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 4 of 43)
46.
rita
you're the pot calling the kettle black. you assert to know things about athiests that you most likely do not know. you say brian is rude, but i would hardly consider your snide remarks and passive aggressive attitude polite.
Richelle at 3:44PM on Nov 30th 2007
47. Great, we have bulldogs, lapdogs, and now I get to read all the atheist kick-me dogs -- small and yappy, sometimes even with nasty growls (scary!), but with little bite, and mostly just annoying. Here's a pant-leg for ya. Knock yourself out.
John at 3:45PM on Nov 30th 2007
48. Great explanation of how we feel in this world today, if we don't stand for something we'll fall for anything. Very understandable in all area's.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Or in your case you fell for something and now you stand for it.
Clif Kuplen at 3:46PM on Nov 30th 2007
49. @ Rita... comment 2
You say, "Congrats, another excellent articule on the stupidity of the so called Atheists of this world."
Well, Rita... this 'articule' is nothing to do withe the 'stupidity of the so called Atheists'... why don't you read it again. Perhaps you could copy/paste a line or two that remotely resembles what you think D'evil D'Souza is saying there?
It's little wonder that you imagine the Bible to be the 'absolute truth' if you can glean even a hint of what you are saying in your comment from D'evil D'Souza's post!!!
pboyfloyd at 3:49PM on Nov 30th 2007
50. why don't you try getting your facts straight before you go out there on a limb that you can't get back from.
--------------------------------
What facts do I have wrong? No, don't bother. You think facts are melleable. (That means that they can be warped and bent to your taste)(I'm figuring from your spelling and grammar that you probably won't know the word)
Brian at 3:51PM on Nov 30th 2007
51. Richelle,
Don't worry I promise I'll be as gentle as possible, while trying to explain one more time. Please, if you people would spend as much time in the Bible as you do writing these blogs, you would be more educated in understanding that there is GOD, JESUS & HOLY SPIRIT!!!! Some worship GOD, never got any futher such as Pat Roberson who is an idiot, not Catholic, I go directly to the head person, no help needed there!!! and when JESUS went to be with the father he told them that he would return and one day sooner I'm afraid than not, that he will collect his church and take them home. Now if you want anymore info will be glad to let you know. Brian, trys to lump every religion together as you atheists try to lump yourselves as one great big happy family. NOT SO won't ever happen. I can go away and if you don't have someone who is Christian to pick on you just start on each other. Now what does that remind you of? HUM? Rita
Rita at 3:53PM on Nov 30th 2007
52. MALLEABLE, I meant. Typo. Unlike your errors, Rita, sorry to say.
Brian at 3:53PM on Nov 30th 2007
53. Alex:
"For example, any objective history buff than demonstrate the evil wrought by those who follow sets of belief which do not include a 'god' far, far outnumber those evil acts which have been committed in the name of 'religion'. In addition, those acts which are generally attributed to 'religion' are committed by radical outsiders more so using religion than following it"
-----------------------
In reality, Alex, athiests only point the bad tnings that people do in the name of religion to point out the hypocricies of religion.
The truth is, if you look at the population of the earth at the time from 300 to 2007, instead of looking at simple numbers, you take the percentage of humans alive on the earth, you find that, percentage-wise, more have been killed in the name of religion throughout history
------------------------
Alex:
"While Darwinism is such a popular argument for atheists, based less on the fossil record than on the respect given physical science....
-----------------------
Too long a sentence to post here: The fossil record can mostly describe the vertebrates that existed during and after the Cambrian 'explosion'. The invertebrates were much less likely to leave fossils, for obvious reasons.
----------------------
Alex:
"while the physical sciences based on what can only be called faith in particular and numerous fundamental assumptions, can be manipulated to reach certain conclusions,...."
----------------------
I find it ironic for Alex to talk about scientists being manipulators, when the master manipulators are the purveyors of religion.
-------------------------
Alex:
"To use a popular phrase these days, those who see the sciences of philosophy and metaphysics as something other than a search for 'ultimate truth' and 'goodness' (a moral civil code, ethics, etc.) are 'outliers' in the field. In other words, their extreme mutation of the sciences of reason are similar to the extreme mutation of religion by those who would commit evil in its name."
---------------------
Sorry, Alex, this is gobbledegook. Non sense.
----------------------
Alex:
"Without 'god' there is no ultimate truth, no ultimate good, and therefore no standard for 'evil'. Thus the conclusions of the Enlightenment and relativism. Mankind, then, can decide for itself what is right and what is wrong. Atheists, then, having rejected the existence of a universal, ultimate 'good' become deniers of their own set of beliefs when they fail to put themselves at the center of their own universe and justify 'harm' to anyone or anything which stands in the way of their own priorities. (Don't try this at home!)
-----------------------------
Your logic is so flawed here I scarcely know where to begin. Long before the Judeo-Christian culture, the greeks were great philosophers and purveyors of truth and logic and love. In fact those words are all greek in origin. And how about the Indian and Oriental cultures?
Your chauvenism is so self-serving and flagrent, I'm surprised that a thoughtful person such as yourself cannot see it.
Do you honestly believe that people who don't believe in your god are not capable of mores, creating laws, knowing the difference between good and evil?
If so, you are a seriously deluded person. Your original premise (without god there is no truth) is false, so everything that followed it is also.
-----------------
Alex:
"This is the consequence of denying the nature of the human person."
--------------------------
Again, you are speaking of you and yours. I am denying nothing of the nature of the human person. It is my belief that I am an evolved person who is not in need of an invisible friend or superstitions.
-------------------------
Alex:
"Which brings us out of the fog of distraction to the real issue at hand. Today's atheism serves an anti-person, secular agenda. Wether they mean to or not, modern atheists serve the agenda of denying the value of certain persons for the benefit of other persons"
----------------------
Anti-person agenda? Atheists? Hardly. You would have to substantiate this with examples.
We do not deny the value of persons. We deny that a deity exists. We not only value humans (humanists...remember?), but we value the lives here on earth, which is what we believe is all we have.
------------------------
Alex:
"The irony being those who call themselves 'thoughtful' and 'atheist' have generally exercised their reason much less then they lead us to believe)"
-----------------------
Alex, you're being disingenuous here. We have logic and reason on our side. You have legends, fairy tales and an invisible friend.
---------------------------
Alex:
"In God, we find the dignity, the value of each human person. We find ultimate Truth, ultimate Goodness. We see the true evil of the numerous issues of modern politics. The secular agenda, which enslaves people to lies, is supported by the follies of atheism, and win a battle when it wins a battle. History proves, however, that truth and goodness will prevail."
--------------------
Atheists value each person, certainly we value truth over delusion and deceptions, many of us are politically active (I know I am) to try to correct wrongs in our society.
The last two sentences are simply ridiculous, although I respect your right to have your opinions, I again see the irony of your calling the 'atheist agenda' lies.
As far as I know, the only agenda that atheists have is: keep your religion out of my government.
Linda at 3:54PM on Nov 30th 2007
54. 31 - garbage in, garbage out
Clif Kuplen at 3:54PM on Nov 30th 2007
55.
rita
sorry, i guess i didn't explain, i'm NOT an athiest. i have no problem with athiests (my brother is one and i love him dearly and have profound respect for his views). just because someone reads the bible does not mean that they will accept it. my brother, for example, throroughly read the bible and decided that he did not agree with the ideas it expressed. i really think you need to take some advice from Botts. i strongly believe that if more christians were as humble as he is and not so intent on attempting to destroy their opposition and claim that they are ignorant fools a lot more people would be drawn to christianity. it's people like you who turn them away, not their "clouded minds." and your response gave no excuse for labeling brian as "stupid."
Richelle at 4:02PM on Nov 30th 2007
56. i really think you need to take some advice from Botts. i strongly believe that if more christians were as humble as he is and not so intent on attempting to destroy their opposition and claim that they are ignorant fools a lot more people would be drawn to christianity. it's people like you who turn them away, not their "clouded minds."
----------------------
Can't agree with this more. Every word.
Brian at 4:07PM on Nov 30th 2007
57. Clif:
you post #38 caused me to spew Fresca on my computer. Through my nose.
I don't even have to scroll down to see it's you. And you used much fewer 'x's' this time.
Thank you for keeping me laughing.
Linda at 4:10PM on Nov 30th 2007
58. Richelle,
Then you need to go back and reread some earlier blogs. As, I have tried to explain to people over and over again, there is religion who some seem to group us all into, not so. I am a born again Christian which I'm sure will open up a brand new can of worms for a lot of people. I am also a leaving, breathing woman of a belief that has given me the strenght to say what needs to be told. There have been horrible things done to people in the name of religion but, as usual you don't look at the meaning of Christian, you go right back into the (religion mode) and I for one am real tired of trying to explain. There are several of people who have turned their backs on GOD, or walked away due to some event in their lives, and then they just wake up and say oh, yeah that makes me a antheists. There are more atheists out there that know the bible and became angry at GOD for whatever reason than you might think, I know I have talked with a lot of them. Don't know about Botts, he has his beliefs and I have mine but, if they want to know what I believe, they are going to get it all the way and why I believe the way I do. Equal time for all. Rita
Rita at 4:20PM on Nov 30th 2007
59. Linda, I may have more time to respond in greater detail later. But for now, perhaps you might re-read my post, I believe you've missed a few things. Second, you might wish to visit the Vatican WEB site and re-read the JP II encyclical "Fides et ratio" (Faith and Reason). No, really, put down the Freska (haha!) for a minute and check it out, it says a great deal about what you care about, even with the religious perspective set aside. Lastly, you are right, religion and government have no place with one another; but for the need for government to follow 'just laws' which follow a 'just moral code' which is a part of every human person. This does not open the door of government for religion to enter, it just means people can't hurt each other, etc. As I suggested earlier, and Faith and Reason will demonstrate, this moral code can be known through the science of reason.
alex at 4:28PM on Nov 30th 2007
60. DD, speaking of atheists: "the God-hating ignoramuses"
How can we hate something that we just think is a figment of your imagination? What we hate is institutionalized ignorance, superstition, and delusion.
Joe Bob at 4:29PM on Nov 30th 2007