I scan the media as part of my job. The current anti-theist campaign is global in nature. I scan the BBC, the Chinese news service and others. It is all linked and reinforcing. The recent campaign in the US to put up billboards that read: Praise Darwin. Evolve beyond belief, is further evidence.
Dear media scanner, I don’t mean to sound cynical, but all of this seems silly to me because, while having some truth to it, your views ignore many things of importance. Here are my pros and cons on this matter.
I think it was Dawkins who said Darwinism made it respectable for one to be an atheist. And Julian Huxley made a comment to the effect that the first benefit of Darwinism is that it liberated society from the constraints of sexual morals. (That is not an exact quote. I can find the text if anyone wants it.)
I agree that there has been and still is a concerted effort to promote Darwinism, uncritically, almost as an indoctrination. In the words of Stephen J. Gould, “We taught catechism.” That bit of honesty says it all. And I don’t think it is to the point you are concerned with for anyone to say that evolution theory has advanced beyond Darwin. Of course it has. The point here, though, is that neo-Darwinians in fact taught catechism. That should be totally unacceptable in the scientific arena. Teaching catechism is only justified in religion.
Darwinians actually give too much credit to Darwin. Darwin was certainly a brilliant naturalist and first rate investigator of nature. One of my favorite books is Darwin’s
Voyage of the Beagle. But
Voyage of the Beagle was Darwin before he became a Darwinian.
There is little to nothing in Darwin’s theories (plural) of evolution that is original. Nonetheles, Darwin claimed as his one and only point of originality to be the concept of “natural selection”. However, this was not honest. Darwin acquired the idea of natural selection from Edward Blythe. Darwin made written notes on Blythe’s publication on natural selection. Darwin’s phraseology about NS is eerily too close to Blythe’s publication on NS to be coincidental.
Loren Eiseley unveils the whole sordid story in
Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X. The only shortcoming of the book is that Eiseley acts as an apologist for Darwin and tries to explain how Darwin forgot where he learned about NS.
Still, in knowledge of these facts, the secular hagiographers, the gatekeepers of Darwinism, endeavor to make sure Darwin is viewed as the originator of NS theory. Their rationale, which I won’t present here, is lame.
Yet Darwin deserves immense credit for amassing scientific evidence, the best available in his day, to support his theories. Darwin’s errors, in my estimation, involved his over-extension of evolution theory to include man’s existence as totally a product of evolution. Also, Darwin interpreted all of nature, as well as man himself, through a materialist perspective.
Despite the errors of Darwin’s philosophical materialism, there is no justification for claiming that everything Darwin said is of no scientific value. In fact, Darwin has contributed immensely to our understanding of how nature works. That is almost a quote from Cardinal Schonborn.
Other than the justified criticism of Darwinian materialism and its profoundly adverse effects on culture, I can see no justification whatsoever for a total discounting of Darwinian science. Sure it has flaws, but evolution theory is revised as new evidence and new understanding of evidence is acquired.
I see no merit in debunking Darwinian science. It will go nowhere. Challenging Darwinian ideology is a different matter. However, you ID folks lump everything together, science an ideology, and as a consequence put forth arguments that only appear confused to me. (No disrespect intended. I’m just being honest about my reaction.)
The ID tact hasn’t work, and I don’t see how it can work, because it is ill-advised. You really need to focus on Darwinian ideology and show its philosophical shortcomings. But you can’t do that as of yet because you can’t seem to distinguish the good science from the ideology.
Hence, you will be going round in circles like this until the end of time (That’s my unofficial prophecy). As far as ideology is valuated, ID theory is closer to the truth than is Darwinian ideology. However, ID theory, as I have frequently stated, is philosophically confused. Only the sound philosophical position of classical philosophy, the
philosophia perennis, can disprove Darwinian ideology. Other than that, any continued opposition to evolution on a scientific level is fruitless.
I have noted that you ID supporters on CAF have continually refused to answer my question as to why Cardinal Schonborn disassociates himself from ID theory, and why do not Thomists, in general, support ID theory. Thomists clearly support the obvious realityof design, with a
philosophical analysis, but like Dubay, they do not align themselves with creation science or ID-ology and how it explains design in nature. Still, Dubay is perceptive to certain inadequacies of current Darwinian science, which I can’t discuss here.
Oftentimes, when I think about the status if ID theorists critique of evolution science, what comes to mind is a line from the movie “Gladiator”: “A people should know when they are defeated.” The only way for ID theorists to succeed it to challenge Darwinian
ideology on genuine philosophical grounds, which so far appears to be unfamiliar territory for ID theorists.
An interesting article for your consideration:
Thomas Aquinas vs. The Intelligent Designers: What is God’s Finger Doing in My Pre-Biotic Soup?
Well, that’s the end of my ramble…for now.
Peace in Christ.
