In Public Evolution Summit, Suzan Mazur quotes John Landon at Darwinana.com on the decades-long Darwin debate, now erupting at the Royal Society. One might have expected, given the name of the site, that Landon felt himself in somewhat the same position as the turkey who discovers the true meaning of Thanksgiving…
But it is encouraging to hear him say,
Watching the Darwin debate go on and on unreasonably with no resolution from scientific or academic bodies allowing the religious right to dominate critique is a strange experience. I am impressed by the inability of most of the public to think clearly on the subject, the failure of the biological community to handle even the most elementary discussion of the problems, the rote repetition of darwinian cliches, the virulent and prejudiced regime of domination by such as the Dawkins cult, etc…
He believes that “science culture as a whole has failed disastrously on a key issue.” (pp. 12–13)
Crikey! Someone bugged our lunchroom!
No but seriously, when even the people who tend Darwin’s legacy are saying these things, evolutionary biology cannot just maintain the status quo with some slight modifications. That amounts to quiet decline in any field and science is not immune.
As for the Dawkins cult, it’s been a source of fun and not much else for a long time. It’s hard to see how that helps any field.
See also: Denis Noble: Why talk about replacement of Darwinian evolution theory, not extension? View from here: The new approach is not exclusive or totalistic. It does not behave, as Darwinism does, as a metaphysic. Among many assemblies of evidence, some will naturally prevail, as more persuasive than others. But for once, evidence exists to understand living things better rather than to understand Darwin better.
Dawkins is “kaput”? Due to a wee hours row in an elevator at a Skeptics convention? Look, the idiot has been good business for us at UD over the years. Try to understand, we had to pull him out of the fire somehow. 😉
Follow UD News at Twitter!
7 Replies to “Darwiniana slams “virulent and prejudiced regime” of Dawkins cult in biology”
I’m guessing that this is the same John Landon as the one who has been posting nutty critiques of evolution for a long time.
Actually, it doesn’t sound nutty at all. It is a classic reprise of the problems. Read Mazur’s book; lots of respected people are saying the same thing.
I understand that you are a fan of Suzan (‘z’, really?), but surely you know that she is a little beyond the outside barrier, of the border with the land of obscure. Or, more plainly, no one has heard of her beyond this site.
You also punch incredibly above your weight in assuming Dawkins knows this site even exists. The patronising, “Look, the idiot has been good business for us at UD over the years.”
This assumes so much. Firstly that Dawkins has heard of UD. Second that UD opinions carry any weight, anywhere, at any time. Thirdly that Dawkins is no longer still a very popular speaking circuit guest.Fourthly, that UD is even invited to this conversation, and has a part to play in this serious scientific discussion on the future of evolutionary study focus. Fifthly…etc.
Such pointless rancor and mindless vituperation . . . your post has told us nothing except that you like to hiss and spit on people with intelligent, scientific objections to a failed, 19th century racist theory.
Don’t you have anything better to do?
So we get to watch Rebecca Watson cannibalizing Richard Dawkins at a convention. Oh, and speaking of which, you still haven’t answered my question about any moral prohibition against eating certain types of animal protein.
We’re still waiting.
rvb8, as to your indignation that Dawkins has been slandered, should not Dawkins first really exist as a real person, instead of as a neuronal illusion, before ‘you’ get so upset that his reputation has been sullied? i.e. Is it even possible to slander a neuronal illusion?
Which brings me to you rvb8, although you self-admittedly do not really know the details of the science at hand, ‘you’ profess unquestioned certainty that Darwinian evolution is undeniably true. But how is it even possible for illusions to have 100% certainty about anything? i.e. If ‘you’ are not even certain that you really exist as a real person how is it even possible for you, as a person, to be certain about anything else? much less to be certain about Darwinian evolution? Any ‘certainty’ that you may wish to have had about anything is itself predicated on the fact that there really is a ‘you’ who has the ability to be certain about something!
rvb8, after you answer the question of how it is possible for a collection of randomly jostling particles, i.e. the illusion of Richard Dawkins, to possibly be insulted, I have a bonus question for you.
First rvb8, the human brain is complex to the point of being ‘almost beyond belief’:
In fact, the human brain is so fantastically complex that we have no hope of ever realistically simulating it in the near future:
Now my question for you rvb8, assuming there really is a ‘you’ to answer the question, is this. Is the better explanation for this jaw dropping ‘beyond belief’ complexity of the human brain unguided material processes or God?
Beautifully summarized, Dean_from_Ohio!