Atheists Speak Out
by MikeGeneIn his book, Finding Darwin's God, biologist Ken Miller ponders the rise anti-evolutionary aspect of the ID movement. He writes:
By and large, the critics of evolution are not cynical opportunists. They aren't stupid, and they certainly understand how strong the scientific evidence is against them. So, why do they oppose evolution with such passion and persistence? I think I know, and we shall see in the next chapter, many of my scientific colleagues, so baffled at the strength and depth of anti-evolution feelings in the U.S., would be surprised to discover that they are themselves a large part of the reason why.
In other words, many in the scientific community are partly to blame for the existence of The Wedge. And some very recent writings continue to illustrate this for us.
After making his observations, Miller then follows with a whole chapter outlining the manner in which many leading scientists have used evolution and science as tools to proselytize for atheism. He cites the usual culprits "“ Dawkins, Wilson, Dennett, and even to a lesser extent, Gould. Miller then notes that these men are not aberrations, but instead there are many more like them in academia. If you employ evolution and science as a tool to attack religion and a tool to advocate for atheistic metaphysics, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how this creates the fertile ground for a reaction like the Wedge.
What we have seen recently are more examples of scientists using evolution to argue for atheism. We have already seen how sociobiologist David Barash, arguing in the mainstream media, has used evolution to argue for atheism and defined evolution from this metaphysical perspective .
Well, another well known evolutionary psychologist, Stephen Pinker, was also made a similar argument in the pages of Time magazine.
Pinker includes an explicit attack on theistic evolutionists:
Many people who accept evolution still feel that a belief in God is necessary to give life meaning and to justify morality. But that is exactly backward. In practice, religion has given us stonings, inquisitions and 9/11. Morality comes from a commitment to treat others as we wish to be treated, which follows from the realization that none of us is the sole occupant of the universe. Like physical evolution, it does not require a white-coated technician in the sky.
For this leading scientist and Darwinian fundamentalist, accepting evolution is not good enough.
It gets even more clear with Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and co-author, with Robert E. Rubin, of In an Uncertain World.
While Weisberg is not a scientist, he is a product of academia that has clearly bought into the message peddled by people like Dawkins and Pinker, all in the Name of Science. As such, he gives us a clear view inside that Trojan Horse in his article, Evolution vs. Religion: Quit pretending they're compatible.
Wiesberg frets about The Wedge and offers the following take:
Many biologists believe the answer is to present evolution as less menacing to religious belief than it really is"¦"¦ This was the soothing contention of the famed paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who argued that science and religion were separate "magisteria," or domains of teaching. The theme appears frequently in statements by major scientific organizations and wherever fundamentalists try to force creationism or its descendents on local school boards.
Now that I think of it, it does seem as if this theme is only sounded by major scientific organizations wherever fundamentalists try to force creationism or its descendents on local school boards. Why don't the same organizations sound this theme when people like Dawkins, Dennett, Barash and Pinker tell the public otherwise? Could it be that these organizations really don't believe this theme, but use it only as a political device? I'm not sure, but we are left with their complete silence anytime a leading member of their community uses science or evolution to peddle Atheism. That silence needs an explanation and Weisberg himself suggests this when he notes, "In a state like Kansas, where public opinion remains overwhelmingly hostile to evolution, one sees the political logic of this kind of tap-dance." Anyway, let's continue as Weisberg lets his cat out of the bag:
But let's be serious: Evolutionary theory may not be incompatible with all forms of religious belief, but it surely does undercut the basic teachings and doctrines of the world's great religions (and most of its not-so-great ones as well).
Hang on, as he is not finished yet:
That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries.
Wow. Darwin himself becomes the poster boy for evolution destroying religious faith. But there's more:
But the acceptance of evolution diminishes religious belief in aggregate for a simple reason: It provides a better answer to the question of how we got here than religion does. Not a different answer, a better answer: more plausible, more logical, and supported by an enormous body of evidence.
One could easily debate all these claims, but instead, it might be more useful to ponder two questions.
First, will any scientific or anti-ID organization ever write up a public response to such claims that not only disagrees with them, but educates the public about the erroneous nature of these claims by refuting them in detail? If not, why not? After all, Weisberg pays tribute to the fact that there are even "Darwinists who call themselves Christians" and cites Ken Miller as his example. Will Ken Miller take a few seconds from his battle against the "enemies of science" to reply to Weisberg, given that he knows such claims only strengthen the "enemies of science"? If the pattern noted by Weisberg continues, we can expect only silence.
Secondly, where does Weisberg get these notions? Did they just poof into his head or has he been absorbing someone else's message? I would suggest that Weisberg is simply helping to popularize the message of the Darwinian fundamentalists, a message he has uncritically embraced. After all, he admits to getting something from Daniel Dennett's "superb" book. Furthermore, consider this bit of misinformation:
Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch.
Unless Weisberg considers a handful of fuzzy, weakly supported speculations (many which contradict each other) to be a scientific explanation, Weisberg is misleading his readers with this claim. And since Weisberg has probably never read a single scientific paper that speculates about the origin of bacteria, it's likely that Weisberg himself was misled by some Darwinian fundamentalist.
Okay, so now let's turn to the real fun. Weisberg writes:
So, what should evolutionists and their supporters say to parents who don't want their children to become atheists and who may even hold firm to the virgin birth and the parting of the Red Sea? That it's time for them to finally let go of their quaint superstitions? That Darwinists aren't trying to push people away from religion but recognize that teaching their views does tend to have that effect? Dennett notes that Darwin himself avoided exploring the issue of the ultimate origins of life in part to avoid upsetting his wife Emma's religious beliefs.
Aha! Weisberg is telling us his real views here that most likely reflect the views of his mentors. But such "brutal truth" is political poison. So Weisberg offers the following advice:
One possible avenue is to focus more strongly on the practical consequences of resisting scientific reality. In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs, can the U.S. afford"”ethically or economically"”to raise our children on fraudulent biology?
Well lookie here "“ it's a Trojan Horse strategy. Such irony. Tap into xenophobia, arguing that if some rural community of high school students doesn't understand the Dawkins/Dennett perspective of evolution, the "foreigners" will pass us by economically. It reminds me of James Watson's Trojan Horse strategy of promoting eugenics by selling cures for diseases to the masses.
Okay, just to be sure no one misses the fact that this Rhodes Scholar is peddling the message of Dawkins et al., consider how he ends his article:
But whatever tack they take, evolutionists should quit pretending their views are no threat to believers. This insults our intelligence
Hey, even the very last words in the footnote section deliver the message, where Weisberg portrays a colleague as showing that ID is "ID is proof that science is winning the battle against religion."
Dawkins, the adored scientist who thinks it is better to sexually molest a child than raise that child as a Catholic, should be proud of his little spawn.
August 12th, 2005 at 12:18 am
"Now that I think of it, it does seem as if this theme is only sounded by major scientific organizations wherever fundamentalists try to force creationism or its descendents on local school boards. Why don't the same organizations sound this theme when people like Dawkins, Dennett, Barash and Pinker tell the public otherwise? Could it be that these organizations really don't believe this theme, but use it only as a political device?"
In order to demonstrate your claim is correct, can you provide the dates that these organizations "sounded the theme" and identify the particular fundamentalist attack it was countering, or are you in fact just making an unsupported claim because it agrees with your presumption that these organizations are packed with evil atheists?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 12, 2005 @ 12:18 am
August 12th, 2005 at 12:48 am
ID has "The Wedge" strategy and the Darwinian fundies have "The Crowbar" strategy. The Crowbar is used to pry apart all traditional ethics and morality with an all explaining, unfalsifiable "science". In addition to being used as a tool to pry, The Crowbar can also be swung as a murder weapon that kills careers, reputations, and names.
The Crowbar existed before The Wedge and created the environment for The Wedge to be born.
Comment by Stuart Harris — August 12, 2005 @ 12:48 am
August 12th, 2005 at 1:06 am
Aagcobb,
I said nothing about "evil" atheists. And no, I cannot provide dates and such. Weisberg raised a point that simply lead me to respond, "Now that I think of it, it does seem as if this theme is only sounded by major scientific organizations wherever fundamentalists try to force creationism or its descendents on local school boards." It's just an impression. I can't think of a single example where some leading critic of ID raises the theme in response to a widespread, public claim of an Expert like Dawkins, Barash, Pinker, and now Weisberg. Let's wait and see if Weisberg's article merits a response from any significant player(s).
Comment by MikeGene — August 12, 2005 @ 1:06 am
August 12th, 2005 at 7:04 am
I think for a Christian Fundamentalist like myself. I would be anti-Darwinian no matter what. However, I think it is possible that a majority of Christians would be willing to have a truce, if you leave out the social Darwinians. i.e. the persecution of removing silent prayers in schools, taking God out of the pledge, prohibit the mentioning of God in a valedictory address, removing religious symbols from public grounds, change the name of Christmas to Winter Solstice, etc, etc, etc.
In the words of Jean-Luc Picard, "They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!"
Comment by teleologist — August 12, 2005 @ 7:04 am
August 12th, 2005 at 10:15 am
Just for your own laughs, of course — but can you tell me just how evolution threatens any ideas about Jesus' virgin birth?
Or is this one more fuzzy IDea that one has to accept in order to be convinced?
Comment by edarrell — August 12, 2005 @ 10:15 am
August 12th, 2005 at 10:59 am
Fuzzy IDea???
Oh, I get it! edarrell is being silly.
From reading your post you certainly have no IDea (now I'm doing it too… silly, silly edarrell) what intelligence inherent in biological order even means.
Is the virgin birth a necessary corrollary of ID? Amazing.
Do people have to accept your fuzzy philosophical reasoning to be convinced that materialism trumps teology?
Comment by Doug — August 12, 2005 @ 10:59 am
August 12th, 2005 at 11:31 am
My goodness! You'd think all those self-impressed eggheads in 'science' proper would have learned something about life in the real world by now. I think we have something here that might help clarify the real issues in the educational debate, now that lots of people are paying attention.
First, we gather together all the most blatant anti-religious pronouncements from all the most visible spokespersons [include whole speech/article contexts as appendices]. Put it together into a package and attach specific questions to be forwarded to the institutional managers, department heads, etc. where these evangelists 'work', asking for official position statements. Maybe get a congressperson or two to sign on to the project as part of their official research into the question of whether ID and Neodarwinism are religiously/metaphysically biased enough to preclude their inclusion in public school curricula. So the principals will feel it necessary to respond.
A fairly fun project, I'd think, given the voluminous amount of commentary to this subject. Do the evangelical atheists face ANY approbation from their peers and collective for publicly corrupting science? How about approbation (and career-shattering punishments) for scientists who speak out on the other 'side' of the issue? Quantify all this and list the statistics so clearly (big charts with color and charm) even a congressman could understand it…
Then take it to Congress (and state legislatures and national press, etc., etc.) and show everyone just exactly where 'science' proper stands on the issue. Seems to me that if it can be factually established and clearly documented that the whole Neodarwinism scam serves the [ulterior] purpose of promoting atheism or attacking religions, it loses scientific status automatically and becomes positively Unconstitutional to force-feed to any citizen of this country under color of law.
Comment by Joy — August 12, 2005 @ 11:31 am
August 12th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
I was thinking this accumulation of Darwinism=atheism quotes would be a good idea.
If there is no transcription available, here are a couple from Dawkins recently on NPR's "On Point" radio program where he didn't debate George Gilder:
"We would be a lot better off without religion."
"that's the kind of stone-age mentality we are talking about among these clergymen."
"I do think its true that cosmologists are slightly more likely to be theists than biologists. In earlier times biology was the thing that provided the most powerful apparent evidence for the existence of a Creator – Darwin solved all that. I think, in a way, cosmology is waiting for its Darwin. However, I would add this, that biology is supremely complicated. Complexity is the really difficult thing that you might think you need a designer for – Darwin solved that. The universe actually, is not very complicated."
He was then followed by a brief appearance by
Michael Ruse:
"I agree on his (Dawkins') religion, too."
"You have … a great many Darwinians who are not only pushing their science but also are pushing a religious agenda, I think, under the name of the science."
If there is no official transcription out there yet, here is the audio:
http://www.onpointradio.org/sh...
Comment by DsP — August 12, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
The Audio can be downloaded in mp3 at:
George Gilder OnPoint (WBUR&NPR)
Comment by Fer — August 12, 2005 @ 3:31 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 5:27 pm
For the record, although I am theologically anti-Darwinian, I am critical of Darwinism scientifically. I am open to moderating my theological views based on scientific evidence. I am willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. There is no evidence for Darwinism IMHO.
Collecting Atheistic Darwinian pronouncement might be great, but there is one missing component. The missing ingredients are reasonable Atheistic Darwinians and a clear thinking Congress. I've documented the biases of Atheistic Darwinism. The Darwinians will swear up and down that they are not anti-religious. Congress is too stupid to evaluate anything scientific. If you throw it into Congress there will be endless hearing and demagoguery. Congress will pass social security reform before we get legislation on anti-religious Darwinism. It will be a cold day in hell before Congress does social security reform.
Comment by teleologist — August 12, 2005 @ 5:27 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Oddly, those same organisations were completely silent when Keith Miller published "Perspectives on an Evolving Creation". None of them have rushed forward to condemn John Polkinghorne for articulating his vision of how Christianity and science are related. They were even completely silent when Kenneth Miller cited the "fine tuning" of the cosmololgical constants as evidence of the existence of God.
So, when Christians draw religious comfort or support from science in the same way that some atheists have done, these organisations are disinterested. But because these organisations oppose the doctoring of science by creation "scientists" and IDists to strengthen the comfort that can be drawn, apparently it is expected that they also oppose any drawing of comfort from actual science by atheists, even when they do not oppose the same behaviour by Christians.
This reflects the same double standard as is shown by teleologist when he considers permiting atheists to pledge allegiance to their nation without pledging allegiance to a God they do not believe in at the same time a "persecution" of Christians.
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 12, 2005 @ 6:51 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 8:40 pm
DsP illustrates perfectly the sort of quote mining practised by creationists.
Yes, Dawkins, when explicitly asked whether he thought people would be a lot better of without religion said,
"We would be a lot better off without religion."
But he went on:
"However, it's important to point out that the great majority of reputable religious people and theologians do believe in evolution so there manifestly is not, as a matter of fact, a contradiction if you look at people's opinions …"
So, while he admited his own atheism, he explicitly refused to endorse a claim that evolution implies atheism. Later, when asked to give advise to religious people who wanted to understand Darwinism, he said:
"I would recomend reading Kenneth Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God".
It is true also that he said,
"that's the kind of stone-age mentality we are talking about among these clergymen."
But the "stone age mentality" he described was that of people who believed that the universe was less than 10 thousand years old, who, as he put it, believe that the universe is younger than the middle stone age.
Apparently, in DsP's opinion, to even mention your atheism is to attack religion, and to criticise YECs it to criticise all theists.
Even worse is his quotation of Ruse, for though Ruse also admits to being an atheist; and he also claims that many "Darwinians" are using neodarwinism to push religion – but he mentions this to criticise it. So when Ruse steps forward with exactly the sort of criticism Mike expects, he is not merely ignored, but cited as saying as claiming that "Darwinism=atheism".
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 12, 2005 @ 8:40 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
Mike quote Ken Miller:
Miller is wrong to say that IDists understand how strong the scientific evidence is against them. We understand how strong the scientific evidence is against Miller's position. Michael Denton makes a powerful case which Miller has never refuted, and Denton, a former Christian and Old Earth Creationist, made such a devastating critique of Darwinian evolution that he converted Michael Behe into one of the leading lights of ID.
However, Miller is correct, the Darwinsts who are also atheists have energized the forces against Darwinism.
Perhaps those of us sympathetic to the Wedge (which I recognize is not necessarily the case here at TelicThoughts), are grateful guys like Dawkins are so open with their disdain! Dawkins called half the American population "wingnuts". In fact, so apparent is the affect the atheists are having on the energy level of the Wedge that, Dembski proclaimed Dawkins: God's best gift to ID
Dembski practically taunted Dawkins:
Coupled with the fact that we have Darwinist Like Randy Thronhill and Craig Palmer saying that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," akin to "the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck."
Is there any doubt where public sympathies will tend to go in light of such comments? Us Wedgies hope the Darwinists who are also atheists will dominate their side of the debate rather than the theistic evolutionist.
The Wedge got Dawkins to participate in a pseudo-debate with Gilder. Dawkins was heard labeling YECs as having a stone age mentality and labeling half the American population as wingnuts! I hope Richard makes many more appearances in front of American audiences!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 12, 2005 @ 8:47 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
The fact that you believe the last sentence is overwelhming proof that the second sentence is false.
Now I would assume that the devout Catholic "Darwinian" Kenneth Miller would not need to do much swearing to establish that he was not anti-religious. Nor would the devoutly religious "Darwinians", Keith Miller, Dennis Lamaroux, Robert Bakker or Simon Conway Morris. But apparently teleologist knows better: because some "Darwinists" are emphatically anti-religious, therefore all those religious "Darwninists", not to mention the atheist "Darwinists" who explicitly criticise the anti-religious comments of other "Atheist Darwinists" must all be lying.
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 12, 2005 @ 9:16 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
ElvenRanger,
Prove it! It is not logically inconsistent. I am willing to moderate my views in light of evidence. I do not see any evidence now. The prior is dependent on the latter.
First I was not referring to theistic Darwinists. You might have missed the word "Atheistic". Second, just because someone claims to be Christian it doesn't make him or her one. It would be equivalent of someone claiming to be an atheist who believes in God and proclaim indignation when they are accused of not being a true atheist. Third, lying is the term that you've used here. Fourth, it is apparent to true Christians and not just me that Atheistic Darwinism is anti-religious. Why else would we have 6000 years of history believing God created the world instead of some cosmic accident? You don't have to believe that or accept it. That is your prerogative but what gives you the right to mock me, and 6000 years of history that I am wrong about my faith. You are free to start your own religion but don't pretend to believe in mine and force it down my throat.
Comment by teleologist — August 12, 2005 @ 10:22 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
The odd thing is, before Mike had written this call for criticism, Jason Rosenhouse had done exactly that. Earlier in the week, Ruse once again argued that there is no contradiction between neodarwinism and religion, and that militant atheists who purport evolution to be evidence for their view ought to be corrected. Ruse followed that up by, later in the week, publicly criticising Dawkins on radio for his adversorial approach to religion (see above).
So, Mike, do you consider your question answered? Or will you follow the creationists in simply ignoring this dispute between evolutionists, or like Phillip Johnson, pass it of as a dissembling tactical ploy?
That is a fairly tenuos inference there. Do you wish to generalise it? Does anytime some creationist launches with a particulary crude version of the argument for design, or a particularly laughable strawman of neodarwinism, should we blame that on their having been misled by some "ID fundamentalist" Or do you only accept this inference as valid when directed against neodarwinians?
Would you be more inclined to accept the inference regarding "ID fundamentalists" once you learned that Senior Discovery Institute Fellows were saying"
and
So, Mike, should we sheet home the manifold misunderstandings of Darwinism to the DI's door?
(Of topic, I know, so don't bothering answering if you don't want to, but:
given the quotes above, is this the account of neodarwinism that should be given to school children so that we can "teach the controversy"
And do we need the immediate triumph of the DI to stop NASA wasting money on that probe to Venus in search of proteins?)
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 12, 2005 @ 10:50 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Point well-taken ElevenRanger:
I should not have categorized the quotes as Darwinism=atheism. This wasn't an attempt to say that Darwinism is exactly synonymous with atheism, but rather, to categorize the quotations under one heading. I wanted a short-hand way to denote them and this was not well-thought out; I should have gone with Darwinism/atheism instead. I'm sure you will notice that I also provided a quotation from Dawkins on the relative theism/atheism of cosmologists versus biologists. Given this, and reading in context, and with the foreknowledge that this thread opened with Ken Miller, it is obvious that the quotes were not issued as citations that Darwinism is exactly interchangeable with atheism.
As to your other points, I am not the expert on quote-mining that those who make the accusation are, but I don't believe this would be a good example.
First, I wouldn't expect quote-miners to provide the audio context of the entire interview for evaluating the quote.
Second, and I might be wrong, but quote-mining should also imply improper or misleading use of the quote. Only the most disingenuous of debaters would pretend that Dawkins means anything less than "We would be a lot better off without religion." or that he has not said much more on other occasions.
These quotes do nothing to misrepresent his (nor Ruse's, for that matter) positions and probably would do nothing to expand on the body of his previous statements.
I believe that Dawkins' statements "We would be a lot better off without religion" and "stone-age mentality" are exactly what he meant to say in exactly the way he meant to say them. His well-crafted "stoneage" punchline was not an off-the-cuff faux pas, nor was it teased out of him by a leading interviewer.
I don't distinguish the "stone-age mentality" line as being any less anti-religious just because YEC is out of vogue.
As such, I offered them to Joy as "anti-religious pronouncements".
As for Ruse, including his quote "You have "¦ a great many Darwinians who are not only pushing their science but also are pushing a religious agenda, I think, under the name of the science." could hardly be taken as "ignoring" him. This is not citing him as saying that Darwinism=atheism, but rather, is citing him as saying exactly what he is saying and is completely consistent with the point of this thread – "What we have seen recently are more examples of scientists using evolution to argue for atheism."
Prefacing it with his own claim to atheism only underscores the fact that this is not some wild-eyed, quote-mining creationist making this outrageous claim.
I think you may have read too much into this post because of my careless use of "Darwinism=atheism", but these quotes are accurate and illustrate the point of the thread and subsequent posts. These men said what they said, they meant what they said, and to claim otherwise would not be honest.
Whoever finally compiles the list of anti-religious statements can determine whether or not they qualify.
ElevenRanger: "Apparently, in DsP's opinion, to even mention your atheism is to attack religion,"
And no, I don't believe that holding one view is an attack on another. I don't think this conclusion was well-supported by the evidence at all.
Comment by DsP — August 12, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
Tell me when you've finished reading.
You wrote "Darwinians will swear up and down that they are not antireligious". Now that might mean all Darwinians, in which case your general claim is patently false. Many Darwinians will swear up and down that they are not antireligious, but that is because they are not antireligious. It might mean only those Darwinians who are atheists, but many of those (myself included) will swear up and down that they are not antireligious because they are not antireligious. Ruse is an example of an atheist neodarwinian who has written a book explicitly arguing that neodarwinism is compatible with Christianity. Perhaps you mean by "Atheistic Darwinists" not just all neodarwinists who happen to be atheists but only those who are viruntly antireligious. Well, yes then they are antirelgious – but they will also not swear that they are not antireligious.
This is called the conventionalist strategy by Popper. If you find a counterexample to your claim, just redefine your words so that it is no longer a counterexample. It is a gauranteed method to insure your beliefs are not evidence based.
Lying was the activity you clearly imputed to the "Atheistic Evolutionists" who apparently would "swear up and down that they were not antireligious". Imputing the action is objectionable – refusing to use the word so as to maintain plausible deniability is more so.
Again with the conventionalist strategy. Robert Bakker is a "true Christian", or at least a practising Pentecostal minister, who finds nothing wrong or atheistic about neodarwinism. Simon Conway Morris is a "true Christian", or at least a practising Evangelical Anglican, who finds nothing wrong or atheistic about neodarwinism. Kenneth Miller is a "true Christian", or at least a practising Catholic, who finds nothing wrong or atheistic about neodarwinism. But rather than deal with these facts, apparently you would rather reject as Christian anyone who accepts neodarwinism on that basis alone.
In one of your links, you quote Kenneth Miller (the devout Catholic) in order to prove that neodarwinism is necessarily atheistic. Apparently it never occurs to you to try and understand how Miller can be both a devout Catholic and a neodarwinian without intellectual dissonance.
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 12, 2005 @ 11:16 pm
August 12th, 2005 at 11:53 pm
DsP, as I understand Mikes complaint, he has a problem with neodarwinians arguing that neodarwinism is evidence for atheism. That Dawkins, or Ruse, is an atheist is irrelevant to that point. That Dawkins can be obnoxious in his ever so genteel oxbridge accent is also beside the point. In the context, and given that you described the quotes as "atheism=darwinism" quotes, I think my interpretation was well in order.
However, I am willing to accept that we have a miscommunication, and that you were not misquoting. But, you would be wrong to name the list as "atheism/darwinism" quotes. That is because the only evidentiary conection between atheism and neodarwinism is that neodarwinism provides no explicit suport for theism. In fact, it provides no direct evidence for either atheism or theism.
In fact, even the arch-atheist, Dawkins, agrees with this. Despite his virulent, I would say irrational, dislike of religion, he does not say that "Darwin made it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled theist", but only that he made it "possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." That is, he does not say that neodarwinism makes Christianity irrational, but only that atheism can be rational given that darwinism is true, but that it could not be if it were not. (That many Christians find even the existance of atheist an intolerable intellectual affront is shown by the common reaction to that quote, which reads it as teaching atheism (it doesn't) and attacking theism (which again, it does not).) And when given opportunity, even Dawkins says that evolution and Christianity are compatible, and reffers interested people to a sincere believer to understand the relationship.
An atheism/evolution quote list that picked up on Dawkins atheism but failed to note the full story, nor the story of the many atheist and agnostic neodarwinians who find no conflict with religion, or automatic harm from religion, nor the many theist neodarwinians, would be selectively using evidence to argue to a false proposition – that evolution and theism are implacably opposed.
Comment by ElvenRanger — August 12, 2005 @ 11:53 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 12:34 am
ElevenRanger.
Good enough for me.
I myself have long cited the fact that the majority of scientists (at least in America) are theists.
A few quotes from the atheists doesn't spoil that for me.
Best regards.
Comment by DsP — August 13, 2005 @ 12:34 am
August 13th, 2005 at 7:08 am
I agree talkorigins.org is a propaganda machine,but that have no relevance to my statement. I ask again, prove how does believing my last sentence is overwhelming proof that the second sentence is false.
You got me there. I've only used the term "Atheistic" in all 3 of the sentences before that. I guess I forgot. I tend to use the 2 synonymously. When I say Darwinians I really mean Atheistic Darwinian. For me Darwinian is not the same as theistic Darwinist or IDists who accepts evolution. Thanks for helping me to clarify that point.
Where have I redefine my words and what words am I alleged to have redefined?
Lying is a difficult thing to prove. You do believe in proofs even if not for Darwinism, do you not? I can't read the minds of Atheistic Darwinists, so I do not know if they are knowingly trying to convey a falsehood. Your accusation of my intention to maintain "plausible deniability" is wrong, unless Darwinists have evolved to read minds. Lastly, wouldn't Ruse and Miller swear up and down that Darwinism is not anti-religious? And yet it is Creationism's Trojan Horse from Darwinists.
As to the phrase "swear up and down", I admit it may not physically accurate because I doubt Darwinists will swear based on a deity. It was never the less an accurate metaphor to describe the reactions of Darwinists. I know of no Darwinist who has actually come out and said that Darwinian evolution is anti-religious have you? For sure atheists like Dawkins have said that to accept Darwinian evolution eliminates the need for a deity. However, I don't think even he has said that Darwinian evolution is anti-religious. My guess is that in his mind he truly believes Darwinian evolution is science and therefore it is neutral to the questions of metaphysics. Unfortunately, his actions and words are contrary to this intellectually neutral position. People like him frequently make anti-religious comments and support there position by erecting Darwinism as the foundation.
Do you know the tenets of historic Christianity? Do you know what Christians have believed throughout the Centuries? And why they believe what they believe? It would take too long and pointless with someone like you to educate you on the fine points of historic Christianity. The bottom-line is that it doesn't matter what anyone claims to be. The people that you've named can claim whatever they want the fact does not change Darwinism is antithetical to historic Christianity. Is it fair for someone claiming to be Christian and hold tenets that are different than the majority of Christians now and in history? And is it fair for this minority to force the majority to accept their tenets when it is diametrically opposite of the views of the majority? Again let me go back to my example, which you conveniently ignored. Would it be fair for someone claiming to be an atheist and insist that belief in God is perfectly congruent with Atheism?
How do you know that it never occurred to me to try to understand how Miller can synthesize his 2 beliefs? Have you seen much of my writings outside of this blog? Do you know me personally/professionally? Or is this the Darwinian scientific method of arriving at facts? Hint: Your accusation of what has or has not occurred to me is dead wrong.
Comment by teleologist — August 13, 2005 @ 7:08 am
August 13th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Elven:
I didn't wonder if some critic would blog about this – I was wondering whether a scientific or anti-ID organization would weigh in. And Weisberg did not single out Ruse; he singled out Miller.
Let's see. I must a) consider my question answered or b) following the footsteps of creationists or c) follow in Johnson's footsteps. Yet the answer is d) none of the above. I was wondering about scientific or anti-ID organizations and Ken Miller (since he was targeted). You chose to ignore what I wrote to set up your trap "“ that's strike 1.
Perhaps. Look, Weisberg either came up with his "evolution is antireligion" position all on his own or he was influenced by the writings of others. I think the latter explanation is the stronger one, given that a) this doesn't seem to be a topic he spends much time writing about; b) he loves Dennett's book, suggesting he has read other Dennett-like books and c) he sounds much like a Dawkins clone. Then again, maybe we can simply blame his misunderstandings on his education.
You have it backwards. Critics have been blaming "ID fundamentalist" organizations for years, even to the point where such organizations are said to be "spreading lies." We've all seen it. Thus, in reality, you need to turn your attack around. I would assume you would be willing to blame ID fundamentalist for spreading misinformation, so why won't you consider the source of Weisberg's erroneous views published in nothing less that Slate?
First of all, Mike was not complaining. Mike was further illustrating Miller's point. That's strike 2. Secondly, I don't have "a problem with neodarwinians arguing that neodarwinism is evidence for atheism." I was illustrating Miller's point with some current examples. Strike 3.
3 strikes "“ you are banned from this thread.
Michael Ruse does agree with Miller's point and we should explore this in more depth at a later time. It is an important point, as many of the loudest complainers about ID Movement have actually helped to create the conditions that spawned The ID Movement.
Another interesting tangent is the way many leading or outspoken atheists are admitting that science/evolution/neodarwinism is not evidence for their atheism. More voices, from both sides of the aisle, are acknowledging that atheism is more like a "personal metaphysics" (as one of our critics described Dawkins) supported by "common sense." Everyone has their "common sense." For some, it means theism. For others, it means atheism. Interesting.
Comment by MikeGene — August 13, 2005 @ 8:44 am
August 13th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Mike Green said:
"""Another interesting tangent is the way many leading or outspoken atheists are admitting that science/evolution/neodarwinism is not evidence for their atheism. More voices, from both sides of the aisle, are acknowledging that atheism is more like a "personal metaphysics" (as one of our critics described Dawkins) supported by "common sense." Everyone has their "common sense." For some, it means theism. For others, it means atheism. Interesting."""
This is a great paragraph, well worth remembering.
Comment by DsP — August 13, 2005 @ 11:25 am
August 13th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
Mike,
Your points actually have some degree of agreement from, of all people, Nick Matzke of Pandas Thumb and the NCSE!
Julian Sanchez has it wrong
In fact he publicly disagrees with another PT person on the issue.
Regarding the effect atheims has in affecting public opinion, see this interesting article (courtesy Jason Rosenhouse) by an atheist lashing out on the everyone except other atheists Politics of Ignorance
LOL! Now Ken Miller is part of the problem!
Indeed, the title of this thread is "Atheist Speak Out", and indeed they are speaking out. They seem for the first time, openly criticizing thesitic leaning evolutionists. I think this is a healthy thing. Everyone is coming to the table with both their scientific claims as well as their personal beliefs.
Contrary to perception, I'm deeply sympathetic to many atheists. I have athiest friends. Some atheists I appreciate, some I don't. For example Michael Denton and Frank Tipler have strong atheistic leanings, but I respect them as scientists and as people.
But as "Atheist speak out" they will not endear themselves to the rest of the American poplulation, but only cause themselves more alienation.
Wedgies on the other hand, are delighted to egg atheists on to keep speaking out. Atheists comments energize the Wedgies. Whether all these developments help the advance of ID is another story.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 5:14 pm
August 13th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
Apparently a minor skirmish has erupted at Pandas Thumb. The Atheist are speaking out indeed. I think the swipes at Ken Miller were a bit too much to take by those sympathetic to theistic evolutionists.
Matzke reponds to Sandfeur and Sanchez
Timothy Sandfeur Responds to Matzke
I must say, these skirmishes remind me of athletic teams that suffer a losing season. Lot's of finger pointing and bickering going on. The winning teams on the other hand are just patting each other on the back and over looking each other's disagreements.
It is my belief the atheists are the most threatened should ID advance. Among the theistic evolutionists (TE), though a few TEs despise IDists and creationists, many more would gladly jump ship, especially among the young.
The Ken Miller's of the world, the theistic evolutionists in the biological sciences with reputations at stake will be the handful theistic evolutionists who feel they have something to lose should ID become the dominant paradigm. But for TEs in other fields, though perhaps unhappy, they can live with ID becoming the dominant paradigm. At least in the general population, it effectively is already the dominant paradigm.
It's obvious to the atheists, (and again I confess I have some dear atheist friends, so no slight on atheists personally), will be on the brink of intellectually extinction if ID becomes the dominant paradigm.
The atheists are speaking out for a reason. They are willing to bicker. They feel marginalized by society more so than ever. They will pull the stops out. I deeply sympathize with some of my atheist friends, but Antony Flew's conversion may indeed signal The Twilight of Atheism. This is further worrisome to the atheists since Flew's conversion was tied to ID!
It remains to be seen if we are indeed witnessing the Twilight of Atheism, but I can't help but sense, the atheists think so as well. Their "speaking out" is evidence of this.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 13, 2005 @ 10:52 pm
August 23rd, 2005 at 12:25 pm
For a few more thoughts on this issue, check out today's New York Times.
I won't bother to quote mine, but don't be surprised if your see Dawkins' again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08...
Comment by DsP — August 23, 2005 @ 12:25 pm