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 5 of 43)
61. Richelle,
If you for one moment think I think these people are ignorant fools, then you have me all wrong. I know in my heart that there is a lot of hurt in this world some we have all experienced at one time or another. What I am trying to get across is that there is someone so close to you that your next breath is his responsibility. He loves you, and he knows your hurts, he wants to be there for you, he wants you to need him so he can help those hurts and turn those tears into happiness. If that is wrong well then I will choose to be wrong. I will continue to pray for each and everyone of these guys on here. Mr. Knight, Mr. Hays, Linda, Brian and everyone I come accross due to the fact that Jesus Christ has said, to love thy neighbor as thyself. If I don't do as GOD has commanded me then how can I call myself a Christian. Rita
Rita at 4:35PM on Nov 30th 2007
62.
rita
i'm trying to find the relevancy to any of what your saying to the comments that i have posted in response to yours. and i'm curious as to when you became the authority on "say[ing] what needs to be told." the whole point of having faith is that you do not have to go out and try to prove it, that defeats the purpose of even having faith. by having faith in my beliefs and ideas i do not feel threatened by the opposing beliefs of others i just accept that those people feel differently than i do and i respect their opinions. i will never say that i am right and they are wrong because nobody knows for sure. that uncertainty is why we have faith, so we can believe in things that cannot be absolutely proven.
Richelle at 4:31PM on Nov 30th 2007
63. Richelle,
Read #60, Rita
Rita at 4:37PM on Nov 30th 2007
64. DD doesn't know squat about science. I've had to correct him several times. For example thinks that the ozone depletion problem just went away all by itself. He betrays himself as a creationist by using the term "Darwinist". He belittles Dawkins for working for the public understanding of science, which I consider to be a very worthwhile endeavor.
DD on these very pages is working toward the public MISunderstanding of science.
Joe Bob at 4:39PM on Nov 30th 2007
65.
rita
don't try to play me like a fiddle, it just insults me. by saying that brian's mind was clouded you are implying his ignorance. and by saying that you need to pray for those that you mentioned you are implying that they are in need of pity and help. i am very sure that while they are touched by this gesture they would kindly ask that you not waste your time. who's to say that need you prayers? i'm sure they would tell you that they do not need or want them. you treat them as your inferiors, well let me tell you they are not. you possess no absolute knowlegde of the spiritual realm, whether it exists or not, that they do not have. none of us has that knowledge whether we believe in it or not. so, please, save your prayers for yourself so you might acquire the acceptance and open-mindedness that you claim to have, but clearly do not, so that you might become a better person and a better christian.
Richelle at 4:41PM on Nov 30th 2007
66. Oy I am so confused...I am Catholic and I believe in science and evolution. What does that mske me???
D. at 4:45PM on Nov 30th 2007
67.
D
that makes you open-minded and able to think for yourself. nothing at all wrong with that. even darwin was a christian and left room for the role of a higher-power in evolution.
Richelle at 4:48PM on Nov 30th 2007
68. Rita speaks of the "stupidity of the so called Atheists of this world" and calls us "dingdongs", then turns around and says she loves us and is praying for us.
Sorry, I'm not as "christian" as Rita. All I can do is observe that she is a blathering idiot. No condescending prayers for her from me!
Joe Bob at 4:53PM on Nov 30th 2007
69. I'll just poke in briefly and say hello. I won't show up as often, as blogs make me indignant. I just want to thank Richelle for joining and trying to keep the peace between christians and atheists. There shouldn't have to be such a war.
brian at 4:54PM on Nov 30th 2007
70. @65 intelligent, but nontheless slightly delusional? :->
Joe Bob at 4:55PM on Nov 30th 2007
71. ha thanks joe bob.. totally appreciated. :)
D. at 4:57PM on Nov 30th 2007
72. DD is not only a pseudo intellectual but he is also a pseudo Christian. Instead of jousting with his intellectual betters he should actually try reading the New Testament in order to gain a better appreciation for its subversive vision and character. He might then be able to tell us what is truly great about Christianity instead of pimping faith in the name of his right wing agenda.
randy at 5:02PM on Nov 30th 2007
73. Richelle, Rita is a fanatic. She doesn't 'love' anyone, no matter what she says. What people like her and Alex, and Dinesh too, want is a world of homogenous sameness. A world purged of all the unlike, all that 'diversity' that they hate with such passion. I very much doubt she has ever prayed for anyone other than herself.
I have tried to post several times, but they never went through. A point I've been trying to make is that any argument between scientists is automatically taken as proof by the religionists of the error of evolution. They deliberately ignore all the arguments between people of faith, often claiming those who follow different beliefs as non-believers. You must remember, their definition of a christian requires that they be of their faith. Any divergence is taken as proof of non-belief. They don't understand even their own religion, let along science. Frankly, I doubt Rita has ever read the bible, let alone knows anything about it.
Will at 5:00PM on Nov 30th 2007
74. Richelle,
Not really musically talented however, don't play games with people who try their best not to understand where I'm coming from. I do not know what or who you believe in although again don't believe in the athiests as being a way of life. Don't know if but maybe you and Brian should get together and compare notes then maybe, one of you could come up with plausible reason for the way you feel. You say your not atheist, good for you. If you believe as Brian then you need to find out what he believes so you will have a platform in which to go with. Rita
Rita at 5:02PM on Nov 30th 2007
75. Joe bob, Just got added to my list!!!!! My prayer list that is and if you would have read the whole blog you might have understood that I was teasing with Mr. Knight< might as well be hollering at the moon for all the good it does. You guys never seem to amaze me the way you only read into the blogs what you want to read. Again, on the anger platform why? Because, I'm Christian, does that bother you so bad that you have to come up with something so completely out of context? Rita
Rita at 5:13PM on Nov 30th 2007