All critics of Darwin are raving lunatics, fundamentalist Creationists or Right-wing zealots...
...or so many people are led to believe.
But is this actually true? Jerry Fodor, professor of philosophy and cognitive sciences at Rutgers University, and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Arizona, are living proof that this is a false stereotype. Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini, both atheist, co-authored the book "What Darwin God Wrong" and were recently interviewed about it. The following excerpt is particularly interesting:
Do you think people are defending Darwinism because they think any attack on Darwinism gives power to creationists, and they don't want creationists to get the upper hand?
I think there’s the sense that if you think that there’s something wrong with the theory you’re giving aid and comfort to intelligent design people. And people do feel very strongly about whether you want to do that.
When you do science, you try to find the truth. The problem with creationism, even if you’re not a hardcore atheist, as I am, is that anything is compatible with creationism. If God created the world, he could have created it any way he liked. So creationists, when faced with evidence of evolution, are happy to say that that’s the way God created the world. If it turns out that there is no process of evolution, they’d say OK, that’s fine too. Whatever turns out to be the case it’s compatible with God having created the world, so you can’t argue with their position or you throw your shoulders out.
As you explain in the book, one of the problems with Darwinism is that Darwin is inventing explanations for something that happened long ago, over a long period of time. Isn’t that similar to creationism?
Creationism isn't the only doctrine that’s heavily into post-hoc explanation. Darwinism is too. If a creature develops the capacity to spin a web, you could tell a story of why spinning a web was good in the context of evolution. That is why you should be as suspicious of Darwinism as of creationism. They have spurious consequence in common. And that should be enough to make you worry about either account.
Naturally, such critiques of Darwinian evolutionary accounts have been met with strong opposition. When asked why they think this to be the case Fodor responded:
It’s a theory that’s played all sort of roles in the foundations of biology. There’s a lot of people who think wrongly that if you didn’t have Darwinism the whole foundations of modern biology would collapse. I doubt that’s true. I’m sure it’s not. But if you tell people, "There’s this fundamental theoretical commitment you’ve made and there’s holes in it," they’ll want very much to defend that theory.
Comments
Indeed Mr. Fodor is a rare individual; an atheist who doesn't support Darwin. If the "Ripe Olive Tree" prophecies are currently being fulfilled, we will all know the truth shortly.
Not that all atheists agree on everything but, how exactly do you know these guys are atheists? I see it asserted in your column and by the interviewer you use as a source, but the interviewees don't confirm it and I can't find it stated in the biographical information on them that I found online.
The fact that two guys are atheists doesn't qualify them as experts in evolutionary biology. They're not. Nor, as far as I can tell from reviews (no I haven't read the book, and frankly don't intend to since, so far, I haven't seen any value to it as reported) what they get right isn't new or significant and they get a lot wrong.
You might read : /bostonreview.net/BR35.2/block_kitcher.php
continued for space...
"Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are not biologists. Fodor is a leading philosopher of mind and cognitive scientist, best known for his ideas about the modularity of mind and language of thought; Piattelli-Palmarini is a cognitive scientist. They do not have new data, new theory, close acquaintance with the everyday practice of evolutionary investigations, or any interest in supplying alternative explanations of evolutionary phenomena. Instead, they wield philosophical tools to locate a “conceptual fault line” in contemporary Darwinism. Apparently unshaken by withering criticism of Fodor’s earlier writings about evolutionary theory, they write with complete assurance, confident that their limited understanding of biology suffices for their critical purpose. The resulting argument is doubly flawed: it is biologically irrelevant and philosophically confused. We start with the biology."
The reviewers are quite prominent in their fields.
Everyone familiar with the field of inquiry knows that Darwin got things wrong, and didn't have available much of the factual data we have now. He didn't know about genes. But he came up with a very powerful idea. For that he deserves credit.
A shorter and more acid review may be found here:
/scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/fodor_and_piattelli-palmarini.php and additional points scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/fodor_and_piattelli-palmarini.php
network.nature.com/people/boboh/blog/2010/02/07/jerry-fodor-fails-evolution-101-again
Of course, there are disagreements even among the disapproving reviewers, but that's the rough and tumble of inquiry and a refutation of the united atheist conspiracy theory.
Christian Scientists, Philosophers, and Theologians affirm Darwinism:
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences devoted its Plenary Session (2008) to the subject: 'Scientific Insights into the Evolution of the Universe and of Life'. The Plenum was attended by 45 members of the Academy and by 14 invited guests. Lectures were given by 23 members and 8 additional lectures were given by invited experts. Ample time was devoted to discussions.
Summary
?Christian De Duve
* The participants unanimously accepted as indisputable the affirmation that the Universe, as well as life within it, are the products of long evolutionary histories.
* It was generally admitted that all known living beings, including humans, descend from a single ancestral form of life that appeared on Earth several billion years ago.
* The theory [intelligent design] was rejected as intrinsically non-scientific.
These guys remind me of a lot of the undergrad philosophy students I come across at uni. Outspoken idiots who have highly opinionated views on fields they have absolutely no technical understanding of. But that doesn't matter! They possess a transcendant view on the fundamental fabric of knowledge and the human psyche and so they're fully qualified to spew this kind of rot, supposedly.
Certain groups of particularly bored, particularly stupid philosophers have been furious at Darwin for completely disregarding antique philosophical guidelines to knowledge ever since the very first edition of "On the Origin". Nothing new to see here, lets just move on.
The term is "evolution" - not "Darwinian evolution" - that headline alone marks the author as a anti-science crank. And continuing to invoke "Darwinism" in the article continues the demonstration that this is just another right-wing diatribe againse evolution.
At the same time, IDists falsely claim that evolution isn't allowed to be questioned, and that it exists in order to bolster atheism. Neither is true, and IDists ought to be ashamed of their falsehoods.
That said, Fodor and colleague merely bring up issues that are brought up constantly in evolutionary studies, and which slowly yield to research. The book is a projection of their misunderstandings, like anti-evolutionary works typically are.
Glen Davidson
tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
So neither are Biologists? And pretending that people think Darwin was 100% correct?
So basically it's Elton John on Jesus again. Pun intended.
At the same time, IDists falsely claim that evolution isn't allowed to be questioned, and that it exists in order to bolster atheism. Neither is true, and IDists ought to be ashamed of their falsehoods.
That said, Fodor and colleague merely bring up issues that are brought up constantly in evolutionary studies, and which slowly yield to research. The book is a projection of their misunderstandings, like anti-evolutionary works typically are.
Glen Davidson
tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
These guys have been taken down by actual biologists all over the internet. They are not biologists and they don't understand evolutionary theory - at least they don't understand any of it since Darwin wrote his book. Basically, they set up a strawman that evolution demands all traits must evolve completely independently. Then they refute that idea. But evolution doesn't require all traits to evolve independently - we know they don't. But, by marketing it as a book against "Darwinism" written by "atheists", they've guaranteed a large number of sales to fill a particular empty space on creationist bookshelves. Any house resting on a 6000-year-old Earth will be proud to own a copy. So the authors will cash in regardless of how misguided their arguments actually are.
Why is it that non-scientists (be it atheists, here, or ID proponents) always publish their ideas in books? Why can't they publish them in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Is it because they like to ask questions, but haven't done the research? Is it that their questions can't be answered by the scientific experimental method. Do they have other goals--i.e., financial compensation? Why is this?
To some who truly understands the biology (cellular & micro), chemistry, genetics, anatomy, geology, and paleontology of evolutionary theory, it's blatantly obvious that it has happened and continues to happen (much like the germ theory of disease or the theory of gravity; I don't think there's much question. It's no longer up for debate--hasn't been for awhile. However, within evolutionary theory, there are mechanisms and subplots being discussed everyday, getting scrutinized, and seeing where in the evolutionary puzzle it is that they fit. It is in these subtle details where perhaps Darwin "got it wrong" or speculated incorrectly or proposed a hypothesis or two within evolution that we can better explain today. But he hit the underlying process (an interconnected life gradually adapting over time via natural selection) right on the head. And he did it without knowledge of the gene or DNA or much of micro & cell biology. Not too shabby.
"Why is it that non-scientists (be it atheists, here, or ID proponents) always publish their ideas in books?"
Because it is a way of disseminating information one wants to a wider audience. After all, this exactly what Darwin himself did with "Origin"...and he caught a lot of flack for it in his day, did he not?
Your point seems to be that there are people who are utterly incompetent at understanding biology, and willing to make their incompetene publicly known, who are not right wing Christians. While true, that's not much of a point.
bostonreview.net/BR35.2/block_kitcher.php
"Misunderstanding Darwin
Natural selection’s secular critics get it wrong"
Ned Block and Philip Kitcher
James-Michael, the scientific community and infrastructure for reviewing scientific ideas has progressed 150 years since Darwin published "Origin". You're as guilty as Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini of arguing against a 150-year-old version of evolution and of science. If you want to introduce an idea that refutes something fundamental about a theory supported by the work of thousands of researchers, then you should probably introduce the idea to some of those researchers and consider their comments and criticisms before introducing it to the public. But as I said below - the goal of the authors appears to be much more about selling an "anti-Darwin book by atheists" rather than actually having an impact to modern evolutionary science.
Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini seem to be unaware that 'Intelligent Design' is not science; rather, it is a political strategy aimed at bamboozling naive school boards, legislators, and the Christ-cults own gullible and scientifically-ignorant constituency. The idea was hatched by a Christian 'think tank' known as the Discovery Institute, and written-up in a document titled the 'Wedge Strategy' (a.k.s. 'Wedge Document'), which was leaked on the internet. Just Google it, and read all about it.
>>> "First, God created idiots. This he did for practice. Then he invented school boards." ~ Mark Twain <<<
"Do you think people are defending Darwinism because they think any attack on Darwinism gives power to creationists, and they don't want creationists to get the upper hand?"
The question itself is invalid. Evolution doesn't need defending. It's either the truth or it's not. People who value evidence-based reasoning, however, object to creationists lying and pretending that they are also evidence-based in their "reasoning."
It is theoretically possible for there to be a logical alternative to evolution that would explain the evidence, but critics never seem to provide actual evidence. It isn't a stereotype to say that all who reject evolution so far do so because it disagrees with their adopted mythology. The fact that this examiner is seizing on another isolated and questionable exception to the rule is saddening. Frankly, this article is shoddy workmanship.
As others here have already noted, neither of the authors is a biologist, and, from their comments reported here and elsewhere in reviews of their book that I've read, they know about as much about biology as I know about solid state physics. And considering that I'm a retired marketing executive, that means, who knows nothing about solid state physics, that means they know nothing about biology.
"It isn't a stereotype to say that all who reject evolution so far do so because it disagrees with their adopted mythology."
[insert facepalm graphic here]
Except the two atheists who wrote the book which is the subject of this article.
And people say it's just Darwin's critics who play the "lalala I'm not listening" game...
Actually James-Michael, Darwin and Wallace together presented Papers first to the Linnaean Society in 1858, Darwin's Book was a follow up to that, itself also just meant to be the introduction/abstract to an eventual much larger volume of work.
Perhaps you could share why you think anyone would care about what these two have to say about Biology/Evolution. I certainly don't understand how their Atheism (if they even are, you are the first I have seen to even bring it up) is relevant. Atheists aren't necessarily 'Evolutionists' and 'Evolutionists' aren't Atheists.
BathTub said: "Atheists aren't necessarily 'Evolutionists' and 'Evolutionists' aren't Atheists."
Ahh, but you'll find high correlation between people who praise Fodor's book, and people who believe that evolution=atheism.
Fortunately, the vast majority of Christians disagree with this, and accept the truth of natural evolution. Here, for example, are over 12,000 Christian clergy who believe "the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." They believe that "To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
www .butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm
Fodor and P-P aren't denying evolution, they're questioning the role of natural selection. Only the insane fringe denies that humans and other species evolved.
James-Michael writes: "All critics of Darwin are raving lunatics, fundamentalist Creationists or Right-wing zealots...
...or so many people are led to believe." [ellipses in the original]
So Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini come closest to being raving lunatics, per the characteristics you've posited. But I think Dawkins' descriptors are more accurate: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
From the comments of biologists I've read, non-biologists Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are in the "ignorant" category when it comes to biology. F 'n' P-P may exhibit some of the other characteristics as well, since they're not mutually exclusive.
Just because scientists used to be called "natural philosophers" doesn't mean modern day philosophers should be sticking their noses into nature.
Many of these comments are an exercise in missing the point. Matt, you think philosophers shouldn't "stick their nose into nature." Do you agree that scientists shouldn't therefore stick their nose into philosophy? Be consistent.
"Evolution" isn't in question. It's the DARWINIAN notion of mutation/selection as the mechanism for explaining all of life's evolutionary development that is in question. Such a notion, while a possible scenario theoretically, rests upon philosophical extrapolations of small-scale data into a universal metanarrative. This is what the authors seem to be questioning...and they are absolutely right for doing so. The Darwinian dogma of Dawkins' 'Blind Watchmaker' is philosophy in a cheap tuxedo (to borrow a famous anti-ID phrase!).
Evolution? Sure. DARWINIAN NATURALISTIC EVOLUTION VIA RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION? Not necessarily. Many commenters below seem unable to grasp this distinction in their desire to bash anyone who questions.
James you are specifically missing the point. You know why the modern science isn't called 'Darwinian'? Because no one, other than people deliberately out to misrepresent it, pretends that Darwin had 100% of the answer.
So putting on a Silly hat and dancing around singing 'Darwin was wrong, Darwin was wrong, Darwin was wrong', isn't news to any Biologist, it's just crying for attention.
Do you honestly think 'modern evolutionary synthesis' is the equivalent of 'Darwinism'?
"It's the DARWINIAN notion of mutation/selection as the mechanism for explaining all of life's evolutionary development that is in question."
Um... I don't recall much discussion of "mutation" in "Origin of the Species".
JMS - a little history lesson. Darwin knew nothing about genetics. Darwinian evolution talks only of "descent with modification". Darwin knew very little about the mechanics of variation. Only later did we learn that genetic mutation, symbiosis, chromosomal mutation, horizontal gene transfer, retroviral insertion, and other mechanisms could cause "variation". Not even Dawkins denies all of these are sources of variation.
The idea that "evolution happens purely through genetic mutation and natural selection" is a creationist strawman. Creationists made it up. So, JMS, you go right ahead and question it.
As for FnP-P - they're making assumptions about something they simply don't understand, as many biologists have pointed out.
Ah...curse those Creationists and their strawmen! They've managed to get every middle school, high school and undergrad biology class to adopt their silly stereotype of Mutation/Selection as the mechanism that drives evolution. They've even managed to get guys like Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins to write entire books that champion this mechanism with titles like "What Evolution Is" (Mayr) and "The Blind Watchmaker" (Dawkins).
Those Creationists...they're so crafty!!
;)
Biologists try to hide from the public their criticims of evoutionary theory. On that subject my book The End of Darwinism quotes no less an authority than Stephen J. Gould, who mentioned the cover-up in a magazine article.
Interesting reviews and dialog about Windchy's book.
www.amazon.com/review/R2N80V3ZITJFEH/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=7&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1CZLME5MEFNFQ#Mx1CZLME5MEFNFQ
The popularity of the unfounded myth that atheism and Darwinism were responsible for Nazism doesn't inspire confidence. Its clearly, unequivocally untrue and the documentation is there.
Al,
I would argue that while those two worldview components were not *sufficient* to account for Nazism, they were necessary to account for it. What I mean by that is you can't say "Hitler was a proponent of both Nietzsche and Darwin, therefore proponents of either of these figures are Nazis!" But you can say "Hitler's acceptance of the ideas of Nietzsche and Darwin shaped his ideology and allowed him to justify his atrocities in the minds of Nazis and their supporters." Of course, this doesn't prove anything either way, but I find it ironic when the very people who decry the role of religion in various religious atrocities throughout history are quick to try to distance irreligion from various irreligious atrocities throughout history. The "New Atheist" celebrity authors frequently serve as prime examples of such hypocrisy.
But perhaps this is another topic for another article... :)
J-M that sort of deliberate over simplification of Evolution is the whole point of.
And regarding Hitler, perhaps you could explain to us why Darwin's work was banned by the Nazi's in 1935?
Doh that should have been.
'The whole point of the issue being discussed.'
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!