Intelligent Design

Atheist philosophers on why Darwinism has got to go

Spread the love

Product DetailsJerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, explain,

Such cases of elaborate innate behavioural programs (spider webs, bee foraging as we saw above, and many more) cannot be ccounted for by means of optimizing physico-chemical or geometric factors. But they csan hardly be accounted for by gradualistic adaptation either. It’s fair to acknowledge that, although we bet that some naturalistic explanations will one day found, we have no such explanation at present. And if we insist that natural selection is the only way to try, we will never have one.

What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 91

5 Replies to “Atheist philosophers on why Darwinism has got to go

  1. 1
    jgray2 says:

    This Amazon review is pretty telling, why are ID theorists and creationists jumpign all over this book like it’s the gospel?

    “I’ve noticed that some people are trying to make this book about religion vs. atheism in some way. I’m afraid that would be a terrible mistake. The author(s?) is an atheist, and they both express their commitment to naturalism in some way. If you are an intelligent design proponent, then I really don’t know what you would get from this book. I know the so-called Discovery Institute has already heralded the death of Darwinism with the release of this book, but don’t buy into the hype. This is an in-house debate between evolutionists of a strongly naturalistic bent; keep your personal projections away from this text.”

  2. 2
    Upright BiPed says:

    Was someone being misled that the authors were not themselves atheist?

    The importance of the book is credited to its content, not the philosophical view of its authors. The simple fact is that its content reinforces some of the observations made by ID proponents for years on end.

  3. 3
    Joseph says:

    jgray2-

    It is a big deal, to us, when atheistic materialists question their own dogma.

  4. 4
    O'Leary says:

    jgray2 at 1: “the so-called Discovery Institute”? When was it known by some other name? Spill. All ears here.

    We’re especially interested in non-Darwinian atheists because Top Atheist Richard Dawkins claims that Darwinism makes it possible to be intellectually fulfilled as an atheist. These people seem to think they are intellectually fulfilled without going down on the SS Darwin, so we want to know more.

  5. 5
    atheistIDer says:

    Again, ID is solely a scientific theory, the religious beliefs of any of its proponents, or of the detractors of competing theories is completely irrelevant.

    I also see “materialist” tossed around as a pejorative numerous times in both the comments and even in articles which confuses me.

    Since ID tells us nothing about the designer, it is completely consistent for it to turn out that ID is solely materialistic.

Leave a Reply