In ancient Athens, no-one really believed in the gods. But the city required a formal adherence. Failure could be terminal. So Socrates passed from the sight of mortal men because allegedly he corrupted the young men of Athens with a form of atheism.
In our day, atheism is more the established religion. Failure to comply and do due deference can be devastating for one's career, social standing, or fiscal prospects. Anyone in the media, academia, or the school system who dares to question the prevailing orthodoxy of evolutionism is subject to likely effective self-immolation. But, underneath it all, as in Athens, few people really believe the prevailing narrative of existence evolving via randomness. It's just that it's not politic to say so. According to John G. West:
In reality, a growing number of scientists and philosophers have offered sophisticated critiques of the power of undirected natural selection and random variation from within science itself. These critiques are based on empirical investigations and standard modes of scientific reasoning, not on deductions from religious authority; and they are carried out by a love of the scientific enterprise. . . .
Skepticism toward modern Darwinism's all-encompassing claims regarding natural selection and random mutation is far more widespread among scientists than most people realize. Despite the high costs of publicly airing one's doubts about Darwin, more than eight hundred doctoral scientists--from institutions such as Princeton, Ohio State, University of Michigan, and MIT--have signed a statement expressing their skepticism that the Darwinian mechanism is capable of explaining the complexity of life. Geneticist Lynn Margulis at the University of Massachusetts--a critic of intelligent design--bluntly states that "new mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired." National Academy of Sciences member Phillip Skell argues taht "Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is . . . why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists."
John G. West, "Having a Real Debate", God and Evolution, Jay Richards, ed., (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2010), pp.60-62.
Once again, all together now . . . The Science is Settled!
8 comments:
Would you look at that, you said something about evolution and it was stupid. I'm so surprised.
West cites, as evidence than there is a genuine scientific objection to the theory (not the fact) of evolution, a list of 800 people, most of them not biologists who say so. Well, here's a list of more than 1000 people who happen to be called Steve who disagree. If you look at the biologists (by degree, not by occupation) on the disco 'tutes list you have about one 10000th of the total number - I'm sure they missed a few cranks, but there's no ground swell.
And is his prime examples are Phill Skell, a chemist and Lyn Margulis who is utterly mad. He's going to have to try a little harder.
Hi, David
Mmm. So you are not only an evolutionist, but a psycho-analyst as well. But we don't go in for ad hominem, so we won't join in with you there.
Nonetheless, we are sure that you are aware of the logic of disproof of a scientific theory. According to Popper, a scientific theory can never achieve a level of final certainty; moreover all it takes is one authentic contrary observation, outcome, experiment to disprove it. So majorities, whether of experiments, observations, or scientists count for little.
Truth, as we are sure you are aware, is not established by majorities, particularly when it comes to scientific methodology. All majorities represent is a current convention. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions made that point compellingly.
Imagine some chap coming to Galileo and saying, Look thousands disagree with you. Wait. That's exactly what they did say--and look where it got them. That's precisely how an established religion (or scientific paradigm, for that matter) functions. Which was the point of the post, after all.
West concedes that thousands disagree--but he also suggests there is frequently a disjunction between what evolutionary scientists say formally ("yes, of course the gods of Athens are true") because their career depends upon it and what they say privately. And that, too, was a point of the post.
JT
I thought West's point was
In reality, a growing number of scientists and philosophers have offered sophisticated critiques of the power of undirected natural selection and random variation from within science itself
And his evidence for it was a list of engineers (always the engineers...) a chemist and a mad woman.
"In our day, atheism is more the established religion."
Therefore, according to you, non-religious people are religious.
"Anyone in the media, academia, or the school system who dares to question the prevailing orthodoxy of evolutionism is subject to likely effective self-immolation."
Evolution is called "evolution", not "evolutionism".
This is one of my favorite quotes and I suggest you read it and at least try to understand it: "The idea that proponents of ID creationism have been discriminated against is based on a misconception - namely, that every idea is of equal merit. ID creationists aren't able to gain acceptance for their ideas not because of philosophical resistance, discrimination, or conspiracy, but because their ideas are stupid."
"more than eight hundred doctoral scientists"
This is from the professional lairs for Jeebus of the Christian Creationist Discovery Institute. On their list are mostly engineers. Engineers are not scientists. Also, some of these fake scientists are dead, and some of them were put on the list without their permission. All of them are morons, as are you. None of them have ever contributed anything important to biology.
John G. West, "Having a Real Debate"
What professional liar John West of the anti-science Christian Creationist Discovery Institute doesn't understand is there is NO debate. Evolution has been accepted as a basic fact of science for more than a century. Biologists sometimes debate the minor details but the truth of evolution is only debated by uneducated morons.
Evolution by natural selection is the strongest basic fact of science. The evidence is more massive and more powerful than Darwin could have ever imagined possible.
Evolution is how the world works. Denying the established truth of evolution is equivalent to denying all of reality.
Fortunately something good can be said about science deniers like yourself. You are showing your idiotic belief in a magic god fairy totally depends on throwing out 21st century science. How much longer can your childish fantasies survive if you have to throw out a century of scientific progress to believe in it?
http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/
Hi, David
What have you got against engineers? One would have thought that you respected engineers--they tend to be mechanistic Naturalists par excellence, non? Definitely in your camp, one would have thought.
We were reflecting on Isaac Newton. As you will know, throughout his life he was a fervent alchemist. Presumably by your lights that would make him certifiably insane, requiring that his Principia, his theories on gravity, his mechanics, etc. be dumped in the Thames, if you were to apply to Newton the same kind of argumentation you have applied to your egregiously named "mad woman". Nothing like a bit of gratuitous ad hominem to dismiss an opponent, eh.
But then, again, as they say, ad hominem is the refuge of the lazy mind or those unable to argue their case. That's why we don't indulge in it. We urge you to adopt a similar approach. After all, ad hominem is a fallacy.
One cannot but be shamed if one makes it the centrepiece of one's argument.
JT
A note to "Human Ape":
Dear chap--calm down. You will have a heart attack. Pause, take a deep breath, and wipe the spittle from your visage. The fervour of belief in your your religion is getting the better of you.
Next you will be calling us blasphemous because we have insulted your most holy and precious god, Evolution.
Any more of this and we will be constrained to add evolutionism to the list of those religions which may justifiably be called religions of hate. Its devotees (if you were the norm) would appear to be riven with fits of febrile apoplexy and spleen-venting tirades. You are doing your co-religionists a disservice. Surely you can do better, and be better.
Maybe your great and mighty god, Evolution will come to your aid and help you develop a bit more.
If and when that were to happen we would be delighted to interact more seriously with your arguments. But with evolutionism as your hope and guide, we are sure you will be able to advance a little higher. Pray harder, longer, more fervently. Dance a bit of a dervish. Who knows. Maybe Evolution will hear you and enable you to develop a bit more. Does not your god smile particularly upon those who know him and bend themselves to co-operate with him, working with him, as it were. Such, we are told, make the greatest evolutionary, developmental progress. With your fervour and the great light of evolutionism as your guide, maybe, just maybe you will be able to put together a coherent argument that does not rest upon both formal and informal fallacies.
But then again, maybe not. There remains that vicious paradox that lies at the heart of your religion which means that evolutionism is grounded upon irrationality. Over to you. Try harder. Be better. Try to be more, well, evolved in your approach and demeanour.
JT
I guess it's much easier to call people morons than have to engage with the points they have made. If you had to do that, you might have to face the uncomfortable truth you might be basing your life on a lie....
It interests me that some atheists become so angry with Christians. The protest suggests to me that their brand of athiesm is a result of wishful thinking and rebellion against God rather than the result of serious reasoning and thought.
Seriously - if you thought Christians were wrong, why not leave them in their 'fairy tale' world? Why get so worked up about it all?!
Hey, Scotty . . .
Quite! Well said.
JT
Post a Comment