The Selfish Gene
(Chapters 1 to 6)
1976
Preface
“Blindly programmed”. What does this mean ? We must be programmed for a purpose
because, if there were no purpose, then there would be confusion. However, Dr. Dawkins on the
one hand states that the programming is done blindly and, on the other, it has the object of
preserving the selfish molecules known as genes, that is, there is a purpose.
“We animals are the most complicated and perfectly-designed pieces of
machinery in the known universe”. Amen. How Dr. Dawkins can say designed when he does not
believe in a designer I do not know. Perhaps he should have said “We are the most complicated
and most perfect pieces of machinery that ever came into existence without being designed !”
I can understand Dr. Dawkins enthusiasm for zoology. Had I had my time over
again I might well have studied it myself rather than accountancy. With zoology or any other
scientific discipline one can keep adding to one’s own and the fund of human knowledge,
whereas with accountancy one is quite often having one’s knowledge made redundant because
of changes in the law !
1
Dr. Dawkins states that the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as
the theory that the earth goes round the Sun. Hardly. We can demonstrate that the earth goes
round the Sun by making astronomical observations, whatever the apparent course of the Sun,
but as the evolution of species takes place extremely slowly, or so it is said, we cannot see it
happening in our lifetimes or otherwise prove that it takes place.
12
Because he sets aside creation as a reason for the existence of people Dr. Dawkins
only has evolution as an alternative for, as he says, no other feasible alternative has been
suggested. Perhaps it might be better to say simply: “We just do not know”. Maybe that would
be too humbling.
14
It is admitted that how life originated is necessarily speculative, and in reality so is
the evolutionist’s whole system. It would not therefore be a bad idea if evolutionists such as Dr.
Dawkins made a point of visiting, say, the Genesis Expo at Portsmouth if they have not already
done so. Taking a high and detached attitude to creationists could, as the support for evolutionary
theory ebbs away, end in the evolutionists finding themselves in ‘a rock pool’ when the
evolutionary ‘tide’ has gone out. Far better now to look closely at alternative scenarios and
maybe possibly salvage something from the ruins of Darwinism. After all, it has been well said
there is some truth in every error and that is what makes it so dangerous. Consider for instance
Genesis 3:5. What Satan said was partly true. There is more in the early chapters of Genesis than
meets the eye. The simple stories couched in non-technical language seem to be a stumbling
block to those who are looking for something in the language of science.
15
Talking of winning the jackpot as improbable is all very well, but there must be a
jackpot available to be won. If there is none, nothing could be won however long we waited. An
accident is not somehow going to produce a jackpot.
16
Dr.Dawkins confidently asserts that the Septuagint translators made a mistake
when they translated the Hebrew word for ‘young woman’ into the Greek word for ‘virgin’ in
Isaiah 7:14. Having looked closely at the matter I have found that they were almost certainly
right. I can supply Dr. Dawkins with my proofs if he is interested.
19
The language used on this page: ‘discovered’, ‘constructed’ and ‘built’, of
primeval organisms invites sarcasm such as “clever weren’t they ?”
20
If chance mechanisms produced survival machines one wonders why by some
chance mechanism a survival machine did not come into existence that wiped everything else
out. To be frank, if I were not already a creationist, reading Dr. Dawkins book would I think have
made me one. What Dr. Dawkins seems to be teaching is self-creation. This is directly contrary to
what the Bible teaches (see Psalm 100:3).
21
“Immortal Coils”. Strictly speaking the DNA molecule is not immortal (see page
35). It is just that unless a species becomes extinct its genes are copied and recopied again and
again so that though the coils are not immortal the information on them is preserved indefinitely.
22
“Architect’s plans”. It is noticeable that although Dr. Dawkins does not believe
there ever was an architect behind the making of a replicating being, he finds it necessary to use
language which suggests that there is.
32
Mimicry. Humans normally do this deliberately. In the case of butterflies there
must have been an intention to create a mimic, yet, presumably, Dr. Dawkins thinks that butterfly
mimicry just happened and then got repeated in future generations. The mimicry, incidentally,
must have been pretty good from the outset. It is difficult if not impossible to see how this could
come about in small stages.
33
We cannot get away from moral issues in considering the evolution/creation
controversy. Selfishness lies at the heart of evolution theory (the selfish gene). It underlies the
incoming of sin in Genesis 3. Eve took of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because it
appealed to her (verse 6) and disobeyed God. Sin itself is defined as lawlessness (1 John 3:4), but
underlying it is selfishness. Christ on the other hand refused to make himself the object when
tempted of Satan (Matthew 4:1-10). He was regulated by the word of God and not by what was
naturally appealing.
34
Dr. Dawkins points out that if “genes continually blended with each other, natural
selection as we now understand it would be impossible”. Gregor Mendel demonstrated that genes
do not normally blend and therefore Dr. Dawkins considers that this means that evolution can
take place. If genes did blend then eventually the variety that exists within species would be lost.
It would be like the merging of the colours used in painting, when instead of having distinct
colours we would end up probably with dirty brown. Likewise in the natural world we would end
up with a species without variety within it, e.g. a dog would just be that - a dog ! However, such a
scenario would never come about because without the mechanisms that exist for maintaining
variety in a species there would be no variety to start with. How did the mechanisms come to
exist ? It would seem that it would require a lot of mental gymnastics to find a way to show that
mutations combined with natural selection could produce them.
Apart from variation within a species there are clearly mechanisms in place which
keep species from interbreeding and as a result confounding the species. Does not this again
point to the existence of a mind at work in the setting up the mechanisms found in the natural
world ? Genetically modifying species could in some cases upset the distinction between species
with unforeseen consequences. The Mosaic law had prescriptions to ensure that there was no
admixture of sorts (Leviticus 18:23; 19:19).
37
Genes “ collaborate and interact in inextricably complex ways” and “Embryonic
development is controlled by an interlocking web of relationships so complex that we had best
not contemplate it”. What or who arranged this complex system ? Talking about mutations and
natural selection as a means of setting up the system of embryonic development is unlikely to
command much, if any, support. If it did not then come into existence by these methods, then
how did the system come into existence ? Is not the system the expression of intelligence ?
39
A change in one gene in many cases could not have a beneficial effect (I assume
for the argument that there can be such) because to do so it would be necessary to also change
other genes. As Dr. Dawkins says, changing a herbivore’s teeth into that of a carnivore would not
be useful unless intestinal and other changes were made as well. This seems like an admission
that small step evolution cannot work in at least some scenarios.
42
One wonders why, if organisms have evolved by natural selection, natural
selection has not favoured those creatures that reproduce over longer and longer time spans. This
would result in more and more of the particular species being reproduced.
44
One cannot help noticing that evolutionists in trying to find survival benefits for
any features of a species seem to find good reasons for almost anything. For example, why
reproduction should be sexual and on the other hand why it should be vegetative. Similarly, why
long tails have survival benefit, though as short tails do also exist (e.g. on a Wren) why they must
also have survival benefit.
45
“Apparently surplus DNA”. One wonders if this DNA increases as the generations
go by or whether it is static. If it does increase why does it ?
52
Dr. Dawkins speaks of a program being set up by genes to control the behaviour
of survival machines. However, what or who set up the program in the genes that enabled them
to set up the program that controls the behaviour of the survival machines ?
57
“One way for genes to solve the problem of making predictions in rather
unpredictable environments is to build in a capacity for learning”. The language used implies that
genes have a mind which is involved with problem solving and making predictions and learning.
Genes are just a medium which contains a code like a book. Books do not think, they just contain
records of someone’s thoughts. I am surprised that Dr. Dawkins should make such statements as
he does. They are what one scientist has called - piffle !
58
Without labouring the point, how on earth did non-thinking survival machines
make discoveries ? Machines are simply mechanistic things and can only do what they are made
to do. They have no thinking faculty. The evolutionist’s world is basically a mechanistic one; real
thoughts are not involved.
59
“Subjective consciousness... is... the most profound mystery facing modern
biology”. I am sure it is, if we think that prior to the coming into existence of thinking beings
there was no such thing as consciousness in the universe. Consciousness involves not only the
ability to think but also to feel and experience emotions: pleasure, pain etc. If you believe in the
existence of an eternally existing being (God) who created everything, the mystery largely
disappears.
62
One wonders whether there are genes to program some minds to be creationists
and others to be evolutionists. Actually, some people tend to be superstitious (believe any strange
story) as mentioned in 1 Timothy 4:7; whereas others are of a more sceptical nature: instance,
Thomas in John 20:24-29. Probably that is why we find in Scripture both Pharisees and
Sadducees ; the latter being the sceptics (Acts 23:8).
86
“Occasionally a new gene does succeed in invading the set: it succeeds in
spreading through the gene pool”. Where does the invading gene come from ? If it is from
another species then it is to a certain extent undermining the distinctiveness of species. If it
happened on a massive scale virtually all distinctive features of species would be lost. It cannot
come from nowhere, or can it ?
88
Dr. Dawkins acknowledges that talking about genes as if they had conscious aims
is sloppy language. He also says that we could use respectable language if we wanted to.
However, I can’t trace any case of respectable language being used for gene aims in his book. If
he did, he would have to say that genes were programmed to do what they do, which raises the
question as to who or what was the programmer. If we say it was chance (just happened -see
page 89), we are either, in effect, saying it was nothing or we simply don’t know.
According to Dr. Dawkins it is theoretically possible that a gene could arise which
conferred an externally visible ‘label’, say, ... a green beard, or anything conspicuous.
Presumably it could be a blue beard ? Does this mean that genes can produce anything out of a
hat ? I recollect that Dr. Dawkins has discounted the idea that bodies could sprout angels wings
(see The Blind Watchmaker page 311). I suspect Dr. Dawkins would not countenance the idea
that creation could come into existence ex nihilo . However it seems he thinks genes can come
into existence from almost anywhere. Actually the Bible does not teach that things came into
existence out of nothing. This can be demonstrated by a careful study of Genesis 1 and 2 and
also by Paul’s statement in Hebrews 11 :3. What the Bible does say is that seen things did not
originate from other seen things. This rules out the idea that everything material evolved from
other material things. The spiritual sphere was involved, but a materialist does not believe that
such a sphere exists. If he did, he would not be a materialist.
108
Caring for ones own does not have any real evolutionary significance. What it
does do is preserve one’s mate or offspring and by extension preserve one’s species from
extinction. Not all creatures by any means care for their mates or offspring. Their offspring are
just cared for in the sense that as so many are produced some are going to survive anyway, for
example, fish fry.
May 2001