Hey, theistic evolutionists, you have a new pal and representative: Dinesh D’Souza. Doesn’t that just make you want to reevaluate your philosophical foundations?
Don’t worry too much about it. D’Souza is a spectacular twit of a theistic evolutionist. He reveals his endorsement of evolution because he likes Sam Brownback (Strike 1!). He’s not at all informed about the debate because he thinks there are only two possibilities — you either accept evolution, or you’re a Young Earth Creationist (Strike 2!). And he endorses a particularly shallow form of NOMA—”Evolution provides a convincing account for transitions from one life form to another, and God breathed souls into us humans, just like the Bible says,” in which he accepts biblical authority without much thought (Strike 3!).
Maybe it’s hasty to call him a theistic evolutionist—there’s no sign that he’s put a moment’s thought into either the “theistic” part or the “evolution” part. I hate to say it because it is extremely slanderous, but perhaps we just ought to label him a — don’t say these words aloud if there are children about — “conservative pundit.” Bleh, ick, ptui.
Apikoros–
You don’t have any sort of contact info in this forum, and I think our conversation on the “Behe” topic (and my last response) is somewhat buried now. If you feel like getting in touch, my e-mail is at my linked homepage. Thanks!
Being an evilutionist is no more fun if all the bad guys suddenly are sliding towards our side.
You have to respect D’Souza’s willingness to buck the normal conservative tide. Rather than say what the right-wingers want to hear, he says what he thinks is true. Good for him.
Unfortunately, what he thinks is true is absolutely crazy.
I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It’s no news that D’Souza belives in God, so that would make him either a creationist or theistic evolutionist. He doesn’t seem to be a creationist, at least, but it’s particularly interesting that he doesn’t mince words. Also, this statement, “Evolution provides a convincing account for transitions from one life form to another, and God breathed souls into us humans, just like the Bible says,” seems to be an example of the position that Brownback could have taken as a third option between creationism and “Godless evolutionism”.
If I didn’t know that D’Souza himself was a theist, I could have interpreted this essay as simply an attack on Brownback’s lack of logic and scientific illiteracy, rather than a stating of D’Souza’s own position.
Poor Dinesh. He’s trying so hard, isn’t he?
As a funny aside: My niece has a little wind-up chimp that bangs a pair of cymbals together. She named him Dinesh D’Souza.
Every time I read something from him, I just think of that, and it really makes me giggle.
It’s no news that D’Souza belives in God, so that would make him either a creationist or theistic evolutionist.
Actually, that’s not quite true. He could also be a Deist and believe that the “watchmaker god” wound the universe up at the beginning of time, set the “Laws of Nature” into place, and now just stands back and watches what goes on without interfering. That’s a belief system that is completely compatible with evolution, without being something that could really be called “theistic evolution” as far as I understand the term.
But D’Souza is a Roman Catholic, and as such should believe in theistic evolution over creationism because that’s official Church teaching on the matter — evolution happens because that’s the mechanism God uses to enact his Divine Plan. If D’Souza were a creationist and taking the Bible literally, he’d actually be a heretic in the eyes of the Church (it’s a minor heresy in comparison to other attempts to take the Bible literally, but heresy nonetheless).
Mark said:
and NonyNony replied
Actually one can profess a belief in God and be none of these things. One can profess a belief in God and believe in a full-blown naturalistic view of the universe. And it isn’t just me – Spong’s Jesus for the Non-Religious makes that argument quite well.
D’Souza scribbled and typed at Dartmouth on his way up in the literary and politicking world. I claim that it is highly probable that he may have learned to type and write before he developed a critical intelligence. He certainly doesn’t illustrate a scientific or objective view of the world. Chris Mooney may have developed in a similar fashion.
Millions of us were encouraged to become passionate and opinionated literary jackasses as undergraduates. “Okay, students compare and contrast.” That game has become worse, not better.
How ironic that one of your random quotes next to your blog about D’Souza today is a classic dose of scientific wisdom
from Feynman. The Kasmar quote is terrific, but Feynman is better. How about a blog on Feynman?
Some us are both humbled and motivated by Feynman’s words, while countless professed intellectuals such as D’Souza, Nisbet, and Lakoff, are so susceptible to literary analysis, armchair philosophizing and so-called intuition (whatever the hell that is). Yes, I know that Nisbet calls himself a social scientist (pollster?). Much so-called social science is best described as witch doctoring, pure propaganda, opinion, and unadulterated nonsense.
All around us madness is presented as deep wisdom – Freud, Jung, cognitive everything, Levi-Strauss, legal training, social construction, peeyar, quantum flapdoodle, framing… Puke.
A deep dose of Feynman could help make anybody less stupid. Millions of lawyers, economists, and English majors don’t know the foggiest about Feynman’s brilliant discussions of the wonders and joys of living a scientific life. Ronald Reagan’s autobiography is titled, “An American Life.” because he filled his brain with God, the founding fathers, and then quit. The poor man never considered learning even rudimentary science. Ditto for Bush, our president and decider.
Feynman never waxed on about religion, psychological explanations, or cognitive linguistic doubletalk, either. He was too busy doing science and looking for evidence to help answer critical questions and understand how the world works. We had all better do more science, as in Feynman, or we will be carbonized like witches at the stake.
Dan – LOL!
It’s interesting that Mr. D’Souza blames Hilary Clinton and Britney Spears for 9/11, while completely overlooking the fact that the first attempt to bring down the towers (by setting off a bomb in the underground parking garage) was made in February of 1993, long before Britney or Hillary were much of a factor in anything. It seems highly unlikely that the bombing was as response to the Clintons’ having occupied the White House for three weeks.
I have an alternative take on D’Souza. I think he’s a closet atheist. In much the same vein that the biggest homophobes frequently secretly nurse a fear of their own homosexual tendencies.
D’Souza’s biggest splash comes when he writes that someday Muslims and Christians will get together to crush secularism. D’Souza isn’t so much religious as repelled by an open and functional society that allows people to be rude, crass, and sexual, as part of its openness. He’s a cultural warrior, but his god-talk is surprisingly muted. He’s not generally in favor of gods; his whole schtick is to be opposed to those who disfavor the whole notion of gods.
I just finished Fredrick Crews terrific new book, Follies of the Wise. It is a great expose of the pretentious pomposity that routinely passes for intelligence. Follies of the WISE!
For those who may not be familiar with him, Crews became world famous for the depth of his Freudian analysis of literature. Crews work on Melville was considered seminal, and many a successful tenured academic literary career beyond his own was founded on Crews early work.
In mid-life Crews recanted and said it was all a preposterous farce. After Crews nailed Freud’s nakedness to the wall, he was attacked from all corners by Freudians, both medical and literary. It made him more famous. For me, the outright unscientific foolishness of Freud and its influence throughout the twentieth century should give us some insight into the framing baloney and much of what passes for cognitive science or cognitive linguistics.
D’Souza.. Wowser. Just when you think Creationists are going to get another excellent, intelligent, balanced (read: sarcasm) spokesman, he goes over to the dark side of theistic evolution.
One of my professors (at a private Christian college) certainly believes in evolution, but he thinks God is involved (in some unknown, nebulous way) with pretty much everything. Therefore, he thinks the term “theistic evolution” is silly as crap. “Can you imagine someone talking about ‘theistic thermodynamics’?” For some reason I’m guessing D’Souza hasn’t really thought this through, and is instead just pandering to his audience.
Theistic thermodynamics. Now, there is a delightful frame.
And maybe we can score scientifically as well as sexually if we adopt a Paris Hilton frame for thermodynamics? Thermo is “hot.”
Does this have possibilities for global heating? Global warming isn’t “hot.” Frank Luntz told us for Chrissake, so don’t you worry.
Framing is “hot.” Sheril Kirshenbaum told us on the intersection.
The planet is hot and getting hotter. See, everything is frames. And God done framing too! God done everything.
It’s funny that the people who advocate “ensoulment” as a compromise between creation and evolution — everything evolved for billions of years, and then the Finger o’ Jesus came down and poked some smarts into our monkey brains — actually endorse a position which is easier to falsify than intelligent intervention at, say, the beginning of time. Just to be perfectly clear: I don’t think an intelligent being doing the fine-tuning act is a good explanation for physical law. (For one thing, it sounds far too Monty Python: “And the number of the quark and lepton generations shall be three, and three shall be the number of the generations. Four shall not be the number of the generations, nor shall two, excepting that we then proceedest to three. Five is right out.”) It’s just that human beings are so much more accessible than the beginning of time that it’s easier to see how bad an explanation “ensoulment” is.
forsen wrote:
Don’t worry, we’ll always have Deepak Chopra to kick around.
…faith and reason do not oppose each other but are “complementary.”
So are D’Souzan conservatism and dickheadedness.
That’s a belief system that is completely compatible with evolution, without being something that could really be called “theistic evolution” as far as I understand the term.
I understood thestic evolution to be merely a belief in evolution coupled with a belief in God. With a fancy name.
But D’Souza is a Roman Catholic
So is Brownback.
gerald spezio: “Paris Hilton frame for thermodynamics”? Is that like how Britney Spears explains semiconductors, and the long lost lectures of Barbie on category theory?
Grazi Mr Douglas, but those British geeks are all crazy – every one of them. Whaddo semi-conductors know about the “good thing,” hey?
I really like the idea of “Barbie’s Guide to Category Theory”. Just imagine: “Quantization and cohomology are hard! Let’s go shopping.”
Script-kiddie
BarbieBarmie says: “eval () is hard!”Actually, on the now defunct Forum 2000, Barbie would often answer questions about category theory and other branches of advanced mathematics.