Genes are often described by biologists using metaphors derived from computational science: they are thought of as carriers of information, as being the equivalent of “blueprints” for the construction of organisms. Likewise, cells are often characterized as “factories” and organisms themselves become analogous to machines. Accordingly, when the human genome project was initially announced, the promise was that we would soon know how a human being is made, just as we know how to make airplanes and buildings. Importantly, modern proponents of Intelligent Design, the latest version of creationism, have exploited biologists’ use of the language of information and blueprints to make their spurious case, based on pseudoscientific concepts such as “irreducible complexity” and on flawed analogies between living cells and mechanical factories. However, the living organism = machine analogy was criticized already by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. In line with Hume’s criticism, over the past several years a more nuanced and accurate understanding of what genes are and how they operate has emerged, ironically in part from the work of computational scientists who take biology, and in particular developmental biology, more seriously than some biologists seem to do. In this article we connect Hume’s original criticism of the living organism = machine analogy with the modern ID movement, and illustrate how the use of misleading and outdated metaphors in science can play into the hands of pseudoscientists. Thus, we argue that dropping the blueprint and similar metaphors will improve both the science of biology and its understanding by the general public.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Paley was not the first to pursue the analogy with a pocket watch. In fact, Paley borrowed the famous paragraph in the first chapter of his work from the book Regt gebruik der werelt beschouwingen (1715) by the Dutch physician Bernard Nieuwentijt, who was himself probably influenced by thinkers like William Derham, John Ray and Robert Boyle.
Philo says that “it is a palpable and egregious partiality to confine our view entirely to that principle by which our own minds operate” (Hume 1998 , p. 46).
A survey by Condit et al. about the perception of the blueprint and recipe metaphor suggests that deeply religious people prefer the blueprint metaphor precisely because of its theistic connotations (Condit et al. 2002, p. 312).
Thanks to Stefaan Blancke for this suggestion.
Methylation is a simple form of chemical alteration of DNA that affects gene expression; chromatin structure refers to alteration in the spatial distribution of the DNA-proteins ensemble that makes up chromosomes; interference RNAs (iRNAs) are small molecules of ribonucleic acid that also affect gene expression.
See also the online video demonstration of origami embryology by Kathryn Tosney and Diana Darnell: http://www.origamiembryo.cba.arizona.edu/.
Alberts, B. (1998). The cell as a collection overview of protein machines: Preparing the next generation of molecular biologists. Cell, 92, 291–294.
Amanzio, M., Geminiani, G., Leotta, D., & Cappa, S. (2008). Metaphor comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: Novelty matters. Brain and Language, 107, 1–10.
Aristotle (350BE/1991). De anima. Prometheus Books.
Ashworth, W. B. (2003). Christianity and the mechanistic universe. In D. C. Lindberg & R. L. Numbers (Eds.), When science and Christianity meet (pp. 61–84). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Behe, M. J. (2006). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution (10th Anniversary Edition). Simon and Schuster.
Brown, T. L. (2003). Making truth: Metaphor in science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Ciliberti, S., Martin, O. C., & Wagner, A. (2007). Innovation and robustness in complex regulatory gene networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 104, 13591–13596.
Condit, C. M., Bates, B. R., Galloway, R., et al. (2002). Recipes or blueprints for our genes? How contexts selectively activate the multiple meanings of metaphors. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 88, 303–325.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. http://www.darwin-online.org.uk/.
Davis, P. W., Kenyon, D. H., & Thaxton, C. B. (1993). Of pandas and people: The central question of biological origins. Haughton Pub Co.
Dawkins, R. (1991). The blind watchmaker. Penguin books.
Dawkins, R., & Wong, Y. (2005). The ancestor’s tale: A pilgrimage to the dawn of life. London: Phoenix Press.
De Cruz, H. & De Smedt, J. (2010). Science as structured imagination. Forthcoming in Journal of Creative Behavior.
Descartes, R. (1648/1972). Treatise of man. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Donohue, K., Polisetty, C. R., & Wender, N. J. (2005). Genetic basis and consequences of niche construction: Plasticity-induced genetic constraints on the evolution of seed dispersal in Arabidopsis thaliana. American Naturalist, 165, 537–550.
Fox Keller, E. (1995). Refiguring life: Metaphors of twentieth-century biology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hartmann, M., Haddow, P. C., & Lehre, P. K. (2007). The genotypic complexity of evolved fault-tolerant and noise-robust circuits. Biosystems, 87, 224–232.
Hassoun, R., Schwartz, P., Feistel, K., Blum, M., & Viebahn, C. (2009). Axial differentiation and early gastrulation stages of the pig embryo. Differentiation: Aug 14 [Epub ahead of print].
Hendrikse, J. L., Parsons, T. E., & Hallgrímsson, B. (2007). Evolvability as the proper focus of evolutionary developmental biology. Evolution and Development, 9, 393–401.
Hume, D. (1779/1998). Dialogues concerning natural religion (2nd ed). Hackett.
Iimura, T., Denans, N., & Pourquié, O. (2009). Establishment of Hox vertebral identities in the embryonic spine precursors. Current Topics in Developmental Biology, 88, 201–234.
Jablonka, E. (2007). The developmental construction of heredity. Developmental Psychobiology, 49, 808–817.
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jaroff, L. (1989). The gene hunt. Time, Mar. 20, pp. 62–67.
Johannes, F., Colot, V., & Jansen, R. C. (2008). Epigenome dynamics: A quantitative genetics perspective. Nature Review Genetics, 9, 883–890.
Kant, I. (2007/1790). Critique of judgment. Cosimo Books.
Kaplan, J. M., & Pigliucci, M. (2001). Genes ‘for’ phenotypes: A modern history view. Biology and Philosophy, 16, 189–213.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laland, K. N., & Sterelny, K. (2006). Perspective: Seven reasons (not) to neglect niche construction. Evolution, 60(9), 1751–1762.
Levine, J. S., & Miller, K. R. (1994). Biology: Discovering life. Lexington: Heath Press.
Love, A. C. (2006). Evolutionary morphology and evo-devo: Hierarchy and novelty. Theory in Bioscience, 124, 317–333.
Martin, E. (1994). Flexible bodies: Tracking immunity in American culture-from the days of polio to the age of AIDS. Boston: Beacon Press.
Mayr, E., & Provine, W. B. (1998). The evolutionary synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Miller, K. R. (2000). Finding Darwin’s god: A scientist’s search for common ground between god and evolution. New York: HarperCollins.
Miller, K. R. (2008). Only a theory: Evolution and the battle for America’s Soul. New York: Viking.
Minelli, A., & Fusco, G. (2005). Conserved versus innovative features in animal body organization. Journal of Experimental Zoology, B, Molecular Development and Evolution, 304, 520–525.
Müller, G. B. (2007). Evo-devo: Extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 943–949.
Nelkin, D. (2001). Molecular metaphors: The gene in popular discourse. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2, 555–559.
Nieuwentyt, B. (1715). Het regt gebruik der werelt beschouwingen, ter overtuiginge van ongodisten en ongelovigen aangetoont. Wolters and Pauli.
Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (Eds.). (2003). Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Paley, W. (1802). Natural theology, or, evidences of the existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of nature. London: Gould and Lincoln.
Pennock, R. T. (1999). Tower of babel: The evidence against the new creationism, Bradford books. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT press.
Perakh, M. (2008). Flagella myths. How intelligent design proponents created the myth that bacteria flagella look like man-made machines. Skeptic, 14, 3.
Pigliucci, M. (2001). Phenotypic plasticity: Beyond nature and nurture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pigliucci, M. (2002). Denying evolution: Creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Pigliucci, M. (2009). An extended synthesis for evolutionary biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1168, 218–228.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton.
Roggen, D., Federici, D., & Floreano, D. (2007). Evolutionary morphogenesis for multi-cellular systems. Genetic Programs and Evolvable Machines, 8, 61–96.
Rutka, J. T., Kongkham, P., Northcott, P., Carlotti, C., Guduk, M., Osawa, H., et al. (2009). The evolution and application of techniques in molecular biology to human brain tumors: A 25 year perspective. Journal of Neurooncology, 92, 261–273.
Saminathan, R., Pachiappan, A., Feng, L., Rowan, E. G., & Gopalakrishnakone, P. (2009). Transcriptome profiling of neuronal model cell PC12 from rat pheochromocytoma. Cell and Molecular Neurobiology, 29, 533–548.
Schrödinger, E. (1944/1992). What is life? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shanks, N. (2004). God, the Devil, and Darwin: A critique of intelligent design theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shanks, N., & Joplin, K. (1999). Redundant complexity: A critical analysis of intelligent design in biochemistry. Philosophy of Science, 66, 268–282.
Slatkin, M. (2009). Epigenetic inheritance and the missing heritability problem. Genetics, 182, 845–850.
Snow, C. P. (1959/1993). The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stanley, K. O. (2007). Compositional pattern producing networks: A novel abstraction of development. Genetics Programs and Evolvable Machines, 8, 131–162.
Sturm, R. A., & Larsson, M. (2009). Genetics of human iris colour and patterns. Pigment Cell Melanoma Research, 22, 544–562.
Tian, C., Gregersen, P. K., & Seldin, M. F. (2008). Accounting for ancestry: Population substructure and genome-wide association studies. Human Molecular Genetics, 17, R143–R150.
Uttamchandani, M., Lu, C. H., & Yao, S. Q. (2009). Next generation chemical proteomic tools for rapid enzyme profiling. Accounts of Chemical Research, 42, 1183–1192.
Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1951/2009). Philosophical investigations. In P. M. S. Hacker & J. Schulte (Eds.). New York: Wiley.
Wittgenstein, L. (1972). The blue and brown books. Preliminary studies for the ‘philosophical investigations’. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wolpert, L., & Skinner, D. (1993). The triumph of the embryo. New York: Oxford University press.
Wu, Z., & Zhao, H. (2009). Statistical power of model selection strategies for genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genetics, 5, e1000582.
Young, M. (2004). Grand designs and facile analogies. Exposing Behe’s mousetrap and Dembski’s arrow. In M. Young & T. Edis (Eds.), Why intelligent design fails: A scientific critique of the new creationism (pp. 20–31). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
The research of Maarten Boudry was supported by the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (FWO).
About this article
Cite this article
Pigliucci, M., Boudry, M. Why Machine-Information Metaphors are Bad for Science and Science Education. Sci & Educ 20, 453–471 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9267-6
- Machine Analogy
- Intelligent Design
- Niche Construction
- Natural Theology
- Design Argument