A Moment of Honesty From an Atheist

[Clete]

I watched a video that cited the following quote. I was so impressed with it that I wanted to share it with you guys here. Remember it the next time some atheist accuses you of making the "God did it." argument. It is they who make such an argument, only it isn't God its mindless evolution over eons of time that did it. We, at least, can appeal to the common sense notion that just as camp fires imply campers and watches imply watch makers, the wildly complex systems we see everywhere we look in nature imply a supernatural designer.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its patent absurdity in some of its constructs; in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life; in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated 'just-so stories,' because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.​

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes, to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."​

Marxist atheist - Richard Lewontin - from his review of Carl Sagan’s book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.​

 

[Right Divider]

"a prior commitment to materialism"

Yeppers, that's the problem right there!

 

[marke]

I watched a video that cited the following quote. I was so impressed with it that I wanted to share it with you guys here. Remember it the next time some atheist accuses you of making the "God did it." argument. It is they who make such an argument, only it isn't God its mindless evolution over eons of time that did it. We, at least, can appeal to the common sense notion that just as camp fires imply campers and watches imply watch makers, the wildly complex systems we see everywhere we look in nature imply a supernatural designer.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its patent absurdity in some of its constructs; in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life; in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated 'just-so stories,' because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.​

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes, to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."​

Marxist atheist - Richard Lewontin - from his review of Carl Sagan’s book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.​

That is a good post. Lynn Margulis was interviewed for Discover magazine one time and she quoted Lewontin in another rather revealing honest admission:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/discover-interview-lynn-margulis-says-shes-not-controversial-shes-right 6-16-11


 When evolutionary biologists use computer modeling to find out how many mutations you need to get from one species to another, it’s not mathematics—it’s numerology. They are limiting the field of study to something that’s manageable and ignoring what’s most important. They tend to know nothing about atmospheric chemistry and the influence it has on the organisms or the influence that the organisms have on the chemistry. They know nothing about biological systems like physiology, ecology, and biochemistry. Darwin was saying that changes accumulate through time, but population geneticists are describing mixtures that are temporary. Whatever is brought together by sex is broken up in the next generation by the same process. Evolutionary biology has been taken over by population geneticists. They are reductionists ad absurdum. 
Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathematized all of it—changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, “You know, we’ve tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.” This just appalled me. So I said, “Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it’s gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?” And he looked around and said, “It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it I won’t get my grant money.” So he’s an honest man, and that’s an honest answer.

 

[Clete]

That is a good post. Lynn Margulis was interviewed for Discover magazine one time and she quoted Lewontin in another rather revealing honest admission:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/discover-interview-lynn-margulis-says-shes-not-controversial-shes-right 6-16-11


 When evolutionary biologists use computer modeling to find out how many mutations you need to get from one species to another, it’s not mathematics—it’s numerology. They are limiting the field of study to something that’s manageable and ignoring what’s most important. They tend to know nothing about atmospheric chemistry and the influence it has on the organisms or the influence that the organisms have on the chemistry. They know nothing about biological systems like physiology, ecology, and biochemistry. Darwin was saying that changes accumulate through time, but population geneticists are describing mixtures that are temporary. Whatever is brought together by sex is broken up in the next generation by the same process. Evolutionary biology has been taken over by population geneticists. They are reductionists ad absurdum. 
Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathematized all of it—changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, “You know, we’ve tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I’ve told you about.” This just appalled me. So I said, “Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it’s gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?” And he looked around and said, “It’s the only thing I know how to do, and if I don’t do it I won’t get my grant money.” So he’s an honest man, and that’s an honest answer.

Excellent quote!

She is too generous to Lewontin though. At best, he's honest about being dishonest. Anyone who was actually honest would find something else to do rather than continuing to take money to finance what is known to be a scientific dead end.

 

[Derf]

Excellent quote!

She is too generous to Lewontin though. At best, he's honest about being dishonest. Anyone who was actually honest would find something else to do rather than continuing to take money to finance what is known to be a scientific dead end.

One would have to be both honest and moral to do that.