The ayatollah of atheism and Darwin’s altars

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.

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.

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.

OK, one more then its bedtime. Enjoy.

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

re 43: If nothing else, Atheism most certainly has preachers -- Those who proclaim (not just believe) there is no god and that religious is foolishness ... fit that category. To a certain extent, the Darwin fish, even if in response to the Christian fish is taking on many of the aspects of public display of piety, complete with religious symbol. As for the rest, well, it depends on the denomination {are you referring to sects, denominations or cults?} of atheism. Certainly communism fit many of the descriptions of an atheist faith and had many of the attributes you list.

Surely you are joking, Mr. Celtjew

Atheists may have advocates, but atheists have no churches from which to preach and they get no tithes. Atheists get no tax-exemption, get no parsonage, no priory exemption on their taxes.

You are just silly if you think atheists have equal treatment to all the preachers, priests, pastors. Please identify atheists who get $300,000,000 per year like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Gary Bower and Chris Dobson. Do you know any single atheist "advocate/preacher" with such a lavish lifestyle and private jets and command of TV and radio access?

I note your quick way to link a non-belief to communism. Sheesh, you missed out nazism.

There are no atheists promoting a disrespect for religion via meaningless public displays of piety.

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.

Do you know any single atheist "advocate/preacher" with such a lavish lifestyle and private jets and command of TV and radio access?

Ted Turner.

I have little liking for Robertson, Falwell, Bauer, or Dobson. But I don't begrudge them the money or access they have. It is the narrow fundamentalism I dislike.

I dislike it from any corner. At least the Christians have the honesty to admit to being Fundamentalists.

There are no atheists promoting a disrespect for religion via meaningless public displays of piety.

I've heard and read plenty who say they put the Darwin fish on their car specifically to annoy Christians.

That's twice you've used this word-for-word in the this thread. Three times and you have a creed. 8>)

Atheists may have advocates, but atheists have no churches from which to preach and they get no tithes.

I think Oxford may qualify as such a place.

Good point... Many universities -- or at least individual classes, in fact... The way things are going, public school may soon qualify as well with a government mandated school tithe, um, tax.

re 56: A very beautiful picture of amanita muscaria.

In New England woods, this amanita often appears in late summer in proximity to the "Indian Pipe", an unusual chloroplast-free angiosperm that has reverted.

Legend has it that eating amanitas will turn you toward creationism/IDism. You should be careful about this.

You may know the book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.

re 67: At least the Christians have the honesty to admit to being Fundamentalists.

Do they? What about "stealth candidates"? What about fake quotes? Surely you are joking, Mr. Celtjew.

re 67: I've heard and read plenty who say they put the Darwin fish on their car specifically to annoy Christians.

You seem very sensitive and easily annoyed. A few hundred Darwin fish on cars vs. 250,000,000 in the USA who proclaim they are Christians, and send in megabucks, and claim to know "the one true faith". The idea that Christians are a "persecuted minority" is simply absurd.

It was a valid post before, and you have not answered it. It remains valid. You attempt to dismiss it, but it remains unanswered by you.

But thanks for playing.

You seem very sensitive and easily annoyed.You seem very sensitive and easily annoyed. A few hundred Darwin fish on cars vs. 250,000,000 in the USA who proclaim they are Christians, and send in megabucks, and claim to know "the one true faith". The idea that Christians are a "persecuted minority" is simply absurd.

By the Darwin fish? Hardly. For one thing, I'm not Christian. For another I believe evolution is at least a major contributor to the development of the species. For another, where did I ever claim that Christians are a "persecuted minority"? As for your creed, I've given a few brief examples... But here's another question. Are those attributes what makes a religion?

Certainly some of them are not true of every religion. Some are not unique to religion. Judaism does not have altar boys nor, certainly edifices with crosses. Sex scandals are not just in religious institutions.

In any case, Atheism does have at least one established creed, at least one thing that is held true: There is no god, goddesses, or other deities.

Like those of other beliefs, some atheists hold their belief quietly and with doubt; others prefer to be obnoxious about it and dismiss believers of any sort as fools or rogues. So you have Richard Dawkins saying, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." So you have Ted Turner referring to those who have crosses of ash on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday as "Jesus Freaks." So you have, etc., etc., etc.

Does that make atheism a religion? Perhaps not. But it does make it, at the least, a belief system about religion. And like any other belief system, it has its fundamentalist advocates. Who, frankly, I find just as insufferable as any other such fanatics.

How do you know it is not uniform?

Coyoteman can probably answer this better, but I'll give it a try.

The fossil record shows periods of time where more new species show up than other points in the record. One early point, I think, was the Cambrian Explosion, which brought about a plethora of multicellular life, where before there had been only single- and few-celled forms.

Probably as the climate of the Earth -- or possibly even the makeup of its atmosphere -- organisms that couldn't adapt died off and new organisms that were better suited swiftly evolved.

Mind you, if this is the case, and humankind is really "destroying the environment" the more likely result is another "explosion" of new species.... mind you, as the result would not be seen for millions of years, we likely wouldn't notice it.... But if there's an afterlife, it could be fun to pass part of eternity watching it.

"Any evidence for this claim? Numbers on the table."

Surveys vary. At best, 60 percent of scientists are atheists. At worst, 93 percent are. Depends on which stats you believe. But no one seriously doubts that a majority of scientists don't believe in God. In college, my old Chemistry prof confirmed that most of his colleages were atheists. While there are some prominent nobel-winning scientists that believe in God, professional science increasingly ridicules anyone who does.

re 71: they've substituted one god for another.

So, your faith is in "one god"? Do you have a particular one in mind? Or merely the one god that you choose to "believe in".

As you know, there are many, many claims to know "the one true god". Since there are so many equal claims from zillions of believers, all of them are equally silly. Gods and religions are man-made; humans make up gods as they imagine them, so "man in God's image" is clearly a false notion.

Shamans, priests, witch doctors, pastors, preachers have promoted this notion in claiming to represent the 'god', but they contributed little to understanding the world. They have benefited themselves a great deal getting alms and dollars in return for doing little productive.

Rain-gods, gods of traffic; gods of sex; gods of cholesterol; gods of blood-pressure; gods of family connectednesses--these gods seem much more important. Gods of abstinence seem rather weak and irrelevant.

Faith healers, exorcists, psychics, send-money-for-a-one-way-ticket-to-heaven is a familiar theme.

It is sad that so many are addicted to such beliefs.

At best, 60 percent of scientists are atheists.

I think this is what you are referring to.

Despite such affirmations, however, 55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man, according to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science.

That's a badly phrased question. It's possible to believe in a naturalistic position of the origins of man, while still believing in a hands-off God.

At worst, 93 percent are.

The survey was of members of the National Academy of Science. The members have to be nominated and elected, which would tend to create a bias.

I'm not surprised that scientists tend to believe in religion, less than the general population.... after all, if you don't believe in religion, you're going to tend to gravitate towards professions that don't involve it. However, give the bad phrasing in the first survey and the bias in the latter, I suspect that slight more than half of all scientists in the U.S. believe in some sort of deity.

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.