History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Guess what, noone is qualified; Harris the hypocrite

July 27th, 2009 · 1 Comment

Science Is in the Details
Harris’s attempt to evaluate Collins is a strangely arrogant, and extremely ignorant piece of thinking.
I can’t for the life of me think who is qualified for the job Collins is taking on.
Harris’ review of Collins’ religious foibles is alarming in the extreme.
I have criticized Collins’ views’ a number of times, but I find the current review of his religious beliefs as disqualifying him for the NIH disgusting.
Consider this bullshit from Harris’ article.

If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”

Why should Dr. Collins’s beliefs be of concern?

There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are counterintuitive. It is by no means obvious that empty space has structure or that we share a common ancestor with both the housefly and the banana. It can be difficult to think like a scientist. But few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion.

At least Collins grasps that Darwinism has a problem with the evolution of ethics.
To Mr. Harris I would say there is an epidemic of Darwinian stupidity at work in the United States. That Collins should be confused by the issue of ethics and evolution is not surprising, but at least he sees the problem that Harris can’t see.

Harris is a hypocrite: he is a closet New Ager who believes in Buddhist psychology, and this he will hide from the public.
He will corrupt that psychology, in public, to deceive that public, apparently. And he turns around and beggars Collins over his moral beliefs not squaring with Darwinism.
Harris and his ilk are moving into areas such as Buddhism to destroy them in the name of secularism. Be ware of such phoneys.

I think we are without qualified scientists for any kind of cultural task. They are all so confused they cannot function.

Tags: New Age · Science & Religion

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 James // Jul 27, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    One of the troubling consequences here is that the Dawkins cult has successfully penetrated into pop culture to the extent that an “intelligent” person (as defined by the media) is now someone who has to engage in a knee-jerk dismissal of any idea that can be vaguely associated with religion (or it has to be neutralized by watering it down). To be sure, the f*ckup religionists deserve a large part of the blame here, but manipulating the public to conform to one worldview will probably be disastrous (especially the Darwinian). In the final analysis, it will hardly be a triumph of rationality if certain ideas have to be factored out of someone’s intellectual space because “secularists” are terrified of religion (and I’m not saying that Collins,etc. would be within the parameters of intelligent dialectical possibilities).

Leave a Comment