In “Darwinian Philosophy: ‘Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose’” (Evolution News & Views, August 17, 2012),
Casey Luskin comments on University of Chicago’s Jerry Fodor discovering that it is not enough to be a materialist atheist – he is expected to be an utterly convinced, no-questions-asked Darwin fanatic. (See “Being a materialist atheist doesn’t help Jerry Fodor when he is up against Darwinism”)
Anyway, Luskin observes,
the true purpose of Rosenberg’s piece is to warn people not to challenge Darwin or they’ll suffer the same castigation as Darwin-critic (and atheist) Jerry Fodor. Rosenberg writes: “When a philosopher advances a purely a priori argument to show that a well-established scientific theory is fatally defective, it is usually safe to assume that the problem is the philosopher’s and not the theory’s.” Translation: If you question Darwin, expect trouble–and the trouble will come from me and other defenders of Darwinism. Given the logic we see being used to defend Darwinian theory, perhaps the philosopher isn’t the problem after all.
And of course, a major part of Rosenberg’s warning is to claim that Fodor’s arguments against Darwinism lead to “damage with harmful consequences for human well being.” And just what is that damage? Well, as Rosenberg puts it, it is lending support for religion (though he can’t bring himself to put it that nicely).
[ … ]
In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.”
It’s a predictable development, really. The Darwinist state has the same hostility to rational argument and evidence as the Marxist state, and for the same reason: it can’t withstand them.
Follow UD News at Twitter!