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.
I agree completely.
Not one scientist I have ever met or worked with (and that is what I do everyday of my life) has ever stated such - at least to me.
"Let me put it this way.... "
I think you misunderstood my (failed) attempt at humor. I was just making a play on your statement that you were skeptical of your skepticism sometimes. That's why I said, *I doubt you believe that.* Didn't mean anything by it. It sounded funny when I typed it. lol
Have a great Memorial Day!
That's cool to hear that about your exchange with him. My personal interaction with him was as a student, and you're right, on a one to one or classroom level he's a dedicated teacher and a good guy who is perfectly fine with introducing his students to opposing points of view, whether they be Kripke, Fodor, Chomsky, Nagel, whoever. I remember raising my hand after a talk by the (I think) writer of Atheism: The Case Against God during Q &A and blurting that one the speaker's points about omnipotence didn't work for some muddling reason. I pretty unclear, but Dennett interceded and clarified the point to him for no other reason than to help along the discussion and help out a student. He is an imaginative and rigorous philosopher who has among other talents the rare (in philosophy) gift of clear exposition.
However, I feel that in some of his popular books such as Some Kinds of Minds he shows a less attractive side, saying without providing argument that people who buy into mind-body dualism are simply superstious, etc..I was similarly disapponted by his website response to Dinesh D'Sousa's Wall Street Journal article, his letters to Commentary Magazine and his back and forth with Stephen Jay Gould (who also behaved rather poorly)in the New York Review of Books, the idea that atheists should be called "brights" and his general approach to religion in Breaking the Spell, which had come to surface before when he tried to remove the Religion Department from the university. It's this public persona that I find totalizing and intolerant and his responses to accusations of this insufficient,, and it, rather than his better side, tends, I think, to characterize most of what's to be found at www.edge.org
I wasn't sure if it was humor or not, so I answered to cover both bases... Besides, sometimes humor triggers a serious thought.
No, don't work there normally.
I drove down the Angeles Crest Highway from my usual place of work.
Fun place to work. I used to work at Pt. Mugu, then Edwards AFB, then went to work for some defense contractors.
I was at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center as well.
I bet we have met. :-)
Small world....
Indeed. :-)
Good sir...please prove the beginning of the Universe...can't you say? Well you trust it began as science says, correct? Same concept for those of us who believe God created the Universe by His commands...can't prove it, yet I believe it...
Haven't you ever wondered how science in and of itself shows that the Universe couldn't have just started yet that's what the entire basis of the gradual evolution of our planet and all species rests on...surely you follow the law of quantum physics that says matter cannot be CREATED or destroyed. So by our human limits we cannot create matter...so if we can't or the Universe itself by random chances over substantial time frames can't then where did it all come from? Hmmmmmmmm.....
Science does not show that the universe couldn't have just started.
Gradual evolution does not rest on that. Gradual evolution does not mean uniform evolution.
Matter can be created from energy, or energy can be created from matter. That is how nuclear bombs and power plants work.
Since you are wrong on those counts, I guess you are probably wrong when you assert that G-d created the Universe.
"Since you are wrong on those counts, I guess you are probably wrong when you assert that G-d created the Universe..."
Well, I'll tell you what...If I'm wrong then I'll just be a pile of dust in my casket and my ancestors will have to live with the shame of their dad, brother, husband having not been a completely knowledgable person of evolutionary science and you and yours can proudly declare your wisdom of the same and rub in it my family's face...
...However, If I'm right in believing that God created the Universe and trusting in God for salvation, believing in His Word and truth then I feel confident that all those who do so will be blessed to be in His prescence for eternity meanwhile all those who deny God will not be in His prescence rather they will be in the lake of fire...
Either way things certainly look good for me as I've been called a fool before and don't have any shame in that so what's it to me to be dead and be called a fool...but for those who deny God they could certainly be in for a surprise when their days on this world come to an end...
Whether one believes or not doesn't make God any less of a reality so why not believe?
If I were king, I would just have the people who depend on their faith in G-d for their morality to live with that.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can use genetically modified food, vaccines, and other products of science.
I guess asking for a bit of gratitude from religious folks for the benefits of science is too much to ask.
Hypocrite.
You have created a false dichotomy. You have neglected to consider the possibility of a deity other than the one you worship existing. In such a scenario, a hypothetical deity could send you to a fate far worse than being "a pile of dist" in your coffin. You have also apparently set up a false dichotomy where you imply that all who accept the theory of evolution are atheists, which is also false.
I do not understand what point you are attempting to make with your incoherent rant, but you should be aware that none of your statements actually demonstrate that you are correct about anything.
And he/she has activated the VI mode.
"I guess asking for a bit of gratitude from religious folks for the benefits of science is too much to ask.
Hypocrite."
Well, now that's laughable...we were discussing creation/evoluntion, not the tremendous advances in science that have been made in the last 20-50 years...Had we been discussing that perhaps you could call me that, however we weren't, you did and I'm just fine with that...you are free to call me whatever name you'd like.
Mr. Meaker: ...tell me, do we still have disease, deaths from earthquakes and storms, do we have more obesity and sick people than ever before? And all still happening with vaccines, genetically modified food, weather sattelites, earthquake sensors and other new and exciting products of science? What, other than a new way of communicating, or extending life longer that it naturally would have before have we gained, really? Science benefits us, but it does not define us. Science is a gift from God that when used for good can be a powerful tool.
That being said, the bottom line is this...science NEVER will be the ultimate cure to our sufferings. Read Genesis to find out why we'll ALWAYS suffer pain, hunger, war, death etc...science is simply a medium for humans to do things, it's not the cure or answer to our lives...
I'm gonna tell you this for free because I believe that deep down inside you want to believe in God and trust in Him...God is the answer to everything. I would invite you to speak with a minister who can share the Holy Word of God with you. I think you might find it a very uplifting experience.
God Bless you.
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.