Darwinism and popular culture: Darwinian atheist Richard Dawkins as pop cult figure

Dawkins is rated by Time Magazine as one of the mag's 100 most influential people (#7 as of June 19, 2007). Of course, in fairness, he only got about 51, 000 votes, whereas South Korean pop star Rain got nearly a half million. Meanwhile, here's himself on YouTube.

If you want to understand why the intelligent design controversy cannot go away, read By Design or by Chance?.

Update!: Aussie prof who protests Darwin Exhibition misrepresentations is NCSE associate

I have recently enjoyed a most interesting correspondence with Hiram Caton, retired poli sci prof and former colleague of the late David Stove who is attempting to set right the many misrepresentations in the current Darwin Exhibition, which has travelled from the American Museum of Natural History to various points (some near you probably). The main problems can be traced to ridiculous hagiography, of course. I have often pointed out (and am certainly not the first to do so), that Darwinism functions as a sort of religion for its fervid supporters, often in desperate conflict with transcendent faiths.

It now emerges that Prof. Caton, who is not affiliated with any religion, is an associate of the National Center for Science Education, the American Darwin education lobby, a relentless promoter and enforcer of Darwin in the tax-supported school systems. Specifically, he tells me that he is

an evolutionist who opposes the introduction of creationist concepts into secondary school biology. In fact, I'm an associate of the lead organization in the struggle against the creationists, the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE is aware of my article.

He is also listed as a supporter of the Darwin Day celebrations.

I should think Caton is trying all these people’s patience rather sorely, and all the more so because he is planning a full scale essay on the discrepancy between the theory and evidence for Darwinism, for which details will likely be available here.

Now, speaking of discrepancies, I don't see any discrepancy in principle between wanting to prevent creationist concepts from being taught in secondary schools and wanting to knock the stuffings out of the Darwin myth.

Indeed, contrary to widespread legacy media mythmaking, even the Discovery Institute, the ID think tank, does not not want intelligent design (ID) concepts taught in schools.

(And I suppose only religious school systems could consider teaching actual "creationist" concepts, as such, since these concepts are clearly linked to theism, the Bible, etc.)

Similarly, I rarely encounter people who do not want evolution taught in schools. They want its baggage train to be unloaded somewhere else. Unfortunately, it often isn't.

Some interesting comments from our correspondence that Dr. Caton has given me permission to post:

Here is the skinny on Caton's key observations:

^The Origin is based on principles, which I specify, that had been in place for about 50 years. ^The evolution concept had *saturated* public opinion in the UK by 1860. The notion that public prejudice against evolution obstructed its publication is nonsense. The idea of a 'missing link' between apes and humans was also widespread. ^The natural selection principle was first published *before* Darwin departed on his voyage and was independently discovered again in 1836 by Darwin's old pal, Edward Blythe. ^The eugenics idea wasn't discovered by Galton; it was clearly stated by the French translator of the Origin in 1863, who attributed it to Darwin; he didn't disavow the attribution. Three of Darwin's sons were members of the Eugenics Society and one, Leonard, was a major force in the society. A key figure in the creation of Neo-Darwinism, R A Fisher, was a dedicated eugenicist. Fisher's patron was Leonard Darwin. ^Darwin's writings had virtually no effect on experimental biology of his day, eg, Pasteur, Robert Koch. ^Two of Darwin's most vocal advocates, Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, denied that natural selection was the generative principle of evolution; for Haeckel it was Lamarckism.

While we are here, in 1969, I studied Victorian literature at a small university in Ontario. While Darwin's Origin was certainly identified as a milestone, it was only one of many milestones. I was clearly given to understand that the mindset it typefied was already a commonplace. That was not emphasized as a talking point. It emerged clearly from our studies. One result is that Darwin hagiography obscures the true history of the modern era.

What has been the reaction to his observations?

A number of leading evolutionists and historians have commented on my essay. None question my facts (well, one questioned one important claim). But some expressed unease about my criticism of the Great Man. My response is that I criticize only the interpretation of his reputation, and its creation in the first place. I state in the article what I think his real achievement was, and I hail it as a great scientific achievement. In correspondence with creationists, I plead that they exaggerate the influence of Darwin/evolution on the secularization process. By far the greatest influences are liberal and socialist blank slate theory. That influence is so great, indeed, that many evolutionists abandon Darwin when it comes to the crunch: the inheritance of behaviors, such as sex, race, and age differences: they endorse the blank slate belief. To put it another way, the Darwinian Revolution didn't happen in the social sciences. The controversy over sociobiology and over the Bell Curve are hot spots on that map.

Hmmm, yes indeed. Although Darwinism and liberal "blank slate" theory (= if outcomes are not equal, society is unjust) are not often in direct, perceived conflict, in any actual conflict, blank slate will win.

One thinks of former Harvard president Larry Summers, completely orthodox in his rejection of intelligent design, but utterly destroyed by "blank slate" political correctness about women in science.

I noted, in response to Caton that I do not think that high school science classes should be discussing the ID-Darwinism uproar:

It is difficult enough to teach basic concepts. Unfortunately, however, some want to import to Canada an American-style controversy by pushing evolution as early as possible, as an antidote to creationism/ID. As I have said, that would greatly help both the creationists and the ID guys - but at the expense of the public and the student. (You see, these kinds of issues can’t get as hot in Canada all by themselves, because our system is not nearly as polarizing as the American one. There is no functional equivalent here of the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, or the Christian Right. Publicly funded voluntary religious schools are legal here, with little controversy. People rarely sue school boards and school boards do not pull “Dovers”. So Canada is not a natural setting for such a controversy. But if it does become a setting, well, business will boom for me. But I don't want it to happen anyway.

That said, I think teachers should not be forbidden to respond to student questions, let alone given documents to read aloud, or propaganda to cite. Teachers are either professionals or they aren't. If they cannot be assumed to generally have good judgment about teaching, it's all over anyway.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

My review of sci-fi great Rob Sawyer’s novel, The Calculating God , which addresses the concept of intelligent design. My reviews of movies relevant to the intelligent deisgn controversy.

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment will be accepted if I think they contribute to a discussion. For best results, give your name or some idea who you are and why we should care. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Intelligent design and popular culture: Michael Behe writes Time 100 entry for Richard Dawkins

Recently, Time Magazine asked ID biochemist Michael Behe to write write a short squib on arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins as one of the Time 100, the people who allegedly shape our world. However, they edited it to make it sound as though he was way more worried about Dawkins than he actually is, apparently. What Behe had actually written is posted here., so you can see what "bite" the Time editors took out. (For example, they saddled Behe with the phrase that Dawkins is "deeply unsettling" to people like Behe, which - as every media professional knows - is simply a way of putting Behe down.)

In the big picture, of course, what’s really significant is that they asked Mike Behe to write the thing at all. See, if the punditocracy had been right in, say, 2000, in their predictions for the future of the intelligent design community Behe would not be a well-known enough figure to be a good pick. That such a sturdy organ of materialism as Time would subtly misrepresent him is perhaps not nearly as significant. Behe, of course, has a new book coming out, addressing the failure of Darwinian materialism to falsify irreducible complexity.

If you want to understand why the intelligent design controversy cannot go away, read By Design or by Chance?.

Thinkquote of the day: Darwinian evolution and chance?

A student recently wrote The Post-Darwinist, asking whether Darwinian evolution really depends on chance. I think so, but in any event a friend advises me that he recently bought Ohio State University prof Jeffrey K. McKee’s book A Riddled Chain: Chance, Coincidence, and Chaos in Human Evolution, and finds there the following:

“We now know that the origins of variation, in the form of genetic mutations, are due to chance. We also know that those few mutations which add survival value must coincide with a suitable environment. Part of the success of evolution is thus mere coincidence. The evolutionary process that then ensues is unpredictable, and in modern parlance could be considered to be chaotic. Nature thus “selects” more than just a survivor. It blindly determines contingencies for the future path of evolution-it sets the initial conditions. Even under the relentless guidance of natural selection, the more whimsical and undirected forces of evolution can then dictate the course of things to come. The unlikely becomes what is likely to happen, and the seemingly probable becomes less so. The infallible drive toward greater fitness takes a strange turn, and natural selection seems to falter. A butterfly flaps its wings, a startled impala escapes a stalking leopard, and the course of evolution changes forever. Surprising things happen due to the niggling, mischievous, capricious nature of three very important components of evolution: chance, coincidence, and chaos. You and I are among their products.”
(Jeffrey K. McKee [Professor of Anthropology, Ohio State University], “The Riddled Chain: Chance, Coincidence, and Chaos in Human Evolution,” (Rutgers University Press, 2000), p. 32)

From what I can tell, McKee is part of a group that has spent considerable effort to prevent a non-Darwinian from graduating, so we must assume that he is a good Darwinist. Go here also.

Of course, in a Darwinian world, we would not need academic freedom because everything we believe is the outcome of the competition between selfish genes, so the views of the stronger parties are very much better than right.

If you want to understand why the intelligent design controversy cannot go away, read By Design or by Chance?.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Response to student: Darwinian evolution not random?/ ID is God of the Gaps?

A student appended this query to a recent post :

I've recently encountered your blog and book during some research on intelligent design for a class project. My central objection to your comments (and what I've read of your book) is I feel that you have mischaracterized evolution through natural selection. It is decidedly -not- a random process and no biologist will tell you so. It is based on the principle that the variation we see in living things (think of the differences we see between people) allows some individuals to produce more offspring than others. If some individuals reproduce more than others, the traits they carry will become more frequent in the population. This process often moves in a direction--towards predators with better teeth for eating prey, for instance. This is not a random process. What is random is the basic genetic mutations that provide the raw material to work on.

A second objection is that intelligent design is arguably "lazy" science. When confronted with something that is not well explained, most scientists become excited--the most interesting research is often in these areas that we don't understand. But to leave the explanation to a designer is no better than telling a child the sky is blue because God (insert designer of choice) made it that way. If we approached every question this way, we wouldn't learn very much about the world.

I'd really appreciate a better understanding of how people respond to these objections!

A kind commenter has ably addressed the query, but I will try as well, though my explanation will amount to some hundreds of words:

This is not a random process. What is random is the basic genetic mutations that provide the raw material to work on.

Exactly. Katie, you have correctly identified the central concept of Darwinian evolution. Essentially, on the Darwinist's view, there is no design in nature. The role that has (in the Darwinist's* view, falsely) been ascribed to design is in fact played by - in your words - "what is random."

Now, the central question is not whether anyone is pleased by that but whether it is a fact. Can the entire progress of life from the prebiotic soup to the conscious mind indeed be explained by Darwin's mechanism and a couple of allied entirely materialist mechanisms? (Materialism: The belief that there is nothing beyond or outside of physical nature and that we are simply evolved animals, without mind, soul, or free will.**)

We are not here concerned with whether Darwinian evolution (or any form of evolution that requires no preexisting design) ever occurs. I take for granted that there some genuine examples do occur, but would urge you, based on my own experience with the Monarch-Viceroy mimicry puzzle and the silliness over the Washington squirrels to be very careful about the ones you accept.

The Darwinist insists that materialist forms of evolution (especially his materialist form) are the only forms that ever do occur, and that materialist accounts can thus explain the history of life. That is precisely why no design is necessary.

So far, so good. Katie. Here is where I am going to ask you to stretch a bit: On the face of it, Darwinian evolution is highly improbable or impossible on mathematical grounds. I mean that the history of complex life on earth (600 mya?) does not likely give us the resources we need for the random mutations. Once the Big Bang theory made it possible to establish an age for the universe (approx 13 bya) and the Earth (approx 4 bya), Darwinism was certain to come under attack.

Why is it so stoutly defended? Mainly for religious reasons, actually. Darwinism is the creation story of materialism. "In the beginning was natural selection, acting on random mutations" - a creation without design.

The probability that one assigns to a given account of the origin and development of life - apart from evidence - depends in large part on one's preexisting assumptions.

That is, a materialist - and most of the members of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States are materialists - knows that a materialist account of origins is true. So the facts must be made to fit.

Please understand: He has not, using the methods of science, discovered that materialism is true. He has assumed that it is true. To him, science is applied materialism. And he will fit any evidence he does discover into his materialist view.

Even where the evidence fits badly and inconsistently, as Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and I show in The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007), the materialist prefers to live with the problems rather than to consider that materialism might not be true. Agnostic philosopher David Stove showed brilliantly where all that leads, in his systematic examination of Darwinism in Darwinian Fairy-Tales.

So when you hear people say that the evidence for Darwinian evolution is overwhelming, you might be wise to wonder whether a materialist could possibly view the evidence in any other way. Even a straw of evidence that supports materialism is, for the materialist, of much more account than a mass of evidence identifying problems with it.

Now, you also write,

A second objection is that intelligent design is arguably "lazy" science. When confronted with something that is not well explained, most scientists become excited--the most interesting research is often in these areas that we don't understand. But to leave the explanation to a designer is no better than telling a child the sky is blue because God (insert designer of choice) made it that way. If we approached every question this way, we wouldn't learn very much about the world.

Katie, you don't say whether you have read the chapters of By Design or by Chance? devoted specifically to intelligent design theory (Chapters 13-16), but if you do, you will notice a striking fact: The IDS guys treat the question of whether design is an intrinsic part of our universe and of life forms as a question of findings of fact. They ask, where does the evidence lead?

Your objection, however, assumes that an explanation of a given fact of nature must be an explanation that does not include design; otherwise, it is not really an explanation. When we come to understand the thing "that is not well explained" - human consciousness, for example, or the bacterial flagellum - we will see that there is no design. So if we think we have uncovered design, we must admit that we have not worked hard enough, and devote our efforts to explaining it away.

But is that true? On the materialist view, yes, of course, because there isn't really any design.

On the non-materialist view, it is not necessarily true. The non-materialist asks what pattern best fits the facts of the case. To get a clear sense of the statistical case for design in nature, rigorously argued, you will need to read a more challenging book than mine, such as William Dembski's The Design Inference. You would also find Michael Denton's Nature's Destiny illuminating.

The concern you expressed above, that an inference of design means that "we wouldn't learn very much about the world", beautifully captures the default position of defenders of materialism - whether they claim to be churchgoers or not - and that may be where you first encountered it. (I am not saying that you are a materialist; I am saying that you have beautifully captured their default position.)

Their view makes sense, of course, once you assume up front that materialism is really true. (Of course, on that view, religious people believe myths, but evolutionary psychology can explain why they do. We all have the right to our purely private delusions and indulgences.) But in reality, it is merely childish to attribute any feature of the universe to design, just as it would be childish to attribute it to fairies.

And - note this carefully, for this follows too - when we identify evidence that looks like design, we must seek an "explanation" that rules out design, even if it doesn't really work well. That's okay because some day we will have an explanation that rules out design that works a lot better. Otherwise we wouldn't learn very much about the world.

That is actually a classic recipe for a point of view that can never be disconfirmed by evidence. So it is not surprising that materialists insist that the evidence for their point of view and for their creation story (Darwinism) is overwhelming. Following their rules, there is no circumstance under which it could ever be otherwise.

Thanks for writing, Katie, and if you continue to be interested in the intelligent design controversy, I recommend that you read books and papers (for example at www.iscid.org) that unpack the issues in more detail and with more technical sophistication than I can do.

*I use the term "Darwinist" for convenience for two reasons. The vast majority of materialist evolutionists today are Darwinists. More important, many great materialist evolutionists use the term themselves. However, you may have run across the claim that only intelligent design sympathizers use the term, or that only ID sympathizers ever claim that Darwinism is one of the great triumvirate of materialist theories of the twentieth century, along with Freudianism and Marxism. If you follow the links, you will see that those statements are factually incorrect. I would suggest to you, that people who make a great fuss about such matters are trying to distract themselves and us from examining the evidence with an open mind.

**The materialists commonly call themselves atheists, but atheism is really a side issue in this context. Obviously, a materialist should be an atheist. But historically, most atheists have not been materialists. Buddhism is, for practical purposes, a religion followed by hundreds of millions of people that does not require a concept of God. Indeed, right now, one atheist (Sam Harris, a neuroscience grad student and successful author) who joined the current anti-God campaign - launched, incidentally, by key arch-Darwinists - is in big trouble because he does not accept a materialist account of all reality. So we need to be clear that what most vocal atheists in the United States today mean by atheism is specifically materialist atheism. They persecute non-materialist atheists, as Sam Harris's story will show.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

How the Darwinists help the ID guys (# zillion and three)

Nobody seems to be blogging these days, including me, but a friend sent me something interesting: I've often said that the ID guys owe a good deal of their success to their opposition, and here is an example of just what I mean, kindly provided by ID embryologist Jonathan Wells's Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery, 2006) about Paul Mirecki:

From Chapter 15 (p. 173):

Anti-Christian zealots are often in the forefront of attacks on intelligent design. In 2005, the chairman of the University of Kansas Religious Studies Department, atheist Paul Mirecki, proposed to teach a course titled "Intelligent Design Creationism and Other Mythologies." Mirecki boasted on a web site that "fundies" would see the course as a "slap in their big fat face." He also endorsed a description of Pope John Paul II as "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." [13]

[note 13] Laura Bauer, "Intelligent design backers criticize KU course title," The Kansas City Star, November 23, 2005. Available online (January 2006)
Scott Jaschik, Emails Kill a Course, Inside Higher Education, December 2, 2005. Available online (January 2006)
Michelle Malkin, "What Happened to Paul Mirecki?" December 7, 2005. Available online (January 2006)

Now, this kind of thing raises an interesting question: Why would anyone expect to be taken seriously if this is the best they can do?

Or is my conspirazoid coffee buddy right - the nefarious Discovery Institute is paying people to act this way? Naw, that level of PR fiasco is pretty hard to fake. Isn’t it? Surely the political parties would have scarfed up anyone with that kind of talent long ago, outpricing the Discos easily.

But gee I wish Mirecki's course had run. Just think of the great quotes I could have got for my blogs. Rats. Now I have to work.

(Note: I have altered the end note [13] above by embedding the links, so as to avoid broken links. )

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

The new "anti-God" crusade: Further evidence of materialism's failure?

O'Leary looks at the spate of anti-God books and other promotions for the new Church of Atheism, and suspects that atheism was way more fun in the days when it was just a quiet, Godless Sunday at home.

Now, the church - as we all know - is the weak point of any religion. And when all you've got is a church - and remember, these people are supposed to be "beyond" belief - well, to me, that sounds a bit like getting married and finding out that you have no spouse but two mothers-in-law ... and more too, if you want them!

Part 1: What's with the recent anti-God crusade, supposedly in the name of "science"?

Recently, spurred perhaps by the growing failures of materialism, materialist atheists have attempted to institutionalize their beliefs as a Church of Atheism. And they are full, chock full, of angst.

Part 2: Antireligious zealotry riffs off materialist science

Put simply: Materialist science is in trouble. And the trouble does not stem from traditional religions, though materialists are - as one might expect - quick to blame their troubles on traditional religions and to reassure themselves that - despite all the evidence - traditional religions are doomed. But, materialists are also smug and thus cannot imagine or respond to any source of trouble arising from their interpretation of the evidence.

They have apparently decided instead to target the Christian religion as the source of their problems.

Part 3: The Beyond Belief conference

Goodness, it's hard to think of a single reason for joining these people's sect unless you have a lot of hostility to vent! And$30 billion from Bill Gates isn't going to change that.

Actually, it's hard to tell whether some of these people hate Christians more than they hate each other. Thus I would argue against any atheist getting involved with them, on mental health grounds alone.

Part 4: The "Blasphemy Challenge"

As Jerry Adler's Newsweek article admits, most theologians do not interpret blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as simply making a statement of that type, so most of the kids are probably doing it for a lark, but their atheist elders are deadly serious. Atheists don't tend to have had many children, so they must recruit.

Part 5: Why the acclaim for atheist authors?

One thing I have learned from a lifetime in media is that most media people are unidirectional skeptics - they are very skeptical of non-materialism but not the least bit skeptical of materialism.

Two things follow: Journalists in the legacy mainstream media are regularly astonished by phenomena that better informed people might have predicted - for example the prevalence of religious belief in a high tech age.

Part 6: Profiles in militant atheists - Daniel Dennett and Breaking the Spell

In Dennett's Breaking the Spell, as in the entire recent spate of atheist books, there isn't a single new idea of any significance, as noted earlier. The two main things that the current crop of atheist books have going for them is the unperturbable certainty of their authors that they are conferring a great public benefit - a certainty that they uncritically project onto others - and the assurance of a good deal of flattering attention from the legacy media.

The flattering attention usually will usually not include references to the highly illiberal elements of the anti-God extremists' message - elements that typically come to the fore whenever Darwinism is questioned, on whatever ground.

Part 7: Profiles in militant atheists - Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion

Ever since American Microsoft billionaire Charles Simonyi paid for his chair at Oxford in the Public Understanding of Science, zoologist Richard Dawkins has promoted atheism and an extreme form of Darwinism as the best way of doing science. In recent years, however, he has become best known for using his chair to promote atheism, rather than for promoting science ideas. His actual ideas, the selfish gene and the meme (a hypothetical mental variant of the hypothetical selfish gene) have not fared well under analysis, but no matter.

Part 8: Profiles in militant atheists - Sam Harris and Letters to a Christian Nation

From what I can tell, Harris is misplaced among professional materialist atheists. As David J. Theroux notes, he has bought into a variety of New Age and Eastern beliefs such as reincarnation. That has subjected him to many materialist attacks. Remember, materialists "know" that there is no soul.

Harris's dilemma has a simple explanation: He is in neuroscience, and he knows perfectly well that neuroscience does not confirm materialism.

Part 9: Darwinism and militant atheism

Of course, some would argue, not every Darwinist is like that. Perhaps not, but it is a reliable indicator of the true state of affairs that the "moderates" tolerate the "extremists" quite well.

Indeed, the Beyond Belief conference makes the true direction quite clear: Those theistic or Eastern traditions that are willing to morph slowly into materialist atheism, treated as a religion can spare themselves many attacks by increasingly militant atheists, who have, in many cases, found public funding for their cause. Anyone who so much as wants equal time for evidence for non-materialist views faces a storm - made all the foggier by Christian clergy who wish to converge with the materialists. Perhaps such clergy hope to be eaten last?

Part 10: British atheists vs. ID-friendly Truth in Science group

Just what the beleaguered schools need. Caught between Islamic extremists, drug dealers, sclerotic administrators, antisocial unions, and irresponsible parents, they, um, need a whack of "anti-God" literature to mix into the swirl ...

Part 11: So what are the actual trends in religion?

So far as understanding the anti-God crusade is concerned, the most useful thing to know is that the longstanding mid-twentieth century prediction that religious belief would wither away has been largely falsified.

Part 12: Unmasking the authoritarian intent of the militant atheist campaign

While some clergy are content to reassure their congregations that going along with materialism (especially Darwinism) is okay, many thoughtful Christians and Muslims are getting the picture pretty fast. The threat is not an intellectual one, but a political one.

Part 13: Theistic evolutionism and the new militant atheism

The underlying problem of accommodationist theistic evolution, of course, is the felt need to embrace Darwinism - and the materialism from which it springs. As I have suggested above, the most likely explanation, based on my encounters with theistic evolution accommodationists, is that they assume that materialism is basically true and that spiritual traditions must somehow accommodate themselves to its rule.

Put another way: Once you do think that materialism is not true, Darwinism is not true either. That raises the question of why any clergy should feel the need to sell "evolution" to their congregations, as part of their ministry.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Thinkquote of the day: How do animals and plants become species, as in Darwin's Origin of Species?

University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation and concluded in 2001:

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another ... Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e. plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." (Alan Linton, "Scant Search for the Maker," Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001, Book section, 29.)

– from Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution, who has just published The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism (p. 59), updating the intelligent design controversy.

Remember that when a supercilious person informs you that there is overwhelming evidence for Darwin's theory about how life originates*, grows, and changes and why people are what they are. (*Yes, yes, I know Darwin didn't try to explain the origin of life, only the origin of species, but most of his materialist followers are much more sure of their dogmas.)

The question is not whether species originate (they surely do) or whether Darwin's favorite process of natural selection ever influences the course of events (surely it often does), but whether it is really the engine of the vast complexity of life that we see around us. The reason that last proposition is believed and ordered to be taught in tax-funded schools is not because it is plausible but because it upholds materialism, the philosophy of the Western world elite.

As I usually say, when asked to give little talks on this subject, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the intelligent design controversy.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.