George Gilder, that pompous poseur, has a new interview in the Jerusalem Post. It’s more self-serving nonsense and hardly worth noting, except that he does include a short summary of his position on everything.
Your life’s work has been eclectic, to put it mildly. What do the relations between men and women, supply-side economics, microchips and intelligent design have in common?
I believe that the universe is hierarchical, with creation at the top – the idea that there’s a creator and that we, at our best, act in his image. This top-down model is what all of my work has in common. I sensed that the basic flaw and failure of feminism was its gradient toward pure animal passion with no procreative purpose. In economics, I believed that it was the supply that created the demand. In my examination of computers and telecom, and subsequently biology, I saw the same thing. That’s really how I came into the intelligent design movement – through the recognition of this same structure that I’d previously examined in sexuality and economics, information theory, computer science and network theory.
I’m a religious person. So are the Darwinians religious people: They believe in an anti-religion of materialism that liberates them to pursue pleasure any way they wish. It’s the highest purpose of their existence. They thus believe in a random, futilitarian universe where – if they’re existentialists – they might imagine that occasionally a heroic human being could assert some purpose above the froth of randomness, but in general, we’re all doomed to decay and destruction. That’s pretty much the philosophy, and it’s debauched a whole century of intellect. I think we’re going to transcend it in the 21st century
In other words, he’s going to start with his cherished delusion of a hierarchical universe, and then he’s going to distort the evidence to support it. Good going, George—way to be an anti-scientist!
Feminism: there is no “gradient toward pure animal passion”. The basic objectives of feminism are equality and liberty, not wild, consequence-free rutting. I think he has confused feminism with “Girls Gone Wild.” And wait…what does his explanation have to do with a top-down hierarchy? Does he also think women should be subservient to procreative demands? This is simply incoherent, and doesn’t fit with his overarching explanation.
Economics: Gilder is a failed economic pundit. Doesn’t the fact that his theories flopped so mightily in the marketplace suggest that those theories are, well, wrong? And again, what does this have to do with hierarchies? Is he now favoring planned economies? There’s a section early in the interview which is an incredibly muddled attempt to tar “Darwinism” with Marxism, which is not only factually wrong, but wrong in principle, and just plain weird given Gilder’s love of hierarchical control.
Computer science and network theory: Gilder knows nothing about either, and has no training in the subjects. I suspect there are readers who know far more about the subject than Gilder: is network theory all about setting up strict hierarchies of top-down control?
Biology: Gilder has never taken a single course in biology. Everything he has written on the subject that I’ve read is breath-takingly ignorant—he makes it all up as he goes along.
I’m going to have to call him on that assertion that materialism makes hedonism the highest purpose of our existence: I don’t think so, and he might want to look into ID-positive pleasurianism. I also don’t believe we’re doomed to decay and destruction, as long as we’re willing to fight ignoramuses like Gilder.
It’s amazing that anyone can take a fraud like Gilder at all seriously—his true common guiding principle is to dress up incoherent old myths and conservative prejudices in his poorly understood technobabble. Putting a ranting Old Testament patriarch in a shiny cheap mylar space-costume with a Buck Rogers toy raygun in his hands doesn’t make him look contemporary and progressive—it makes him even more laughable.