Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The ayatollah of atheism and Darwin’s altars
Catholic Educators Resource Center ^ | 5/27/08 | PAUL JOHNSON

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bewareoffrluddites; catholicism; churchofdarwin; dawkins; evolution; goddooditamen; id; idjunkscience; intelligentdesign; johnson; pauljohnson; pavlovian; richarddawkins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-283 next last
To: tallhappy

Now bear in mind, I am an engineer, not a research biologist. My orals were in a different field entirely.

I did work as a programmer for a research biologist. I used my skills at solving differential equations to model predator-prey equations.

As the number of rabbits increased, even the slowest wolf could catch prey. Then, as the number of wolves increased, they would begin to cut down the number of rabbits.

That different predation rate drives a different evolution rate.


161 posted on 05/28/2006 8:39:06 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (Demographics is Destiny!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

Fine.

What has happened is between 16 and 40 species of crustacian has evolved in only 40 years. The creation by man of a new niche made an opportunity for creatures with genes that permit varying amounts of salinity. Before that niche, the environment was stable. After it was filled, the niche was filled, the species still evolve, but outliers are trimmed. With the niche newly created (by man) the evolution rate radically increases.

I wouldn't know this unless I worked at Pt. Mugu for a year. We are now restricted on what we could do in the Mugu lagoon, as each of these species are endangered, and protected. Nothing like them anywhere in the world.

Interesting experiment, no?


162 posted on 05/28/2006 8:44:51 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (Demographics is Destiny!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

So, there you are. We make math models, and anticipate the performance of reality. Then we measure the reality, and find that it agrees with the math models.

When you have a math model that comports with reality, that kind of implies that the theory by which you make the math model has some degree of validity.

The fellow I worked with was able to get 300 years of Hudson Bay Company fur returns. That means that all the animals in several geographic areas were "sampled" and tracked. So were the trappers, which also provides a human species interaction. That gave him enough data to check his theory against a lot of facts.

Further, he wrote several papers about the interaction of measles germs with humans in Baltimore (a city with unusually good record keeping). Again, he showed how a simple differential equation model predicted accurately the cyclical nature of epidemics, as the disease evolved, and as humans evolved resistance.


163 posted on 05/28/2006 8:53:46 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (Demographics is Destiny!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker
That different predation rate drives a different evolution rate.

Again, the concept is understood. How, though, do you know this?

164 posted on 05/28/2006 8:55:50 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker

Ever read "Surely you're joking Mr Feynman?"


165 posted on 05/28/2006 8:56:45 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker

http://www.esajournals.org/esaonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0012-9658&volume=064&issue=03&page=0564

Above link is one of the important early papers. That describes interaction between bees, plants, and aphids. I didn't work on that paper, but my ex-wife did.


166 posted on 05/28/2006 8:57:05 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (Demographics is Destiny!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0012-9658(197403)55%3A2%3C291%3ASFOLHT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1#abstract

Another paper.

Anyways, yes, I have read that. Mr. Feynman was quite a bongo player. I was just down at Jet Propulsion Laboratory last Thursday. Small world.


167 posted on 05/28/2006 9:00:14 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (Demographics is Destiny!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker
We make math models, and anticipate the performance of reality.

Yes. Feynman related the story about a seminar where it was mathematically shown what the spin state of a particle was. Feynman believed the arguent it is good and convinced him the spin was one. But someone piped up and said, the spin's not one it's three -- they measured it.

Then we measure the reality, and find that it agrees with the math models.

That's right, as in the example above.

Another Cal Tech anecdote, a young underclassman at one of his first seminars hears his professor growl "where's the data".

You haven't been able to get to the substance other than the model or concept. Where's the data? You've got some nice anecdotes -- which science don't make.

168 posted on 05/28/2006 9:23:54 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

The data? That is in the thousands of bees observed by the team.

It is the millions of Hudson's bay company fur returns, and their time sequence, for 300 years.

It is the tens of thousands of measles cases in Baltimore collected over 300 years.

Does that help?


169 posted on 05/28/2006 9:29:25 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (Demographics is Destiny!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

Feynman also wrote in his "Six Easy Pieces" a description of several particles, and didn't have an over arching theory about how they were related.

"And such is the regretable, inadequate state of Physics today."

The quark theory came out a few years later, and provided insights not previously available. Data measured the energy level of the "top quark" that was the last. String theory was developed after that.

When you have a theory that doesnt match the measurements, you are still looking. When you have a theory that matches data, that is as good as a theory gets, until you find data that the theory doesn't explain. Then you look for a new theory.


170 posted on 05/28/2006 9:34:29 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (Brother, can you Paradigm?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker
Does that help?

You've forgotten the question. You've strayed. Go back to the original question I asked and talk about specific and direct data that allows us to know the original stateent is true.

171 posted on 05/28/2006 9:41:07 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
evolution is a slow process, but it is not a uniform process.

How do you know it is not uniform?

172 posted on 05/28/2006 9:44:02 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

I just did.

You want to know how we know. Metaphysics.

Before you examine the data, you decide on a degree of confidence that will convince you.

You collect your data, or plot data that was independently collected. You write an equation based on a theory. You draw a line through the data based on that equation. It matches. The conclusion: the theory that draws the line explains the data.

You check that level of agreement using statistics. It matches to that level of confidence.

You write a paper. You present it. You get questions from your peers. You answer them, or you identify where additional work is needed, either to the theory, or to the data.


173 posted on 05/28/2006 9:49:01 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (Brother, can you Paradigm?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy; Donald Meaker
I was thinking in terms of your post and Coyoteman's that maybe something like evidence would come in to play.

Tall, it looks like your mind is made up. Evidence would be of no use.

Good night.


ps. My library consists of literally tens of thousands of volumes, covering a very wide range of subjects. And I have been into virtually all of them.

174 posted on 05/28/2006 9:58:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death--Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker; Coyoteman
Address the question. You haven't. Nothing to do with metaphysics. You have spoken about soe aecdotes, such as teeth maybe in 50,00 years being lesss prevalent in a population or rabbits getting eaten by coyotes.

All fine, all generally anecdotal. Where there may be some mathematical modelling concerning populations, it does not address the specific question of how you know evolution is not a uniform process? So far all you've answered is why one might think it is not uniform.

If you can't answer simple direct questions you ought not get all huffy, coyoteman. Science isn't telling stories. My mind is made up about that, yes.

175 posted on 05/28/2006 10:11:17 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

The reason why it is not uniform is because the conditions change.

Uniform response of an organism to uniform conditions would give a uniform rate of change. Even if there is a uniform response by the organism or population to its environment, nonuniform conditions would give a non-uniform rate of change.

Hope this helps. Do you have calculus behind you? It would help if you did. You don't need to really grasp fluxions and such, but I would explain it differently if you didn't.


176 posted on 05/28/2006 10:22:20 PM PDT by Donald Meaker (Brother, can you Paradigm?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Donald Meaker
You still miss the point -- what your saying is simple and understandable and there is no quarrel. It is your assertion, it makes sense.

I am asking where is the data?

You are the guy saying the spin is 1. I am the guy saying where is the data, how did you measure it?

You havn't shown how anything was measured to show evolution is not uniform. You keep saying why you think it is not uniform and how it makes sense that it should not be uniform.

That is not the same as showing it is not uniform. This is a serious distinction.

177 posted on 05/28/2006 10:34:36 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
I was just reading this thread again noticed and appreciated the thoughtful tone of your posts. It's too bad that a similarly thoughtful article like this one can't be discussed by all in that tone. Just as there are many variations in the theories of evolution, there are many variations in religious thought, and, with respect to debates in the U.S., more specifically many variations of Christianity and Darwin's theory of natural selection.

The two camps often overlap, and there are supporters of each who are quite fair-minded and reasonable as well as some others are considerably less so. I also agree that Christian Fundamentalists deserve credit for being open about their fundamentalism, and I would give that same respect to a Daniel Dennett, who is equally open about his. Those who would dispute that there are fundamentalists in science as well as religion should take note of Dennett's words about himself and his close friend and associate, Richard Dawkins:

And I also thought, on rereading the book, that the late Steve Gould was really right when he called Richard and me Darwinian fundamentalists. And I want to say what a Darwinian fundamentalist is. A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. It is the unexceptioned view that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the original driving engines, but recent effects that marks, I think, the true Darwinian fundamentalist.

And Dawkins insists, and I agree wholeheartedly, that there aren't any good compromise positions. Many have tried to find a compromise position, which salvages something of the traditional right-side-up view, where meaning and purpose rain down from on high. It cannot be done. And the recognition that it cannot be done is I would say, the mark of sane Darwinian fundamentalism.

178 posted on 05/29/2006 7:07:28 AM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf


Well sometimes assumptions are wrong.


179 posted on 05/29/2006 7:26:04 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon


No, atheism *is* a religion. If you don't believe me go talk to one. They're as zealous as any other religious type.

The opposite of a Christian/Jew/Muslim is a Satanist, not an atheist.


180 posted on 05/29/2006 7:28:30 AM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-283 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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