An American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator explained 15 years ago that atheists cling on to evolution not because it is true, but because the alternative scares them.
Richard Charles “Dick” Lewontin made the extraordinary admission in a foreword to the last book of astronomer the late Carl Sagan, ‘The Demon-Haunted World.’
To give credit where it is due, Lewontin has opposed GM crops but not because they arise from scientists playing God (he doesn’t do God, as you will see), rather because of the power they give agri-conglomorates over farmers.
On the bad side, he has described himself as a Marxist and materialist. He clearly adheres to the philiosophy of Positivism, which holds the view that that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge.
In the review of Sagan’s book (online here) Lewontin wrote:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. … To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
As a character from a Monty Python sketch would have said: ‘Oh, what a give-away’.
P.S. While we are on the subject of give-away quotes from evolutionary biologists, did Dr Michael Ruse describe evolution as a religion? You decide.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
Not sure what you are getting at here? Presumably you are taking positivity from the point that atheists and their reliance on the theory of evolution to answer philosophical questions don’t have all the answers, and so there is still some hope for religion to fill that space?
Personally, I take comfort that at least the the theory of evolution and science in general is making attempts to answer philosophical questions, based on facts, learning and intelligence. Science is constantly updating our knowledge and helping us lead longer and more knowledgeable lives. Reliance on the belief in gods and the Bible means we are stuck in an age where we knew very little and relied on myths and unsubstantiated beliefs for the answers.
No, please have a closer look at what Lewontin said. You cling to evolution not because it makes sense but because you ‘cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door’. And click on the link to see what he thinks about science and its ability to make societal advances, let alone ‘answer philosophical questions’! That was never its job anyway.
We are still waiting for a reply from Mr Gove, having written to him at the beginning of March, challenging the compulsory teaching to 8 year olds of evolution from this September. I quote….
“No other faith is accorded the privilege of being elevated from Religious Studies to Science; therefore we suggest the opt-out currently granted to parents for RS is extended to Science lessons too, in keeping with the Government’s commitment to Religious Equality.”
My eldest three children have all studied/are studying Biology A level. Evolution is routinely taught as fact, simply because ‘most scientists believe it’; in a round-the-table discussion that was beyond me, my two daughters felt that the second law of thermodynamics absolutely disproved the theory of evolution.
Busy mum obviously too busy to check that the second law of thermodynamics apllies only to closed systems. The earth is not a closed sysem, receiving its energy from outside it itself (i.e. from the sun). The law does not therefore disprove evolution and your daughters were wrong.
Ha! But if you include the sun, you have a closed system, so the daughters were right. What is alongside the 2nd Law is the demonstrated principle that order cannot arise from chaos. Added to that, life needs more than energy to evolve. It needs information to put into its DNA. You had better hope that those daughters don’t discover Information Theory, or the evolutionary game will well and truly be up!
But the sun isn’t included in the earth’s ecosphere – it’s outside it!
I don’t know where to begin explaining how your assertions are wrong here:
‘Information to put into its DNA’ – what does that mean? Nothing has ever ‘put information in its DNA’, as if DNA is some sort of piggybank. Maybe you mean ‘no information is ever added to the genome’ of an organism, but this is also wrong; new DNA sequences are added every time sexual reproduction takes place.
‘Order cannot arise from chaos’; it can and frequently does; think weather patterns, sand dunes, even plant life, which emerges from the random chaos of sunlight, water and soil. These in themselves can’t and don’t produce order or life, but in combination, with their randomness harnessed, do.
‘Life needs more than energy to evolve’; yes, but without energy, nothing. From it, all else follows including those things you allude to. Pleased to see you conceding here, though, that evolution does occur.
You have so much wrong it’s hard to know where to start, to coin a phrase.
A ‘system’ is not necessarily defined by what you call its ‘ecosphere’. The Solar System is a ‘system’.
Sometimes, Jeff, things are said for the sake of the argument! Of course I don’t accept evolution as an explanation.
I’m pleased you agree that information cannot be put into DNA. It has to be there from the start. Only in the failed evolutionary paradigm, which is not supported by any experimental evidence, does DNA get added to by random mutations.
When you claim that DNA is added every time sexual reproduction takes place you are either being idiotic or duplicitous. Plant life does not exhibit order arising from chaos any more than animal life does! Its seed DNA contains all the information it needs to grow. Sunlight gives it energy, water conveys the soil nutrients.
Here is a lesson in logic. There is a difference between necessary and sufficient. Energy is necessary for life but it is not sufficient. ‘All else’ does not follow from energy.
I get the feeling you are completely out of your depth, so it may be an idea to leave it here. But thanks for taking the trouble to leave your comments.
I’m sure you’re right. So it must be God. And you talk about the absence of logic!