The Human Question

When Sam Harris debated Bill Craig, he ignored BC's arguments and talked on and on about the Old Testament. A theist could do something similar in a debate... just point to the racist things that Charles Darwin said in the Descent of Man and ask on what basis one would disavow CD.

I am surprised and impressed at how well-argued much of this book is.  But the following things said by him in The Design Revolution seem quite propagandistic, nutty, creationist or a combination thereof 1. That "Darwinism" (the very use of this name is, in my opinion, problematic, because Darwin made use not only of his own explanatory mechanism but that of Lamark) makes no predictions other than vague ones about the pathways of evolution. I would reply by saying that there are many pre/retro -dictions that neo-Darwinians have made and had confirmed.  But the only currency Dembski is accepting is precise knowledge of the mutations that brought about macro evolution. He is not giving credit at all where an enormous amount is due. To make this objection I must distinguish between predictions that could have been made simply on the basis of the acceptance of descent with modifications (i.e., a prediction that could as easily have been made by a  Lamarkian or possibly ...

Call it strong variationism or strong randomness or strongly random variationism (none of these sound quite right... this is a work in progress). It makes a strong claim about the role of random variation in generating new species. It takes for granted Darwin's understanding of the role of natural selection, as that is not really where the controversy lies. And it allows one to separate the role of variation from controversies about Darwin's opinion regarding divine providence, Lamarkianism (that is, it would seem, on the basis of The Descent of Man , that Darwin himself was willing to attribute a role to use/disuse, now discredited source of variation), racism, eugenics, etc. And it allows us to contrast that with weaker roles that might be given to random variation, again without any unneeded historical baggage.

What's amazing about evolution is how mutation would enable an animal not simply to behave in a new way, but to judge situations in a new way: that is to judge instinctively that something desirable or undesirable is to engaged in a certain way. When I think of how much more difficult it is to imagine the cause of alteration of judgment, I can see why Darwin gave in to the temptation to resort to the Lamarkian notion of use/disuse to explain how human cognition evolves. To treat evolution merely in behavioral terms is them like robots or near zombies rather than as judging and experiencing animals.

This from Descent of Man (henceforth DoM). When a dog recognizes another dog a great distance away, it doesn't think of this or that individual, but of dog in general. This example is weak: you might be unable to distinguish whether THIS dog is Fido or Rover, but you are still thinking of THIS dog at this place and time, not of being-a-dog as common to many individuals at different places and times. The latter and not the former constitutes abstract thought. Sorry, Charlie.