Theologians can be monumentally stupid when they look at things through their doctrinal spectacles, especially when it comes to science. Since they think everything is theological, it must have a theological standing, either good or bad, and so they will undergo the most amazing gymnastics to achieve this outcome. Here's an example, by Anglican Bishop Tom Frame of the Charles Sturt University theological school:
The problem I face is weariness with science-based dialogue partners like Richard Dawkins. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate scientific conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take his depiction of Darwinism to logical conclusions. A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide. Publicly, he advocates none of them.
The reason he advocates none of them is because none of them are required by "Darwinism". Here's a simple analogy, one even a theologian may be capable of understanding: my daughter once fell out of a tree and broke her leg, in full accordance with physics and physiology. According to Frame, I must therefore advocate that children's legs should be broken. Stupid! A scientific theory merely describes. It does not advocate the outcomes of the processes it explains. A "Darwinian" no more need advocate the deaths of organisms that are unfit than a Newtonian must advocate the impact of meteorites on the surface of the earth. If they happen, they are explained. This doesn't mean they are desired.
In any case, the sorts of things Frame is lumping in as "Darwinian" are very far from being so. Most competition is non-violent in nature, and genocide, mass deportation and the rest are simply not natural events. A species that specialised in such behaviours would likely not last for very long. Non of these are in any way moral or prescriptive implications of evolutionary biology, any more than the effect of ballistic weapons is a moral or prescriptive implication of ordinary physics.
This is a basic first year philosophical error. It's called the "is-ought" problem. A theologian who doesn't know this is asking for confusion and obfuscation, and I very much expect that the rest of his book will be equally confused and stupid. Someone that ignorant and idiotic should basically shut the hell up - he can do no good and much harm. I have previously attacked Dawkins' views, but this is not one of his mistakes. It's a strawman that the theologically blinkered can use to avoid having to consider the actual arguments Dawkins puts.
This is the problem we face with weariness, because it is the constant idiocy from the theologians that we are presented with.
Hat tip, and more discussion, at Ian Musgrave's Astroblog.
- Log in to post comments
Clearly, theologians are not required to read Hume.
Has it ever occurred to some people that if an organism is unable to produce descendants, you don't need to kill it before it can breed?
Actually, the sentence "Publicly, he advocates none of them." is verging on libel isn't it? He suggests that this is what Dawkins actually thinks in private.
It's a pity the original site doesn't offer commenting.
Robert
Ugh! I had a bit more respect for Tom Frame than this, since we had a quite reasonable and respectful debate in Quadrant a few years ago. With this sort of comment, he seems to have lost the plot.
Keep up the crap detection John, it's important. If those whose work you expose are smart, they'll thank you. I sure do.
Sadly, theology and moral elitism, as Ian Hinkfuss observed, are often in bed. Awake or asleep, it's a frightening mix.
It's even more sad, by and large, when theologians write about the historical origins of the texts they use.
Wonder what the good ol' bishop has to say about the Book of Joshua?
I have argued - somewhat tongue in cheek - that the holocaust was a direct result of intelligent design. Those gas chambers didn't appear by chance, they are irreducibly complex structures. Clearly desinged by intelligence. Jews were not picked from the streets on random, rather by specified information. It is time for Dembski and co to fess up and apologize for the holocaust!
Hah! Those Newtonists have a lot to answer for! It was Newton and his pernicious theories that made it possible for fundamental Newtonists in the 20th century to dump large amounts of high explosives from a great height on innocent people from the Great War onwards as part of a conspiracy for world domination. And what shall we say of the persecution by social Newtonists of anyone who is of a less-than-anorexic build based on the principle of survival of the lightest? These are weighty matters and it is hard to exaggerate the gravity of the charges that can be brought against old Isaac.
Well, Tom Frame is a hypocrite. He is not willing to take his belief in Biblical literalism to its logical conclusion. He should support stoning adulterers, allowing rapists to marry their victims, prohibition of shellfish, pork, and working on Sundays, and lots of violence.
Another analogy I like to use is the CSI one. A dedicated CSI would welcome murder? No. Describing how something happened is not a recommendation. Crime scene investigators are not making endorsements.
A scientific theory merely describes....
An excellent description of theories. I might suggest it applies to Math as well, but that's another topic ;)
they are explained. This doesn't mean they are desired.
Ah but (just to play devil's advocate), one of the special properties of evolution, is that unlike other physical theories, it may be uniquely capable of explaining some first person "desires" and mental processes in strictly physical terms, unless you have some clear way of separating the third person from the first (i.e. hehaviour). That property definitely encroaches upon the theologian's territory of the "soul", free will, etc. Does that mean evolution predisposes you to favor eugenics, a purely mechanistic worldview, etc? Very unlikely, at least today. Those views are probably more dependent on the current social and political climate. Evolution does however, act as a lens (among others) through which you view the world, and undoubtedly plays a role in informing and shaping your opinions, including those about your own psychology.
There seem to me to be a couple of questionable points here:
1. A "Darwinian" no more need advocate the deaths of organisms that are unfit than a Newtonian must advocate the impact of meteorites on the surface of the earth. If they happen, they are explained. This doesn't mean they are desired.
But if no unfit organisms were to die, there'd be no evidence for Darwinian theory being correct, and your "Darwinian" would be a fool. So I would think that your dedicated Darwinian would be natural advocate for the death of the unfit, generally speaking, as it provides evidence for how clever s/he is to be a Darwinian.
2. Dawkins does tend to support the idea that evolution is an "optimizing" process. So by not allowing the death of the unfit, we are forgoing the optimization process, aren't we?
3. I doubt very much Dawkins would accept your hard distinction between "natural" and social processes. he's spent most of his career trying to drag as much as possible into the "natural" tent (and encouraging others to do so--think memes) has he not?
Many dedicated Christians have welcomed imperialism for Christ and the murder, enslavement, torture, and ghettoization of non-believers and heretics.
This is demonstrably true from the historic record.
Hey buddy, it's called "Natural" selection. Not selection via religious biases by Germans.
Oran: If no unfit organisms were to die, then Darwinian evolution would simply be false (along with the rest of biology). Foolish, maybe; need for advocacy, not at all. It's either a fact or it isn't. One need not advocate for facts.
If an evolutionary process optimises (and here I think Dawkins and those who think it does are wrong - with Herbert Simon I think evolution merely satisfices), this is not a moral judgement, but a fact of biology, in particular of ecology. Again, one does not need to advocate for this.
Cultural evolution is, I think, an evolutionary process, but again there is no prescription in such an account. One need not think the Nazis or Bolsheviks were right to think they happened to be the successful political movement of their time and place.
To describe is not to justify or desire.
But if no unfit organisms were to die, there'd be no evidence for Darwinian theory being correct...
A fundamental (no pun intended) misunderstanding of fitness. Not to put too fine a point on it, in fitness terms, failure to reproduce = death (though perhaps after a long happy life!)
True. One is not as careful on a blog as one ought to be...
[I think that should be a &neq; sign...]
(well, I sort of meant = rather than .NE. - it's hard to convey subtleties like death.NE.lack of fitness if death.NE.failure to reproduce etc., etc.!!)
It's telling that he believes that " imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide" are all the _most_ viable methods of ensuring survival of a species, as opposed to merely being one possible method.
The advantages we receive by building a society of mutual cooperation, caring for the weakest members, far outstrips the evolutionary needs of our physical bodies. The resources we can put into trade, research and culture are much more sustainable and safe than a system of oppression and eugenics based on physical characteristics made obsolete by the technology our cultural environment provides.
The not-so-good bishop is being slanderous as well as sanctimonious. The crimes carried out by the faithful have included (but not been limited to) inquisitions, crusades, witch hunts, and the subjugation of native peoples in North America and elsewhere. A man in the 1600s was burned alive for suggesting humans evolved from apes, a tactic never used by our side, to my knowledge. As someone once said, if you live in a glass house, you shouldn't throw stones.
...viable methods of ensuring survival of a species...
OK, jump right in, folks! - compare and contrast "survival of the fittest" with "survival of a species"!! (Fun times!)
Raymond Minton wrote:
A man in the 1600s was burned alive for suggesting humans evolved from apes...
Really! Who?
It's pretty shameful for a theologian to be unaware of the fact-value distinction, you'd think that such understanding was a prerequisite for theology.
On the other hand, it should be pointed out that many non-theologians also fail to make the distinction. In fact, at least one commenter above seems to believe not that this theologian is mistaken for confusing fact and value, but for simply picking the wrong traits to ensure the survival of the human species.
A theology student I know wrote a series of blog posts last year about his view of "Darwinism". It was the usual apologist hogwash, but one aspect was illuminating to me, and I think relates to the origins of Frame's comment.
All his arguments against "Darwinism" were ultimately based on Nietzsche, who tried to understand evolution and came up with the "will to power". I think that's why Frame and that lot think that the "logical conclusion" of "Darwinism" requires awful, inhumane crimes: they have only a Nietzschean understanding of evolution. They read Nietzsche, think to themselves "Aha, now I understand evolution, I can stop reading about it", and go on to write about the terrible consequences of "Darwinism".
I think we need to try to wake them up to the fact that Nietzsche isn't the final word on evolution. A lot of interesting developments were made in the 20th century!
Thony C: I can't remember the man's name, but I believe it was in the year 1619 that a man was burned at the stake for being an advocate of evolution, the ultimate price heretics paid for speaking out against the poweful Catholic church. (I'll have to do some more research, because my memory's fuzzy on the details.) Yes, evolutionary theory was around back then, but it was a good idea to be careful about advocating it openly!
To describe is not to justify or desire.
No, but the choice of what to describe - and the manner of it's description, can influence what is desired or justified. Just ask any lawyer.
...and I should also add the obvious: that the description is independent of the describer, and of the parser or reader of the description.
Looking around your blog, I can't help but wonder if you've fallen for the folk etymology of the Scienceblogs that "Darwinism" and "Darwinian" are terms used exclusively by creationists and ID proponents, forgive the tautology.
However, considering that your theme is the defense of Richard Dawkins, it would be appropriate to steer you to this
River Out Of Eden: A Darwinian View Of Life (Science Masters Series) (Paperback) by Richard Dawkins
# ISBN-10: 0465069908
# ISBN-13: 978-0465069903
And also this by the same author: More, I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence. This makes it a doubly satisfying theory. A good case can be made that Darwinism is true, not just on this planet but all over the universe, wherever life may be found.
You might also care to look up Darwinism in an etymological dictionary, you will find that it was given its present day meaning by Thomas Huxley, aka, Darwin's bulldog.
Everyone's entitled to their heroes, they're not entitled to rewrite the dictionary to suit their ideological purposes.
Anthony: No, I haven't.