Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism vs. ID: A game of foxes vs. lions

arroba Email

Lion and fox, by Wenceslaus Hollar [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
From my (O’Leary for News) review of sociologist Steve Fuller’s book, Post-Truth: Knowledge as a Power Game: How ID Foxes Can Beat the Darwinian Lions

Fuller clearly finds the foxes more interesting and sympathetic figures than the lions: “The lion rules by focused shows of force, as opposed to the fox’s diverse displays of cunning.”


The usual strategy of the Darwinian lions is to portray the ID foxes as not merely wrong but bad, for example as “liars” for not upholding the current orthodoxy. But, Fuller observes, that strategy can fail when the evidence does not really support the lions as much as they claim: “The dispassionate observer might well conclude that the lion’s extremely loud roar belies its inability to defeat any challengers who might call its bluff.” For example, in 2016, the Royal Society held a high-profile interdisciplinary conference on “New Trends in Evolutionary Biology.”

Officially, the event was open to the widest possible range of criticisms of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis. Yet the invitation did not extend to proponents of intelligent design theory who have publicized most of the same criticisms of the synthesis. It would seem that the paradigm shift demanded by advocates of intelligent design would have been a step too far.

Fuller has little use for huffy claims about scientific consensus (“cognitive authoritarianism”): “The idea that consensus enjoys some epistemologically more luminous status in science than in other parts of society (where it might be simply dismissed as ‘groupthink’) is an artefact of the routine rewriting of history that scientists do to rally their troops.” He finds that consensus tends to be invoked on the very matters (“climate change, evolution, anything to do with health”) that can’t easily be addressed by the peer review process of Kuhn’s “normal science.” More.

See also: Sociologist Steve Fuller’s new book on post-truth in science

Reading the reviews is something you should do right from the bat if you're a new player. This is something that I've engaged in in the past. These evaluations AUcasimile.com come highly recommended from me due to the fact that they are both comprehensive and truthful. Despite this, the strategy in question is required. IvoryLawrance
[He finds that consensus tends to be invoked on the very matters (“climate change, evolution, anything to do with health”) that can’t easily be addressed by the peer review process of Kuhn’s “normal science.”] The problem is NOT that you can't easily have peer reviews of climate change, etc. The problem is that the Loud Mouths (um, baboons, not lions) will NOT ALLOW any such discussions. The same is generally true for detractors of Socialism in "Political Science", which of course was NEVER a Science. Socialism is "true" and "right" regardless of the repeated failures in both theory and practice. But it MUST be true. Therefore it IS true. And so there is no need for public discussions. vmahuna
Even when possession of some genuine truths is what led to former foxes becoming the reigning lions, their commitment to remaining in power soon overwhelms their commitment to the truth. In the case of the contemporary Darwinian lions their commitment to remaining in power has utterly destroyed their commitment to the truth. Any rational person capable of objectivity who looks into the ID vs the Darwinian establishment conflict soon realizes that ID won the debate long ago and that the lions have for quite some time been relying soley on raw power, not on rational arguments. harry
Darwinists are lions
There's a pride joke in there somewhere. ZING Andrew asauber
I don't agree that Darwinists are lions. Lions have integrity. Silver Asiatic

Leave a Reply