"Are our genes 'wired' for violence?  Expert thinks it is a primal instinct.";   Our comments on article in the March 22, 2002 Seattle Times:    

First of all, we believe that the intent of the articles author was to be balanced and present other viewpoints besides that of the "expert" whose idea are the subject of the article.   The article is very well written in that respect, but the title is very poorly written and except for the fact that the singular word "Expert" is used and not the plural "Experts" the article title is easily open to misinterpretation with antisocial implications.

Sadly the presentation of the personal opinion of some scientist, as the supposed expert in question in the subject article, is often presented in a publication or news report as if it were scientific fact.  The only science facts are those which can be demonstrated in a laboratory.  Opinions even of high class scientists are not facts but just personal beliefs.

We even believe the subject articles author did not intend in any way to impact society negatively, but we agree with the other experts quoted in the article that such ideas are dangerous (as is the book referred to in the article) and much greater care should have been given to titling such articles.  The article author deserves credit for creating a very balanced article, but whoever wrote the title was being socially irresponsible even if unintentionally so.

The article in its content beyond the title, achieves a balance by quoting other experts in the field.   This element of the article is exemplary and if practiced in more such articles would be doing society a great service.

The article quotes other experts as saying that the book, referenced by the article, "makes an incredible and ultimately unscientific leap by linking the behavior of chimps and humans."  Other experts are quoted as saying of the books basic idea; "deemed it dangerous, opening the way for a legal defense of ruthless killers."  

The article quotes another anthropologist as saying; "the "connection" upon which the whole book is based, should be seen as merely an "imaginative projection"" and also says; "The authors ----- never prove the connection".  Sadly, such extreme projections are not uncommon in theories about life such as the controversies about Darwinian evolution, what is actually explains, and what it supposedly teaches individuals and society.

The article says that the books authors "disparages as "naive" attempts to characterize the enemy, in this case Osama bin Laden and El-Quida as "evil.""  What is naive is for the author or anyone else to imply, in any way, that the acts committed by bin Laden and El-Quida should not be thought of as evil, regardless of what was going on in their minds or the nature of their genes.  Regardless of what their genes, or their societal environment was, and whatever element of perverted good they may have had in their twisted minds; nothing excuses such immoral behavior regardless of what the supposed single "expert" says about genes.  Despite their genes, the terrorists could have chosen to be like the great pacifist Mahatma Ghandi if the believed in some social cause.

The expert does not seem to realize that no one has ever changed a gene in an animal in a lab and produced violent behavior where none otherwise exists.  Even if that was done, it would by definition have changed the natural structure of the animal and would then, of course, produce unnatural behavior.  Certainly genes may give us a predisposition to certain behaviors, but we are thinking beings and can usually control such instincts and if we cannot, we should get professional help.

Simply because we share genes (which mainly code for protein production and are far less important than scientists in that field seeking funding would have us believe) with chimpanzees does not mean that we are compelled to behave like chimpanzees.   There is no scientific experiment that provides hard data to indicate otherwise.

The article does point out that there are a group of "Increasingly influential web of scientists who trace all aspects of human behavior to evolutionary selection."  This is a classic example of science opinions which are way beyond the facts and sadly becoming typical of the misuse of Darwinian theory which will cause society major problems if not countered by citizens.

We do in fact agree with the conclusions about evolution and genes in the last paragraph of the article.  In fact, we believe that the truth is that evolution shows that cooperation is what leads to survival (Altruism Essay) and the selfish element of evolution is not the predominant force of evolution.

Citizens should take to task newspapers and other new media which misrepresent opinions of scientists as fact even if it is only in the titling of the articles. 

Society is more than just rights and freedom of speech; it is also about social responsibility, and that certainly and probably especially includes the news media.