Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Maybe the best defence of Darwinism is now ignorance of the problems


Ably discussed at The Stream:

Last week, Rachel Alexander wrote about Yale professor David Gelernter’s “leaving Darwinism.” The article has garnered almost 400 comments already. I encourage you to read through them. It’s entertaining, at least — especially if you know anything about the history of this debate. Especially the online version.

Because — how shall I say this nicely? — people who defend Darwin online typically don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re terribly sure of themselves, though, and they don’t mind spewing insults to tell you so. And that’s not just bias speaking on my part. I’ve got data to back it up, as you’ll see shortly…

Ten years ago Stephen C. Meyer, head of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, published his first book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. A few months later I analyzed its 200-plus reviews so far on Amazon. (Full data detailed here.) I found that three quarters of the book’s one-star reviews came from people who stated outright they hadn’t read the book. Three-quarters! They said things like, “I don’t need to read this to know it’s ignorant.” Which is a fine way to expose their own ignorance: They had no idea what they were talking about, and acted proud of it!

Tom Gilson, “Intelligent Design Opponents Don’t Know What They’re Talking About, But Love Telling You ID is Stupid Anyway” at The Stream 1114

Here are the comments to which Gilson refers. Read the Darwinspouting for laughs.

Note: Amazon, to its credit, has been trying to crack down on those sorts of non-reviews (= “I’m proud to say I haven’t read it and neither should you!”) But hey, that’s not a risky business decision for Amazon. It’s hard to make a business case for just plain wasting prospective customers’ time by making them wade through the remarks of people who have chosen to waste their own time and take up space in that way.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

See also: But WHY are they abandoning Darwinism? And note, these are NOT the raging Woke who would pull down Darwin’s statue because he is dead, white, and male. These are thoughtful people. They can see that he might be reasonable but wrong.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

"people who defend Darwin online typically don’t know what they’re talking about. " very very true! I debate evolution very often in our local mainstream paper (non-english). I can can only confirm. Darwin-worshiping laymen have no idea what they actually believe in. I see it over and over again. They are often talking about random mutations, chance and deep time. They call me stupid and uneducated, because i can't imagine big numbers, deep time and chance... But when i show them only a few examples of convergent (repeated) evolution, they usually drop the conversation or attack me even worse. They never heard of repeated evolution. My very recent example of repeated evolution is the repeated evolution of placenta (more than 100 independent origins). It would be a miracle, if a placenta would evolve once by chance, let alone 100 times independently .... There are many other examples of repeated evolution, e.g. C4 photosynthesis allegedly evolved 60+ times, CAM photosynthesis 60+ times, Myrmecochory 150+ times ! and so on... imagine a thing, and i can assure you, it evolved many times independently in various unrelated species (e.g. famous flagellum, evolved at least 3 times independently...see wikipedia ) Now, who believes in miracles, big numbers and chance ? Look at my blog for more miracles: http://www.stuffhappens.info martin_r

Leave a Reply