"Darwin is one of the great authors of modern thought," Zurich historian Philipp Sarasin said in a recent interview with the German weekly Die Zeit. "This modern age accepts nothing that is given, and no order derived from the divine."As I am continually compelled to point out, science and modern thought do indeed have an axiomatic foundation, which is outside the ability of materialism and empiricism to "prove". Yet these foundational principles are accepted as truth, and are absolutely necessary for rational thought to achieve linearity and coherence. These foundational principles are the FIRST PRINCIPLES.
For any scientist to claim that "nothing is accepted as given", is not just absurd. It reflects such an ignorance of the claimant at a magnitude such as to discredit all his subsequent statements - which would be based on the untruth of that premise.
Moreover, Darwin's contribution to modern thought is merely the inferential conclusion that philosophical materialism could be conceivable. However, using the same rationality that is prescribed by the First Principles, philosphical materialism is easily refuted. The conceivability of evolution, therefore, must be considered in that light. By declaring inferential extrapolations to be "science" defeats the claim of "no beliefs" in science/Atheism.
And the declaration that science is defined by Evolution is a category-error statement by biologists with physicist-envy.
A second fallacy repeated by the author is as follows:
"Their [Atheist] argument that organized religion has led to more hatred, death and suffering than faithlessness can be hard to refute."In light of the secular, Atheist murders of the 20th century by the Chinese, the Soviets, the Nazis, Pol Pot, etc., it is hard to believe that the above statement could be made in a reputable magazine. The toll of Deaths by Atheists is now above 250,000,000 in the 20th century alone.
But that is not the point of this article. Here is the point:
"Religious rites, which revolve around physical purity, predatory villains and hidden threats are presumably nothing more than an echo of the past millions of years."This reductio ad absurdum is used to bolster the faux science of evolution, and its claim to all truth at the expense of absolute moral truth. By reducing "religious" entities to primitive non-entities, the case for Atheism can stand erect.
Most outlandish of all is this claim:
"Besides, Boyer notes, religious thinking is 'the path of least resistance for our cognitive system.' Non-belief, writes Boyer, is usually the result of deliberate hard work against the natural disposition -- "not exactly an ideology that is easy to disseminate."There is actually no easier path to self-indulgence than making the simple decision that there is no deity. With no deity, there is no accountability, and it takes no heavy logic to get to that decision. Because self-indulgence is the actual "natural disposition" there would be much more cause to think that Atheism is the easy conclusion.
To publish an article that is so filled with junk evolution and completely superficial logic is incomprehensible... except as a statement of the overarching belief system of both the author and the publisher. Hopefully even the weakest of thinkers, if objective, will see this for what it is, an Atheist religious tract.
2 comments:
Actually, Darwin's contribution to modern thought is profound and far eclipses your narrow reading of his accomplishments. For example, Ernst Mayr argued in more than one book that Darwin was one of the first to conceive of living things in terms of populations, rather than typologically. This alone would have huge consequences in the philosophy of biology. But there's more....
'The Voyage of the Beagle' is one of the absolute classics of the scientific travelogue, comparable to Alexander Humboldt. Darwin's geological observations provided critical evidence that moved uniformitarian geology of Lyell and Hutton into the scientific mainstream. His fossil discoveries during the Beagle voyage are of signal importance to paleontology, especially those who study Eocene megafauna, like Owen and those who followed him. Darwin was the first person to successfully explain the formation of coral atolls. His four volumes on barnacles set a new standard in marine life systematics. He did important early work in ecology and the nitrogen cycle. And, of course, he marshalled considerable evidence for the proposition that 'new beings can appear on the Earth' (speciation) and for the ever-ramifying pattern of 'common descent' seen in evolution.
In fact, Darwin would be one of the 19th century's scientific superstars even if he had never published one word about natural selection. But when you add that idea to the mix, an idea which Daniel Dennett has described as 'the best idea anybody ever had', as profoundly influential as any idea anyone has ever had, ever, well he pretty much takes the prize. I mean, can you name any scientist in the last 300 years who has had a wider influence over Western thought?
Influence over western thought. There's the crux. As for science, only for a small portion of biology (historical). As for Western thought, Atheist Materialism, and relativist anti-rationalism, not to mention the socialist eugenics. (Sure, sure, Dawkins disavows any connection between the holocaust and Darwin; that means exactly nothing).
Dennett is an intellectual fraud in my opinion, who would sieze upon anything whatsoever that might support his God-hate-dogma. As you seem to acknowledge, it is the philosophy driven by the overt materialism in Darwin's theory that has made Darwin into the iconic hero-god that he now is.
Whenever hero worship is rampant, my policy is to remain skeptical. Especially when the official skeptics are worshipful. (They are presently absolutely maudlin in their worship).
BTW, Can you name a philosopher from the last 300 years that had more effect on western civilization than Nietzsche? And who was a primary source for Nietzsche's philosophy?
Not Darwin's fault you say? Totally beside the point, which is that it was a direct relationship between the materialism of evolution and the three humanisms of Mao, Lenin/Stalin, and the Third Reich.
Now I'm off to read the glorification of Darwin in Smithsonian, and I still haven't finished the worshipful Darwin issue of Scientific American. We will soon be absolutely awash in Darwin Day Dogma.
Post a Comment