cosmic serpents versus “junk DNA”
“During this investigation, I became familiar with certain limits of the rational gaze: It tends to fragment reality and to exclude complementarity and the association of contraries from its field of vision. I also discovered one of its more pernicious effects: The rational approach tends to minimize what it does not understand.
Anthropology is an ideal training ground for learning this. The first anthropologists went out beyond the limits of the rational world and saw primitives and inferior societies. When they met shamans, they thought they were mentally ill.
The rational approach starts from the idea that everything is explainable and that mystery is in some sense the enemy. This means that it prefers pejorative, and even wrong, answers to admitting its own lack of understanding.
The molecular biology that considers that 97 percent of the DNA in our body is ‘junk’ reveals not only its own degree of ignorance, but the extent to which it is prepared to belittle the unknown. Some recent hypotheses suggest that ‘junk DNA’ might have certain functions after all. But this does not hide the pejorative reflex: We don’t understand, so we shoot first, then ask questions. This is cowboy science, and it is not as objective as it claims. Neutrality, or simple honesty, would have consisted in saying ‘for the moment, we don’t we do not know.’ It would have been just as easy to call it mystery DNA, for instance.
The problem is not having presuppositions, but failing to make them explicit. If biology said about the intentionality that nature seems to manifest at all levels, ‘ we see it sometimes, but cannot discuss it without ceasing to do science according to our own criteria,’ things would at least be clear. But biology tends to project its presuppositions onto the reality it observes, claiming that nature itself is devoid of intention” (139-140).
Narby, Jeremy. The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 1998.