Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intellectuals Who Doubt Darwin
The American Prowler ^ | 11/24/2004 | Hunter Baker

Posted on 11/23/2004 9:53:55 PM PST by nickcarraway

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing

Edited by William A. Dembski

(ISI Books, 366 pages, $28; $18 paper)


WACO, Texas -- At one time, the debate over Darwin's theory existed as a cartoon in the modern imagination. Thanks to popular portrayals of the Scopes Trial, secularists regularly reviewed the happy image of Clarence Darrow goading William Jennings Bryan into agreeing to be examined as an expert witness on the Bible and then taking him apart on the stand. Because of the legal nature of the proceedings that made evolution such a permanent part of the tapestry of American pop culture, it is fitting that this same section of the tapestry began to unravel due to the sharp tugs of another prominent legal mind, Phillip Johnson.

The publication of his book, Darwin on Trial, now appears to have marked a new milestone in the debate over origins. Prior to Johnson's book, the critics of evolution tended to occupy marginalized sectarian positions and focused largely on contrasting Darwin's ideas with literalist readings of the Genesis account. Johnson's work was different. Here we had a doubter of Darwin willing to come out of the closet, even though his credentials were solid gold establishment in nature. He had attended the finest schools, clerked for Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, taught law as a professor at highly ranked Berkeley, and authored widely-used texts on criminal law. Just as Darrow cross-examined the Bible and Bryan's understanding of it, Johnson cross-examined Darwin and got noticed in the process. He spent much of the last decade debating the issue with various Darwinian bulldogs and holding up his end pretty well.


PHILLIP JOHNSON, AND a number of others, raised enough doubts about the dominant theory to cause a number of intellectuals to take a hard look, particularly at the gap between what can be proven and what is simply asserted to be true. Since that time, authors with more technical backgrounds, like mathematician/philosopher William Dembski and biochemist Michael Behe, have published books providing even more powerful critiques of the neo-Darwinian synthesis based on intelligent design theory. Behe's work has been particularly disturbing to evolution advocates because he seems to have proven that organic machines at the molecular level are irreducibly complex and therefore could not have been the products of natural selection because there never would have been any intermediate working mechanism to select. Now, the two team up as Dembski edits and Behe contributes to a bracing collection of controversial writings titled Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing.

Dembski displays the intellectual doggedness of the group of contributors when he uses his introductory essay to ruthlessly track down and scrutinize the footnotes offered by those who would refute Behe's case. Reference after reference claiming to have decisively defeated Behe turns out to be inadequate to the task. What passes for refutation is instead a collection of question-begging and "just-so stories." Right away, Dembski sets the tone for the book. Nothing will be uncontested. The pro-evolution community will be made to fight for every inch of intellectual real estate without relying on the aura of prestige or the lack of competent critics to bolster their case.

The best way to read the book is by beginning at the end and perusing the profiles of the contributors. There, the reader will be able to select essays from representatives of a variety of disciplines, including mathematics, philosophy, biochemistry, biophysics, chemistry, genetics, law, and medicine. The most enjoyable in terms of sheer brio are the essays by Dembski, Behe, Frank Tipler, Cornelius Hunter, and David Berlinski. Tipler's essay on the process of getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is particularly relevant and rewarding because it deals with one of the biggest strikes against Intelligent Design. ID theorists have had a notoriously difficult time getting their work published in professional journals. Tipler, a professor of mathematical physics at Tulane, crankily and enjoyably explains why.


TOP HONORS, HOWEVER, go to David Berlinski's essay, "The Deniable Darwin," which originally appeared in Commentary. The essay is rhetorically devastating. Berlinski is particularly strong in taking apart Richard Dawkins' celebrated computer simulation of monkeys re-creating a Shakespearean sentence and thereby "proving" the ability of natural selection to generate complex information. The mathematician and logician skillfully points out that Dawkins rigged the game by including the very intelligence in his simulation he disavows as a cause of ordered biological complexity. It's clear that Berlinski hits a sore spot when one reads the letters Commentary received in response to the article. Esteemed Darwinists like Dawkins and Daniel Dennett respond with a mixture of near-hysterical outrage and ridicule. Berlinski's responses are also included. At no point does he seem the slightest bit cowed or overwhelmed by the personalities arrayed against him.

For the reader, the result is simply one of the most rewarding reading experiences available. Berlinski and his critics engage in a tremendous intellectual bloodletting, with Berlinski returning fire magnificently. In a particularly amusing segment, Berlinski, constantly accused of misperception, writes, "For reasons that are obscure to me, both [Mr. Gross] and Daniel Dennett carelessly assume that they are in a position to instruct me on a point of usage in German, my first language." Though his foes repeatedly accuse Berlinski of being a "creationist," the tag has little chance of sticking to a man arguing for little more than agnosticism on the question of origins and who disavows any religious principles aside from the possible exception of hoping to "have a good time all the time." One suspects that the portion of the book occupied by the Berlinski essay and subsequent exchanges will gain wide currency.

For far too long, the apologists for Darwin have relied on a strategy of portraying challengers as simple-minded religious zealots. The publication of Uncommon Dissent and many more books like it, will severely undermine the success of such portrayals. During the past decade, it has become far too obvious that there are such things as intellectuals who doubt Darwin and that their ranks are growing. The dull repetition of polemical charges in place of open inquiry, debate, and exchange may continue, but with fewer and fewer honest souls ready to listen.

Hunter Baker is a Ph.D. student at Baylor University and contributes to the Reform Club.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: bookreview; creation; creationistidiots; crevolist; darwin; darwinismisjunk; darwinwaswrong; evolution; idiotscience; intelligentdesign; loonies; science; uncommondissent
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-356 next last
To: PatrickHenry
You nailed it. And with a link!

One can do no more than you have done, considering that the issue is what Darwin actually did say. Somehow, I don't know how, you'll get a naysaying reply if you get one at all.

121 posted on 11/24/2004 5:30:43 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Won't be any reply. Not this thread. Next thread, same BS.


122 posted on 11/24/2004 5:41:06 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The all-new List-O-Links for evolution threads is now in my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Lurking2Long; shibumi
"Those who cling to it blindly normally do so as it affords them the luxury of viewing themselves as merely animals, acting instinctively, without the consequence or judgement of a Creator."

No one "clings to evolution blindly," there is scientific evidence -- the fossil record, observed mutations, scientific dating of evidence, and more.

There is no "luxury of viewing" oneself as "merely an animal. Life without spiritual purpose can be bleak indeed and many who find the Theory of Evolution to be the best explanation given for the origin of species, like myself, have very well-formed religious views. The problem is that Creationists deny that our views even exist, much less than the possibility that they could be valid, because we are "evolutionists" and therefore damned to hell.

And I have no doubt that there is a Creator. Neither did Einstein, de Chardin, Niebuhr, and many other great thinkers of the past decades who also found the Theory of Evolution to be acceptable and not incompatible with belief in a creator. Einstein borrowed Newton's theory of the "First Cause" and applied it to the "Big Bang" theory of the universe's origins as evidence of an act of creation.

You Creationists keep insisting that everyone who believes in the Theory of Evolution denies God, the Bible, Christ, and all the rest. We don't. And what is so aggravating to those of us who see no incompatibility between evolution and religious belief and who practice their religion is that you tell us we don't. But we do. Your arrogance is that you blatantly deny that we have faith and say that we do not worship at all when in fact we do not worship in the way you do.

It is fine for you to hold to your religious beliefs. We respect that. But do not deny our own lest you attempt to stand in judgement of us and cast the first stone.
123 posted on 11/24/2004 5:45:59 PM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; PatrickHenry
He titled a whole chapter "On the Limitations of the Geologic Record."

Working from memory. As everyone must realize by now--curse PH and his links!--it's "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."

124 posted on 11/24/2004 6:11:21 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

It's quite amusing to see the creationoids attempting to use Darwin as an authority against Darwin. It's a strange kind of appeal to authority.


125 posted on 11/24/2004 6:19:16 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The all-new List-O-Links for evolution threads is now in my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It's quite amusing to see the creationoids attempting to use Darwin as an authority against Darwin. It's a strange kind of appeal to authority.

The funniest thing is that at this late date it doesn't matter to science what anyone finds out about Darwin. They really don't know that. They think Darwin is the Jesus of evolution.

126 posted on 11/24/2004 6:26:39 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

read later


127 posted on 11/24/2004 6:29:09 PM PST by hellinahandcart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
We are made in the image of God, endowed with unique individual character. Thankfully we are not the product of privative soup. As you commune with monkeys and squirrels ask them the purpose of their lives. Let me glorify our great Creator with scientific tools and truly wonder at his works.
128 posted on 11/24/2004 6:38:00 PM PST by Broker (I ain't related to no ape.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
It is fine for you to hold to your religious beliefs. We respect that. But do not deny our own lest you attempt to stand in judgement of us and cast the first stone.

I'm not one of your "passive Christians" who is going to scream and go, "Oh, he just used Scripture against me...I guess I'll just quit!"

I will deny your viewpoint because it is flat out WRONG! I will stand on the Word of God which is what really judges you because it clearly says EXACTLY how HE created the world and mankind.

And I WILL throw the "first stone" because you and your kind have been throwing stones at me and my kind since Cain murdered Able.

If you don't believe in the truths of the Bible, you can have all the "well-formed religious views" in the world and it will not get you any closer to anything meaningful than will a pack of explosives around his middle get a suicide bomber 72 virgins.

This "sheep" ROARS!

129 posted on 11/24/2004 6:58:41 PM PST by Lurking2Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Broker
". . . As you commune with monkeys and squirrels ask them the purpose of their lives. . . ."

One stone cast. Pray to Jesus for forgiveness.
130 posted on 11/24/2004 6:59:50 PM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Being the inquisitive sort, I decided to ask Darwin myself, after seeing if in fact it was capable of responding to questions.

Last login: Wed Nov 24 16:14:45 on console
Welcome to Darwin!

[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Why did the chicken cross the road?
tcsh: Why: No match.
[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Was it a smoking chicken?
tcsh: Was: No match.
[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Does evolution equate to good science?
tcsh: Does: No match.
[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Can you say anything without adding "No match."?
tcsh: Can: No match.
[wbar2:~] hopiscoo% Fine. Go to hell, stupid computer.
tcsh: Fine.: Command not found.

The conversation went downhill from there, I'm sorry to report, but at least we have a definitive answer as to Darwin's opinion of evolution.

131 posted on 11/24/2004 7:01:37 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I don't have enough Faith to believe in evolution. How did life start??

Pray for W and Our Troops

132 posted on 11/24/2004 7:02:22 PM PST by bray (Nam Vets Rock!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking2Long
". . . If you don't believe in the truths of the Bible, you can have all the "well-formed religious views" in the world and it will not get you any closer to anything meaningful than will a pack of explosives around his middle get a suicide bomber 72 virgins. . . ."

Wow, now those of us who think the Theory of Evolution is correct are on a par with Islamo-fascists.

I do believe in the "truths of the Bible." I do not believe that all biblical text is meant to be taken literally, and there is an extremely large body of Christian theological doctrine that backs this up, going back for over a thousand years in fact. You are welcome to your viewpoint that the Bible is to be taken literally. But you still stand in judgement of other Christians who believe differently than you when you state that they will not approach salvation because they do not practice Christianity the way that you do. If I were to do that, I would believe that I had committed a mortal sin that would have eternal consequences for my soul if I did not address it and make a meaningful attempt to return to grace.
133 posted on 11/24/2004 7:08:02 PM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

Very, very well said.


134 posted on 11/24/2004 7:11:03 PM PST by Trinity_Tx (Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believin as we already do)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
To quote Reagan, "There he goes again..."

I did NOT compare you to Islamo-Fascists.

Again, I will not let you try to box me into the "judging Christian" trap you want to shove me into.

The Word of God judges what you say.

God does not want to be taken literally?!

Give me a break!

He has to practically scream to get most people's attention in this "enlightened" world. Do you think He put His very heart into writing so we could all guess about what he really means.

You are a humanist, no matter what other clothing you seek to wrap yourself in.

I think you and other evolutionists need to ask yourself whether you are closer to Christians or to Pharisees.

135 posted on 11/24/2004 7:18:30 PM PST by Lurking2Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Lurking2Long
This "sheep" ROARS!

Whatever. Although you are probably blithely unaware that you are also "roaring" at Behe, Dembski, and other of the evolution critics discussed in the article. Many of them accept substantial evolution, including the evolution of man from apes. Behe seems to have little problem with the evolution of whole phyla. He just insists that certain crucial subcomponents of living things, mostly molecular machines, had to have been "intelligently designed".

In fact the differences in implied scenarios of earth and biological history between a typical progressive creationist and a young-earth creationist are as great as those between either and a typical evolutionist. So if you believe that you know "EXACTLY" how God created the world and mankind, that puts you at odds with a solid plurality, if not a majority, of creationists, and never mind us evolutionists.

136 posted on 11/24/2004 7:20:50 PM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
So if you believe that you know "EXACTLY" how God created the world and mankind, that puts you at odds with a solid plurality, if not a majority, of creationists, and never mind us evolutionists.

The Bible is full of underdogs who only won out because the Lord was on their side.

I'll side with Him against your pitiful "plurality" and/or "majority" of anything.

137 posted on 11/24/2004 7:29:54 PM PST by Lurking2Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Lurking2Long
"You are a humanist, no matter what other clothing you seek to wrap yourself in. . . .

I think you and other evolutionists need to ask yourself whether you are closer to Christians or to Pharisees.
"

All three of the big code words are here; "humanist" -- didn't you really mean to write "secular humanist"? -- "evolutionist," and "Pharisee." This is a great work of symbolic communication that touches an expected reaction among other Creationists, but it insists that I accept your judgement of my religious beliefs as wrongful and leading me to damnation. This I will not do.

There are many Christians like myself who are schooled in what is termed the "moral theology" which teaches that, while there are absolutes in morals and rightful and wrongful interpretations of religious truth, it is important that an individual Christian avoid asserting or even implying that, beyond the profession of faith, others who do not hold to these moral absolutes or particular interpretations as he or she understands them are to be judged as sinful. You will never see me pronounce another practicing Christian's soul as damned, nor will you see me insist that any other individual adopt my beliefs as their own, though I am prepared to speak my beliefs. I have seen you insist that your belief that the literal truth of biblical text is an absolute and you view with ridicule anyone who argues to the contrary. Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Thomas More and many others pointed to the use of rhetorical flourish, allegory, and more in biblical texts. Do you damn them as humanists too? These were some of the top religious theologians of their day, Augustine may in fact be the most important Christian theologian since Saint Paul.

Not all Christianity is practiced in the way you do Lurking. Be careful about damning others who observe their beliefs differently.
138 posted on 11/24/2004 7:39:58 PM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

What cracks me up is that "evolutionists" have resorted to redefining "species" to make their case.
Thus, any adaptation WITHIN a species, becomes an evoluition to a new species.


139 posted on 11/24/2004 7:40:54 PM PST by G Larry (Time to update my "Support John Thune!" tagline. Thanks to all who did!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StJacques

It's not me whom you need to worry about being damned by...


140 posted on 11/24/2004 7:47:35 PM PST by Lurking2Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-356 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson