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 2 of 43)
16. lapdog
hoi-poilloi
ding-dongs
Inflammatory negative terms. dd, who we established yesterday, sat and thought of young girls and vaginas in the same session, uses these terms LIBERALLY. Hmm, would he use these negative cutting little terms to describe christians and conservatives?? Probably not.
If you can't see throught the slanted, skewed logic, and poor hardly-thorough research, you are probably a ding-dong and a lapdog.....and you may just think of little girls and vaginas at the same time too, like your hero, dd.
stuart joshua at 1:44PM on Nov 30th 2007
17. Brian: 13. Science isn't a religion, it's a tool.
AHA!!!! So, I just knew dd had something in common with science. THEY'RE BOTH TOOLS!!!
stuart joshua at 1:46PM on Nov 30th 2007
18. 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
19. OF COURSE I have to put my $2 worth in here. As Brian big b said, DD has highlighted a difference of opinion amongst evolutionists.
This is a notable thing how?
The actual differences between Gould and Dennett are over certain specific theories within the confines of evolution minutae that Dennett wrote in his book 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. You can read Dennett's response and Gould's 2nd response here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/dennett_exchange.html
Some scientists agree with Gould, some with Dennett. So, La-de-da. Is this evidence of some great breakdown in theory?
Gould had a notoriously large ego which was sometimes made collaboration or criticism difficult
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/inremembrance.html
And for the record, for the UMPTEENTH time, atheists DO NOT HATE GOD. DD knows it, too. He just wants to get us riled up.
I just want to say that for all you christians out there.
We (or at very least, I) do not hate your god, nor your jesus. Please don't think that for a minute.
It's obvious that DD did minimal research on Dennett, because he would HAVE to report to you all of the respect that scientists have for this brilliant man.
Linda at 2:15PM on Nov 30th 2007
20. DD writes...""These two men make wild claims at atheist conferences, and the God-hating ignoramuses burst into applause."
But Dinesh, dude, you've go to admit that those "God-hating ignoramuses" aren't even half as obnoxious as those "Leprechaun-hating ignoramuses." Those bastards could use a serious ass-whippin'.
Captain Negative at 2:15PM on Nov 30th 2007
21. "These two men make wild claims at atheist conferences, and the God-hating ignoramuses burst into applause." - DD
There are a hell of a lot more than two men making wild claims at 'religious' conferences, with even MORE God-fearing ignoramuses bursting into applause.
fabio at 2:26PM on Nov 30th 2007
22. Ah. Here is the reason that DD is highlighting Gould vs. Dennett:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
"He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution" and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."
-----------------------------
DD likes Gould for this because it allows for religion to go blithely on in spite of its lack of logic.
Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and others criticize this approach, stating that belief in a super being that created everything in the universe is a scientific hypothesis, and therefor should be scientifically examined.
So, DD, I hope your ready for Dennett. You have too many holes in your thinking to debate such a man.
Linda at 2:29PM on Nov 30th 2007
23. Oops, forgot to give reference for NOMA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
Linda at 2:32PM on Nov 30th 2007
24. We (or at very least, I) do not hate your god, nor your jesus. Please don't think that for a minute. - Linda
And just to clarify, we can't hate what we don't believe. I don't believe in voodoo spirits or genies, or leprechauns, or unicorns either. How could you accuse me of hating them? They don't even exist.
It's the stupidest accusation you could make, and I've heard it from almost every believer on these blogs. Including the head ding-dong, DD.
fabio at 2:34PM on Nov 30th 2007
25. Here's a great criticism of Gould's NOMA for my fellow atheists:
http://www.godless.org/sci/skeptinq/gould.html
Linda at 2:36PM on Nov 30th 2007
26. Raving Rita, speaking hate
always seeming quite irate
Thinks atheists are all so wrong
And that she knew it all along
Raving Rita, speaking hate
Does that contribute to debate?
You're never wrong, or so you think
Why not just have another drink?
Raving Rita, speaking hate
on science topics can't debate
but dumb enough to think she can
I wish they'd drop her on Iran.
Brian at 2:37PM on Nov 30th 2007
27. knight,
Sorry but, if I didn't have any regard for you as a person I would not even bother to answer back to you, give you a difficult time, I'm KIDDING, try to be a little less judgemental in blogs. Yes we can agree to disagree but, you have your views and I have mine. No one's lap dog here. I have a right to my beliefs as you have yours. Look at what Linda has said, we do not hate you although we have a different way of looking at the important things of life. You can't talk the talk, unless you willing to walk the walk, and I'm willing. To me Jesus is as important as the air I breathe. Mr. D'Souza has a good articule here and it is true that more and more scientific evidence is coming to light on creation of the earth and less and less on evolition. Rita
Rita at 2:44PM on Nov 30th 2007
28. I know God exists. I've seen him, I talk to him and his Angels hang out with me.
I'm friend to every living person and animal on the planet.
I am scientifically, analytically, mathematically, socially, emotionally, spiritually, and linguistically versed.
I openly accept all people, as long as they are humble, do good in life and accept Truth.
I openly stand against actions of ignorance, oppression, violence and misleading ways.
I help bring those to Peace and Understanding with a desire to produce Good works on Earth.
There, now you know me, purdy much. You have no excuse, for all the intellectual water in the cooler.
mincpa at 2:54PM on Nov 30th 2007
29. Brian,
Saw a movie once upon a time called Forrest Gump, everytime I hear from you the line he quoted comes to mind "stupid is as stupid does". Oh, yeah one other thing please don't think me mean only, don't give up your day job. Rita
Rita at 2:54PM on Nov 30th 2007
30. And for the record, for the UMPTEENTH time, atheists DO NOT HATE GOD. DD knows it, too. He just wants to get us riled up.
I just want to say that for all you christians out there.
We (or at very least, I) do not hate your god, nor your jesus. Please don't think that for a minute.
-------------------------------------
I agree. I certainly don't hate your god. He seems like a nice guy and a decent role model. However I really just can't stand the hypocrites that say that they're christian to stoke their own egos, and then proceed to not act anything like Christ. You know who you are. Oops! I forgot! You DON'T, do you?
Brian at 2:53PM on Nov 30th 2007