Customer Reviews

Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Jacques Monod, the Nobel Prize winning biochemist, allies himself, in the title of this admirable treatise, to the atomist Democritus, who held that the whole universe is but the fruit of two qualities, chance and necessity. Interpreting the laws of natural selection along purely naturalistic lines, he succeeds in presenting a powerful case that takes into account the ethical, political and philosophical undercurrents of the synthesis in modern biology. Above all, he stresses that science must commit itself to the postulate of objectivity by casting aside delusive ideological and moral props, even though he enjoins, at the same time, that the postulate of objectivity itself is a moral injunction. He launches a bitter polemic against metaphysical and scientific vitalisms, dismissing them as obscurantist, as well as the animist projection in history and evolution, as represented by Teilhard de Chardin and, especially, the Marxist doctrine of dialectical materialism. He refutes teleological explanations of nature as being contrary to the postulate of objectivity, drawing attention to self-constructing proteins as teleonomic agents, followed by an explanation of the role of nucleic acids, reproduction and invariance. This leads him to dismiss Judaeo-Christian religiosity, which accords man a significant role as being created in God's image, as a nauseating and false pietism and he even goes so far as to recommend eugenic reform. Writing with great clarity and flair, and often in a forceful and idiosyncratic idiom, he puts forward a compelling case, though some knowledge of modern biology is presumed on the part of the reader. He also offers, in a truly philosophical fashion, fascinating insights and speculations on broader issues such as language, perception, the origin and nature of existence, as they are framed within his system. Generally, however, some experts and readers will contest some of his claims, such as his regarding proteins as primary, contrary to the common assumption that proteins are merely secondary to the genome. Nevertheless, a challenging, sophisticated and pugnacious treatise, which excels the work of the better-known biological writers in the English-speaking world, such as Dawkins and Gould.

When it came out in 1970 this book caused a sensation. As well as explaining better for the general reader than ever before or since the revolutions in molecular biochemistry and genetics, Monod introduced the concepts that flowered into evolutionary socio-biology, Dawkins theory of memes,Dennett's and Ruse's philosophy of Darwinism and much more. One reads this short essay for enlightenment and stimulation; it is also shocking and crushing in its evaluation of the animisms(Monods word for religions) that have ruled human thought and behaviour. Although the conclusion is bleak and austere it is also exhilarating. Theists have attempted to respond, notably Mark Ward with 'God, Chance and Necessity' Even with 20 years to polish his arguments Ward loses lamentably in direct comparison to Monod's masterpiece of clear prose and devastating argument. Not a comfortable read but part of facing up to reality in the post religious era. A new edition with a forward by Maynard Smith has just come out in the UK.

What Dawkins does for the evolution of complexity, Monod does for the very start of life.

Creationists like to believe that life is too complex, too perfect to have begun by chance. Monod shows, in excruciating detail, exactly how they are wrong. Dead wrong.

This is a landmark, crucial book.

In the face of the rising tendency in many of us to stick to misticism and religion, Monod's Chance and Necessity is like a refreshing but shocking ice-cold splash on a drunkman's face. In a rational precise path, Monod leads the reader to realise that the only right way to perceive life is to accept the ultimate truth: its all nothing but a game of dice by nature.

Monod writes superbly & succinctly for the thoughtful lay reader -- in a very short book. Monod perhaps should have won the Nobel Prize for his writing rather than for his research!

This book is a strange hybrid. Although Monod refers to it as an "essay", it lacks the continuity of ideas that characterize what we think of as "essay structure". This is partly due to its origin as a series of lectures, and partly due to his attempt to deliver more than he is capable of.

When he speaks as a biologist, Monod's thinking and power to communicate are very impressive. He summarizes many of the major findings of molecular biology (up to 1970) brilliantly and in a remarkably short space. Very humbly, he does not even mention his own eminent role in elucidating these principles.

However, Monod the philosopher is another matter. In these sections his explanations have a more bombastic sound, his language and his sentence structure are more pretentious, as if he is trying to convince the reader that he really knows what he is talking about.

This is also obvious when he speaks of the crucial question of the origin of life. It is astonishing that so many reviewers claim Monod has succeeded in showing that life and intelligence have arisen by chance. It is true that he claims to be able to do this, but his failure is shown by the uncertainty that overshadows the whole work, and particularly this section, with an abundance of uncertainties such as:

* "Three presumptive stages..."
* "While uncertainty remains, and will doubtless continue, as to the paths actually followed by prebiotic chemical evolution..."
* "Remarkably enough, under certain altogether plausible sets of conditions..."
* "And so it may be considered as proved that at a certain moment in the earth's history certain bodies of water could have contained...
* "In the laboratory, under `plausible' conditions, some polypeptides and polynucleotides similar in general structure to `modern' macronucleotides might have actually been obtained."
* "But the decisive step from the first stage to the second has yet to be taken..."
* "...we have no idea what the structure of a primitive cell might have been."
* "This difficulty does not seem insurmountable."
* "Still, one would like at least to try to suggest a plausible hypothesis..."
* "But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, it is not so much a `problem' as a veritable enigma."
* "It is exceedingly difficult to imagine..."
* "Here speculation must take over, and many very ingenious ideas have been put forward: the field is only too open."

While it is commendable that Monod has the honesty to admit when his claims are lacking in evidence, it is also clear that his "proofs" are, virtually from start to finish, mere speculations.

The other disturbing fact is his inconsistency. He repeatedly claims that the great virtue of science is its objectivity, but he refuses to be objective. He is so determined to push a materialistic philosophy that he will not even consider the alternatives. Instead of tyring to rebut opposing points of view, he takes refuge in his own arbitrary definitions, such as the word "animism", by which he combines everything from primitive nature worship to modern Christianity to Marxism! Of course it is easy to disparage such a broadly defined group.

Throughout most of the book, Monod gives the impression that it is leading to some sort of conclusive justification of his exaltation of the power of chance, but it never happens. Instead, in the last chapter, he changes topics and ends with a rousing call for trust in science as the arbiter of all truth and values. Apparently his stated aim was just too difficult.

Jacques Monod (1910-1976) was a French biologist---widely regarded as the "father of molecular biology"---who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965.

He states in the Preface to this famous work, "Biology occupies a position among the sciences at once marginal and central ... no other science has quite the same significance for man; none has already so heavily contributed to the shaping of modern thought, profoundly and definitively affected as it has been in every domain---philosophical, religious, political---by the advent of the theory of evolution.... this essay does not attempt to extract the quintessence of the molecular theory of the code. For the ideological generalizations I have ventured to deduce from it I am, of course, solely responsible. But I do not think I am mistaken in saying that ... these interpretations would find assent from the majority of modern biologists."

Here are some representative quotations from the book:

"All religions, nearly all philosophies, and even a part of science testify to the unwearying, heroic effort of mankind desperately denying its own contingency." (pg. 44)
"With the globular protein ... nothing but the play of blind combinations can be discerned. Randomness caught on the wing, preserved, reproduced by the machinery of invariance and thus converted into order, rule, necessity. A totally blind process can by definition lead to anything; it can even lead to vision itself." (pg. 98)
"Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the SOLE conceivable hypothesis." (pg. 112-113)
"The universe was not pregnant with life nor the biosphere with man. Our number came up in the Monte Carlo game." (pg. 145-146)
"The ancient covenant is in pieces; man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance. His destiny is nowhere spelled out, nor is his duty. The kingdom above or the darkness below: it is for him to choose." (pg. 180)

I don't always agree with Monod. However, his exposition is clear and straightforward, which makes it easy for me, as a reader, to discern where my view diverges from Monod's. Moreover, he cuts deftly to some crucial issues, crystallizing intriguing new findings into specific conclusions.

Monod's crystallization, if I may call it that, of the issues raised by "modern biology" is why this book is so important. By "modern biology" Monod refers to genetics and biochemistry of the mid-20th century (this book was published in 1970).

At this point in time (2009), this book is not likely to be a worthwhile read for a layperson unless they have a serious hobby in biology or biological philosophy. That is because Monod's crystallization is based on now-out-of-date findings and is technically more laborious than laypersons will want to read. This may make the book one of those books everyone has on their shelves and act like they know what's inside, though they've never read them. Lay readers interested in this subject should look to more up-to-date works. If they are very good, newer treatments will be likely to incorporate Monod's ideas.

For those seriously concerned with genetics, biochemistry, the history of the disciplines, and/or biological philosophy, this is a crucial read. This work was originally a successful attempt to make broad sense of some very curious specific findings by Monod and his eminent peers. At present, the work is aging (maturing) into a milemarker of where we have been -- where we have traveled from. An interesting way to read this book is to try to divide each thing Monod says into still-valid and obsolete. Presumably much of what is still reasonable of Monod's writing has stood the test of time and should be considered foundational. What of the errors? Well, for one thing, because Monod is good at making his reasoning explicit, where he uses obsolete evidence for his conclusions, it is easy for readers to see where (if not always how) his conclusions stand to be revised. This is helpful.

Monod does one other very helpful thing: where he attempts to articulate a link he cannot clarify logically, he does not obscure this ambiguity with inappropriate technical language. Almost all professional scientists and philosophers make this mistake Monod avoids, that of hoping fallaciously logical-sounding words will generate actual logic where none seems there to be found. In my mind, the crucial word of the book's title is "and" -- a pretty ambiguous word, all in all. There is chance. There is necessity. How do these opposites interact? It is not like electrical charges interact, or antiphase waves interact, or matter and antimatter interact... Although the book does not answer the question of what the "and" is, it does not, through desperate verbiage, obscure that this question remains standing.

There is a chance readers would find the answer by (re)turning to Democritus, from whom Monod takes his title. To me though, it seems unlikely, and I suppose Monod as a scientist would agree with me that, in order to find our answer, there is a necessity to look further to see farther.

A pioneering effort to examine the implications of modern biology on philosophy by the visional philosopher Jacques Monod. Worth reading for biologists or anybody who is interested in contemporary biology or philosophy.

A powerfully convincing demonstration of what we probably are and a probable key to why we behave the way we do. A seminal book, easy to read. Goes much farther than The Egostical Gene. Will definitely change the way you think about humankind.