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.
Or, perhaps, it is a concept some Hindus believe that all gods and all versions of God are aspects of One. It is simply that no individual is capable of seeing all aspects of the One at the same time.
What is that you have a quarrel with a belief system?
As you know, organized religion has established a number of "belief systems." The number of sects and denominations is sufficient testimony as to the quality of belief systems. Each one claims to know the "one true path to everlasting life". The sheer quantity overwhelms any quality. Between 150+ Protestant denominations, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics under the Greek, Serbian or Russian Patriarch, the Mandaeans, the Copts, the Mormons, the Moonies, the Amish, the Christian Scientists, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists,....
The number of claims to know "the one true way" is a sign that none of them know, and the proponents just make this up to get adherents. Matthew: "By their much speaking, ye shall know them."
If you might excuse me, I think all the claims to "know the one true faith" are a bit arrogant. I do not accept that one faith heirarchy of priests/pastors is superior. I do not accept that one view of Christian faith or "morality" is "more superior" for all of us. I do not accept that televangelists, politicians with dollar concerns have any honesty with respect to "morality".
You will surely admit that priests, pastors, shamans have promoted "spiritual" notions that feather their own nests.
//It is simply that no individual is capable of seeing all aspects of the One at the same time//
Bump
Wolf
Thanks for the article.
BTW 'The ayatollah of atheism and Darwin’s altars' sounds like 'Wolf' ;)
I don't have a quarrel with a belief system. I have a quarrel with certain ways of promoting a belief system.
The number of claims to know "the one true way" is a sign that none of them know, and the proponents just make this up to get adherents.
But not all religions claim to be the "one true way." And not all religious people profess absolute certainty in their beliefs.
By the same token, claiming that there is no deity, is just as much claiming that there is one truth.
do not accept that one faith heirarchy of priests/pastors is superior. I do not accept that one view of Christian faith or "morality" is "more superior" for all of us.
Nor do I. I'm Jewish. And even there, I'm rather heterodox in my beliefs.
You will surely admit that priests, pastors, shamans have promoted "spiritual" notions that feather their own nests.
Some have, some haven't. But any belief system, whether true or false -- and not just religious one -- that attracts adherents will also attract people who use it for their own gain, whether power, wealth, sex, or something else. That is a function of mankind's nature, not necessarily a function of any given belief.
Very amusing. It is neat that you and God are so intimately related. Are you cousins?
As you claim to speak for God--as so many do--could you please give the rest of us mortals His e-mail address?
I do not mean to be disrespectful. The "I and God" line has been used in so many fraternity parties for 70 years. And never to promote abstinence. Were you Delta Phi?
Your claim to accept a secular government is rather specious.
Atheists have no alter boys,
EVER HEARD OF THE ACLU?
no prayers,
YOU MEAN LIKE MATHEMATICAL FORMULAS AND STUFF?
no church establishments,
...YOU MEAN LIKE A SCIENCE LAB?
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.
no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation,
EVER HEARD OF SEX ED?
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?
no record of burning witches or heretics,
...COMMUNISTS (WHO ARE ATHEISTS) KILL PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE (AND CONTINUE TO PRACTICE RELIGION) ALL THE TIME...
no public displays of prayer or piety,
...AGAIN SCIENTIFIC LAWS...
no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth',
...AGAIN ORIGIN OF SPECIES...
no recited creed,
...THERE ARE TONS OF SCIENTIFIC CREEDS FROM THE HYPOCRATIC OATH THAT DOCTORS TAKE ON DOWN...
no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses.
...JEWS, HINDUS, MUSLIMS AND OTHERS DON'T BELIEVE IN THESE THINGS EITHER - ARE THEY NOT RELIGIONS?
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.
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?
Huh? If you're referring to message #85... I'm not sure what your complaint is. I have problems with a purely religious take on creation. I have problems a purely naturalistic take on it as well.
As for governments... well, my FReepname does have the word "libertarian" in it.... I'm not exactly keen on accepting any governments, religious or secular. Power corrupts the secular as easily as the religious.
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby, and baldness is a hair color.
I'm sorry you've been wrong for "YEARS", maybe you'll start getting a clue one of these days.
Hint: Atheism is not a religion. It's a *lack* of religion -- a *rejection* of religion.
BTTT
Okay... atheism is a rejection of religion. Perhaps atheism doesn't have all the trappings of religion.
What it has is the psychology of religion: The belief in a certain way that the universe works. A range of strength of belief from those who it matters little to, to those who believe so strongly that they see anyone who disbelieves as foolish or evil.
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?
Good, glad we can agree on something.
What it has is the psychology of religion: The belief in a certain way that the universe works. A range of strength of belief from those who it matters little to, to those who believe so strongly that they see anyone who disbelieves as foolish or evil.
What in the heck do those things have to do with "the psychology of a religion"? *Everyone* has some sort of "belief in a certain way that the universe works" -- that isn't "the psychology of religion", that's universal human nature. Nor is "a range of strength of belief" in [any particular idea] any kind of hallmark of "the psychology of religion", because that *too* is a universal trait -- just about *all* ideas are believed over a wide range by different people. The things you point out have nothing to do with "religion" and everything to do with ordinary human behavior.
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.