When and Why Anti-Darwinism First Arose

Discovery Institute ^ | June 2, 2009 | David Klinghoffer

[GodGunsGuts]

When and Why Anti-Darwinism First Arose

I'm a big fan of Rod Dreher. His Crunchy Con blog rarely fails to enlighten me, so I've been looking forward to his reflections on faith and science, generated by his current visit to Cambridge University as a Cambridge-Templeton fellow. Rod blogged today in response to a lecture and discussion in which evolution came up. He writes that "Darwinism wasn't initially opposed by Christians" and credits William Jennings Bryan with rallying the faithful against evolution. This is worth some further elaboration. How soon did opposition to Darwinism develop? Among whom, and why?...

[Ben Ficklin]

Maybe you should start another thread? You reality is based on the number of threads.

I am almost 99% sure that if you had 30 creation threads daily, every high school in the US would begin teaching creation

[GodGunsGuts]

It is clear you lack the intestinal fortitude to back up your Evo-position. Do you know what Bryan (not Brian) et al were objecting to in the Evo-textbooks at the time or not? If you do know, are you in agreement with Bryan et al’s objection to the same or not? Given your rather fragile and fidgety nature, I won’t be holding my breath waiting for your answers.

[GodGunsGuts]

PS And now that you mention it, I will be starting another creation thread. Thanks for the reminder.

[Heartlander]

FYI

[Ben Ficklin]

The beauty of it is that I don't have to back up my evo-position.

That is being ground out each and every day.

That's your problem. You think reality is determined by what is posted here.

[GodGunsGuts]

You mean ground to dust. It is obvious that you have long-since made the ultimate sacrifice to the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism. I didn't realize I was talking to a full-fledged darwin-drong until just now:

[Ben Ficklin]

Are you going to assassinate me?

[alstewartfan]

Your little simile tag-line is saying that ID destroys evolution akin to how socialism destroys free markets, YES?

[Heartlander]

To paraphrase Berlinski (a secular jew); if we were to replace the word evolution with ‘allah’ and the label of creationist with ‘infidel’ - I don’t think these discussions would read significantly different. But this obviously offends those who use the ‘creationist label‘ because it associates Darwinism with religion as it should in some cases. And science has quite a few creation stories . (I’ve got more) Disclaimer: I am not a creationist – but I am a Christian.

Now let me ask you a simple question, do you believe that human consciousness ‘ultimately’ came from mindlessness?

[Ben Ficklin]

What do you think?

[Heartlander]

I am asking ‘your’ opinion. Are you now asking what I think your opinion is? (I’ve already stated that I am a Christian)

[Ben Ficklin]

OK, maybe you can clarify for me. When you say consciousness do you mean being? When you say mindlessness, do you mean non-thought?

If so, we can rely on one of the great thinkers in western philosophy and say " I think, therefore I am".

[Heartlander]

You might not have read the links provided – so what is your ‘opinion’ of this (it negates the “I think therefore I am” premise)

DAWKINS: (snip)"…But yet we have this gathering together of genes into individual organisms. And that reminds me of the illusion of one mind, when actually there are lots of little mindlets in there, and the illusion of the soul of the white ant in the termite mound, where you have lots of little entities all pulling together to create an illusion of one. Am I right to think that the feeling that I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things, that this is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a kind of society of mind?"

PINKER: "It's a very interesting question. Yes, there is a sense in which the whole brain has interests in common in the way that say a whole body composed of genes with their own selfish motives has a single agenda. In the case of the genes the fact that their fates all depend on the survival of the body forces them to cooperate. In the case of the different parts of the brain, the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit, presumably in the frontal lobes, that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction. In How the Mind Works I alluded to a scene in the comedy movie All of Me in which Lily Tomlin's soul inhabits the left half of Steve Martin's body and he takes a few steps in one direction under his own control and then lurches in another direction with his pinkie extended while under the control of Lily Tomlin's spirit. That is what would happen if you had nothing but completely autonomous modules of the brain, each with its own goal. Since the body has to be in one place at one time, there might be a circuit that suppresses the conflicting motives…"(end snip)

[Ben Ficklin]

What is the “very interesting question” being referred to?

[Heartlander]

Dawkins (the first quote) asked Pinker (the second quote – and answer).

[Ben Ficklin]

To be honest with you, I don’t have an opinion of that.

[Heartlander]

Really… nothing… These are just basic questions regarding the fundamental basis for our existence and it’s your choice to ponder or ignore.

Why is this important? (rhetorical question) Again – fundamentals… The US Constitution assumed all human rights were bestowed to us by our Creator. A Humanistic belief (now based on Darwinism) would assume rights and morality are bestowed to us by ‘mankind’ based on circumstance. Morality, according to Darwinism, is but an illusion as well as human consciousness.

I wonder why many liberals pursue this doctrine and most conservatives don’t? < /sarcasm>

[Oztrich Boy]

Do you know what Bryan (not Brian) et al were objecting to in the Evo-textbooks at the time or not?

It's doubtful if Bryan did any more than glance at them. They, like everything else in his life, were just an excuse for him to make impressive sounding speeches devoid of actual content. The real wonder is that that tactic thrice failed to get him elected President. (times change)

[Heartlander]

Well then, don’t just glance, read and give us your thoughts.

[Zionist Conspirator]

[Sarcasm] I thought that everyone had always believed in Darwinism from the very beginning of time and that it was only in the nineteenth century that a few “racist rednecks” started casting doubts on it for the first time in history. Isn’t this what they tell us? [/Sarcasm]