In preparation for my debate with Daniel Dennett on Friday evening, I went back and read the late Stephen Jay Gould's review-essay on Dennett in the June 12, 1997 New York Review of Books. Unlike Dennett, who is a philosopher, Gould was one of the world's leading authorities on evolution. One can feel safe in saying that he knew a lot more about the biological evidence for Darwinism than Dennett. Since Dennett's Darwinism is the primary basis for his atheism, I was interested in what a truly top-class biologist thought of Dennett's best-known book Darwin's Dangerous Idea and its argument for Darwinism as a "universal acid" that eats through traditional religion and traditional morality.
As I suspected, Gould seemed to have little quarrel with Dennett's religious and political views. Gould, like Dennett, was an unbeliever. So I found it especially telling that Gould dubbed Dennett a "Darwinian fundamentalist." He suggested that just as religious fundamentalists read Scripture in a literal and pig-headed way, and unimaginatively apply biblical passages to everything, so Dennett has a primitive understanding of evolution and, with the enthusiasm of the fire-breathing acolyte, tries to apply Darwinism to virtually every human social, cultural and religious practice, with disastrous and even comical results.
Gould warned that Richard Dawkins had started this trend of Darwinism run amok, yet Dennett had outdone even Dawkins. If Dawkins had caricatured Dawkins, Gould wrote, Dennett's book was "a caricature of a caricature." Given that Thomas Huxley was known as "Darwin's bulldog," Gould said that Dennett had earned the title of "Darwin's lapdog."
I thought that perhaps Gould was alone in his harsh assessment, so I turned to biologist H. Allen Orr's review of Dennett's Darwinian ideas in the leading biology journal Evolution. Orr was if anything even more dismissive. He accused Dennett of giving an "absurdly unfair" account of what biologists actually believe. He added, "Dennett fundamentally misunderstands biologists' worries." Such language is not very common in professional academic journals.
Among the atheist hoi-polloi, Dennett, like Dawkins, passes himself off as a great champion of modern biology and an authoritative interpreter of evolution. These two men make wild claims at atheist conferences, and the God-hating ignoramuses burst into applause. But if Dawkins' scientific work today has dwindled to virtually zero--his professional job description is professor of the "public understanding" of science, a kind of Sunday School teacher for science--Dennett seems to be a Darwinian who has become an embarassment to professional biologists. If atheism wants to carry the mantle of science, perhaps it needs spokesmen who do a better job of representing what science actually says.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 43)
1. "Dennett seems to be a Darwinian who has become an embarassment to professional biologists."
And for proof of this ridiculous claim D'Souza can cite only two (2) scientists? (One of whom, for the record, is dead.) Pathetic. As with his Galileo nonsense, D'Souza's more a whiz at embellishing on specious evidence than, y'know, proving anything.
KB at 12:02PM on Nov 30th 2007
2. Mr. D'Souza,
Congrats, another excellent articule on the stupidity of the so called Atheists of this world. Have tried incessively to get these dingdongs of these blogs to understand that scientist of today are finding more and more information directed right back to creation than ever before. Thanks, for the Christians a cause we can take on for our GOD and hopefully, gets these people to understand for once and all. That GOD created the world and is in total charge regardless of a few people trying to disspell the truth. Rita
Rita at 12:08PM on Nov 30th 2007
3. "These two men make wild claims at atheist conferences, and the God-hating ignoramuses burst into applause."
That sounds like name-calling to me, not argumentation.
David at 12:13PM on Nov 30th 2007
4. Rita wrote: "Congrats, another excellent articule on the stupidity of the so called Atheists of this world."
I'm an atheist. Why am I stupid? Please be specific.
Rita wrote: "Have tried incessively to get these dingdongs of these blogs to understand that scientist of today are finding more and more information directed right back to creation than ever before."
What scientists are you talking about? And could you elaborate on this claim?
Wes at 12:54PM on Nov 30th 2007
5. What sort of idiot thinks that atheism needs spokesmen?
Answer: someone like Dinesh.
Now if you want to talk about embarrassments to christianity: Fred Phelps and Kent Hovind. Why does Dinesh never talk about them? Too embarrassed, Dinesh?
Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:59PM on Nov 30th 2007
6. Dinesh, what specific claims does Dennett make that Gould and/or Orr disagree with? You should say. You are just presenting assertions here. Given what you wrote, I don't know what Dennett says that Gould and Orr think is problematic and why. So, I have no reason to believe that Dennett does make some errors. Moreover, I read Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and I thought it was quite good. It was fairly clear. And I can't remember one claim about biology that was inaccurate. Although he didn't do a great job on discussing in detail the kinds of events that have caused differences among organisms, he talk a little about muttations and meiosis. However, he didn't emphasize how important sex has been in causing the differences among sexually reproducing organisms. But, overall, he did a good job in the book. And I have a pretty good background in evolutionary biology.
Wes at 1:00PM on Nov 30th 2007
7. Rita wrote: "Congrats, another excellent articule on the stupidity of the so called Atheists of this world."
For the sake of argument, let's say I am stupid. That isn't important to whether I know that God does or does not exist. For one thing, even stupid people get things right sometimes. You may have committed the ad hominem fallacy.
Wes at 1:02PM on Nov 30th 2007
8. If you'd like some more actual context of the discussion between Orr and Dennett - it is definitely not as D'Souza has presented it - read their own words here:
http://www.edge.org/discourse/dennett_orr.html
Ray Ingles at 1:04PM on Nov 30th 2007
9. Dinesh wrote: "[Gould] suggested that just as religious fundamentalists read Scripture in a literal and pig-headed way, and unimaginatively apply biblical passages to everything, so Dennett has a primitive understanding of evolution and, with the enthusiasm of the fire-breathing acolyte, tries to apply Darwinism to virtually every human social, cultural and religious practice, with disastrous and even comical results."
Did Gould really suggest this? Could you be more specific? Now perhaps Dennett overemphasizes the importance of evolution in affecting human action. Most humans seem to have some free will. For example, I believe I could have chose not to post this message. So reducing human action to antecedent biological events is unreasonable. Does Dennett do this? Is that Gould is claiming? What is Gould's specific criticism of Dennett?
Wes at 1:09PM on Nov 30th 2007
10. This is atheist Brian. I say that because I agree today with some of what Dinesh said. Of course there are differences in understanding even among scientists. They're still human. Any man can be a fool. One doesn't require a religion. But it certainly helps.
Still even so, even if some are fools, most of them, the vast majority, on their worst day, still can't manage to sound as stupid as many a religious person can on their best.
It is certainly true that science itself is the optimal tool with which to judge our physical environment, and to learn how to manipulate it. And it has always been true that religion is AGAINST science. This is because science is so very good at discovering truth, and religion withers in the light of truth, being based in falsehood. Religion has to take a stand against science or it will die. But unfortunately, to take a stand against science also ensures the eventual death of religion. So they're going to be gone someday, it's only a matter of timeing.
Thank GOD!
Brian at 1:09PM on Nov 30th 2007
11. Watching thousands of muslims on the news rioting in the sudan and calling for the death of the teacher that allowed her class to name their teddy bear "Mohammed" once again reminds me of the dark and evil side of organized religion. Any organized religion.
Christianity and Islam both spring from the same roots. Islam was based on Christianity and Judeaism.
The rotten apple didn't fall far from the diseased tree.
Brian at 1:19PM on Nov 30th 2007
12. Oh, yes, one more exchange direct from the participants, without D'Souzas interpretations: http://bostonreview.net/BR21.5/dennett.html
Ray Ingles at 1:28PM on Nov 30th 2007
13. Science isn't a religion, it's a tool. So, it's only as good as the person that uses it. If it happens to be a person with some agenda, they will tend to pick out of it what they see as supporting the agenda and ignore the parts that disagree with the agenda. Just like, come to think of it, a christian with an agenda might do with the bible. Or with science. Both the scientist and the christian involved in this hypothetical scenario of mine are wrong in their selective use of available data, and obviously have flawed characters. One needs to look at the whole of a thing to judge it. Not cherry-pick things like, for instance, Dinesh does, based on his already being 100% absolutely sure that he's right and just looking for facts that support him in that ridiculously vain and egotistical belief.
Brian at 1:37PM on Nov 30th 2007
14. Rita wrote: "Congrats, another excellent articule on the stupidity of the so called Atheists of this world."
Is your hatred of certain people - so called atheists - a central tenet of your Christian beliefs, or just an ugly consequence of them?
fabio at 1:41PM on Nov 30th 2007
15. ....and you, dd, are the conservatives' lapdog.
....and you, rita, are dd's lapdog.
So what's your point, genius?
stuart joshua at 1:43PM on Nov 30th 2007