Darwinism at AEI

American Spectator (via Discovery Institute) ^ | July 1, 2007 | Tom Bethal

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Reaganite1984]

I usually admire Bethell's writings, but on this issue-in fact, most scientific issues-he's out in left field.

[js1138]

The recent irruption of atheism can be traced to the Darwinian creed, for the well publicized testimonials of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens all have recourse to Darwinism at various points.

This writer is obviously qualified to set educational standards. I look forward to his recommendations for the spelling curriculum.

[GodGunsGuts]

ping

[cornelis]

I feel sorry for Derbyshire. Perhaps he craves attention. Whatever the reason, he’s chosen a road that will lead to more of the same.

[betty boop]

“Irruption” is a perfectly lovely word, meaning something that rushes in forcefully or violently....

[dmz]

Actually, I looked it up. Irruption is, in fact, a word.

irruption (n): 1. a breaking or rushing in. 2. A violent incursion.

His understanding of Darwin is a tad superficial (not surprisingly), but he did use a cool word that I had to look up.

[tacticalogic]

The truth is that Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted in support of any cause whatsoever. Steven Hayward, a resident scholar at AEI, made this clear in his admirable introduction. Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking. Spencer himself first used the phrase “survival of the fittest,” and Darwin thought it an “admirable” summation of his thesis.

That seems to belie the oft made assertion that Darwinism caused all of these things.

[dmz]

you beat me by 11 seconds. You are right, it is a lovely word, but I’d have to question its usage in this context. Or did I miss a violent rush on Christians by angry Darwinists?

Considering that the argument has been going on for, what?, 150 years, there has been no rush, nor violence. Plenty of hyperbole, though.

[Reaganite1984]

Tom Bethell is a brilliant writer, but he lends his name to some disreputable causes, IMO.

For example, he wrote an article for TAS a few years ago that if not quite defending Peter Duesberg's wacky AIDS theories tried to lend them some legitimacy that wasn't deserved.

[freespirited]

But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is “fit” (otherwise it wouldn’t exist).

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

[GodGunsGuts]

==The creationists could be ignored...Intelligent Design is not like that. It is aggressive and therefore potentially dangerous. It says to the Darwinians: “You don’t have the evidence to support your claims. Your lab results and fossils don’t support your theory. Organisms are way too complex to have arisen by chance. Take all the time you want, it won’t be enough. Even though we don’t know how it happened, these critters must have been designed somehow.”

I disagree with Bethal on this point. A new movement such as ID tends to view many or all of their arguments as novel, but the creationists have been using many of the same arguments for years, debating evolutionists on university campuses, and otherwise taking the fight to the enemy...and they will continue to do so until the issue is decided once and FOREVER.

[GodGunsGuts]

==For example, he wrote an article for TAS a few years ago that if not quite defending Peter Duesberg’s wacky AIDS theories...

Bethal is right about that too IMHO.

[ahayes]

You are right, it is a lovely word

I suppose that depends on the context. *flees*

[ahayes]

Wacky theories—collect the whole set!

[tacticalogic]

and they will continue to do so until the issue is decided once and FOREVER.

Given that it's pretty well accepted that absolute proof of either proposition is unlikely to be forthcoming, what is your assesment of the likely means of resolution?

[dmz]

actually, we are in agreement (i think) so no need to flee on my account.

I find its usage in this context hyperbolic.

[Reaganite1984]

How will it be "decided" pray tell?

The creationists never want to have an actual debate on the evidence for evolutionary change-which is great-or the merits of their philosophy since it boils down to a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.

It's fine to point out the shortcomings in a scientific theory, but when you actually have to posit a hypothesis that doesn't rest upon any tangible empirical evidence you find yourself in a bit of sticky wicket, don't you?

[narby]

By: Tom Bethell American Spectator July 1, 2007

Well, there's the first lie.

The Discovery Institute must have gotten a few more million bucks in donations. They've pumped out a lot of cr@p recently.