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 7 of 43)
91. The worst part of bein an atheist
nobody to talk to when you have an orgasm
mac65 at 7:16PM on Nov 30th 2007
92. Linda,
I have to say that I thank the angels who GOD has sent to protect us from harm. I have to say it is the HOLY SPIRIT sent to stay inside of us until such a time as GOD calls us home. There are so many horrible things that happen to people good as well as bad but, GOD has promised to set all straight, when he returns. I just want as many to go with me as possible. Bye All Got get reports done for the day> May all have a great weekend and as usual GOD BLESS each and everyone of you. Rita
Rita at 5:54PM on Nov 30th 2007
93. CREATION: An act of God bringing something into existence or causing something to exist which had no previous existence either in itself or in another form. In short, the production of something from nothing by God.
EVOLUTION: The process by which existing organisms have developed from earlier forms through transformations of characteristics in future generations. Evolution occurs by the natural selection of God’s created substances in combination with hereditary adaptations. In other words, God created everything in the beginning but these created things change over the period of eons of time by evolution.
The Genesis story of creation is meant to teach us that one God made everything that exists and that everything He has made is good. Man is at the peak of creation, in some way like God himself, and is given everything in the world for his use.
The Bible’s account of creation can fit in perfectly with science's teaching on the evolution of the universe, even though the Bible is not meant to be a book of science. God brings the world to realization, not by continual interventions---stepping in to make this or that---but in such a way that the higher emerges from the lower by evolution. He is continually creating as He activates and unfolds the human process. Instead of thinking of creation as something over and done with, we should think of it as continually developing over the ages like a magnificent sculpture that is taking form but won’t be finished until the end of time. The Bible, to be sure, does not teach evolution; neither does it say anything to oppose scientific theories about bodily evolution. It simply is not concerned with the kinds of questions a scientist deals with. Again, the Bible is not a science book!!!
A narrower meaning of creation has become popular in the last fifty years, especially among fundamentalist Protestants, in opposition to the widespread secular assumption that the biological theory of evolution makes God’s creation meaningless. This narrower meaning would deny evolution as an explanation of causes through which God guides His created world and develops life for His direct infusion of a human soul. It would be a weak Faith that said God could not create by the use of evolution. As long as it is not denied that all things had a beginning in God’s creative act and that each individual soul is immediately created at conception, there is no reason why a Christian could not adopt the Big Bang Theory of the origin of the universe or an evolutionary account of the development of the various species of living things.
God has created a real world. Though He creates out of nothing, He brings reality into existence. The world of creation is crowned by people with free wills and whose free choices in creation will have significance for all eternity. Our duty to praise God as Creator is also the honor of recognizing the dignity of creation, which is the fruit of God s eternal love.
Doug at 5:59PM on Nov 30th 2007
94.
doug
thanks for showing that creation and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. i try to tell peoeple that all the time, but they always insist it has to be one way of the other. if they would actually read "the origin of species" they would realize that darwin suggested the role of a higher power could very well have been involved in evolution by setting its basic rules.
Richelle at 6:08PM on Nov 30th 2007
95. Dinesh, very interesting article. You wrote: "If Dawkins had caricatured Dawkins, Gould wrote, Dennett's book was "a caricature of a caricature." Don't you mean, rather, "If Dawkins had caricatured DARWIN ..." Only thus would the sentence achieve the symmetry you seek and make sense. You make a good point that some of the proponents of atheism rest their arguments on Darwinian evolution without being familiar with the specifics of Darwinian evolution, as opposed to the other versions of evolutionary theory. The point we should all concede is that it is no easier to disprove the existence of God based on scientific evidence than it is to prove the existence of God based on scientific evidence. Science choses to measure, evaluate, assess the material world. That which cannot be subject to physical measurement is not real, says science. By its very definition it discounts the reality of the immaterial.
David Pendleton at 6:58PM on Nov 30th 2007
96. Linda, why must religion be a con game? One certainly does not have to subscribe to a religious world view to admit that religion has often had a civilizing and humanizing influence in the world. Yes, religion has often been and continues to be a prime source of evil, oppression, and willful ignorance in the world. But it has also been religion, especially the great Jewish tradition in which you have your own roots, that has taught us a lot about social justice, mercy, compassion and love of self and neighbor. Are these things too nothing more than a by product of a great con game.
randy at 7:16PM on Nov 30th 2007
97. It would be a weak Faith that said God could not create by the use of evolution. - Doug
Indeed it would. In fact I'm amazed that believers in God don't embrace evolution as the sublime genius of their God. They are cutting their own noses to spite their face.
Why? Because the Bible keeps getting in the way. They have this obsessive belief that if the Bible is wrong, there is no God. It's like a Chinese finger trap they keep pulling on and just can't figure out how to get out of.
The God they believe in is Bible Brand God. It's just one of MANY ways people might believe in God. I think most people reject the petty, jealous, capricious God in the Bible, and rightly so.
Many of those who profess to believe in Him, believe in something much better, despite the silly stories in the OT.
Then there are people you might call Atheists, who simply don't buy the Bible brand God, and who call themselves Deists, who believe in the watchmaker God who designed the universe and let the laws of matter, space, time, gravity, etc. do their thing and here we are billions of years later with the world as you see it.
Again, we have absolutely no valid frame of reference to even have the foggiest idea of what lies outside our reality. So to presume to know is arrogant and foolish.
In short, you can still believe in God, even if the bible is pure bunk.
fabio at 7:13PM on Nov 30th 2007
98. Some people think that the Jewish scriptures give an account of what God actually did day by day in making the world. God made the world, in this account, in six days and rested on the seventh. The literal creationists think this was literally so. Most sensible people disagree because all the evidence of science contradicts any such idea. What the poor creationists seem too stupid to realize is that the days in the account were literal days all right, but the account was of the annual celebration of creation not the historical creation of the universe. The Hebrew, Yom 1, Yom 2 and so on of Genesis 1 is counting the days of the festival, and saying what was celebrated on that day. Perhaps simple folk thought each day was literally true of God’s creation, even then, but then they had an excuse. Modern creationists have not. Except their own religious idiocy.
AskWhy Books at 7:17PM on Nov 30th 2007
99. I can't wait to here what Darwin has to say to Jesus...
Bridget at 7:20PM on Nov 30th 2007
100. *hear*
Bridget at 7:23PM on Nov 30th 2007
101. The God they believe in is the Bible . Full Stop! Biblical inerrantists are idolaters in Judaeo-Christian terms. The bible is their God. If their God exists, they are damned for worshiping an idol -- a book. If Christ was God incarnate, they should study his words and his deeds much more carefully than they do because few indeed of them match up.
AskWhy Books at 7:24PM on Nov 30th 2007
102. askwhybooks
are you saying that few christians match up to jesus's words or what?
brian at 9:22PM on Nov 30th 2007
103. askwhybooks
also who on what grounds do you say that the bible is any christians God? where are you coming up with that? is that your opionion or is it a fact you can support? you made a blanket statement i i'd like to know where you came by it?
brian at 9:28PM on Nov 30th 2007
104. bridget do you think jesus would even give darwin an audience? why would he. the creator of the universe being taken to task by an atheist drivil brain on how creation got started. i'd say darwin's going to be backing up before he reaches the burners.
brian at 9:29PM on Nov 30th 2007
105. Its kind of like saying that atheists consider themselves god. Where did you come up with that brian? Is that opinion or fact?
a born atheist at 9:29PM on Nov 30th 2007