Posted on 05/27/2006 3:14:09 PM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
How long will Darwin continue to repose on his high but perilous pedestal? I am beginning to wonder.
Few people doubt the principles of evolution. The question at issue is: are all evolutionary advances achieved exclusively by the process of natural selection? That is the position of the Darwinian fundamentalists, and they cling to their absolutist position with all the unyielding certitude with which Southern Baptists assert the literal truth of the Book of Genesis, or Wahabi Muslims proclaim the need for a universal jihad against ‘the Great Satan’. At a revivalist meeting of Darwinians two or three years ago, I heard the chairman, the fiction-writer Ian McEwan, call out, ‘Yes, we do think God is an old man in the sky with a beard, and his name is Charles Darwin.’ I doubt if there is a historical precedent for this investment of so much intellectual and emotional capital, by so many well-educated and apparently rational people, in the work of a single scientist. And to anyone who has studied the history of science and noted the chances of any substantial body of teaching — based upon a particular hypothesis or set of observations — surviving the erosion of time and new research intact, it is inevitable that Darwinism, at least in its fundamentalist form, will come crashing down. The only question is: when?
The likelihood that Darwin’s eventual debacle will be sensational and brutal is increased by the arrogance of his acolytes, by their insistence on the unchallengeable truth of the theory of natural selection —which to them is not a hypothesis but a demonstrated fact, and its critics mere flat-earthers — and by their success in occupying the commanding heights in the university science departments and the scientific journals, denying a hearing to anyone who disagrees with them. I detect a ground-swell of discontent at this intellectual totalitarianism, so unscientific by its very nature. It is wrong that any debate, especially one on so momentous a subject as the origin of species, and the human race above all, should be arbitrarily declared to be closed, and the current orthodoxy set in granite for all time. Such a position is not tenable, and the evidence that it is crumbling is growing.
It is wrong that any debate, especially one on so momentous a subject as the origin of species, and the human race above all, should be arbitrarily declared to be closed, and the current orthodoxy set in granite for all time. Such a position is not tenable, and the evidence that it is crumbling is growing.
Much of the blame lies with Richard Dawkins, head of the Darwinian fundamentalists in this country, who has (it seems) indissolubly linked Darwin to the more extreme forms of atheism, and projected on to our senses a dismal world in which life has no purpose or meaning and a human being has no more significance than a piece of rock, being subject to the same blind processes of pitiless, unfeeling, unthinking nature. The sheer moral, emotional and intellectual emptiness of the universe as seen by the Darwinian bigots is enough to make mere humans (as opposed to scientific high priests), and especially young ones, despair, and wonder what is the point of going on with existence in a world which is hard enough to endure even without the Darwinian nightmare. I was intrigued to note, earlier this summer, in the pages of the Guardian, an indignant protest by one of Dawkins’s fellow atheists that he was bringing atheism into disrepute by his extremism, by the tendentious emotionalism of his language and by his abuse of religious belief. But he has his passionate defenders too, and occupies an overwhelmingly strong position in Oxford, not a university famous for its contribution to science to be sure, but one where personalities notorious for extreme opinions of a quasi-theological kind are much applauded, even canonised, as witness Pusey, Keble, Newman and Jowett. To ferocious undergraduate iconoclasts he is the ayatollah of atheism, and in consequence much wined and dined in smart London society. Recently he was chosen by the readers of Prospect, a monthly journal with some pretensions, as Britain’s leading ‘public intellectual’. It is true that such write-ins carry no authority and often strike a ludicrous note. A similar poll conducted by the BBC produced Karl Marx as ‘the greatest philosopher of all time’. All the same, there is no denying Dawkins’s celebrity: he is up there among the football managers and pop singers, alongside Posh and ‘Bob’ and the Swedish Casanova.
Meanwhile, however, opponents are busy. The Times Literary Supplement, in its issue of 29 July, carried a seven-column article by the equally celebrated philosopher Jerry Fodor of Rutgers University, which relentlessly demolished the concept of Evolutionary Psychology, one of the pillars of the imposing mansion of orthodoxy occupied by the Darwinians. Fodor is particularly scathing about Dawkins and his leading American lieutenant, Professor Steven Pinker, and the theory that, in the process of natural selection, genes selfishly spread themselves. Fodor’s discourse on motivation (or lack of it) in the evolutionary process is well worth reading, being a sensible and sensitive argument as opposed to the dogmatic assertions of the Darwinian cultists. It is, I think, a sign of the times that they are now being attacked from within the establishment.
At the same time, opponents of the dogma that natural selection is the sole force in evolution, who cannot get a hearing within that establishment, are not remaining silent. It is characteristic of the new debate that heterodoxy is finding other outlets. I recommend, for instance, a book by the learned anatomist Dr Antony Latham, The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed, just out from Janus Publishing (105-107 Gloucester Place, London W1U 6BY). Much of the book is devoted to a chapter-by-chapter exposure of the errors and illogicalities of Dawkins’s best-known book, The Blind Watchmaker, and its highly emotional presentation of the case against design (and God). The indictment of Dawkins’s scientific scholarship is powerful, masterly and (I would say) unanswerable.
Another book which has come my way this summer, though it was published by Columbia in New York in 2003, is by Richard Bird of Northumbria University. It is called Chaos and Life: Complexity and Order in Evolution and Thought. This is a formidable piece of work, showing that the way in which living things appear and evolve is altogether more complex and sophisticated than the reliance on natural selection presupposes. One of the points he raises, which to me as a historian is crucial, is the impossibility of fitting natural selection as the normative form of evolution into the time frame of the earth as an environment for life. Bird shows that Dawkins’s attempts to answer this objection are disingenuous and futile. One of the virtues of this book (as, indeed, of Dr Latham’s) is that it has told me a lot about evolution and design that I did not know, and which orthodox dogma conceals. So there is a virtue in the origins debate — the spread of knowledge — and I hope it continues until the altars of Dagon come crashing down.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Paul Johnson. "The ayatollah of atheism and Darwin’s altars." The Spectator (August 27, 2005).
This article is from Paul Johnson's "And another thing" column for The Spectator and is reprinted with permission of the author.
THE AUTHOR
Paul Johnson, celebrated journalist and historian, is the author most recently of George Washington: The Founding Father. Among his other widely acclaimed books are A History of the American People, Modern Times, A History of the Jews, Intellectuals, Art: A New History, and The Quest for God: Personal Pilgrimage. He also produces brief surveys that slip into the pocket, such as his popular The Renaissance and Napoleon. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Spectator, and the Daily Telegraph. He lectures all over the world and lives in Notting Hill (London) and Somerset.
For the reasons you give, and from personal experience with many scientists over several decades, I agree with your conclusions.
And what "god" would that be? Be specific. Helpful tip: Accepting the validity of something, or adopting a particular methodology, does not make it a "god" or "deity".
I know that to some people to whom religion and/or a deity is a big thing in their lives, it seems inconceivable that other people can find a way to get through the day without having some kind of "substitute religion", but that's not the case.
[By that definition, there's no such thing as a "Darwinian fundamentalist." I don't know of a single evolutionary biologist who denies that sexual selection and genetic drift play important roles.]
Poor analogy. Christians believe in the Torah, even if there is no mention of Christ in them.
It wasn't an analogy. It was a direct refutation to the definition AbsoluteAwesome gave.
Hell, by that definition, even *Darwin* wasn't a "Darwinian fundamentalist":
"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."
-- Charles Darwin, 1872 edition of The Origin of Species
How about Catholic tripe alert.
Paul Johnson is my favorite historian as well. I believe his stand is that we just don't know. I do not understand why we cannot just acept that, because no one DOES know.
Another excellent "Johnson" to read is Philip. He is a lawyer who argues against Darwinism based on the known facts. He makes about the best arguments I've read.
Awwww- gee, thanks Dad. I so appreciate folks like you lookin' out for the rest of us...
Neither link supports your numbers.
Your identification of communists with scientists is typical of the slander flung by the religious on this forum. It is of the same nature as claiming that Islamic terrorists are identical to Christians because both believe the same Creation story.
I would predict that at least one Creationist will endorse the Communist=Scientist claim made here.
You exemplify my comment. I was hoping for better but not expecting it.
It must be "Delusional Dial-up Day" at the Outpatient Clinic; I haven't seen this many crackpot posts in the same thread since G3k, f-dot, and Splifford the ASCII Bat were the Holy Trinity of anti-Evo posters here on FR.
Why get worked up over it? Ben Franklin was a scientist, and some of the anti-science people around here would accuse him of being a commie too. Retardation is a terrible misfortune; and when I see examples of it around here, I do the polite thing and ignore it.
I have a nice first edition copy.
How about not.
My comments were about an extremely biased writing style.
Your interpretation of the article isn't warranted by its substance. Paul Johnson is a Catholic--- he is not a fundmentalist. Catholicism buys into Biblical inerrancy, not literalism. Literalism was used by the Manichaeans as a strawman interpretation of scripture to make it easier to attack; Augustine decided it as a strawman when he became a Christian.
Surely you've seen or met an actual Christian fundamentalist before. Ask them what their opinion is of Catholicism. At the least they will assure that the two are different.
What Paul Johnson calls "Darwinian Fundamentalism" can be encapsulated by Daniel Dennett's description of Darwinism-- which Dawkins wholly agrees with--- as an acid that eats through everything but itself, thus superceding every other belief-- the very definition of fundamentalism:
Little did I realize that in a few years I would encounter an idea -- Darwin's idea -- bearing an unmistakable likeness to universal acid: it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.
Darwin's idea had been born as an answer to questions in biology, but it threatened to leak out, offering answers -- welcome or not -- to question in cosmology (going in one direction) and psychology (going in the other direction). If redesign could be a mindless, algorithmic process of evolution, why couldn't that whole process itself be the product of evolution, and so forth, all the way down? And if mindless evolution could account for the breathtakingly clever artifacts of the biosphere, how could the products of our own "real" minds be exempt from an evolutionary explanation? Darwin's idea thus also threatened to spread all the way up, dissolving the illusion of our own authorship, our own divine spark of creativity and understanding.
Johnson is in no way criticizing this interpretaion of Darwinism becuase it resembles religion as such--- he is criticizing a specific sort of Darwinism to a specific sort of religion.
Come on. Is Jerry Fodor, whom he quotes, supposed to be a fundamentalist or somehow narrow minded as well? Paul Johnson is a great writer and thinker--- anyone who's read his historical work, even if they take issue with what he's written here, must admit this. And in fact the main point he is making here is a very moderate one-- that Dawkins must be a Darwinian "fundmentalist" to think that Darwin's theory, if true, holds the power Dennett attributes to it and thus outright disproves God's existence, as Dawkins holds it does. His secondary point is that some books he considers thoughtful and well written have appeared, criticizing Dawkins and also making some criticisms of Darwin's theory of natural selection, much as respected scientists and thinkers such as Lynn Margulis and Stephen Wolfram have. Again, a rather moderate point. I assume you've never read Paul Johnson. His book Birth of the Modern which describes the influence of new technologies such as steam power, is one among many of his classic works.
I must also say I also don't think it's correct of you to say as you do in post 28 that Darwin's theory as it then stood somehwo fit the later discovery DNA or even Mendel's laws of inheritance. As I'm sure you know, William Bateson, who insisted on the truth of the rediscovered Mendelian laws in the face of opposition in the Neo-Darwinian biometric community and Sir Ronald Fisher, who by helping to resolve the controversy helped create the neo-Darwinian synthesis, a synthesis that had been required precisely because Darwin had not predicted anything like Mendel's laws and his theory, as he had originally stated it, was not consistent with them.
Sorry about that-- the above was meant to reply to Coyoteman. But, just to reiterate, if neither of you have read Paul Johnson's books before, I suggest you give them a try. I'm sure you would find much in his book of essays, "Intellectuals" to agree with-- it is epecially good on the harm that Rousseau did-- and he in no way criticzes him for his pre-Darwinian theory that man was descended from apes!:)
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.