The only reason Ahab tries to harpoon Moby Dick is that he cannot harpoon God.-- Unnamed French critic of Moby Dick, quoted by William Blaswell.
Why do Darwinists care? Does a snowflake care that all the others look different? Do stalactites begrudge stalagmites for pointing the other way? Does a river's left bank resent the right for opposing it at every turn? Does the north wind challenge the south as wrong and misguided? Does thunder envy lightning for being brighter and faster? Why, then, among all the natural occurrences of "blind, uncaring" nature, do those unplanned products of blind physics and uncaring chemistry known as Darwinists care?
Darwinists insist that science informs us we are not purposeful creations, but rather, as stated succinctly by leading Darwinist George Gaylord Simpson: "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind." Hobby Darwinists and fair-weather materialists may flinch, but in plain language Simpson's statement means that we are literally no different in essence than a snowflake, a stalactite, or a river bank. We exist merely as a different form of matter, a more complex agglomeration of eternal atoms, perhaps, but in essence no different than earth, wind or fire. Just add water and we have everything necessary and sufficient for the particular agglomeration of atoms said to have "life," the somewhat arcane term useful in the past to distinguish certain forms of creation, er ... occurrences, over others. How odd, then, to find caring among the purposeless occurrences of nature.
Darwinism is, by every definition proffered by Darwinists, an unguided, unplanned process. If you believe you are in any way the result of any non-material intelligence, invisible guidance, or transcendent purpose, you are not a true Darwinist; you are some form of intelligent design theorist. True Darwinists of the most commendable form have little patience with the muddle-brained, double-minded position of those lacking the courage to take Darwin's "dangerous idea" to its logical end: mindless, purposeless existence. True, fearless Darwinists embrace materialism, naturalism and virtually any ism consistent with a universe that holds neither guide nor God, neither mind nor Maker. At least not one that cares. Why, then, do they care?
True Darwinists of the commendable form tell us that any non-material attributes of the mind, including our mind, do not exist; they are simply an illusion, a convenient fiction. Our thoughts are nothing more than a perceived product of matter in motion, giving rise to something we call "ideas" or "imagination" or, perhaps, "delusion". Children are taught by true Darwinist textbooks that the mind is only matter and the world doesn't care: "Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons." Thus, Darwinists of the most commendable form believe the world is uncaring, nature is blind and uncaring, and our minds are reduced to matter in the form of neurons--but nevertheless, Darwinists care! Why do they care?
Think about it. How can it be that nature does not care, but Darwinists, who believe they are literally one with all of nature, do? How can it be that our minds are simply a mass of neurons, but Darwinists' neuronic illusions, delusions and random collusions are better and more right than those of non-Darwinists? What is the difference between a Darwinist's mass of neurons and, say, a creationist's mass of neurons that compels Darwinists to exercise arrogant exclusion of all neurons that evolved contrary their evolved neurons? Why do their evolved neurons care what other evolved neurons do?
According to Most Commendable Richard Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: 'For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither know nor care.' DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is." But Dawkins, like all Darwinists of his kind (open, honest), does care. He cares to the point of abandon, exhibiting evangelistic passion as if trying to influence as many as possible to joyfully follow him into the ground of destruction. Whether right or wrong, from whence comes his care? From his purposeless, witless neurons?
By caring Dawkins and every dogmatic Darwinist like him give away the store, meager as it is. By displaying an amusing mix of witless purpose they blindly parade about in their emperor's clothes, all the while exposing their materialistic thinking as naked of any value. Caring is an activity of the discerning mind, perhaps even of the soul, but in any event, it is material evidence of exactly what materialists deny: a transcendent, immaterial cognition that recognizes value rather than indifference and separates the mindful from the mindless in all of nature. Caring by definition requires the "carer" to make mental value judgments. Value judgments require values to judge, and "heartless, witless Nature" can produce neither. But care they do, those Darwinist judges of all neurons everywhere.
Caring drives Dawkins, for example, to stray far from neuronic synapses of good science to neurotic lapses of good sense, driving him to opine that belief in God is a delusion and is harmful to society (maybe even evil!). How can he trust his evolving neurons to know he is right on the first point (and why should we)? Is Dawkins blind Nature's personal avatar to separate the sheep of truth from the goats of delusion? Assume for a moment that he is right on the first point. If so, he nevertheless has absolutely no basis to speak to the second. If evolved neurons believe in God, then so be it--who is Dawkins to object to the evolved neurons of others as harmful? Harm is, if anything, virtuous in Darwinism--harm unto death to all but the fittest. And if evolving neurons produce in Dawkins' mind the perception of evil from the neurons of others, then he is himself deluded, because he senses in nature something he says nature cannot know: "good" and "evil". Darwinists reveal their dark hypocrisy the moment they express anything other than "blind, pitiless indifference," and like all hypocrites, they don't even realize their predicament. What perfect irony! Believers in uncaring nature trapped in a snare of care!
The caring of dogmatic Darwinists is no more wonderfully displayed than in their Ahab-like response to the Great White Whale of intelligent design. Just when the sea monster of Biblical creationism was legally slain, the placid sea of science exploded with the White Whale of intelligent design, the very thought of which torments the neurons in every Darwinian brain. Recent sightings in Kansas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania prompted swift action by Ahabs in laboratories and law offices everywhere, each time their expert harpooners successfully driving the threatening beast out of sight. But more sightings have been recorded in South Carolina, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and rumors abound of others in Canada, Turkey, Poland, Denmark, Brazil, Scandinavia and even in the most placid of Franco-German seas. With each sighting, Ahabs are dispatched in a fever, the harpoon boats lowered with practiced efficiency, and the frenzied activity ceases only upon bloody water swirling about ropes racing to the bottom of the sea. Again and again, anger and fury unleashed with blinding madness. And with each furious attack on life in the sea Darwinist Ahabs betray the flaw in their lifeless, wooden philosophy: they care.
In a world of minds, most of which disagree with theirs, Janus-faced Darwinists face an intractable problem. Either matter created mind (Darwinism), or mind created matter (intelligent design). If the former is true, then Darwinists have no grounds for objecting to those neurons evolving in opposition to theirs--evolution happens; who are they to judge? But if the latter is true, then Darwinists are railing against the wrong mind when they attack, demean, and otherwise shun supporters of intelligent design. Like Captain Ahab haunted in his soul to the point of risking his ship and crew in his madness, angry Darwinists jeopardize the ship of science as they vainly attack the created because they are powerless against the creator.
Roddy Bullock, Esq., is the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio (www.idnetohio.com) and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by Access Research Network. Send comments to: email@example.com.
Copyright 2007 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.
Opening quote: Braswell, William, "Moby Dick Is an Allegory of Humanity's Struggle with God," in Readings on Herman Melville, edited by Bruno Leone, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1997.
Full quote regarding "blind uncaring" nature: "By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous." (Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)
Simpson quote: Simpson, George Gaylord in "Epilogue and Summary" in The Meaning of Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, CT (1967), Revised edition, p.345.
"Dangerous idea" concept from Dennett, Daniel C., Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995. Note: "Daniel Dennett's fertile imagination is captivated by the very dangerous idea that the neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution should become the basis for what amounts to an established state religion of scientific materialism." Review by Phillip E. Johnson found here.
"Mass of evolving neurons" quote: Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co. , 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161.)
Dawkins quote on "the universe we observe": Dawkins, Richard in "Chapter Four: God's Utility Function" in River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Basic Books, New York, NY (1995), 1st edition, p.132, 133.
Representative definition of evolution proffered by Darwinists: "Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." Thirty-eight Nobel Laureates, in September 9, 2005 signed letter to Kansas State Board of Education.
Reprinted with permission.