David Berlinski (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 08:38 (4821 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: Since you have read the book, perhaps you could tell us whether he also takes the Creationists apart?-David: No, the point of the book was to take apart the atheists, which he does very effectively. Remember Dawkins' statement (and I paraphrase) that Darwin's theory allows an atheist to take that postion and feel comfortable.-Maybe that's a pity. As I said before, I inferred from the interview that he was a Creationist, and of course atheists will simply seize on that alternative to ridicule anyone who opposes them. When I first published the "brief guide" on this website, I was totally bewildered by the fact that atheist websites dismissed it as thinly disguised Creationism. This, I have now discovered, is the militants' way of covering up the weakness of their own arguments. I would like to think that my own are balanced, but certainly in the interview, Berlinski's are not. For that, though, I would rather blame the interviewer for not probing just a little deeper.-DAVID: Berlinski on page 185: "Darwinian biologists are very often persuaded that there is a conspiracy afoot to make them look foolish".
"In this they are correct."-Once again let me reiterate my dislike of this blanket dismissal of Darwinism. The gaps do not invalidate it as a whole. As Matt is constantly pointing out, evolution is still the best theory we have, and as I am constantly pointing out, it does not in any way exclude the design theory.
 
DAVID: And for a flavor of his writing ability and thought pattern:
"The thesis that we are all nothing more than vehicles for a number of 'selfish genes' has....entered deeply into the simian gabble of academic life, where together with materialism and moral relativism it now seems as self-evident as the law of affirmative action. To anyone who has enjoyed the spectacle of various smarmy insects shuffling along the tenure track at Harvard or Stanford, the idea that we are all simply 'survival machines' seems oddly in conflict with the correlative doctrine of survival of the fittest. This would not be the first time that an ideological system in conflict with the facts has found it prudent to defer to itself." (pg. 8)
I love the mental picture of 'simian gabble'.-I must admit to a little smirk of pleasure, but only because I am so sick of the similar gibes that militant atheists hurl at theists and agnostics. I much prefer the gentle, rational probing that characterizes our own correspondence on this forum. Sorry if that sounds a little sanctimonious.