "Mendel's Laws," were set forth in 1900. In 1911, T.H. Morgan was able to postulate that the heredity factors, which he named "genes," were located in the chromosomes in linear order--"like beads on a string." "Genes" means, literally, "genesis factors."

GRAPHIC: Illustration of DNA, RNA, proteins, etc. with explanation.

-7-

The "Neo-" component of Neo-Darwinism is a doctrine called "the Primacy of the DNA." In a few words, this doctrine maintains that the DNA in the genetic structure (genome) is the primary factor in the creation of the biological realm. The DNA is Darwinism's final answer to the God hypothesis. The God explanation is nothing but anthropomorphic mythology, according to the Darwinists. "There is a simple, material explanation for life on Earth.... DNA." After the breaking of the genetic code in the 1950s, the DNA became more and more an "explain-all." Among the orthodox the concensus arose that the nucleus and its genetic materials are the "brain" of the cell. On the basis of this (incorrect) hypothesis, the orthodoxy concluded that organismal behavior of all kinds is an expression of the genetics--is encoded in the genes. This conclusion came to include "consciousness." Is there a possibility that environmental signaling of some kind might be influential in causation of behavior? "Absolutely not," the orthodox responded. "A direct influence of the environment on the genetic material is impossible," writes Professor Ernst Mayr. "The way from the DNA (via the RNA) to the proteins is a one-way street." [3] In fact, the role of the genes is not to originate behavior, but to provide molecular "blueprints" for items that are "requested" by the environment via the cellular membrane. Speaking metaphorically, the nucleus represents a jukebox, with the genes being the records--the musical selections. The records do not create their own play list, do not spontaneously play themselves. What pushes the buttons? what creates the play list? The environment. [4] Today, the genetics and genetic engineering industries are based upon the orthodox "Primacy of the DNA." The major project now underway is the so-called "mapping of the genome." The presumption is that this mapping will be of enormous value in the near future, in ridding the world of defective behavior through the correction or elimination of defective genes.

-8-

The future world envisioned by the orthodox is one that is scientifically designed, through genetic engineering. The behaviorist B.F. Skinner was one of the major prophets of this world. Today we face "terrifying problems," he writes in Beyond Freedom & Dignity, but fortunately, "our culture has produced the science and technology it needs to save itself." That science is genetics. "The geneticist who changes the characteristics of a species by selective breeding or by changing genes may seem to be meddling in biological evolution, but he does so because his species has evolved to the point at which it has been able to develop a science of genetics and a culture which induces its members to take the future of the species into account." [5] When our scientific orthodoxy insists, in the face of much evidence to the contrary, that the third factor (the genes) in the chain of causation underlying biological expression is the first factor, the primary factor, then the future of our species is indeed very much in question.

-9-

- 10 -