When it comes to learning, it's pointless to pit innate against acquired, environment against heredity. As early as 1949, Canadian psychologist Donald Hebb stated:
" Two factors determine intellectual growth: innate potential, which is absolutely essential, and a stimulating environment, which is just as essential. There's no need to ask which is more important. We could assume that intelligence grows up to the limit set by heredity or by the environment - the minimum of both. In a perfect environment, it's the innate structure that sets the pace; but starting from a heredity of genius, it's the environment that dominates. "
Contemporary neuroscience confirms that there is no contradiction in asserting, simultaneously, the genetic origin of the main circuits of the human brain, and their capacity to modify themselves under the effect of learning rules, themselves governed by innate cellular and molecular mechanisms. Education takes advantage of the innate plasticity of certain brain circuits, which is maximal in children. Even a large pre- or post-natal lesion, affecting almost an entire cerebral hemisphere, when it occurs at an early age, may have only limited consequences on the development of language, visuo-spatial skills, motor skills and even visual maps. Without radically disrupting the organization of brain circuits, plasticity can redirect cerebral functions towards cortical circuits close to or symmetrical with those usually involved. A similar lesion in adulthood leads to far more dramatic consequences: hemiplegia, blind visual field, aphasia, etc.