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 43 of 43)
631. For when the Bible is proven right by the appearance of Christ It will be torment for many, - Observant
So even 3000 years later the bible HASN'T been proven right? I think we're finally getting thru to some of you guys.
And again "torment for many"... the hatred in the hearts of Christians is so transparent. Very very sad...
fabio at 12:25PM on Dec 5th 2007
632. Clif... I agree with you re: Hiltler, Jones etc. I guess it reveals 'Christian insecurity' to make an attempt to not lump Hitler in with the Christians, but if you really looked at everyone's life who claim to be Christian, let's just say there'd be a lot of 'xplanin to do.
About the flipfloppiness of Jesus- are you alluding to the references regarding not taking anything away from the law and prophets either? Is the where I pick some cherries? Let's discuss.
And thanks for the cheekiness. I need a daily dose of it to keep me on my toes. ; )
swimming above the fray at 2:33PM on Dec 5th 2007
633. About the flipfloppiness of Jesus- are you alluding to the references regarding not taking anything away from the law and prophets either?
xxxx
That's one of the major ones, but there are others. The most egregious offense on law and prophecy is from luke in two verses:
16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Which he also said in mr dillon, where he also said he came to fulfil both law and prophecy, all of it, but levitican law doesn't mix with his second commandment.
But that's only one thing.
from Luke:
11:40 Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also?
and mr. dillon:
5:22....but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
or,
Mt -5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
but he doesn't -
Lk-10:10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
lk-10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell
babies and all, I guess - an alternate meaning of 'suffer the little children'?
lk-19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me
I could do this for hours - it's never ending.
Clif Kuplen at 5:56PM on Dec 5th 2007
634. Clif... astute as usual. Have you looked up any responses to these questions already, or had any discussions about them? I checked out rationalchristianity.net to address the first issue. I have a feeling you already know what I will type, right?
swimming above the fray at 2:04PM on Dec 6th 2007
635. "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."
Wow...and you are basing this argument on what? Religion is against science,YOUR OPINION. It never ceases to amaze me how inept some can be at proving a point when it comes to what they "think" religion is versus what the "know". I'm religious but I'm not against science, fact. Science does not prove everything, fact. MOST religious people believe in evolution to a certain degree. What they don't agree with is the same thing that science has not proven....and if you ever find that "missing link" let me know.
Christen at 11:33PM on Dec 6th 2007
636. It has been found so it can no longer be called 'missing'. How many do we have to find?
a born atheist at 8:10AM on Dec 7th 2007
637. ....and if you ever find that "missing link" let me know. - Christen
That 'missing link' is the classic strawman of fundamentalists. I have explained it in several posts, almost to the point where people might start telling me to stop repeating myself.
Even if it wasn't a strawman, it's much like being shown a large jigsaw puzzle with 18 pieces missing and pretending you don't see that it's a picture of a farmhouse near a lake in autumn.
The God-Jesus-bible belief on the other hand is like 1000 jigsaw pieces some of which may fit together, but many of which don't, and the parts with clusters of pieces are inconsistent with the other assorted clusters - it might be a horse, it might be a spaceship, it might be a bowl of spaghetti.
The atheist says it makes no sense. The believer says... it's clearly a horse eating a bowl of spaghetti on a spaceship.
fabio at 2:40PM on Dec 7th 2007
638. As an atheist it gives me great hope to see this sort of thing: a defender of religion having to resort to rather feeble ad hominem attacks when facing up to a defender of atheism. The idea is, if you can't counter their arguments (and D'Souza can't, as his debate with Dennett amply demonstrates) then all you can really do is call them names and impugn their academic credentials. It is a low, mean strategy, but no doubt it is effective in reassuring the mass of people who cling to a scrap of religious belief. Bravo Mr. D'Souza. Bravo.
Jeremy Clark at 3:50AM on Dec 8th 2007