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.
"So therefore ALL of it is bad. Not worth our time."
-EvoDude
Matthew 7:13-15
13. "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
14. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
15. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
All or some?
I have been in a big fight with my parents for about a year or so. It turns out that they don't seem to like my wife and I very much due to our differing religions. They are Evolutionists and we are Christians.
Cue Handel's Messiah!
Any data?
But since I'm not Christian, it's not something that I apply to myself.
Some kinds of acts, such as theft, clearly would cause the positive-sum game of civilization to break down if it wasn't treated as evil.So if I understand right, we treat theft as evil. It is not actually evil, we just treat it that way for our own common good.
Mmmm... that's not quite right. Strictly speaking it's not intrinsically evil in that sense, but that also doesn't mean it's just some kind of useful fiction either.
A person performs an act. As a result of their act, I've lost $100. My reaction to the act is anger, frustration, sorrow, whatever - after all, I've experienced $100 in damage to something I value.
But in trying to decide whether the act itself was evil or simply a normal risk - an unavoidable "cost of living" that I should just live with, I ask myself what the world would be like if such an act was always excused. The answer is radically different depending on the details of what the act was:
I don't know about you, but when I think about how I should feel about what should be done in these circumstances, my sense of justice hinges on what it means for society if the rules of the game were structured one way (acceptable behavior - live with it) vs. the other (condemn/fight/punish the behavior).
You and I, and anyone else who is sufficiently well read or astute, will realize that the evil of theft is a fiction for others. We want others to avoid theft as that hurts all, including/especially ourselves. But given the opportunity to steal successfully, you should go for it. It’s just smart.No, because the world I live in would be a lousy place to live in if people were able to steal and get away with it. Would I be better off, in an immediate sense, if I - and only I - could steal and get away with it? Sure. But then we'd be talking about me prospering inside a poor, crippled society.
See, people don't understand the concept of enlightened self-interest because they don't realize that it's the part about taking a principled, long-term view of a proposed act's consequences that makes it a moral system. (Whatever the system is.) If you limit your analysis to the immediate outcome of an action that affects you, then you're simply not "doing morality", no matter which moral system you think you are working from. It's called a self-serving argument.
Incidentally, I say that this type of analytical framework is so successful in ensuring a life-affirming, positive-sum world, that's why we are hardwired for empathy. By putting ourselves into the place of both the proposed victim (whose valuable thing we're coveting) & aggressor (us if we do steal their stuff), we can immediately feel the consequences of an action by both sides. It helps us come to a more objective judgement about our proposed actions. That's why the vast majority of us feel that it's wrong to steal, and why we'd feel bad if we did.
(I feel bad when I realize too late that I forgot to tip the waitress or left 10% instead of 15% or that she gave me too much change!)
I do agree with everything Dimensio said. I think you should especially ponder the part about the fallacy of composition (not division IMO, as Dimensio said). A collection of parts that are working together in some way, often exhibits behavior or qualities that simply don't have any meaning when looked at on the level of the parts themselves. The simplest example of this is when oxygen & hydrogen come together to create H2O. Several of water's qualities are simply not reducible to any kind of sum of the qualities of the oxygen & hydrogen atoms. (Its boiling & freezing points, its surface tension, its ability to quench fires as opposed to oxygen's flammability & hydrogen's explosiveness, the shape & other characteristics of its crystal structure when it's a solid, etc.) That's not supernatural; it's just a higher-order "emergent property".
So the complex system we call "myself" is fully capable of being a conscious, moral, thinking, living person, even though the neurons, molecules, etc. that make us up aren't any of those things. There's nothing "super"-natural about it.
Morality is your agreement with yourself to abide by your own rules.Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, 1961
The paper was written before the internet.
The Mugu Lagoon is a protected wildlife sanctuary, based on the limited habitat for those species.
I don't mind that you believe in your G-d. You risk a horrible fate by not believing in mine.
out of curiosity, who is your god?
Most thing on the 'net were, but, somehow, they are here.
"Then I'd have 20 cents!"
Attached are some fairly recent papers. I left Pt. Mugo (now renamed Naval Base Ventura County) in 1984. Mr. Keeney still hasn't published his manuscript, I note.
Keeney. T.W. 1998. Mugu Lagoon: A Description of the Current Habitat Types of a Salt Marsh Estuary. Unpublished Manuscript. Naval Air Station, Point Mugu, CA.
Keeney, T.W. and B.Ball 1999. Geographic Spatial Distributions of Threatened and Endangered Species of the Naval Air Station Point Mugu at the Mugu Lagoon Salt Marsh Estuary. Mugu Lagoon Geographic Information System Database.
Jupiter Lapis, or as you may have heard of him, Jupiter Optimus Maximus.
The name Jupiter comes from the early latin Zeus-Pater, or G-d the Father.
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.