Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Richard Dawkins has in fact renounced Darwinism as a religion?


I would not have known, if I hadn’t read Suzan Mazur’s The Altenberg 16 (on the growing collapse of Darwinism): While speaking at Manhattan’s Ethical Culture Society meeting one Saturday night (March 12, 2008) on his book, The God Delusion, as she tells it, Richard Dawkins

admitted to being “guilty” of viewing Darwinism as a kind of religion and vowed to “reform”

Having a natural interest in reform, I would be most interested to learn of any evidence for this one. But now this, from Mazur:

(no one was allowed to tape Dawkins’ confession, however, with organizers of the event threatening to march offenders around the corner to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints). (p 97)

Can’t help wondering whether the warning was principally aimed at Mazur. Certainly, in her book, she manages to put a number of Darwin devotees and their enablers, whom the New York Times considers important authorities for no particularly good reason, in a much less flattering light than they are used to.

It seems that Mazur had met up with Dawkins the night before at a book signing. On self-organization theory (to which Mazur is partial), he noted,

… it absolutely neglects the question where does the illusion of design come from? Where do animals and plants get this powerful impression that they have been brilliantly designed for a purpose? Where does that come from? (p. 99)

Bzzzz!! Short circuit.

The self-organization (theory of form) guys believe that life forms can self-organize, so they don’t think that design is an illusion at all. It’s really there, but the life forms did it themselves, according to laws of physics. Myself, I don’t see how their idea works. But Dawkins’ idea works even less, co-opting a conservative force like natural selection to create huge amounts of new information.

Note that Dawkins is attempting to make his own problems into everybody’s problems. Figures the New York Times would like him.

Mazur’s is the book you need to get and read now.

Matteo. ...Daaaannng. - Sonfaro Sonfaro
Sonfaro-- I would no more wish to profit from the book on E-bay then I would want to profit from selling the fever dreams I just had over the last few days during the flu. The book really was that bad (and bore similar aspects), and it was sufficient that I alone had to suffer that particular copy. Matteo
As for the supposed admission of Dawkins to making religion of science, I find it credible. He has a history of being very honest about such matters. I do not care at all for his invective against religion, but I must acknowledge his integrity. The reason I line up with neither atheists nor IDists is that I see both camps as turning science into religion. Who was it who said on Praise the Lord (the episode in which Meyer plugged Signature in the Cell), "We believe that the Bible is true, and so is science"? The claim that only the irreligious descend into scientism is utterly false. It is sad to see people who claim faith put the lie to that claim by attempting to construct scientific "proofs" of their god(s). Noesis
Matteo, Kudos for an honest evaluation. I have not read the book, but I have read articles by Mazur, including at least one on the Altenberg 16. They were sorry excuses for science journalism. The fundamental problem is that Mazur does not understand the science, and tries to get away with winging it. Noesis
Would it be accurate then to say that Dawkins essentially believes in something of a life force? nycjeff
I am also thinking about throwing Darwin's Origin of Species in the trash, too. Ernst Mayr said once this book was really messy. Enezio E. De Almeida Filho
Hey, Matteo? The trash? You couldn't sell it on Ebay and get some money back? Or was it really that bad? :( - Sonfaro Sonfaro
I haven't read her book, but I did enjoy reading her interviews - which I assumed were collected and put into the book. Oh well. nullasalus
I don't know, I'm about as staunch an ID advocate as you're going to find. I wanted to like Mazur's book, but really, it's a serious mess, hardly qualifying as a publishable work and reading more like the unfinished jottings of -- well, I don't know exactly. It ended up in the trash. Matteo
OT: "Complex Adaptations Challenge Darwinian Evolution: An Interview With Douglas Axe" - podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-02-23T12_17_20-08_00 bornagain77
From a review: "the book is a front row seat to the thinking of the great evolutionary science minds of our time..." That's rich. Great evolutionary science minds. People who hang on with snapping turtle tenacity to utter nonsense. tgpeeler
Ms. O'Leary, I read this book last year and fully agree, it is a must read. On self organization, I'm with you. There is definitely a logical problem breaking the law of non-contradiction; something (anything) cannot be and not be at the same time and same relationship. And those who tout quantum theory apparently "naturally" disagree. In any case, insisting that this simultaneity takes place is, at least within the limits of human language, simply incoherent. toc

Leave a Reply