Ah, yes. The tree of knowledge...
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.
Maybe you should actually read the Bible and what Jesus says. Y'know, like in Matthew 6, "Be ye not like the hypocrites who believe their constant repetitions will be heard."
Atheists have no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests, no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation, no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy, no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of prayer or piety, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth', no recited creed, no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses.
These are attributes of organized religion, priests and preachers with an agenda to keep being supported despite doing little productive.
Maybe you are ignorant of the reason cult doctrines are not succeeding is because cults are not actually accepting the Gospel.
As for the rest, well, it depends on the denomination of atheism. Certainly communism fit many of the descriptions of an atheist faith and had many of the attributes you list.
A. If evolution is a slow process occuring over millions of years where are all the transitionary species in the fossil record?
You can make a good case for evolution within major grouping such as 'fish, 'bird', 'reptile', etc., but where are all of the 'fish in the process of becoming amphibians'and 'reptiles in the process of becoming birds', fossils?
First, evolution is a slow process, but it is not a uniform process. The human/ape split is a good example. Something like six+ million years ago the forests of Africa were shrinking and the grasslands were expanding. Apes were getting squeezed by the reduced habitat. One group of apes gradually adapted to the forest edges, then the grasslands. We are descended from that group.
They changed considerably in the ensuing six million years, as they had to adapt to new and different conditions and environments, while the groups that remained in the forests changed but little--they were already adapted to their environment.
Since evolution is a process, it would seem logical to deduce that 'pure' fish, birds, etc. ought to be mere tiny waypoints on the evolutionary spectrum, and that the fossil record ought to consist almost entirely of transitionary species.
You are entirely correct. All species are transitionals, and I don't know what a "pure" species would be. Even within a species there is considerable variation. Skin color is an example; within our species there is a large range, with most folks pretty well adapted to the area in which they live. But within each group there is a range as well. If the climate changes, some within each population are better suited than others, and tend to do better.
But because the process of evolution is generally slow, we don't really see it in most large critters. Bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics in a few decades, as they have a much shorted generation span. For the larger mammals, most look quite a bit like their parents. Where you can see some real evolution is in what are called ring species, where, as an example, a species living around a high mountain changes gradually from area to area, until the two endpoints which meet on the other side are no longer interfertile, although going in the other direction each group is interfertile with the adjacent group (google "ring species" for some fascinating reading).
B. Why aren't we seeing a lot of evolution going on right now? There doesn't seem to be any particular scientific reason why this should not be happening.
Again, you are correct. Evolution is ongoing all around us. But its real slow, and we just have too short an attention span! We look at change over decades as slow, while evolution looks at millenia and beyond for most changes.
But, we may be in the process of losing our third molars! As we have shifted from tough natural plant products to softer agricultural and processed foods, the chewing muscles have become smaller, the face and jaw have become smaller, and the teeth get less interproximal wear (wear between adjacent teeth). So, when the third molars erupt, sometimes there is not enough room and some people get serious dental problems. This is enough natural selection that those without third molars may have a tiny advantage over those with third molars worldwide. Give it 50,000 years or so and you might just see the third molars become rare.
Shouldn't we be up to our eyeballs in 'evolving' creatures? Shouldn't we be seeing all sort of creatures in various states of evolving? Yet all we see are the same old 'insects', 'fish', 'birds', 'reptiles'.
But each of these is halfway from its ancestors to its descendants! We can see many of the ancestor, but we can't tell what the descendants may look like. That's half the fun!
Aye, sure and it hath so done! For the article is dated "5/27/08 | PAUL JOHNSON". I see you figured out how to unwarp higher dimensionalia membranes. Care to share the trick?
"Tripe alert! Don't need to read any farther."
Excellent example of one of Johnson's points:"...denying a hearing to anyone who disagrees with them. " Thank you.
To repeat my point:
In the first main paragraph: 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...Anyone who starts out using loaded language such as that can expect to lose a lot of their readers very quickly. That is not balanced writing, and it quickly exposes the authors' biases.
Those who use logic and reason, rather than invective and hyperbole, do better at convincing their adversaries.
That could be, yes. I notice he didn't even mention any of the standard ID books either. I'm thinking more of that standard anti-atheist argument that a universe that's neutral & dispassionate with respect to our fate is necessarily bleak & horrifying.
And those who fully read material that offers viewpoints opposite their own often learn something; assuming, of course, they are open to learning and not close minded.
No...it's just showing what hypocrites and phoneys they really are.
No...it's just showing what hypocrites and phoneys they really are.
Yes, and the primal serpent who discussed fruit and trees and law with Eve used those and those alone. He well understood the subtext -- the "why" would be shunted away by the emotions using "This is is just logical" as an excuse.
I agree. That is why I have read most of the creationist websites. I suspect I have read more of those websites than most creationists have read evolution websites or (horrors) scientific journals.
But bad writing is bad writing--and the article which begins this thread starts off poorly. Bad writing often foreshadows bad thinking. I tend to avoid that when I detect it.
But back to your original point. Heinlein addressed this better than I can:
Belief gets in the way of learning.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
I suppport evolution... but when a creationist offers links to articles that they say refute evolution, I do go there, and read what is offered, and compare it with articles of a differing opinion...I do keep an open mind...
What I have found tho, is that when a creationist is offered links to explain something, more often than not, they give up excuses, such as the article is too long, or they are too busy, or they dont want to be bothered with reading such scientific articles...
It might be nice if supporters on all sides would read all offered readings...the refusal to read certain articles, is something done by people on all sides of this debate...
His response was, "Yes I do. Otherwise, what a waste." A pretty decent summary of my view, as well.
Ah, yes. The tree of knowledge...
But notice he condemns the other side of the debate with the same brush: "with all the unyielding certitude with which Southern Baptists assert the literal truth of the Book of Genesis."
A pretty good summary of my view on the debate, as well.
It also helps that this is Paul Johnson, a top-level historian that's pretty well-respected, even by many who disagree with him.
You may be right, but my post was about Coyoteman who plainly stated he didn't need to read beyond the first paragraph. He claims otherwise now, but isn't that exactly one of the things Johnson was talking about:"...denying a hearing to anyone who disagrees with them"?
I don't claim otherwise, sorry. I read a lot of things, including those with whom I disagree.
To reiterate my point:
...bad writing is bad writing--and the article which begins this thread starts off poorly. Bad writing often foreshadows bad thinking. I tend to avoid that when I detect it.
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.