Those Defensive Darwinists

THE first court trial over the theory of intelligent design is now over, with a ruling expected by the end of the year. What sparked the legal controversy? Before providing two weeks of training in modern evolutionary theory, the Dover, Pa., School District briefly informed students that if they wanted to learn about an alternative theory of biological origins, intelligent design, they could read a book about it in the school library.

In short order, the School District was dragged into court by a group insisting the school policy constituted an establishment of religion, this despite the fact that the unmentionable book bases its argument on strictly scientific evidence, without appealing to religious authority or attempting to identify the source of design.

The lawsuit is only the latest in a series of attempts to silence the growing controversy over contemporary Darwinian theory.

For instance, after The New York Times ran a series on Darwinism and design recently, prominent Darwinist Web sites excoriated the newspaper for even covering intelligent design, insulting its proponents with terms like Medievalist, Flat-Earther and "American Taliban."

University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers argues that Darwinists should take an even harder line against their opponents: "Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough," he wrote. "The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians."

This month, NPR reported on behavior seemingly right out of the P.Z. Myers playbook.

The most prominent victim in the story was Richard Sternberg, a scientist with two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology and former editor of a journal published out of the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. He sent out for peer review, then published, a paper arguing that intelligent design was the best explanation for the geologically sudden appearance of new animal forms 530 million years ago.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel reported that Sternberg's colleagues immediately went on the attack, stripping Sternberg of his master key and access to research materials, spreading rumors that he wasn't really a scientist and, after determining that they didn't want to make a martyr out of him by firing him, deliberately creating a hostile work environment in the hope of driving him from the Smithsonian.

The NPR story appalled even die-hard skeptics of intelligent design, people like heavyweight blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds, who referred to the Smithsonian's tactics as "scientific McCarthyism."

Also this month, the Kansas Board of Education adopted a policy to teach students the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. Darwinists responded by insisting that there are no weaknesses, that it's a plot to establish a national theocracy — despite the fact that the weaknesses that will be taught come right out of the peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific literature.

One cause for their insecurity may be the theory's largely metaphysical foundations. As evolutionary biologist A.S. Wilkins conceded, "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

And in the September issue of The Scientist, National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell argued that his extensive investigations into the matter corroborated Wilkins' view. Biologist Roland Hirsch, a program manager in the U.S. Office of Biological and Environmental Research, goes even further, noting that Darwinism has made a series of incorrect predictions, later refashioning the paradigm to fit the results.

How different from scientific models that lead to things like microprocessors and satellites. Modern evolutionary theory is less a cornerstone and more the busybody aunt — into everyone's business and, all the while, very much insecure about her place in the home.

Moreover, a growing list of some 450 Ph.D. scientists are openly skeptical of Darwin's theory, and a recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute found that only 40 percent of medical doctors accept Darwinism's idea that humans evolved strictly through unguided, material processes.

Increasingly, the Darwinists' response is to try to shut down debate, but their attempts are as ineffectual as they are misguided. When leaders in Colonial America attempted to ban certain books, people rushed out to buy them. It's the "Banned in Boston" syndrome.

Today, suppression of dissent remains the tactic least likely to succeed in the United States. The more the Darwinists try to prohibit discussion of intelligent design, the more they pique the curiosity of students, parents and the general public.

That's funny, I don't believe that Dawkins is a Marxist. I know he's off the deep end politically, but Marxist is a whole different ballgame.

This is from a review of one of Dawkin's Books, from a Socialist Party website.

"Dawkins is an honorary member of the Rationalist Press Association, and it's safe to say he is no socialist, though he did come out publicly against the recent Gulf War."

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/sep04/bookssep.html

In fact, he has been accused by some on the left of holding scientific views that promote genetic determinism. His politics may be left-leaning, but his science is just that, science. What other people do with the science, using it in places that it doesn't attempt to explain, like economics, is not the fault of the scientist.

Kinda like Darwin, who was a respectable, free market Whig. This whole attempt to portray Darwin as some kind of proto-Marxist is not just absurd, but deeply ironic.

That's funny, I don't believe that Dawkins is a Marxist.

I don't know what his politics are, but he does make this statement in his answer. From the first sentence of the citation, it apparently applies to the current "Darwinists", e.g. Sternberg.

Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds? "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens).

Happy and blessed Thanksgiving to you.

"I don't know what his politics are, but he does make this statement in his answer. From the first sentence of the citation, it apparently applies to the current "Darwinists", e.g. Sternberg.

Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds? "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens)."

He was talking about Gould and Clive Bradley. They both made statements about Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" without apparently reading it. The second part says that no matter what his political motivations might be, he will follow the science wherever it leads, based on the evidence;
"...nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens)". This only increases my respect for his scientific integrity.

" Happy and blessed Thanksgiving to you."

And to you and yours! :)

This thread is petering out, so here is some additional ammunition.

Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus anamensis was discovered in 1994 by Meave Leakey at the sites of Allia Bay and Kanapoi, both East African sites in Northern Kenya. The anamensis fossils include upper and lower jaws, cranial fragments, and the upper and lower parts of a leg bone (tibia). In addition to these listed, there also exists a fragment of humerus that was found some 30 years ago at Kanapoi, yet remained improperly identified until the Leakey's recent work.
Dated specimens of A. anamensis are generally recognized as falling between 3.9 and 4.2 million years old.
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/anamensis.htm

KNM-KP 29281; Mandible with Dentition

--Found by P. Nzube in 1994 at Kanapoi, Kenya
--Dated to 4.15 million years
--This specimen is the holotype for A. anamensis

This chart shows the position of this species in the timeline:

No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens)."

You will note that this comment is made about this "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" . Thus he accepts it not because of politics, but because of the science. Why does he have to deny politics enters in to the situation? Because, it does often figure into the situation as in the case of Sterberg.

Dawkins said he voted LibDem in the last election. I think this was mainly because they were the only unequivocally anti-war party. Theoretically, they're to the right of Labour on economic issues, and have a historical connection with liberalism in the older European sense (free trade, market capitalism, no state ownership - what we'd call social liberal/ economic conservative), but British politics are all over the map ideologically at the moment.

I've pinged Thatcherite, since obviously he's got a much better perspective.

Because Gould and Clive Bradley said that politics was why Dawkins allegedly considered non-gradual evolution heresy

I don't read it that way. They just made the heresy comment.

With this statement, Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds?(said about his book The Selfish Gene), he accuses them of politics. I have that book right here at the moment, and although their names are not on the first page with comments, I can not say they did not read the book. (I do like this comment by The Oxford Times, "The speculative nature of the treatise will appeal strongly to those who find a special kind of excitement in the original ideas that good science fiction offers.")

And forgive my oversight, thanks for the well wishes.

"I don't read it that way. They just made the heresy comment."

But he is specifically rebutting Gould and Clive Bradley's (who as far as I can tell is not a scientist, but just a socialist *thinker*) claim that he thought that non-gradual evolution was heresy because of Dawkin's political beliefs.

"Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds? "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens)." (Dawkins)

How the above can be interpreted as anything BUT a refutation of Gould and Bradley's specific allegation that Dawkins based The Selfish Gene on politics rather than science is beyond me.

" With this statement, Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds?(said about his book The Selfish Gene), he accuses them of politics."

He is as much accusing them of misreading HIS politics as he was saying they had a political agenda (though Bradley obviously has one). He wants to be critiqued on the science.

I am getting a little baffled about why this even matters in this discussion. Does politics affect the views of some scientists? Sure. But in order to convince others though, you have to argue from evidence.

Is this supposed to be evidence that evolution is a foundation of Marxism, which was the point made earlier? This capitalist doesn't see it.

But he is specifically rebutting Gould and Clive Bradley's (who as far as I can tell is not a scientist, but just a socialist *thinker*) claim that he thought that non-gradual evolution was heresy because of Dawkin's political beliefs..

...

How the above can be interpreted as anything BUT a refutation of Gould and Bradley's specific allegation that Dawkins based The Selfish Gene on politics rather than science is beyond me.

It is called a straw man argument. Clive's or Gould's quoted text in Dawkin's article is this in context.

Moreover, in the course of this very full reply, I quote the First Edition of The Selfish Gene as making precisely the same points, in detail, as Gould himself was later to make. Not only is Bradley happy to endorse Gould's criticism of The Selfish Gene without bothering to read the book himself; it appears that Gould didn't read it either. Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds? "Dawkins considers this [non gradual evolution] heresy…" No I don't (least of all "because it has a political dimension." If anything, politics might make me approve it, but the point is irrelevant because nature irritatingly neglects her Aesopian social responsibility to provide political allegories for the benefit of Homo sapiens). In The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable, I distinguish two kinds of non-gradual evolution, which I call (for reasons explained there) Boeing 747 and Stretched-DC8 evolution. 747 evolution is heresy by any secular standards (it amounts to sudden complex adaptive innovation, as if springing straight from the mind of God). DC8 evolution (sudden changes of large magnitude which do not include increases in adaptive complexity) is not heresy. It probably occurs from time to time.

You will notice that the quotation, which I have highlighted and underlined, does not mention politics. The only conclusion I can make is that Dawkins left it out, if it was even there, yet he apparently adds "[non gradual evolution]". Why would he do that when it would be relevant to his argument to include the explicit mention of politics. No, he creates the politics argument along with his Ad Hominem attack here...Not only is Bradley happy to endorse Gould's criticism of The Selfish Gene without bothering to read the book himself; it appears that Gould didn't read it either.

"It is called a straw man argument."

It isn't. If you read Bradley's article which provoked the response by Dawkins, you will see that Bradley clearly implied that Dawkins was being influenced by his politics, which he thinks is right-wing. For instance, he says,

"Although, characteristically, Dawkins denies any meaningful political component to this debate, he and Dennett are explicitly opposed to Gould's view because it has a political dimension - i.e., that evolution itself follows a revolutionary, rather than gradualist, pattern."

He also links him to Tories,

"Partly for this reason, and partly because he is a skilful and readable writer, the Tories gave him the job of chief public educator on scientific matters."

to right-wing ideas,

"Nevertheless, the argument from The Selfish Gene runs through Dawkins' work, and he is a point of reference for broadly right-wing thought, including for example the philosopher Daniel Dennett, whose Darwin's Dangerous Idea is virtually a companion volume."

and to anti-socialist thought,

"The underlying thought, and certainly the use to which the theory is put, is that we are vehicles for fundamentally, implacably self-serving molecules. If the molecules are selfish, so are we - biologically, naturally, irremediably. Social organisation is an evolutionary accident, or arises only from some reproductive imperative. It is a world view in which socialism, plainly, is a utopian ideal. Dawkins et al explicitly refute the notion that the theory should be taken to have any ethical ramifications. But of course it does, ethical and beyond."

Dawkins was writing to an audience he assumed would have read or at least had access to Bradley's earlier article.

Here is the link to the Clive Bradley article;

http://archive.workersliberty.org/wlmags/wl59/clive.htm And I still don't know what any of this has to do with evolution (the biological theory) being the basis of Marxism.

Hey, nice tagline,...must have taken you years to dream that up.

Thanks. Actually, it is a rather famous (mis)quote from Bat Masterson. If you knew anything at all about the American West, you would know that.

If Darwin is right, and you're sure he's right, then why do you care what other people think or propose?

I only care when they try to force the teaching of their untested and untestable thoughts or proposals in school.

(skip the next one, simply because you obviously don't know me at all).

Darwinists are secularists.

Not necessarily.

They deny the existence of God.

No, I don't.

Socialism actually depends on acolytes like yourself.

I am not an "acolyte". Socialism depends on the abuse of power, the use of force, and an unarmed populace.

Social Darwinism is a liberal tool developed for the sole purpose of destroying democracy and this republic.

You need professional help, unless the paranoids really are after you.

Defensive secularists like yourself fantasizing about shooting people with shotguns from ambush are typical of Darwinists.

I am not a secularist, subsequently, I am not defensive about it. I do not fantasize about shooting people with shotguns from ambush, I just thought it was a really cool (mis)quote.

After you've completed your doctorate in molecular biology, you may return and lick my boots!

I am not going after a doctorate in molecular biology. Fantasizing about somebody licking your boots is, in a word, kinky. Is your favorite outfit made out of rubber and leather? It sure sounds like it.

It isn't. If you read Bradley's article which provoked the response by Dawkins, you will see that Bradley clearly implied that Dawkins was being influenced by his politics, which he thinks is right-wing. For instance, he says,

Yes, having now read Clive's article, he does bring up political considerations, but that does not make Dawkin's response any less a straw man, Ad Hominem. Primarily since Gould is not an active participant in the exchange. He was quoted and characterized by Clive. So the charge that he did not read the book is uncalled for. Looking at comments that Clive made it is not astonishing that Dawkins responded as he did.

Gould's method is, it seems to me, that of a real scientist able to take into account aspects of the broader picture, rather than of a vicious polemical idiot, which is how Dawkins et al tend to interpret him. Dawkins simply never asks questions about his own ideological bias, or if he asks them, only dismisses the question as absurd.

It is not merely, however, that it is politically distasteful to recognise any validity to Dawkins' theory. The theory is wrong. It is wrong in the sense that both Rose and Gould have outlined so eloquently. It reduces a complex reality, which includes social relations, to a molecule. The host of "genes for" this, that, and the other which have been "discovered" suffer from the same methodological and philosophical pitfalls.

Dawkins' conjecture is not a theory. It is conjecture.

"Yes, having now read Clive's article, he does bring up political considerations, but that does not make Dawkin's response any less a straw man, Ad Hominem."

Bradley's article was a gross misreading of Dawkin's book. He said that Dawkins was against Punctuated Equalibria because of his politics, which is not true. He tried to paint him as a right-winger, which is untrue. It's Bradley who created the Strawman, not Dawkins. Dawkins was understandably irritated by Bradley's piece, since in his book, he specifically refutes the kind of simpleminded interpretations of *the selfish gene* that Bradley creates. THAT is why he said that he didn't read his book; if he had he wouldn't have made such obvious mischaracterizations of the book.

"Primarily since Gould is not an active participant in the exchange. He was quoted and characterized by Clive. So the charge that he did not read the book is uncalled for."

Not really. Dawkins made that statement in reference to some well know criticisms by Gould that showed that Gould had either not read The Selfish Gene, or had deliberately mischaracterized it. Dawkins was being kind by choosing the former.

"Bradley quotes Stephen (yes, Stephen, well done, Clive) Jay Gould's criticism of alleged atomism in The Selfish Gene, and describes it as "a devastating criticism of not only a scientific approach, but an entire philosophical world-view." Bradley says, "To my knowledge, Dawkins and his co-thinkers have not bothered to respond to this criticism." Let me add to his knowledge. On page 271-272 of the Second Edition of The Selfish Gene, I quote the very same paragraph from Gould, and refute it (really).

Moreover, in the course of this very full reply, I quote the First Edition of The Selfish Gene as making precisely the same points, in detail, as Gould himself was later to make. Not only is Bradley happy to endorse Gould's criticism of The Selfish Gene without bothering to read the book himself; it appears that Gould didn't read it either."

That's not an ad hominem. It's a valid criticism. And, as I said, it showed some restraint to say that Gould hadn't read it instead of saying what he probably felt, that he had read it but simply ignored it.

Again, I don't see what this has to do with the idea proposed earlier that Darwin is responsible for communism.

Now, back to the turkey. :)

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.