George Levine has a new book, Darwin Loves You. The book is silly and superficial, and would not be worth notice except that it serves as Exhibit A for the fact that Darwinism has become a religion, or at least, a “comprehensive doctrine” in the sense of Rawls (John, not Lou), and hence NOT something that a liberal democracry ought to impose on its citizens by force, as is happening now.
8 Replies to “Darwin Loves You (and has a wonderful plan for your life!)”
So, for reviews, here you go:
Check this sentence out from the review — “Levine offers a fair warning to readers to be wary of the political extrapolation, because scientific theories themselves have no political content.”
While the statement might be true in a technical sense, it is certainly misleading. Scientific theories may not have internal political content, but they most certainly may have huge political and cultural implications and impact. Particularly those that involve huge interpretive leaps, with philisophical underpinnings and overpinnings attached. Hmm, NDE just came to mind. Global warming, covered in a recent thread, also pops up.
Besides, is not the very book itself an attempt to provide a cultural impact flowing from NDE?
And then we get “”an attitude of awe and love toward the multiple forms of life” in all their extraordinary diversity. Enchantment of this type, Levine explains, is no less important or meaningful than enchantment arising from religion.”
So, where exactly did our sense of awe and enchantment come from? Oh, that’s right, these fine qualities are merely adaptations to our environment, promoting natural selection. Yes, we have been tricked into feeling such emotions, and now we must feel these very feelings toward the system that deceived us in the first place. Golly gee, sign me up Dr. Levine to your new enhanced worldview. And they say it is all science, and not religion!!
While I fail to see how natural selection can turn out to be a ‘loving’ process, (hmm… blind nature lovingly weeding out the less fit?) I don’t think it deserves being called “silly and superficial” unless of course, you’ve read it and can offer reasons why you think so.
I expect it to be a justification on a purposeful worldview while maintaining that life is created purposeless. How that is possible I don’t know but I’m open to the possibility that it contains fragments of truth.
The book sounds like a work of wasted trees and ink to me. Not to mention a demonstration of the hopelessness of Darwinian fundamentalists in general.
But perhaps it may have some effect at getting darwinists to re-think things and open up to real science by dropping their own fanatically religious adherence to Darwin at all costs, no matter what, so help us God! 😉
Surely they fear ID if they feel pushed to write on such subjects with such a feckless title.
And just look at the comments of some of the “wise” that have read it:
“…He shows that Darwin’s science is not dehumanising or amoral and that it’s possible to be a Darwinist and still believe that the world has meaning.”
Tell that to Provine eh!
“George Levine has thought deeply about Darwinism, its cultural history, and its implications for moral and spiritual values. Darwin Loves You should be read by everyone who thinks that their values are threatened by evolutionary theory.”
This person does not reason well at all – typical of most Darwinists that I know who perpetually skirt away from the rules of logic. Always trying to pull rabbits out Darwin’s hat while not realising the hat has a huge hole in it.
“… Second, it is crucially relevant to the present day with the [check this!] horrifying rise of fundamentalist religion in America and abroad. It shows how science gets misused and misunderstood in dangerous ways by fanatics. ”
I hope he’s is referring to the “horrifying” rise of Darwinian fundamentalism or Islam.
The words “Darwin Loves you” reminds me of the way Mike Ruse ended one of his mails to Dan Dennet: “In Charles Darwin” (A reference to the Christian salutation “In Christ”?)
I wonder if there will be a Turkish translation:
“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called “Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
Charles Darwin, Letter to W. Graham July 3rd, 1881
In relation to this, if Darwinian logic is followed strictly, this has to one of the results :
Humanity may split into two sub-species in 100,000 years’ time as predicted by HG Wells, an expert has said.
Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge.
The human race would peak in the year 3000, he said – before a decline due to dependence on technology.
People would become choosier about their sexual partners, causing humanity to divide into sub-species, he added.
The descendants of the genetic upper class would be tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent, and creative and a far cry from the “underclass” humans who would have evolved into dim-witted, ugly, squat goblin-like creatures.
Race ‘ironed out’
But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.
Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.
Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.
However, Dr Curry warns, in 10,000 years time humans may have paid a genetic price for relying on technology.
Spoiled by gadgets designed to meet their every need, they could come to resemble domesticated animals.
Social skills, such as communicating and interacting with others, could be lost, along with emotions such as love, sympathy, trust and respect. People would become less able to care for others, or perform in teams.
Physically, they would start to appear more juvenile. Chins would recede, as a result of having to chew less on processed food.
There could also be health problems caused by reliance on medicine, resulting in weak immune systems. Preventing deaths would also help to preserve the genetic defects that cause cancer.
Further into the future, sexual selection – being choosy about one’s partner – was likely to create more and more genetic inequality, said Dr Curry.
The logical outcome would be two sub-species, “gracile” and “robust” humans similar to the Eloi and Morlocks foretold by HG Wells in his 1895 novel The Time Machine.
“While science and technology have the potential to create an ideal habitat for humanity over the next millennium, there is a possibility of a monumental genetic hangover over the subsequent millennia due to an over-reliance on technology reducing our natural capacity to resist disease, or our evolved ability to get along with each other, said Dr Curry.
SOME LOVE !!
Let me get this straight. You’re saying that because some people use the science of “Darwinism” to help construct a worldview therefore that particular science has become a religion? By that logic we could argue that Islam has become a terrorist religion because some Muslims use it to justify terrorism, or that Christianity has become a religion of hate because some Christians have set up the “God Hates Fags” movement.
[…] I found this post quite funny (if it weren’t sad really): Darwin Loves You (and has a wonderful plan for your life): George Levine has a new book, Darwin Loves You. The book is silly and superficial, and would not be worth notice except that it serves as Exhibit A for the fact that Darwinism has become a religion, or at least, a Ã¢â‚¬Å“comprehensive doctrineÃ¢â‚¬Â in the sense of Rawls (John, not Lou), and hence NOT something that a liberal democracry ought to impose on its citizens by force, as is happening now. […]