Maybe not even Darwin?
At a blog interestingly titled, “Rationally speaking: Truth springs from argument among friends,” Massimo Pigliucci, an atheist materialist philosopher at the City University of New York, notes the difficulties of doing science when evidence doesn’t matter. He recalls,
I talked about the pessimistic meta-induction at TAM a couple of years ago, and Richard Dawkins approached me afterwards to let me know that — clearly — the Darwinian theory is the obvious exception to the meta-induction, thus displaying a surprising amount of ignorance of both the history of biology and the current status of evolutionary theory. Cue the onslaught of incensed comments by his supporters.
Essentially, Dawkins wants an exception for Darwinism from the rule of evidence. And that is not new. He had said that decades ago:
“My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” — p. 287, Blind Watchmaker” (1986)
When no one was paying attention and no one realized what it meant.
None of this should be a surprise. Just recently, we covered the fact that materialist atheist Jerry Fodor became the subject of a warning in a science journal: “How Jerry Fodor slid down the slippery slope to Anti-Darwinism, and how we can avoid the same fate.”
You too can avoid the same fate – by ceasing to think and just assuming Darwinism is true.
The best part is that Darwinists will reassure you that you were never thinking anyway; only your selfish genes and entangled neurons were. You don’t have a mind. You never did. What could be better?
Aw, wake up. Slosh, slosh. Life’ll never be that easy.