February 1, 2006
BUT, BUT, BUT...
While we're at it (Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, First Things, December, 2006) (Scroll Down)
They are called the three masters of suspicion: Marx, Freud, and Darwin, each in his own way, defied tradition (not only Christian tradition) and commonsensical confidence by persuading large sectors of the brightest and best that things are not as they seem. By invoking, respectively, false consciousness, the unconscious, and materialistic determinism, they and their followers claimed to have debunked the constituting convictions of western culture. Today even approximately orthodox Marxists and Freudians are scarcely to be found, and, says British historian Paul Johnson, fervent Darwinists are inadvertently undoing the cause they champion. “At a revivalist meeting of Darwinians two or three years ago, I heard the chairman, the fiction-writer Ian McEwan, call out, ‘Yes, we do think God is an old man in the sky with a beard, and his name is Charles Darwin.’ I doubt if there is a historical precedent for this investment of so much intellectual and emotional capital, by so many well-educated and apparently rational people, in the work of a single scientist. And to anyone who has studied the history of science and noted the chances of any substantial body of teaching—based upon a particular hypothesis or set of observations—surviving the erosion of time and new research intact, it is inevitable that Darwinism, at least in its fundamentalist form, will come crashing down. The only question is: when? The likelihood that Darwin’s eventual debacle will be sensational and brutal is increased by the arrogance of his acolytes, by their insistence on the unchallengeable truth of the theory of natural selection—which to them is not a hypothesis but a demonstrated fact, and its critics mere flat-earthers—and by their success in occupying the commanding heights in the university science departments and the scientific journals, denying a hearing to anyone who disagrees with them. I detect a groundswell of discontent at this intellectual totalitarianism, so unscientific by its very nature. It is wrong that any debate, especially one on so momentous a subject as the origin of species, and the human race above all, should be arbitrarily declared to be closed, and the current orthodoxy set in granite for all time. Such a position is not tenable, and the evidence that it is crumbing is growing.”
...he obviously doesn't understand Darwinism
Posted by Peter Burnet at February 1, 2006 7:19 PMoj,
Reads like an abridged version of "A Relativistic World", chapter one of Paul Johnsons' great book, "Modern Times".
Mike
When you're that deeply invested in a particular view of reality, you don't move easily or fluidly. But eventually tectonics happen.
Goes for all forms of zealotry.
Posted by: ghostcat at February 1, 2006 11:48 PMJust because they incorrectly and unnecessarily(sp?)claimed to debunk western civilization doesn't mean they were wrong on everything. To a large degree we are all Marxists, Darwinists and Freudians now. That is why there aren't many of them around, whatever was sound about their views has been utterly internalized.
Posted by: Pepys at February 2, 2006 2:20 AMPepys: What was sound? Marx's economic theory and inevitability is gone. Freudian psychotherapy has been replaced by drug theraphy. Darwin's theory is under assault.
Posted by: jd watson
at February 2, 2006 4:31 AM
Freud's theory of the unconscious seems to have been pretty broadly accepted.
Same for Darwin's theory of evolution which is something distinct from Dawkins' raving atheism.
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at February 2, 2006 6:08 AMFr. Neuhaus and Fr. Coyne need to do lunch.
They aren't singing from the same hymnal.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at February 2, 2006 7:16 AMWhat is he talking about? Darwinism's eventual debacle?? Is he putting his money on ID? ID is the best thing that can happen to Darwinism. Once people take ID seriously enough it will have to deliver some statement of its scientific underpinnings. Of course it won't because there are no scientific underpinnings to ID. Then the ID schills will shut up for a generation or so.
defied tradition (not only Christian tradition) and commonsensical confidence by persuading large sectors of the brightest and best that things are not as they seem. By invoking, respectively, false consciousness, the unconscious, and materialistic determinism, they and their followers claimed to have debunked the constituting convictions of western culture.
If he's referring to Platonism, that has been debunked for some time here in the West. Only theology nerds take it seriously anymore. For a thorough evisceration, look here and here.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at February 2, 2006 11:38 AM