Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Q & A Marc Hauser (Darwinist pulls "cheap trick" on own daughter)
Current Biology ^ | July 3, 2007

Posted on 07/06/2007 11:37:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

When my youngest daughter was about three years old, I pulled a cheap trick on her, teaching her that whenever I asked “Who's the man?”, she should reply “Darwin!” She does this quite well now. It is hard to imagine any living biologist not thinking that Darwin IS the man, and I am certainly no different. But I have a different hero, and for a slightly different set of reasons. The man is Noam Chomsky. Like Darwin, Chomsky raised a set of questions that literally turned around a discipline, and opened the door to several new disciplines. In Chomsky's case, he turned around the field of linguistics, and gave birth to the cognitive sciences as we know them today...

(Excerpt) Read more at current-biology.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: cheaptrick; churchofdarwin; darwin; darwiniacs; darwinism

1 posted on 07/06/2007 11:37:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; betty boop; metmom; editor-surveyor; AndyTheBear

More from the Church of Darwin:

Darwin’s House: A Religious Shrine?

“An article quoted Darwin scholar James Moore saying, ‘Muslims go to Mecca, Christians go to Jerusalem, Darwinians go to Downe.’ This seems to equate Darwinians with believers in a religion, but Nature quoted this proudly.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://creationsafaris.com/crev200706.htm#20070628a

And let’s not forget Richard Dawkins, a scientists who speaks for millions of the Darwinist faithful:

“In 2005 online magazine ‘Edge The World Question Centre’ posed the following question to a number of scientific intellectuals: ‘What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?’ Dawkins revealingly answered: ‘I believe that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.’”

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Williams_GodDelusionReview_02012007.pdf

Sounds like religion to me-—GGG


2 posted on 07/06/2007 11:38:21 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
It's the anywhere in the universe part isn't it?

Dawkins is another fool blinded by his own narrow beliefs who thinks life arose only in this universe, and not another one.

3 posted on 07/06/2007 11:40:59 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Did Chomsky actually do anything useful? I can’t imagine the field of linguistics is very fertile ground for contributing to society.


4 posted on 07/06/2007 11:47:41 AM PDT by ghost of nixon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

The Theory of Evolution (of Man) is just that - A Theory.

The Theory of Intelligent Design (of Man) is just that - A Theory.

Both theories have some facts that support them - and other facts that don’t support them.

It used to be that places of higher learning taught students to think for themselves based on scientific facts and evidence.

But what “facts” support intelligent design?

1. Evolution doesn’t explain anything on how it all began. As a theory, it is grossly incomplete. At least intelligent design has a theory on the “absolute beginning.”

2. Where did the laws of nature and physics come from? They shape nature and effect evolution. Do we ignore the “architect” and just focus on the designs? Would this make any sense in any field of science or engineering?

3. Esteemed mathematicians and scientists have put forward fully vetted and accepted theories that the complex life we see on earth could have no way “accidentally” evolved in the “short” accepted age of the universe. The time period is too small and the complexity of life is too advanced or that there is no scientific way a cell could have evolved over any period of time in the life of the universe and in stages (as evolution demands). If these scientifically based theories can just be ignored, why not other theories?

4. The millions of miracles that have occurred and the hundred of thousands that have been documented since written history. Are they all fakes and hoaxes? Just because we can’t explain them should we just ignore them? Does this remind you of the 14th century “the world is flat” belief system or the universe revolves around the earth closed mindedness?

5. The historical accuracy of the Bible. Nearly a year doesn’t go by where some archeologist finds a city/people/event/ruler exactly where the Bible said it was or medical/scientific breakthrough proves the validity of a Biblical historical point. So, if historically, the Bible can be trusted, why not on some spiritual level?

6. We have free will. We have morals and a conscience. We make ethical choices every day. Where did that come from? If we just “evolved” we should be just be following our natural DNA pre-programming as near robots (like flowers or wolves or fishes do - they do what they do because that is what they are - they can not choose to do different). Are we just blobs of DNA - and that is it? Then I/we are responsible for nothing - the DNA made me do it.

7. It is interesting that nearly all cultures and peoples in nearly every corner of the globe since the dawn of mankind have “invented” a God. Almost like we were preprogrammed to do so? If it was just a “random thing,” why is it so prevalent?

8. I can blow huge holes in the theory of evolution in explanation on how humans got here. For instance - evolution can not explain the “origin of life” from dead chemicals and the fossil evidence is unviable and dubious (at best) from animal to man. We know more on how the Brontosaurus evolved than man. Why is that? Is it because we have not looked hard enough or is it we are looking for something that doesn’t exist?

This is actually a very old argument: St Paul, the Apostle, once wrote of pagans: “Behold they have exchanged the Truth for a lie and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator.”

It doesn’t mean the theory of evolution is wrong - but it may mean that it needs to be updated and that it may only be a partial explanation (like micro-evolution of lizards on two separate islands over some time to adapt to their surroundings).

As I said - The Theory of Evolution is just that - a Theory. And when we let a Judge decide what theories are correct and what theories are incorrect (or can NOT even be mentioned) we have truly lost something.

It seems like “progressives” or “secular humanists” or “naturalists” want it both ways - they believe in a “philosophy” that puts man at the center of the universe. That all can be explained by science, that humankind is neither good or bad, neither right or wrong and that all bad things can be done away with if you have the right people in charge and the right laws. Their basic belief is that Man (or the state) is God.

They want what they “believe” to be taught in schools (at taxpayer expense, of course) and to the exclusion of any other philosophy.

For instance:

The Progressive agenda wants abortion on demand for any reason. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a “religious” belief and can/must banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debates for the next Supreme Court justice.

The Progressive agenda wants only man at the center of morals and judgment. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a “religious” belief and can/must be banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debates about gay marriage, drugs, pornography, divorce, adultery, cloning, prayer in school, vouchers, stem cell research, obscenity on the public airways, etc.

The Progressive agenda wants only “natural law and evolution” to explain how we got here. If you believe in the opposite - that must be a “religious” belief and can/must be banned from the schools, government or public grounds. Just look at the debate of evolution vs. creation.

And ETC. on nearly every issue.

See my point? One side gets all the benefits because they are only a “philosophy” and not a religion. The other side gets hammered because they are a “religion” and not a “philosophy.” In reality, there is not a bit of difference between the two - it is all how a person personally views life (worldviews and ideologies). But somehow we have allowed one at the total exclusion of the other and called it “Constitutional,” when it is about the furthest thing from the Constitution as the Founding Father wanted or desired.

Let’s face it, “Darwinism has become Naturalism” and it is just as much religion as Christianity, Judaism, etc. Naturalists “worship” the idea that matter is all there is. What you see is what you get. Humanity is a product of time, chance, and natural selection. There can be nothing else outside of the natural system. Period. Any other claim is nonsense and nothing but superstition.

Actually, when you think of it - quite an intolerant religion at that.

Regards,

2banana


5 posted on 07/06/2007 11:47:49 AM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

lol


6 posted on 07/06/2007 11:49:51 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

All excellent points. Thank you.


7 posted on 07/06/2007 11:52:48 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Interesting that he worships as well at the altar of Chomsky, who has long been controversial among hardcore Darwinists because of his contention that the mechanism of natural selection is not sufficient to explain the phenomenon of (human) language. That shows a bit of open-mindedness on his part.

Chomsky hardly shows the open-minded self-critical attitudes Hauser claims, though. The reason Chomsky keeps changing his theories is, to all appearances, because he wants to claim the underlying idea behind “Cartesian Linguistics” is correct and only the details, which have been continually disproven, are wrong. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16352

The deal with Hauser’s “cheap trick” on his daughter is disturbing to say the least.

8 posted on 07/06/2007 11:54:35 AM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
You post is loaded with claims that are so oft-refuted they have been assigned numbers:

Index to Creationist Claims

9 posted on 07/06/2007 12:03:55 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ghost of nixon

Chomsky is an over educated egghead making a career of playing the “I know you are but what am I?” game.


10 posted on 07/06/2007 12:09:29 PM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
But I have a different hero, and for a slightly different set of reasons. The man is Noam Chomsky.

LOL! And don't forget Freud and Marx.

11 posted on 07/06/2007 12:11:15 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan

It was probably just an oversight. LOL


12 posted on 07/06/2007 12:12:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You post is loaded with claims that are so oft-refuted they have been assigned numbers

Well, that settles it then.

13 posted on 07/06/2007 12:14:42 PM PDT by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ghost of nixon
Did Chomsky actually do anything useful? I can’t imagine the field of linguistics is very fertile ground for contributing to society.

Chomsky offers another confirmation of Ann Coulter's hypothesis that everyone is a conservative in his own field. Chomsky is a Communist, but as a linguist (part of psychology), he had no patience for the Marxist pablum that was gumming up all areas of psychology in the first half of the 20th century.

In order to give credence to the Communists' claim that concern for family, self-interest, aggression, sexual identity, and private property were not hard-wired into us, but would "wither away" if the Reds were running the world, Behaviorism became the ruling assumption of psychology. Its job was to justify the dream of perfect socialism. With the right "teaching" by the state, we can be molded into anything.

Codified by B.F. Skinner, Behaviorism held that nothing is inborn, and we have to learn all of our tastes, thoughts, reactions, and affections by trial and error. It was the 20th-century assertion of the "blank slate" suggested by Rousseau.

Well, Chomsky saw that babies 1) learn language way too fast to have done so by trial-and-error, and that they don't make enough errors; 2) human languages are way too similar to each other in construction to be the result of random, independent development; and 3) the pattern of mistakes babies make when learning their native language always point in the same direction—the mistakes obey rules that seem to arise from an inborn grammar, to which their native language periodically makes exceptions, hence the errors. Specifically, the exceptions to universal grammatical patterns always seem to trip kids up in the same way. For instance, virtually every American-raised baby says "wented" for "went" at some point.

Chomsky has been proved right in a thousand ways, starting with common sense, of course. What Darwinian assumptions and Judeo-Christian theology share is the belief that the natural world universally displays evidence of design. Complexity is built into us. We are born waiting to speak—I would say, to the God who made us.

14 posted on 07/06/2007 12:15:31 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mjolnir

As recited later in his interview
Hauser “works with” - i.e, works FOR - Chomsky
... and hence is beholden to him
for professional advancement.
[i]Cherchez le homme.[/i]
Who, indeed, is The Man?


15 posted on 07/06/2007 12:26:49 PM PDT by Eleutherios
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Come on, even you have to admit Hauser's "who's the man" thing is messed up and pretty much constitues making idols out of Chomsky and Darwin.

What do you think of, as his colleague Steven Pinker puts it, that Chomksy (unlike himself) believes that natural selection not the key to explaining the structure of the mind?
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker/pinker_p3.html
16 posted on 07/06/2007 12:31:42 PM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Eleutherios

Good point-— however, I’ve seen so many ad hominem arguments against Dembski, Behe, et al, and aspersions without cause on these threads against them, that I’m wary of jumping to similar conclusions with respect to those I disagree with. I don’t want to be like National Review’s John Derbyshire (although it would be nice to be as smart as him), who simply labels everyone who isn’t some sort of IDer or Creationist and thinks there’s some limit on the power of natural selection a “left creationist” and thusly removes any of the ideas of, say, Chomsky or Stephen Jay Gould from consideration. Not saying that’s what you’re doing by any means, and I may be naive, but there it is.


17 posted on 07/06/2007 12:42:48 PM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
But what “facts” support intelligent design?

1. Evolution doesn’t explain anything on how it all began. As a theory, it is grossly incomplete. At least intelligent design has a theory on the “absolute beginning.”


Show me where intelligent design has a "definite beginning." Then, just for fun, show me how the lack of a "definite beginning" in the theory of evolution supports intelligent design.

2. Where did the laws of nature and physics come from? They shape nature and effect evolution. Do we ignore the “architect” and just focus on the designs? Would this make any sense in any field of science or engineering?

Who knows? And more importantly, who cares? They theory of evolution makes no attempt to identify the unidentifiable.

3. Esteemed mathematicians and scientists have put forward fully vetted and accepted theories that the complex life we see on earth could have no way “accidentally” evolved in the “short” accepted age of the universe.

Please name your sources; author, title, and the journal they were published in, please.

4. The millions of miracles that have occurred and the hundred of thousands that have been documented since written history.

First, can you name a citation on these "hundreds of thousands" documented miracles? Second, can you tell me how many rely on anecdotal evidence alone? Third, can you tell me how many have been thoroughly documented and investigated?

5. The historical accuracy of the Bible. Nearly a year doesn’t go by where some archeologist finds a city/people/event/ruler exactly where the Bible said it was or medical/scientific breakthrough proves the validity of a Biblical historical point. So, if historically, the Bible can be trusted, why not on some spiritual level?

I can open up my copy of Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince and find the names of actual cities and likenesses of actual people. Obviously, this means that Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is real, and a Ministry of Magic goon squad will be by in a few hours to erase my memory.

8. I can blow huge holes in the theory of evolution in explanation on how humans got here. For instance - evolution can not explain the “origin of life”...

Evolution will never make mention of the beginning of life, and it never will. The theory of evolution assumes that life began and flourished and nothing more. If you were to say, replace abiogenesis with god, gods, aliens, or time travel, evolution would remain unaffected.

It seems like “progressives” or “secular humanists” or “naturalists” want it both ways - they believe in a “philosophy” that puts man at the center of the universe.

Which is sort of funny. I am not a progressive or natural humanist or whatever. I do not believe that man is the center of the universe. Man merely exists, or at the very least, I exist and the rest of you are just figments of my imagination.
18 posted on 07/06/2007 12:45:53 PM PDT by Boxen (If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

19 posted on 07/06/2007 12:47:36 PM PDT by ASA Vet (Pray for the deliberately ignorant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Perhaps he just likes the sound of his own ....typing.


20 posted on 07/06/2007 12:50:54 PM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I guess this is better than a redneck of my acquaintance who taught his little 2 year old daughter whenever he asked, “Who’s the king?” to answer, “ELVIS, daddy!”


21 posted on 07/06/2007 12:55:09 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Laughable.

Anybody that looks up to that old fossil Chomsky loses their credibility in that instant.


22 posted on 07/06/2007 12:57:05 PM PDT by sauropod (Driving 100 mph in a Pious with the sunroof open)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
The “Blank Slate” idea is not simply Marxist pablum-— it was also held by classic liberals like John Locke and conservatives like David Hume. Behaviorism followed from their (too) extreme empiricism, but Chomsky, in following Plato and Descartes, attacked that idea with an equally extreme rationalism.

Yes, human nature exists and is not just the result of conditioning and that includes the capacity for language. But the evidence for there being a “universal grammar” or “deep structure”— for each language being, deep down, just like every other, is extremely thin.

The article below is polemical, but no more than Chomsky’s attacks on behaviorism were:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17574

23 posted on 07/06/2007 12:59:22 PM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

==I guess this is better than a redneck of my acquaintance who taught his little 2 year old daughter whenever he asked, “Who’s the king?” to answer, “ELVIS, daddy!”

Actually, brainwashing your child to worship at the alter of Darwin’s natural selection god is far worse than brainwashing your child that Elvis is the king of music.


24 posted on 07/06/2007 1:00:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot

I studied Chomsky as an undergrad and graduate student and he is a brilliant linguist. I don’t know about his politics and don’t give a damn, like most of the musicians I love. I make up my own political mind.


25 posted on 07/06/2007 1:05:46 PM PDT by berstbubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Such atheists are firm believers that they are nothing more than a pitiful speck in a universe with no meaning, existing for an insignificant flash and then returning to dirt.

I am willing to meet them halfway and agree that with regard to themselves they are correct. And as they are so infinitesimally unimportant, I will chose to ignore them.

After all, they must agree that the outcome of their arguments are meaningless in their world.

26 posted on 07/06/2007 1:16:46 PM PDT by SampleMan (Islamic tolerance is practiced by killing you last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: berstbubble

I can see how you would feel that way in regard to music, but in this case, we’re talking about someone who came to linguistics from an analytical philosophy background, and whose views of politics and (most famous) language both reflect his underlying view of human nature.


27 posted on 07/06/2007 1:31:44 PM PDT by mjolnir ("All great change in America begins at the dinner table.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
For instance, virtually every American-raised baby says "wented" for "went" at some point.

I have never heard a child use the word "wented". I have heard "goed" or "go'd" (however you spell it).

28 posted on 07/06/2007 1:51:55 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (Evil never sleeps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
My daughter is contemplating a cross-major in Biology and Theology. That oughta keep 'em confused!

Of course, she's a Catholic at a Presbyterian college, so it may be interesting . . . .

29 posted on 07/06/2007 2:09:16 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
First, can you name a citation on these "hundreds of thousands" documented miracles?

"The Miracle of the Juniper Berries" in The Life of Brian. You can find miracles everywhere, if you want to.

30 posted on 07/06/2007 3:57:03 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (The polar icecaps are melting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .on Mars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
Third, can you tell me how many have been thoroughly documented and investigated?

It's instructive to read about the Vatican's procedure for documenting miracles, in particular the way they consider the causes of people who have been proposed for canonization. As a formal, legal process, it began in the 10th century. Until recent times, it was modeled on a trial—with the church presenting the argument that the person is a saint, and an appointed cleric who acts as the "devil's advocate," presenting evidence that the proposed "saint" is not enjoying God's presence in heaven, but is actually in hell.

Since the 1980s, the term "devil's advocate" is no longer used, but the spirit of skepticism and confrontation remains. To put it mildly, anecdotes don't cut it. For instance, the Church does not trust its own doctors to attest to medical miracles, but requires data and testimony from secular and non-Catholic sources.

No potential mortgage applicant has ever been through the scrutiny endured by those who propose a candidate for sainthood.

31 posted on 07/06/2007 5:32:07 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson