My starting point is a reference from the book by Foster/Clark/ York, mentioned in the introduction to this series (1). They mention a court case in 1987 about a dispute about the teaching of evolution, Edwards v. Aguillard, during which “a group of scientists, including Nobel laureates, submitted a brief… (which) pointed out that science is devoted to investigating natural phenomena and providing naturalistic explanations. In other words, a commitment to materialism is at the foundation of science” (p12).

    The authors seem to take some delight in this. It should be blindingly obvious, however, that the only thing that science should be devoted to is the search for truth, not a philosophical worldview.

    It is easy to understand, from a scientific viewpoint, why materialism is desirable. In order to conduct experiments, scientists have to assume that they are in control of all the variables; how could they proceed if some uncontrollable supernatural or paranormal elements were involved? Science has therefore to assume that these ingredients do not exist. Because this viewpoint is desirable, however, does not mean that it is true. If science is committed to a false worldview, then that is a serious problem for science to consider, not something that should be inflicted upon society.

    The ludicrous extent to which this train of thought can lead has been provided by Richard Lewontin, a Harvard professor no less: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs… in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism… Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” (2). How can an intelligent person say this and expect others to take him seriously?

    It is presumably statements like this which led the U. C. Berkeley philosopher John Searle to write: “There is a sense in which materialism is the religion of our time, at least among most of the professional experts in the fields of philosophy, psychology, cognitive science, and other disciplines that study the mind. Like more traditional religions, it is accepted without question and it provides the framework within which other questions can be posed, addressed and answered” (3).

    We can argue therefore, in the language of Richard Dawkins, that the meme of materialism, which is a thin disguise for atheism, has infected the minds of many modern-day academics. An unpleasant mental illness is trying to take over society and culture.

    Now, if you are committed in principle to materialist explanations, then it is obvious that this is what you will find, whether or not they are credible. Charles Darwin was a dedicated materialist, as revealed in some of his notebooks. There had been earlier theories of evolution “softened by a reliance of vital forces, organic striving, teleology and the like”. However, “Darwin’s theory was distinguished from all the others by its unremitting materialism”. He was a forerunner of modern neuroscientists and materialists, arguing “that the mind was nothing but a special configuration of matter” (4).

 

 

And he has been honoured with a statue at the Natural History Museum, where he can indoctrinate young children. What a sad state of affairs!

 

 

 

 

    As Tom Bethell points out, “if full-blown materialism is true, then Darwin’s theory of common descent must also be true”. Since complex organisms exist, “atoms and molecules in motion must have somehow whirled themselves into the far more complex structures that we see around us” with all the intermediate stages. Even natural selection is therefore unnecessary. Once this is taken as a given, “the true-believing materialist no longer needs to study evolution in any detail”. Any inconvenient anomalies can therefore be swept under the carpet; “Darwinism becomes little more than a deduction from a philosophy. The science is redundant” (5). It is obviously for reasons like this that philosopher Mary Midgley wrote a book called Evolution as a Religion (6).

    Darwinian evolution is one of the cornerstones of the religion of atheism. As Richard Dawkins, with refreshing honesty, has said: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (7). The relevant question, which Dawkins failed to notice, is, why is he so determined to commit himself to a philosophical position which might be a lie? Perhaps it would be a better use of his time to try to understand why he is so desperate to be an atheist. I would recommend a course of psychoanalysis, rather than trying to convert others to his problems.

    A form of Christian Fundamentalism, with a belief in the literal truth of the Bible, was the dominant worldview in Victorian Britain. A well-known laughable example is the calculation, made by James Ussher, of the age of the Earth, based upon the ages of the patriarchs in the Old Testament, that creation happened on October 23, 4004 BC. Since this is something easily refuted by geology, this was an occasion when science had to win. It is reasonable to claim, therefore, that at that time Darwinism, as part of a developing scientific worldview, was necessary in order to move forward and make progress. It is important, however, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We have now reached the point when a new revolution is necessary in order to overthrow Darwinism.

 

Bibliography:

Tom Bethell: Darwin’s House of Cards, Discovery Institute, 2017, chapter 14, Darwin and the Philosophy of Materialism

 

Footnotes:

(1) John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York, Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism From Antiquity to the Present, Monthly Review Press, 2008

(2) Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, 1997

(3) Naturalism, Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008, p9, quoted in Bethell, p167

(4) Bethell, p163

(5) ibid. p167

(6) Routledge, 2002, as mentioned in the Introduction to this series

(7) The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin, 1988, p6

 

 

 

    This is the first in a series of posts on this theme, following on from the introduction. They will be fairly random, whatever comes to mind at the time, based upon a reading of the five books mentioned there. Before I launch into that, however, here are a few preliminary observations:

• The three options in the title are not the only ones available. Creationism and Intelligent Design are usually associated with Christianity. There are also spiritual perspectives from other traditions to consider — Hinduism, Buddhism, Qabalah, and various esoteric systems.
• Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing (the most obvious evidence is that advocates of ID criticise Creationists). Do not let atheist scientists tell you otherwise. They lump them together, saying that ID is Creationism in disguise. This is because both schools of thought believe in a supernatural intelligence, an idea that materialists want to discredit. However, Creationism is a theological worldview based upon a literal reading of the Bible, whereas the best quality Intelligent Design arguments are scientifically based, even if their advocates may be Christians or come from other spiritual traditions. They do not speculate about the nature of the designer, which remains an open question.
• The word evolution is often misused. It should mean merely change over time, perhaps with the implication of progress towards higher, more complex forms. However, it is often used when Darwinian evolution is what is meant. This enables materialist scientists to call those who oppose Darwinism evolution-deniers. Even worse, the outrageous Richard Dawkins has called them history-deniers, trying to insist that Darwinian evolution theory is a historical fact. At the same time he is quite deliberately, disgracefully, and mistakenly, trying to establish a connection in the reader’s mind between critics of Darwinian evolution and holocaust-deniers, the real history-deniers (1). It is quite possible to believe in evolution, while rejecting Darwinism. Thus Stephen Talbott, a biologist I especially admire, is critical of both Darwinian theory and Intelligent Design (2).

• Regarding Intelligent Design, to state the obvious, it consists of two words. So the emphasis can fall on either. Its advocates stress the design element. That’s fine up to a point, but the problem is that this conjures up a picture of a specific supernatural deity, usually the Christian one, coming up with a plan, in the manner of a human creative artist, or scientific experimenter. Many people, for obvious reasons, find this idea hard to accept. I therefore think that it makes more sense to emphasise the intelligent element, which leaves the understanding of the process much more open. It is even possible to combine the two ideas, an initial idea (design) which grows and develops over time, an ongoing process of creative, intelligent evolution. This does not rule out some limited acceptance of Darwinian ideas as part of the total process, since some spiritually minded scientists , far more qualified than me, have found no reason to doubt it, e.g. Sir Alister Hardy, former Professor of Zoology at Oxford (3). I do find his position difficult to understand, however.

• Darwinism is atheism thinly disguised as science. That will be the subject of my next post. In advance of that, I’ll just point out that its later manifestation neo-Darwinism stresses the blind process of natural selection, random genetic mutation, and lack of purpose (teleology), in order to support a materialist, therefore atheistic, explanation for the universe.

======================================================================================================

    I have written in the past about the many scientists and philosophers critical of Darwinism. If interested, please click here and here.

 

Footnotes:

(1) In The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, he says “The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.” This, quite rightly, provoked a strong response: “Is that some sort of cruel joke? The evidence for Darwin’s account of evolution and, more so, its controversial mechanism of natural selection is a matter of inference, no matter how strong you think the inference is. The evidence for the Holocaust includes countless eye-witness accounts — a very different and superior order of evidence”. https://evolutionnews.org/2009/09/richard_dawkinss_jewish_proble/

(2) You can check him out at http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/stephen-talbott

(3) See, for example, Darwin and the Spirit of Man, Collins, 1984

 

    I was up in Cambridge recently. Every time I go there, I always try to pop into the Amnesty International second-hand bookshop; they usually have something there of interest. On this occasion, very close to each other on the shelves of the Religion section (an interesting placement!), I found:

• Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, by Douglas Axe (1)
• Critique of Intelligent Design: Materialism versus Creationism From Antiquity to the Present, by John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York (2)
• Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander (3)
• Evolution as a Religion, by Mary Midgley (4)
• Essays of a Humanist, by Julian Huxley (5)

    The combination seemed very tempting, and so I bought them all, hoping to get deeper into this very interesting debate. It has since occurred to me that I could use them as a source of brief articles for Medium, offering a few random thoughts.

    Here are a few notes on these texts:

    Douglas Axe is associated with the Discovery Institute, which is a leading organisation in the Intelligent Design movement. (I have subscribed to their website’s articles for several years.)

    The back cover of the second book says that it is “a key to understanding the forces of irrationalism challenging the teaching of evolution in the United States and seeking to undermine the natural and social sciences. This book offers empowering tools to understand and defend critical and scientific reasoning in both the natural and social sciences and society as a whole”. (I’ll reserve comment on that until later, but I hope readers are already thinking some of the things I intend to say.)

    The third book is an attempt to reconcile Creation and Evolution from a Christian perspective. From where I stand, this makes it somewhat limited spiritually. I’ll be hoping to expand upon its thinking.

    The author of the fourth book is a distinguished, professional philosopher. Critics of Darwinian theories of evolution often say that it has become the new religion of science, that is to say, a belief system relying upon faith rather than evidence. Here is a powerful advocate for this point of view.

    Humanism is not exactly the same as Darwinism, but Huxley is a committed Darwinist, and uses it as the basis for his philosophy. The two ideas are often connected.

    A lot of material for an interesting debate. Watch this space!

 

    Footnotes:

(1) HarperOne, 2016

(2) Monthly Review Press, 2008

(3) Monarch Books, 2008

(4) Routledge, 2002

(5) Pelican, 1966