Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Religion

Darwin fan: Yes, it IS “fetishization.” So?

Spread the love

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor  gets mail:

Andrew Berry, the Harvard biologist who conducts a Darwin pilgrimage each year for undergraduates to Darwin-related sites in England, responds to my recent post about the cult-like reverence in which many Darwinists hold all things Darwin.

Berry:

I agree with [Egnor] it is indeed fetishization of All Things Darwin/Wallace (And More) that those of us interested in the history of science indulge in (and my program promotes). This is the reason first editions of The Origin sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. We admire Darwin and his colleagues, and enjoy the opportunity to feel in some way closer to the events and the people that we’re interested in by visiting sites etc associated with them, just as, presumably, Mr Egnor feels closer to Jesus when he travels to Jerusalem or a Muslim feels more at-one (or whatever) with the prophet on a visit to Mecca.

He’s right. Worshippers enjoy visiting the sites associated with their faith. I merely pointed out that Darwinists don’t differ much, in that regard, from people of other faiths. Michael Egnor, “Darwinian Faith and Fetish” at Evolution News and Science Today

Berry may not realize the significance of his admission. When a science field is so dominated by members of a like faith, that faith is bound to be a source of myopia, as we are seeing today:
Defence of Darwinism becomes a key purpose for many, to which finding out more about the history of life is secondary.

See also: Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: The brain is not a “meat computer”

and

Carl Woese on the “conceptual failings of the modern evolutionary synthesis”

4 Replies to “Darwin fan: Yes, it IS “fetishization.” So?

  1. 1
    Nonlin.org says:

    An admission that Darwinism is a religion as many of us have been pointing out for a long time.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Berry may not realize the significance of his admission. When a science field is so dominated by members of a like faith, that faith is bound to be a source of myopia, as we are seeing today:
    Defence of Darwinism becomes a key purpose for many, to which finding out more about the history of life is secondary.

    The only people fetishizing Darwin are the ID/creationists through their persistent attacks on him. Those with a working knowledge of the theory of evolution in biology recognize his seminal contribution to the theory and rightly place him amongst the greats of Western science. But they also know that the field has moved – and is continuing to move – beyond Darwin’s original conception.

    In fact, the fixation on Darwin can be interpreted as a sign that ID/creationism is more of an anti-evolution advocacy movement rather than science. Why don’t we see similar campaigns against Wallaceism or Mendelianism or Weissmanism? Apparently, the belief is that if Darwin’s credibility can be undermined, then the whole edifice will simply collapse. Maybe someone will come up with something better in the future but, for the moment, this is the best we have and, as such, it is not going anywhere.

    See also: Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: The brain is not a “meat computer”

    If it is not a “meat computer” then what was Egnor operating on for most of his life? An illusion? A hologram?

  3. 3

    Seversky @2:
    The better thing has been with us for millennia. It’s called design, and the evidence is all around and within us.
    For example:
    https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2018/08/25/mimicking-a-neural-network-an-exercise-in-intelligent-design/

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    Those with a working knowledge of the theory of evolution in biology recognize his seminal contribution to the theory and rightly place him amongst the greats of Western science.

    Except for the fact Darwin’s contribution hasn’t led to anything. His claims haven’t panned out.

    And Intelligent Design isn’t anti-evolution. Being anti- blind watchmaker evolution, yes, but evolution has more meanings than that narrow and untestable usage.

    And when we say “Darwinism” it means all evos, Seversky, from Darwin to the modern synthesis to today. He just started it so we are actually giving him the accolades.

    If it is not a “meat computer” then what was Egnor operating on for most of his life?

    It is only a meat computer if Darwinism is true. However if Darwinism were true the earth we wouldn’t be having this discussion as there wouldn’t be any of us.

Leave a Reply