Not This Again
Here we go again. I still don’t get it. I don’t understand the basic point.
Unlike many pro-evolution types, however, he agrees with creationists and intelligent-design advocates that evolution often operates as not just a scientific theory about species, but also as a worldview that competes with religion.
One: and? If evolution does ‘operate as’ a worldview that competes with religion – what of it? Why should the worldview of religion not be competed with? Because fundamentalists don’t like it, yes, I get that, but why else? Two, if evolution does provide a better (more coherent, more warranted, less full of holes) explanation of how we got here, then it does. Why is that not part of the science, and why is it to be frowned on? Other than because the fundamentalists don’t like it. We were just talking about not placating fundamentalists – in a different context, but it applies here too, I think.
Huxley, Ruse argues, felt he needed to build a rival “church” to defeat archaic Anglican and Christian beliefs, and put man, not God, at the center of life.Evolution became his “cornerstone.” With the help of philosopher Herbert Spencer, who extended “survival of the fittest” thinking to social theory, Huxley promoted evolutionary thinking as a worldview hostile to sacred religious truths.
And? Why not? There are no sacred religious truths, because they’re not true. Calling them sacred is just a way of declaring them off-limits. Well they can’t be off-limits. I know I’ve said this fourteen thousand times now, but – I’ll just say it again. Religious people don’t get to demand that other people believe (or defer to, or respect, or godalmighty teach) their sacred myths. They can believe whatever they like themselves, but they don’t get to force their beliefs on other people. (On the subject of respect for religion, Stuart told me about this Simon Blackburn pdf article yesterday. SB refuses to respect religion. Does a good job of it, too.)
Both books, however, undermine the notion that the evolution/creation dispute is simply hard science versus mushy religion. Simplistically, it may be, but not simply. As Ruse shows, it’s often more like secular religion versus non-secular religion, even if most of the “professional” science remains on the evolution side.
But that’s just crap. It’s just rhetoric. Evolution isn’t ‘secular religion’ because it isn’t religion. It may be used as an ideology by some people, but that’s not the same thing, and it is not, not, not useful to pretend it is the same thing.
George Johnson asks the pertinent Millean question in the NY Times.
So suppose there is a Great Intender, who mapped out the circuitry of living cells with the care an Intel engineer would bring to a new microchip. Where then did the creator come from? Was he created by another creator? Or did he evolve?
That’s what I’d like to know! And since those pesky creationists never answer, they need to go away and be quiet until they’ve figured it out.
Yeah, the hyper-religious like to lump evolutionary biology together with Social “Darwinism” and “scientific” racism, but there of course ain’t no necessary connection between the two. In fact, it is (ironically enough) usually certain right-wing Christian fundies (*cough* Southern Baptists *cough cough*) who subscribe to such outdated and pernicious “theories”.
But, hey, whatever. It’s a handy stick with which to beat those secular liberal “science-worshipping” types. So…hooray God and His sanctimonious minions, and boo soulless godless scientistic liberal types! Onward Xian soldiers!
Where did the Great Intender come from? It’s deep mystery, Ophelia. Deeeeeeep myssssstery.
What, aren’t you impressed yet? I must not be intoning that right.
See this at NYRB, which points out that Ruse assumes ‘evolutionism’ implies a belief in ‘progress’, and is thus ‘millennial’. There are good historical grounds for accusing many of the popularisers of Darwinism of thinking this way, but not of turning the accusation against science itself:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18363
See also this great passage, which sums up so much of what we’ve been debating:
“How then are we to explain the continued strength of the campaign against evolution? We can do no better than to listen to the Reverend Ron Carlson, a popular preacher, lecturer, and author. He presents to his audience two stories and asks them repeatedly whether it matters which one is true. In the secular story,
you are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach three and a half billion years ago. You are a mere grab-bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system… in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere.
By contrast, the Christian view is that
you are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation…. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind…. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that…He gave the life of His only Son that you might spend eternity with Him.[6]
What is at issue here is whether the experience of one’s family, social, and working life, with its share of angst, pain, fatigue, and failure, can provide meaning in the absence of a belief in an ordained higher purpose. The continued appeal of a story of a divine creation of human life is that it provides, for those for whom the ordinary experience of living does not, a seductive relief from what Eric Fromm called the Anxiety of Meaninglessness. The rest is commentary.”
‘seductive relief’, ah yes…. anything to stop the pain…
It’s slightly off-subject, but I note that Blackburn writes:
“It is hard to confess, but I enjoy religious music…”
I’m puzzled why Blackburn finds this “hard” to acknowledge. I’m an atheist but have not the least problem is saying that I think Bach’s Matthew Passion is one of the glories of Western music. [And this would be the case even if I understood the words. -:)] What’s the problem? I also enjoy Gregorian Chant immensely (given performers I like).
And even the comments are back. Damn, you’re good.
All the webmaster’s doing.
He’s had to waste 8 hours on this so far.
Bastards!
The comment that made the previous comment make sense apparently went astray.
Science as a competing worldview with religion? That happened the first time someone noticed that rabbits are not ruminants and insects are not quadrupeds. And probably got lynched for it, ‘He counted the legs! Stone him’.
If religious types feel that secularists such as Huxley (and I love that he still bugs them) and Dawkins argue aggressively then maybe they should try a little history. Start with Hypatia and move on.
But if, as could be the case, Ruse et al are just trying to negotiate a truce, then fine. How about this as a deal; they get to argue their case in places of education, we get to argue ours in places of worship.
Warning stickers on biology texts? OK, we get our stickers on their books. ID taught in schools? Only if every sermon is followed by a critique by a biologist, physicist or cosmologist. You want a level playing field? We’ll kick your ass on a level playing field.
Not that I’m partisan.
Start even before Hypatia – start with Anaxagoras, who was shoved out of Athens for counting legs. Irreverent swine.
Thanks, checked him out on wikipedia;
‘Citizens of Lampsacus erected an altar to Mind and Truth in his memory’
Lampascus just got to be my favourite town.
(At least they didn’t tear him to pieces,)
“You want a level playing field? We’ll kick your ass on a level playing field.”
They don’t want a level playing field. They want affirmative action. Funny how they hate racial affirmative action but cry frantically for religious-ideological affirmative action. (Almost as funny as people who want tort “reform” AND encourage students to sue professors who criticize their beliefs.)
‘That’s what I’d like to know! And since those pesky creationists never answer, they need to go away and be quiet until they’ve figured it out.’
It’s intelligent designers all the way down!
Just so. Or in the other version: ‘What does the intelligent designer rest on?’ ‘Suppose we change the subject.’
“Funny how they hate racial affirmative action but cry frantically for religious-ideological affirmative action.”
That’s a dang good point. I’ll have to steal it. Along with the one about the opposite of secularism is not religion, it’s theocracy.
Pointmaker!
“Pointmaker!”
Ketamine is the key.