"A self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett . . . . - Stephen Jay Gould, "Darwinian Fundamentalism," The New York Review of Books.
I am curious to know who people think are the leading Darwinian fundamentalists today. My current top 3 are as follows:
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 2:28 PM
0 comments
The New York Times opens its collective mind again. They permit a piece by Christoph Schönborn that clarifies the position of the Roman Catholic Church on evolution and design in nature. It begins:
EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.
But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
Kudos to the Times for allowing (at least in this instance) a correction of frequent misrepresentations of the church's position on this issue.
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 3:44 PM
0 comments
A piece by Cornelia Dean in the New York Times contained this interesting assertion:
It is evolution's acceptance of nature as the only true scientific authority and its capacity to fall in the face of a more effective explanation that make evolution science, far more than its mere correctness.
That is the difficulty faced by advocates of creationism and intelligent design. It is possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Plenty of biologists do. But their deity is not a creator or intelligent agent at work in the material world in ways that transcend nature and its laws. That would be a matter of faith, not science.
Is it not obvious that believing in a deity that does not transcend nature and its laws is also a matter of faith? Does she really mean to suggest that such belief is a matter of science? How can they print this stuff?
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 7:37 PM
2 comments
Here is one of the first usages of the phrase Darwinian Fundamentalism of which I am aware. Thanks to my main man, Stephen Jay Gould. He used the phrase to describe Richard Dawkins' and Daniel Dennett's narrow reliance on limited mechanisms to explain how evolution happened:
Some of these ideas have filtered into the general press, but the uniting theme of Darwinian fundamentalism has not been adequately stressed or identified. . . . Amid the variety of their subject matter, the ultra-Darwinists share a conviction that natural selection regulates everything of any importance in evolution, and that adaptation emerges as a universal result and ultimate test of selection's ubiquity.
His limited and superficial book reads like a caricature of a caricature—for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized Darwin's richness by adhering to the strictest form of adaptationist argument in a maximally reductionist mode, then Dennett, as Dawkins's publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable account into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine. If history, as often noted, replays grandeurs as farces, and if T.H. Huxley truly acted as "Darwin's bulldog," then it is hard to resist thinking of Dennett, in this book, as "Dawkins's lapdog."
posted by Lawrence Selden @ 7:32 PM
1 comments
I am a macroevolution agnostic. I used to accept evolutionary theory. Then I looked at the evidence. It became clear to me that macroevolutionary theory is built more on a priori philosophical assumptions than on evidence. Microevolution, on the other hand, is supported by the evidence. The distinction between the two is critical and is largely ignored, or not understood, by the mainstream media and general public.
