The ayatollah of atheism and Darwin’s altars

Catholic Educators Resource Center ^ | 5/27/08 | PAUL JOHNSON

[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.

[Tzimisce]

Exactly.

[Tzimisce]

Scientists have unshakable beliefs in things that can't be proven. Like everything having a logical explanation for example. They're not even open to the possibility that there are things that are illogical.

This is a staple of faith.

[Tzimisce]

[Atheists have no alter boys,] EVER HEARD OF THE ACLU? Stop shouting. And if you think that the ACLU are "alter boys", you're very confused. Furthermore, the ACLU takes on a lot of cases defending religious practices too, so by your (lack of) reasoning, does that make them "religious alter boys" instead of "atheists' alter boys"? Or will anything which raises questions about your laughably black-and-white thinking cause your head to explode? [no prayers,] YOU MEAN LIKE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS AND STUFF? Stop shouting. And no, that's not what he means, because anyone with a working brain realizes that mathematical formulas are not "prayers". Plus, you do realize, I hope, that mathematical formulas "and stuff" are used by non-atheists as well? Or are you actually so stupid as to think that "mathematical formulas and stuff" are the exclusive province of atheists? What, are religious people anti-math or something on your planet? Whatever drugs you're taking, it's time to decrease the dosage. Or maybe increase it. [no church establishments,] ...YOU MEAN LIKE A SCIENCE LAB? Stop shouting. And no, he doesn't mean that, because again, only a complete moron would think that a) a science lab is a "church establishment", and that b) only atheists use science labs, there's no such thing as a science lab used by non-atheists... Sheesh. [no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests,] THERE ARE TONS OF ATHEIST PEDOPHILES. THERE ARE TONS OF ATHEIST TEACHERS. Stop shouting. And while there are undoubtedly cases of individual misconduct by atheist pedophiles, that's not what he's talking about, he's talking about institutional coverups and scandals like the one the Catholic Church has had recently. As for your SCREAMING COMMENT about "ATHEIST TEACHERS", so what? Being a teacher does not automatically make anyone a "pastor, preacher, or priest". Again, you seem very unclear on a number of very elementary concepts. [no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation,] EVER HEARD OF SEX ED? Stop shouting. And yes, I've heard of Sex Ed. By what mental defect do you imagine that this is somehow an atheistic activity? Last time I checked, a whole lot of religious people favor teaching children about the birds and the bees too. It was even covered in the Catholic school in the town I grew up in. Nor is Sex Ed a "coming of age ritual" -- it's health information. [no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy,] ...YOU MEAN LIKE 'THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES'? HOW ABOUT NOT BLINDLY ACCEPTING THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIG BANG? Stop shouting. And no, he's not talking about those, since those are not holidays, are not banned books, and are not statements about heresy/blasphemy. You know, you might want to actually *read* what he rights before you start rambling off in some other direction entirely. [no record of burning witches or heretics,] ...COMMUNISTS (WHO ARE ATHEISTS) KILL PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE (AND CONTINUE TO PRACTICE RELIGION) ALL THE TIME... Stop shouting. Communists in general are not atheists per se, they just don't like anything, including religions, competing with the State for the loyalty of the public. This is a trait common to authoritarian regimes -- including theocratic ones, which usually persecute people for advocating any *other* religion than the one favored by the dictators. [no public displays of prayer or piety,] ...AGAIN SCIENTIFIC LAWS... Stop shouting. Again, atheists have no monopoly on science, nor are scientitic laws "public displays of prayer or piety". Tell us again the one about how "an object in motion tends to stay in motion" is a "public display of prayer or piety" -- we could use a good laugh. Are you sure you know what in the hell you're talking about? [no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth',] ...AGAIN ORIGIN OF SPECIES... Stop shouting. I know of absolutely no one, at all, anywhere, who holds that the Origin of Species contains "All Truth". Hell, it doesn't even contain everything on evolutionary biology. Nor can I think of a single person, anywhere, delusional enough to consider it a "holy book". You seem very confused. [no recited creed,] ...THERE ARE TONS OF SCIENTIFIC CREEDS FROM THE HYPOCRATIC OATH THAT DOCTORS TAKE ON DOWN... Stop shouting. Again, you seem to be under the bizarre impression that a) science is somehow the province of atheists, b) religious people don't accept science, and c) that science is somehow a religion. Please explain, because you don't seem to be making a hell of a lot of sense at all. [no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses.] ...JEWS, HINDUS, MUSLIMS AND OTHERS DON'T BELIEVE IN THESE THINGS EITHER - ARE THEY NOT RELIGIONS? Stop shouting. And stop missing the point -- he's talking about supernatural claims and holy symbols. [These are attributes of organized religion, priests and preachers with an agenda to keep being supported despite doing little productive.] THERE ARE TONS OF IVORY TOWERED SCIENTISTS LIVING ON GOVERNMENT GRANTS RIGHT NOW WHO DO NOTHING AND PUT ALL THEIR *FAITH* IN LOGIC AND REASON. Stop shouting. Be that as it may, it doesn't magically make grant-based research a religious activity. [Maybe you are ignorant of the reason cult doctrines are not succeeding is because cults are not actually accepting the Gospel.] WHY DO YOU JUST ASSUME I'M A CHRISTIAN? Stop shouting. And I don't see that he has made that assumption. Perhaps you could point out where you think he did? Were you confused by the mere fact that he happened to use the word "Gospel" in a post to you?

[Tzimisce]

The concept of Atheism perhaps is the antithesis of religion. But most atheists (as Darwinist evolutionists) If you're saying that you think that being a "Darwinist evolutionist" is synonymous with being atheist, you couldn't be more laughably wrong. The *majority* of American "Darwinists", for example, are *Christians*, not atheists. are religious to the point of zealotry toward their advancement of their ideologies. Nonsense. Being enthusiastic about a topic doesn't make it "religious" (or if it does, then you've just stretched the word 'religious' so far as to make it essentially meaningless), nor is defense of a valid field of science against misguided attacks and false propaganda "zealotry", no matter how often you dishonestly attempt to mislabel it as such. IOW the FR evos aint 'pure' In other words, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, but then you must be getting pretty used to that by now. And "aint [sic] pure" *what*? Try to remain coherent.

[Tzimisce]

"no prayers, YOU MEAN LIKE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS AND STUFF? " Mathematical formulas are *prayers* now? "no church establishments, ...YOU MEAN LIKE A SCIENCE LAB?" Labs are *churches* now? Do you even care what words mean? "no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests, THERE ARE TONS OF ATHEIST PEDOPHILES. THERE ARE TONS OF ATHEIST TEACHERS. " Anything to substantiate the *tons* of atheist pedophiles? Anything at all? "no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation, EVER HEARD OF SEX ED?" Have you? "no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy, ...YOU MEAN LIKE 'THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES'? HOW ABOUT NOT BLINDLY ACCEPTING THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIG BANG?" The Origin of Species has never been accepted uncritically by scientists. The Big Bang has not been *blindly* accepted; though both it and evolution (which are two very separate theories) have been blindly rejected. "no public displays of prayer or piety, ...AGAIN SCIENTIFIC LAWS..." You are redefining *prayer* to be something it most definitely is not. You are making science and the acceptance of scientific principles to be religious. This is bizarre. "no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth', ...AGAIN ORIGIN OF SPECIES..." No scientists has EVER said that the Origin of Species contains *all truth*. Not only has nobody ever said that, they have not implied it. Modern evolutionary theory has moved on past what Darwin wrote; the book was never accepted as the final word on evolution. "no recited creed, ...THERE ARE TONS OF SCIENTIFIC CREEDS FROM THE HYPOCRATIC OATH THAT DOCTORS TAKE ON DOWN..." This makes them atheists? And, if there are *tons* of scientific creeds, can you name any others? "These are attributes of organized religion, priests and preachers with an agenda to keep being supported despite doing little productive. THERE ARE TONS OF IVORY TOWERED SCIENTISTS LIVING ON GOVERNMENT GRANTS RIGHT NOW WHO DO NOTHING AND PUT ALL THEIR *FAITH* IN LOGIC AND REASON." Is there something wrong with logic and reason? I think I just hit on your main objection to science (it HAS been science you have been attacking, not atheism, BTW).

[Tzimisce]

It's not slander. 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?

[Tzimisce]

Do you believe that all scientists are atheists?

[Coyoteman]

Are you SO unaware of the total LACK OF ANY KIND OF EMPIRIC EVIDENCE to support evolution that has driven the secular scientists to distraction?

How do you know there is no "empiric" evidence to support the theory of evolution?

Is this conclusion the result of your own study? Is it a belief? Just what is the source of this conclusion?

[13Sisters76]

In his book "Intellectuals", I thought Johnson was making the point that these academics had made up their minds before all the facts were in. You are right, Johnson does not take issue with the theory of evolution, or any theory presented, but merely with the idea that facts cannot be stated as facts until they are empirically proven.

True debate is FUN, and I think Johnson would agree. Two opponents with competing ideas, without lies, arguing their points and spectators making up their OWN minds which one to accept. Unfortunately that isn't what "debate" IS anymore. The side with the best press presents its ideas as facts without the opposing ideas. Those who don't accept them are painted in all manner of negative ways, particularly as "religious".

The tone of Johnson's book is negative. I think he would agree with the above statement. And he wouldn't be the only one.

[RadioAstronomer]

I was just down at Jet Propulsion Laboratory last Thursday. Small world.

Do you work at the lab?

I did. :-)

[RadioAstronomer]

What a bizarre post.

[mjolnir]

In his book "Intellectuals", I thought Johnson was making the point that these academics had made up their minds before all the facts were in. You are right, Johnson does not take issue with the theory of evolution, or any theory presented, but merely with the idea that facts cannot be stated as facts until they are empirically proven. True debate is FUN, and I think Johnson would agree. Two opponents with competing ideas, without lies, arguing their points and spectators making up their OWN minds which one to accept. Unfortunately that isn't what "debate" IS anymore. The side with the best press presents its ideas as facts without the opposing ideas. Those who don't accept them are painted in all manner of negative ways, particularly as "religious". The tone of Johnson's book is negative. I think he would agree with the above statement. And he wouldn't be the only one.

You're right, it is a negative book for the most part other than its (very interesting) chapter on Edmund Wilson. I enjoy reading about debates between people such as G.K. Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw. Here were two brilliant men who were able to disagree in the strongest terms on almost every issue yet did so without showing personal contempt for one another at any point.I thought this discussion between Phillip Johnson and Will Provine exemplefied that better sort of debate-- one of its most interesting points occurs when Provine explains why he rejects reductionism.

I think the other point of "Intellectuals" goes back to Plato and Aristotle: that the fact that a man may be a talented specialist in one area does not make him in expert in all others, no can the standards for excellence and evidence be always be carried over from one discipline to another, nor is it always the case that facts uncovered through one discipline may be reduced to facts in another one.

The thinkers on the Edge website (who tend to follow in C.P. Snow's footsteps by thinking that science alone can give us factual knowledge)such as Dennett tend to be examples of the sort of intellectual Johnson had in mind, which is why they will insist that, say literary critics who don't attend to the most current facts of biology will somehow have their critical abilities in their own field be impoverished, and that the Edge members, lacking any such lack, represent some new sort of "Third wave" uber-intellectual.

I remmber Christopher Hitchens was horrified that so many of his icons had received the same treatment they'd given to others in "Intellectuals", and therefore Hitchens apllied a withering attack to Paul Johnson, attacking him for his marriages, former leftism, etc. I'd like to think Johnson took it in stride and laughed. What a fantastic writer he is!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Those who don't believe in evolution are "mostly" Christians?

Actually, they're mostly Muslims; you've achieved mutuality.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Thank you for your comments.

I exchanged E-mail with Dennett a year or so ago, as I had a question about something in a column he had written. He gave me a partial answer, then referred me to several of his books for the full one. 8>)

In any case, I found his tone, both in the article, as well as his E-mail, to be reasonable. He seemed more interesting in teaching than preaching (though I thought a touch more interested in selling his books than either -- which I find understandable and amusing, rather than annoying, BTW). I disagree with him, but I find him more than tolerable.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want - but do NOT make it personal!

[RadioAstronomer]

Maybe you are ignorant of the reason cult doctrines are not succeeding is because cults are not actually accepting the Gospel.

Nawww... Cults are alive and well.

[JasonC]

Um, Johnson is not a creationist, and there isn't the least touch of creationist nonsense in the article.

Dawkins had a rather famous debate with Gould on the subject of levels to which selection applied and the role of forces besides natural selection in evolution. Dawkins lost that argument on the merits, but did not budge. It is perfectly accurate to call that dogmatic.

The reality is, evolution is a fact but the relative role of natural selection within it remains a topic of considerable dispute among scientists. Professonial controversialists focused entirely outward on religious literalist opponents have entrenched themselves in dubious propositions and raised their hyperbole to new heights, all the while pretending that anyone who disagrees with a jot or tittle of their views is a raving moonbat trying to defend Genesis.

Which is nonsense.

The formal evidence suggests NS is a relatively weak force. GAs fail to find global optima because complex fitness terrains are not well explored by local improvement schemes. Considerable complexity is seen in systems other than life - where there is no question of hundreds of millions of years of NS - and better understood all the time. The range of phenomena being traced to other purely formal causes is therefore growing. Causes of the variation step that preceeds NS are more important. Species are formalized as clouds in sequence space not selfish genes. Etc.

Anybody expecting any of it to dethrone evolution is being silly. But Johnson isn't expecting that. Evolution is bigger than Darwin.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Scientists have unshakable beliefs in things that can't be proven.

Most scientists would say that the believe in things that can't be proved, but for which there is strong evidence. For the most part, I agree with them.

I think scientists make a good point when they say ID and other forms of creationism are not science, because science deals with the natural world, not with the supernatural. It's taken me a fair deal of debate to understand that point.

Where some scientists cross from being scholars to believers in a faith is when they say science is all there is: There is nothing beyond the natural world. Even that, though I disagree, is not necessarily foolish or closed-minded. See the comments above on Daniel Dennett, for example.

Where it gets off the tracks, IMO, is when it starts proclaiming anyone who believes in God or gods or the supernatural or anything not part of science as fools and charlatans. Then we're heading over into the secular equivalent of Pat Robertson nutcase territory. Or, at least, annoying obnoxiousness.