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.
Let me put it this way.... With almost every sentence I write, I think, "But I could be wrong," as I write it. But if I wrote that every time, it would clutter up the proceedings... but I could be wrong.
I believe God exists. But I am skeptical in that I consider it possible that I am wrong. And, therefore, I consider it immoral to demand or even expect that people live their lives, per my belief in God.
So am I a believer? A skeptic? Both? Am I perverting skepticism by attaching morality to my skepticism? Or are we using the term "skepticism" in different, if related, ways?
Indeed. IP spoofing means never really being banned.
But this is not science. It is mimicry of science.
And that, I think, is the point of Johnson's article which starts this thread. And if it's not, it is, at least, the point I was trying to get to.
OK. but being a skeptic by temperament does not mean going around empty headed. Science is by temperament skeptical, but it accumulates knowledge like layers of an onion. New knowledge sometimes requires recasting old statements to be less inclusive, but it seldom requires abandoning old knowledge.
There are things in science that most skeptical people would bet their lives on, among them the age of the earth and common descent.
Gee, Paul. Thanks for equating Southern Baptists with Wahabbi Muslims. You have lost much credibility with that asinine statement. Typical Catholic ignorance of Protestanism.
It's not slander. Communist doctrine mandates Atheism.
Atheists often look to science for their comfort.
I agree that not all Atheists are Communists. However I find your parallel simplistic.
Okay, it's just stupid.
Communist doctrine mandates Atheism.
Yeah, and we all see how well that worked in Russia, Poland, the Baltic States, China, et al. Or do you require a history lesson on this?
Atheists often look to science for their comfort.
No, they don't. Project much?
I agree that not all Atheists are Communists.
Good, because damn few are. Or ever were.
However I find your parallel simplistic.
Gee, I have an idea about who is simple-minded here, shall I post it or can you figure it out for yourself?
Do you believe that all scientists are atheists?
Mooney's not very good. However he's tame compared to the current fil.
Adolph Schickelgruber, aka Hitler believed ferverently in Eugenics. It was his belief that he could wipe out offensive genomes by simply killing all the people of a particular type.
This was in line with current medical practice in Germany: People who were crippled by war, disease, accident, or birth defect were killed by the medical establishment. This was done to reduce the "drag on society" and to improve future generations.
They killed polio victims. We elected one president. That was what made Hitler completely irrational when it came to Roosevelt.
I like John Allegro's book too.
My favorite example refers to the dream interpreted by Joseph in Genesis.
There are fat years, and lean years. In fat years, competition is in the terms of who reproduces faster. Rabbits win that one. The number of rabbits radically increases, until the vegetation is eaten up. That is essentially what happened in Austrailia when the rabbit was introduced.
In lean years, competition is in terms of ability to get food, or not become food. Coyotes win there because they can eat carrion (even dead rabbits that die of starvation provide a meal to the coyote).
Because of the different nature of competition at different times, the progress of change will come in fits and starts. An ability to reproduce faster would not be much of an advantage in lean times. An advantage in finding and processing food would not be an advantage in fat times.
Hope that helps understand why evolution drives changed features at different rates at different times. Any species, to survive, must survive lean times, but must also take advantage of fat times to occupy more locations. It must also take advantage of fat times to produce many offspring to increase chances of that one crucial new mutation that may mean the difference between survival and extintion in an environment that is different from any past environment, or the environment where the gene first occurs.
A gene may be moderately bad in one environment, but wonderful in another. That understanding also kicks the pins out from under the Eugenics movement.
So in those two situations
Coyote, that was by far the most informative post I've ever seen by you and it explains where you are coming from.
Did you read Dick's Timothy Archer book?
Not really at all.
I was thinking in terms of your post and Coyoteman's that maybe something like evidence would come in to play.
Neither of you even came close to answering my question -- both your responses simply reiterated the initial statement but provided nothing or very little in terms of how it is known.
If you were asked such a question in your oral exam and gave either answer you'd fail for lack of substance.
I was expecting scientific responses but I got expository.
How about this. Point Mugu is a naval base built on the site of a Japanese-American fishing village. They scooped out the muck from a creek, and piled it next to the creek as the foundation for a concrete runway. That left a bay that had different degrees of salinity depending on the tides. At low tide, it is nearly filled by fresh water from the creek. At high tide the water is nearly filled with salt water from the ocean. In between, the water has various degrees of salinity.
What would ID suggest we would find if we looked at crustacians? Would it not suggest that we found only species that were found anywhere else around the world?
I have no idea what ID would suggest. I have no interest in ID.
Why is it so difficult for you to answer a question.
You keep trying to reiterate concept, which is given.
I am looking for some substance and disclipine, not exposition on concept.
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.