Evolution Icon Evolution
Intelligent Design Icon Intelligent Design

Insulation and Insults: Darwinist Massimo Pigliucci Goes After Jonathan Wells Again

Massimo_Pigliucci.jpg

Our colleague Dr. Michael Egnor observed the other day:

What is revealing about [mathematician Jeffrey] Shallit’s denial [of the mind] is the extent to which materialists will go to insulate their ideology from critique. Philosophers raise profound questions about the validity — and even the coherence — of materialist theories of the mind. Rather than take those critiques seriously, Shallit denies the relevance of philosophical inquiry.

Someone should really be cataloguing the ways that Darwinists seek to evade challenges from skeptics without answering us. With them, a common insulation strategy is the use of the term "denial" — as in science denial. Philosopher and biologist Massimo Pigliucci recently attended a whole academic conference at Clark University on the supposed phenomenon, and writes excitedly about what he learned ("The varieties of denialism").

"Denialism" in the view of the gathered scholars approaches a diagnosable mental disorder, although "Denial Studies" (Pigliucci says he’s "rather happy to use that term!") is

a highly interdisciplinary field, arguably one of the most interdisciplinary I can think of, including history, political science, law, natural science (from physics to biology), psychology, sociology, philosophy (in various forms, from political philosophy to ethics to epistemology), to mention just some of the principal contributors.

Regarding the controversy about Darwin’s theory, Pigliucci in the past has tried to answer us on the merits, critiquing Jonathan Wells’s book Icons of Evolution in his own 2002 book Denying Evolution. But Casey Luskin handed Pigliucci his hat on that one in a series here at ENV, icon by icon. (See here, here, and here.) The attempt to refute Icons was a flop.

Ah well, rather than rebutting opponents on the substance, it’s always easier to frame and dismiss them with charged terms like "denier" or "creationist." That is the lesson that Pigliucci seems to have drawn. As an illustration to go with his post, he includes a black-and-white photo of a woman shutting her eyes and sticking her fingers in her ears to avoid hearing or seeing something she doesn’t like. The photo is apt, though not as Pigliucci seems to intend it.

In his current post, he goes after Jonathan Wells again but this time sticks to character assassination. He brags about "his best moments as a debater" against "creationists" including an exchange with Jonathan Wells where "I was able to show the audience that these people were consciously lying to them."

Not true, not even close. What’s he referring to? As Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, and many others have done, he quoted something that Dr. Wells wrote, out of context. The purpose with all of them was to give the impression that Wells’s own case against Darwinian theory arises only from religious, not scientific, considerations. See Jonathan’s response at Uncommon Descent.

The debate format imposes limits on participants, and in this case Dr. Wells had a choice. He could either get down in the mud with Dr. Pigliucci and reply to the ad hominem slur, or he could limit himself to the substance, the science. He chose the latter.

That’s standard operating procedure for Jonathan Wells — stick to the science, since that’s where we have the advantage. I commend it to our Darwin-defending interlocutors. Except that the science is not where they have the advantage. That’s why you should expect that the defense of their favored theory, and the denial of design in nature, will continue to depend overwhelmingly on strategies of insulation and insults.

If the term "denial" applies to either side in this controversy, it is certainly to the Darwinists rather than their critics. Like Pigliucci, I’m "happy" to use the word, since it fits. The difference is that if I were in their camp I would not be pleased if our response to criticisms consisted mainly of rhetoric and misrepresentation.

I’m on Twitter. Follow me @d_klinghoffer.

Image: Massimo Pigliucci/Wikipedia.

David Klinghoffer

Senior Fellow and Editor, Evolution News
David Klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and the editor of Evolution News & Science Today, the daily voice of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, reporting on intelligent design, evolution, and the intersection of science and culture. Klinghoffer is also the author of six books, a former senior editor and literary editor at National Review magazine, and has written for the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Seattle Times, Commentary, and other publications. Born in Santa Monica, California, he graduated from Brown University in 1987 with an A.B. magna cum laude in comparative literature and religious studies. David lives near Seattle, Washington, with his wife and children.

Share

Tags

PhilosophyScienceViews