WE ARE ALL DESIGNIST:

Philosophical Dead Ends: John Dupré reviews Richard Dawkins’s “The Genetic Book of the Dead” and Sara Imari Walker’s “Life as No One Knows It.” (John Dupré, November 30, 2024, LA Review of Books)

First, Dawkins remains, loosely speaking, a genetic determinist. I say “loosely speaking” because, of course, he does not believe that genes are sufficient to produce an organism. DNA alone in a test tube does not somehow turn into an elephant or an orchid. But Dawkins does take genes to be what matters. The additional necessary resources—oxygen to breathe, parental care, and so on—are background conditions normally sufficient to allow the genes to do their causal work. A crucial consequence of this is that development doesn’t matter for evolution. If the phenotype is fully inscribed in the genes, then it makes sense to think of evolution as ultimately a sequence of genomes competing with one another. The phenotypes are proxies for the genomes that determine them.

But life is not like that. Development is complex and multifactorial. Various nongenetic factors—e.g., cultural or epigenetic (non-sequence-based features of genomes), which may have their own distinct evolutionary trajectories—play a role.