Darwin’s Dangerous Idea—No Middle Ground

Can science progress with philosophical assumptions?
Yes it can, but to what end? I really wish the "theistic evolutionists"
in this group would honestly admit the obvious incompatibility of what
scripture teaches and ToE.

"Dennett understands that every important idea and pattern of thought is
instantly transformed if Darwinism is accepted as true. The evolutionary
worldview of Darwinism, based in purely materialistic and naturalistic
explanations of all phenomena, leaves no room for transcendent meaning,
human dignity, morality, or hope. Human beings, along with the rest of
the cosmos, are simply the accidental byproducts of vast cosmic forces"


Daniel C. Dennett is one of the world's most influential evolutionary
scientists, and unlike many of his colleagues, Dennett doesn't run away
from Darwinism's logical conclusions. Instead, he describes Darwin's
theory of evolution as a "universal acid" that completely reshapes
reality, destroying those truths previously held to be enduring and
unchanging.

"Whenever Darwinism is the topic, the temperature rises, because more is
at stake than just the empirical facts about how life on Earth evolved,
or the correct logic of the theory that accounts for those facts,"
Dennett asserts.

In a recent interview with Germany's Der Spiegel, Dennett dismissed the
concept of Intelligent Design, arguing that all intelligent persons
simply must accept Darwin's theory at face value. Nevertheless, Dennett
does understand the logic of Intelligent Design. As he sees it, many
persons reject evolution because it "goes right to the heart of the most
troubling discovery in science of the last few hundred years." This is
"the idea that it takes a big fancy smart thing to make a lesser thing.
I call that the trickle-down theory of creation. You'll never see a
spear making a spear maker. You'll never see a horseshoe making a
blacksmith. You'll never see a pot making a potter. It's always the
other way around and this is so obvious that it just seems to stand to
reason."

Nevertheless, Dennett believes this reasoning to be profoundly wrong.
Interestingly, he suggests that the idea of Intelligent Design, at least
in its fundamental form, may be even older than the human species. He
offers the suggestion that what he identifies as earlier species of
hominids might have created objects and then "had a sense of being more
wonderful than their artifacts." Then, Dennett simply suggests that Homo
sapiens, capable of creating a seemingly endless array of objects, would
assume that they, too, were the products of an intelligent creator.

Amazingly, Dennett, along with his colleague Richard Dawkins, uses the
reality of complexity and apparent design to argue against a designer.
In one sense, Dennett simply turns the idea of design on its head,
arguing that greater design means, in effect, less proof of a designer.
As Dennett claims, "not only can you get design from un-designed things,
you can even get the evolution of designers from that un-design. You end
up with authors and poets and artists and engineers and other designers
of things, other creators--very recent fruits of the tree of life. And
it challenges people's sense that life has meaning." Well, of course it
does.

Dennett does believe that human beings are unique as a species. This
special status is essentially a function of linguistics. Dennett, who
serves as University Professor and Austin B. Fletcher Professor of
Philosophy at Tufts University, as well as Director of the Center for
Cognitive Studies at the university, has devoted himself to the
understanding of human consciousness and linguisticality.

The ability to use language, Dennett explains, means that human beings
can learn, not only from their own experience, but from others, both
living and dead. Thus, "human culture itself becomes a profound
evolutionary force. That is what gives us an epistemological horizon
which is far, far greater than that of any other species. We are the
only species that knows who we are, that knows that we have evolved. Our
songs, art, books and religious beliefs are all ultimately a product of
evolutionary algorithms. Some find that thrilling, others depressing."

Dennett's ideas are worth a close look. After all, he boldly accepts
what so many other evolutionary scientists deny--that Darwin's theory
means the impossibility of any belief in God. While evolutionists such
as the late Stephen J. Gould argued that evolution and religion could be
considered as "non-overlapping magisterium," thus allowing each to
operate in separate spheres, Dennett explicitly rejects this argument.
He directs specific criticism at evolutionist Michael Ruse, accusing him
of "just trying to put the implications of Darwin's insights into soft
focus and to reassure people that there is not as much conflict between
the perspective of evolutionary biology and their traditional ways of
thinking."

When it comes to the human soul, Dennett insists that it must be no more
than human consciousness operating as a part of our physical bodies.
Dennett's physicalism means that he rejects any concept of the soul as
independent of the chemical operations of the brain. As he told Der
Spiegel, "The brain is no more wonder tissue than the lungs or the
liver. It's just a tissue."

Committed to a radical form of naturalistic materialism, Dennett
understands belief in God to be nothing more than an artifact of the
evolutionary process. The death of God, Dennett explains, "is a very
clear consequence" of Darwinism.

On this point, we should at least be thankful that Dennett is more
intellectually honest than many of his evolutionary colleagues. He
allows that belief in God may be culturally acceptable, but only insofar
as this God has nothing to do with our origins or our lives--past,
present, or future.

"One has to understand that God's role has been diminished over the
eons," Dennett instructs. "First, we had God . . . making Adam and
making every creature with his hands, plucking the rib from Adam and
making Eve from that rib. Then we trade that God in for the God who sets
evolution in motion. And then you say you don't even need that God--the
lawgiver--because if we take these ideas from cosmology seriously then
there are other places and other laws and life evolves where it can. So
now we no longer have God the lawfinder or God the lawgiver, but just
God the master of ceremonies. When God is the master of ceremonies and
doesn't actually play any role anymore in the universe, he's sort of
diminished and no longer intervenes in any way." Put simply, "the job
description for God shrinks."

In his 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Dennett began by reciting a
Sunday School song he had learned as a child. The song, "Tell Me Why,"
asks why the stars shine, why the ivy twines, and why the sky's so blue.
As the song assures, these things are so because God made them so. "This
straightforward, sentimental declaration still brings a lump to my
throat--so sweet, so innocent, so reassuring a vision of life!" Dennett
remembers. Nevertheless, he doesn't believe that it is true. "The sweet,
simple vision of the song, taken literally, is one that most of us have
outgrown, however fondly we may recall it. The kindly God who lovingly
fashioned each and every one of us (all creatures great and small) and
sprinkled the sky with shining stars for our delight--that God is, like
Santa Claus, a myth of childhood, not anything a sane, undeluded adult
could literally believe in. That God must either be turned into a symbol
for something less concrete or abandoned altogether."

The only concept of God that can survive the emergence of Darwinism is
God as an intellectual concept who simply offers a mythopoetic means of
appreciating grandeur and beauty.

Theism, the belief in a personal and self-existent God, must go the way
of the Dodo bird, he argues. "A faith, like a species, must evolve or go
extinct when the environment changes. It is not a gentle process in
either case . . . . We preach freedom of religion, but only so far." He
continues: "It is nice to have grizzly bears and wolves living in the
wild. They are no longer a menace; we can peacefully coexist, with a
little wisdom. The same policy can be discerned in our political
tolerance, in religious freedom. You are free to preserve or create any
religious creed you wish, so long as it does not become a public menace."

Well, we have been warned. Dennett clearly understands traditional
Christianity to be just the kind of public menace he fears.
Nevertheless, he is absolutely certain that he and his cherished theory
of evolution will win--and fairly soon. Darwin's theory of evolution
will, he confidently asserts, come to occupy a "secure and untroubled
place in the minds--and hearts--of every educated person on the globe."

Dennett's excitement about Darwinism goes back to his childhood, when he
and his friends would speculate about the existence and effect of a
substance they called the "universal acid." "Universal acid is a liquid
so corrosive that it will eat through anything! The problem is: what do
you keep it in? It dissolves glass bottles and stainless-steel canisters
as readily as paper bags. What would happen if you somehow came upon or
created a dollop of universal acid? Would the whole planet eventually be
destroyed? What would it leave in its wake? After everything had been
transformed by its encounter with universal acid, what would the world
look like?"

As an adult, Dennett now seizes upon Darwinism as the very universal
acid that had fascinated his imagination as a boy. This universal acid
is not a liquid substance, but an intellectual idea.

"Little did I realize that in a few years I would encounter an
idea--Darwin's idea--bearing an unmistakable likeness to universal acid:
it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its
wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still
recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways."

Transformed indeed. Dennett understands that every important idea and
pattern of thought is instantly transformed if Darwinism is accepted as
true. The evolutionary worldview of Darwinism, based in purely
materialistic and naturalistic explanations of all phenomena, leaves no
room for transcendent meaning, human dignity, morality, or hope. Human
beings, along with the rest of the cosmos, are simply the accidental
byproducts of vast cosmic forces.

Daniel C. Dennett understands all this, but exults in Darwin's
"dangerous idea." Indeed, he suggests that he would award Darwin "the
gold medal for the best idea anybody ever had." Remember Dennett the
next time you hear the argument that evolution and Christianity are
compatible. The basic incompatibility of Darwin's theory is the one
facet of Dennett's thought we can truly appreciate. Now, if only his
evolutionary colleagues would be equally candid.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evolution = Atheism = objective fact.
    ... the evidence, it does not make statements about what the evidence can't ... The explanation of evidence in favor evolution exists within the ... People say they don't accept evolution largely because they are ignorant of the science involved, and they mistakenly believe that evolution denies God. ... The appearance of design in nature is not evidence that this appearance is genuine. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The basic problem I have with Intelligent Design
    ... that it MUST have come about by design. ... >> What I mean is that whatever path the development of the universe took, ... I do believe God created the universe and everything in it. ... >> much as evolution states it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pure topic (for Robert Camp)
    ... sure 'design and accident' doesn't cover all of the possibilities. ... called Christian Evolutionists to be fools and buffoons, so Robert ... to by God. ... This is what evolution does: it makes a person deluded and dishonest. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pure topic (for Robert Camp)
    ... sure 'design and accident' doesn't cover all of the possibilities. ... The remainder of Robert Camp's "replies," seen below, are written ... to by God. ... is misrepresenting the basic claims of science and evolution for the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Response to Augrays rebuttal of Chuck Colsons letter
    ... Intelligent design, as defined by the Discovery Institute, teaches ... intelligent design do believe in some form of evolution. ... Behe leaves no doubt of his belief in natural selection. ... thinks that God is the designer. ...
    (talk.origins)