DOCSLIB.ORG

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Free

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Free FREE THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN PDF Jonathan Wells | 273 pages | 25 Aug 2006 | Regnery Publishing Inc | 9781596980136 | English | Washington DC, United States The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design | Discovery Institute Store This article is part of a series of critiques of Jonathan Wells' The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design that will be appearing at the Panda's Thumb over the course of the next week or so. Previously, I'd dissected the summary of chapter 3. This is a longer criticism of the whole of the chapter, which is purportedly a critique of evo-devo. Jonathan Wells is a titular developmental biologist, so you'd expect he'd at least get something right in his chapter on development and evolution in The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design and Intelligent Designbut no: he instead uses his nominal knowledge of a complex field to muddle up the issues and misuse the data to generate a spurious impression of a science that is unaware of basic issues. He ping-pongs back and forth in a remarkably incoherent fashion, but that incoherence is central to his argument: he wants to leave the reader so baffled about the facts of embryology that they'll throw up their hands and decide development is all wrong. Do not be misled. The state of Jonathan Wells' brain is in no way the state of the modern fields of molecular genetics, developmental biology, and evo-devo. Here's my shorter version of Wells' chapter 3, titled "Why you didn't 'evolve' in your mother's womb. The strongest evidence for Darwin's theory was embryology, but Karl Ernst von Baer, who laid out the laws of development, did not think they supported evolution, and Ernst Haeckel twisted and distorted von Baer's laws and faked his data to support Darwinism. He was wrong, and the earliest stages The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design vertebrate embryos do not resemble one another at all, so Darwinism was built on a false foundation, and they're The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design using Haeckel's faked data in our textbooks. Oh, and mutant fruit flies are still just flies. That's right, it's a rather boring rewrite of a premise of his book, Icons of Evolutionwhich I hammered on over three years ago. He hasn't learned a thing since, and he's making exactly the same arguments. I'll take a different tack this time and expose the sleight of hand he's pulling. Here's the centerpiece of his ploy. It's a basic concept in evo-devo, proposed in the early s by Duboule and Raff as a summary of years worth of observations, called the developmental hourglass. What it illustrates is that we have great diversity in the earliest stages of development, in the blastula and gastrula and neurula, but that they all converge on a more similar form, the pharyngula, at what's called the phylotypic stage…and then they diverge once again to achieve the diversity of adult forms. This is a great opportunity for a creationist. You see, when you dig into the developmental biology literature, you will find some papers taking about the similarities of embryos at the neck of the hourglass, and you will also find other papers talking in some detail about the great differences before and after that stage. You will also find marvelous possibilities for confusion in the vague and malleable term "early"—to me, for instance, anything before the pharyngula stage is early, and everything after is late and relatively uninteresting. To put that in perspective, though, humans reach that stage at the 4th or 5th week of pregnancy—so I'm basically declaring month two and later of the human pregnancy to be late development. We do tend to throw around the terms early and late as relative measures of the timing of events, but we also name specific stages and processes…the fine details of which Wells leaves out, to make everything that much more confusing. This is the heart of Wells' strategy: pick comments by developmental biologists referring to different stages, which say very different things about the similarity of embryos, and conflate them. It's easy to make it sound like scientists are willfully lying about the state of our knowledge when you can pluck out a statement about the diversity at the gastrula stage, omit the word "gastrula," and pretend it The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design to the pharyngula stage. Here's how Wells quotes William Ballard a well known elder developmental biologist, who has done a lot of work on fish and is therefore familiar to me :. It is "only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence," by "bending the facts of nature," that one can argue that the early embryo stages of vertebrates "are more alike than their adults. Always be suspicious when you see partial phrases quoted and strung together by a creationist. Little alarm bells should be going off like mad in your head. This is from a paper in which Ballard is advocating greater appreciation of the morphogenetic diversity of the gastrula stage—that is, a very early event, one that is at the base of that hourglass, where developmental biologists have been saying for years that there is a great deal of phylogenetic diversity. Here's what Ballard actually said:. Before the pharyngula stage we can only say that the embryos of different species within a single taxonomic class are more alike than their parents. Only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence can we claim that "gastrulas" of shark, salmon, frog, and bird are more alike than their adults. See what I mean? He has lifted a quote from a famous scientist that applies to the gastrula stage, stripped out the specific referents, and made it sound as if it applies to the pharyngula stage. It's a simple game, one he repeats over and over in this chapter. One might argue that maybe Ballard also thought these semantic tricks applied to the pharyngula stage, and so Wells was representing his general views accurately. Alas, this cannot be. The paragraph before his mangled quote says this, rather plainly:. All then arrive at the pharyngula The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, which is remarkably uniform throughout the subphylum, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design of similar organ rudiments similarly arranged though in some respects deformed in respect to habitat and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design supply. After the standardized pharyngula stage, the maturing of the structures of organs and tissues takes place on diverging line, each line characteristic of the class and further diverging into lines characteristic of the orders, families, and so on. It's a classic quote mine. Wells has edited the quote to suit his ends, and has also utterly ignored the sense of the paper, which directly contradicts his claims, to produce a grand lie and tie it to the reputation of a distinguished senior scientist. I could stop here. With that one example, Wells is exposed as a disreputable scoundrel, a sloppy ideologue whose 'scholarship' is untrustworthy and willfully distorted. You simply The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design believe one word he says. I will go on a little further, though, and try to explain some of the ideas he has treated so shabbily. There is a fair amount of debate in the evo-devo community about the reality of the developmental hourglass, but Wells doesn't seem to touch on the actual arguments at all—merely these strawman complaints and garbled chronologies that he uses to cast false doubt on the evolutionary process. One serious question is about how wide the waist of the hourglass actually is: an overzealous Haeckelian interpretation would be that it is very narrow indeed, but serious embryology none of which seems to be done by Intelligent Design proponents demonstrates that there is a significant amount of variation within the phylotypic period. Michael Richardson relaunched a critical reevaluation on the basis of morphology, and there have been a number of attempts to analyze the molecular basis of the model several papers are cited at the end of this article; some find no detectable evidence of a consistent molecular pattern, others do. If it does pan out as a universal and coherent property of developing embryos that they should have a conserved stage, the next question is "why? I actually rather like Raff's explanation: that it is a matter of scope. The diagram to the right below outlines this idea. Development is a process of increasing complexity the grey line. The assembly of an integrated body plan requires, at some time, a pattern of global interaction—there has to be information generated at some point to specify where the head will be relative to the tail, etc. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design instance, somites, one of the body elements characteristic of the phylotypic stage, form under the influence of a somitic clock, rhythmic waves of molecular activity that sweep the The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design of the trunk and tail. One idea is that these 'whole body' specification events are conserved and are difficult to uncouple from one another, so all the features for which they are responsible tend to appear together in a coordinated fashion…and that coordination is what we call the phylotypic period.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The God Hypothesis
    CHAPTER 2 The God Hypothesis The religion of one age is the literary entertainment of the next. RALPH WALDO EMERSON THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 31 The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, fili- cidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception. Winston Churchill's son Randolph somehow contrived to remain ignorant of scripture until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn't read the entire Bible in a fort- night: 'Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud "I say I bet you didn't know this came in the Bible ..." or merely slapping his side & chortling "God, isn't God a shit!"'16 Thomas Jefferson - better read - was of a similar opinion: 'The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.' It is unfair to attack such an easy target. The God Hypothesis should not stand or fall with its most unlovely instantiation, Yahweh, nor his insipidly opposite Christian face, 'Gentle Jesus meek and mild'. (To be fair, this milksop persona owes more to his Victorian followers than to Jesus himself.
    [Show full text]
  • Signature of Controversy
    I n “In this volume Granville Sewell provides “As the debate over intelligent design grows T delightful and wide-ranging commentary on increasingly heated... it is refreshing to find a HE the origins debate and intelligent design... discussion of the topic that is calm, thoughtful, Sewell provides much needed clarity on topics and far-ranging, with no sense of having to B e ignature f that are too often misunderstood. His discussion advance an agenda or decimate the opposition. G I S o of the commonly confused problem of entropy In this regard, Granville Sewell’s In the NNI is a must read.” Beginning succeeds brilliantly.” Cornelius G. Hunter, Ph.D. William A. Dembski, Ph.D. N author of The Design Inference author of Science’s Blind Spot G ontroversy A N c In this wide-ranging collection of essays on origins, mathematician Granville Sewell looks at the D big bang, the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, and the evolution of life. He concludes that while O there is much in the history of life that seems to suggest natural causes, there is nothing to support THER Responses to critics of signature in the cEll Charles Darwin’s idea that natural selection of random variations can explain major evolutionary E S advances (“easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science,” he calls it). Sewell explains S A Y why evolution is a fundamentally different and much more difficult problem than others solved s ON by science, and why increasing numbers of scientists are now recognizing what has long been I obvious to the layman, that there is no explanation possible without design.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design”
    Professional Biologist Media Coverage of “Intelligent Design” JASON ROSENHOUSE AND GLENN BRANCH News media coverage of the controversy surrounding recent attempts to insert creationism into public school science curricula—this time in the form of “intelligent design”—has generated miles of copy and hours of television footage. The quality of that reporting varies widely, depending on the media outlet. Often, reporters with no scientific training are assigned to report on evolution–creationism controversies, which inevitably leads to distortions of the relevant science. A misconceived concern for balance frequently results in equal time being accorded to biologists and creationists, creating the illusion of scientific equivalence. At other times, a clear bias toward creationism is revealed, especially on cable television. Focusing mainly on recent treatments, this article analyzes and critiques specific stories, as well as trends and patterns in coverage in newspapers, magazines, and television; it concludes with suggestions of ways in which scientists can be more effective in dealing with the media. Keywords: evolution, intelligent design, media, creationism, education ncreasingly in the past few years, states and local ignore the fact that the creation scientists before them made Ischool districts have had to confront challenges to science similar claims of scientific rigor. education instigated by antievolutionists. Part of the reason Proponents of ID further claim that their methods, when for this surge of antievolution activity is the repackaging of applied to biological systems such as the human blood- creationism in the less overtly religious form of “intelligent clotting cascade, reveal that these complex systems must be design”(ID), which enjoys the support of a number of promi- the products of an intelligent agent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Roles, Reasons and Restrictions of Science Blogs
    Forum The roles, reasons and restrictions of science blogs John S. Wilkins* Department of Philosophy, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia Over the past few years, blogging (‘web logging’) has timely account of news in science, and relies not merely on become a major social movement, and as such includes press releases, which can be terribly misleading, but on the blogs by scientists about science. Blogs are highly idio- personal knowledge and expertise of the blogger. Papers syncratic, personal and ephemeral means of public that would otherwise be missed can be described and even expression, and yet they contribute to the current prac- critiqued within days. Some journals even send notifica- tice and reputation of science as much as, if not more tions to bloggers to ensure that their papers are seen and than, any popular scientific work or visual presentation. commented on. It is important, therefore, to understand this phenom- Blogging is also a way to demythologize science. Unlike enon. laws and sausages, the public should see science during its manufacture, but the lay public is generally ill-equipped to Introduction interpret what they see, and science bloggers play a crucial A blog is fundamentally a continuously updated web page, role here. Bloggers with a deeper knowledge of the topic, or with entries (‘posts’) that have date, time and, if many of science in general, can place studies in a context of prior authors contribute to the blog, author-name stamps work, thereby correcting or avoiding the myths and pigeon- (Figure 1). Each post may be commented upon by the holes of science journalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Jennifer Forester, Faculty Mentor
    Pics or It Didn’t Happen: Sexist Hyperskepticism in the Modern Skeptical Movement Author: Jennifer Forester, Faculty Mentor: Clark Pomerleau, Ph.D., Department of English, College of Arts and Sciences Department and College Affiliation: Department of English, College of Arts and Sciences Pics or It Didn’t Happen 2 Bio: Jennifer Forester graduated summa cum laude from the University of North Texas with a bachelor’s degree in English with a specialization in writing and rhetoric. Jennifer was a member of the Honors College. She presented her research at University Scholars Day in April 19, 2013. She is proud of her service in the United States Marine Corps where she was a Corporal (Bandsman, Armorer) in Cherry Point, North Carolina. She is a mother of two brilliant, if often unruly, children. Her current plan is to find gainful employment, but promises that she will eventually return to college and obtain her doctorate in rhetoric with a particular focus on the ways that rhetorical studies can be applied to social justice. Pics or It Didn’t Happen 3 Abstract: In the skeptical community, there is an ongoing conflict over what—if any—actions are necessary to make the movement more welcoming to the growing numbers of women in its ranks. This conflict has brought a great deal of antifeminist sentiment to the surface, to include rape and death threats against prominent women who speak affirmatively on feminist issues within organized skepticism. The origins of this problem can be found in the grounding of skeptical dialogue on the superiority of a traditionally masculinized ideal of science and reason, which excludes the feminized personal narratives that serve as evidence for mistreatment of women within the community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution
    The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution Casey Luskin “There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.”1 Such was professed by Eugenie Scott, the de facto head of the Darwin lobby, while speaking to the media in response to the Texas State Board of Education’s 2009 vote to require students to learn about both the scientific evidence for and against neo-Darwinian evolution. For those who follow the debate over origins, Dr. Scott’s words are as unsurprising as they are familiar. It seems that almost on a daily basis, we find the news media quoting evolutionary scientists declaring that materialist accounts of biological and chemical evolution are “fact.” Students who take college-preparatory or college-level courses on evolution are warned that doubting Darwinism is tantamount to committing intellectual suicide—you might as well proclaim the Earth is flat.2 Such bullying is enough to convince many that it’s much easier on your academic standing, your career, and your reputation to just buy into Darwinism. The few holdouts who remain are intimidated into silence. But is it true that there are “no weaknesses” in evolutionary theory? Are those who express doubts about Darwinism displaying courage, or are they fools that want to take us back to the dark ages and era of the flat Earth?3 Thankfully, it’s very easy to test these questions: all one must do is examine the technical scientific literature and inquire whether there are legitimate scientific challenges to chemical and biological evolution. This chapter will review some of this literature, and show that there are numerous legitimate scientific challenges to core tenets of Darwinian theory, as well as predominant theories of chemical evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • How Supporters of Evolution Encourage Violations of the Establishment Clause
    ZEAL FOR DARWIN’S HOUSE CONSUMES THEM: HOW SUPPORTERS OF EVOLUTION ENCOURAGE VIOLATIONS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE Casey Luskin† I. INTRODUCTION The common stereotype in the controversy over teaching evolution holds that it is the opponents of evolution who are constantly trying to “sneak religious dogma back into science education.”1 While perhaps in some instances this caricature is not entirely undeserved,2 the mainstream media and legal community pay scant attention to incidents where proponents of Darwinian evolution transgress the boundary between church and state erected by the Establishment Clause. By documenting ways that evolution advocates encourage violations of the Establishment Clause—in some instances, explicitly advocating state endorsement of pro-evolution religious viewpoints in the science classroom—this Article will show the impropriety of the common “Inherit the Wind stereotype.”3 To be sure, one area where proponents of evolution do not violate the Establishment Clause is in the mere fact that public schools teach the scientific evidence supporting neo-Darwinian evolution (evolution).4 In the foundational 1968 case Epperson v. Arkansas, not only did the U.S. Supreme Court plainly rule under the presumption that teaching evolution is † Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D., Esq. is Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs for the Discovery Institute. As an attorney with a graduate science background, he has published in GEOCHEMISTRY, GEOPHYSICS, AND GEOSYSTEMS; PROGRESS IN COMPLEXITY, INFORMATION AND DESIGN; RESEARCH NEWS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY; JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE; MONTANA LAW REVIEW; HAMLINE LAW REVIEW; and THE PRAEGER HANDBOOK OF RELIGION AND EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES (James C.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Origin of Academic Freedom Bills by Means of Precedential Selection: and Why Efforts Should Be Taken to Facilitate Their Extinction Marcus Pierce Almond
    Seton Hall University eRepository @ Seton Hall Law School Student Scholarship Seton Hall Law 2013 On the Origin of Academic Freedom Bills by Means of Precedential Selection: and Why Efforts Should be Taken to Facilitate Their Extinction Marcus Pierce Almond Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship Recommended Citation Almond, Marcus Pierce, "On the Origin of Academic Freedom Bills by Means of Precedential Selection: and Why Efforts Should be Taken to Facilitate Their Extinction" (2013). Law School Student Scholarship. 382. https://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/382 ON THE ORIGIN OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM BILLS BY MEANS OF PRECEDENTIAL SELECTION: AND WHY EFFORTS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO FACILITATE THEIR EXTINCTION By: Marcus Almond Seton Hall Law Advanced Writing Requirement: Expert Witnesses ·~.~~'->/ Summer, 2011 INTRODUCTION Though courts have uniformly found that legislative efforts to restrict the teaching of the theory of evolution (TE) in public schools violate the Establishment Clause, the tactics of those intent on doing so have consistently adapted to such precedential selection. Most recently, Academic Freedom Bills (AFBs), which permit science teachers to introduce instructional materials that argue against TE, have been proposed in thirteen state legislatures across the United States. Though at present only Louisiana has passed such a bill into law, AFBs are currently pending in Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. State legislators should reject further efforts to enact AFBs into law. AFBs, and the organizations that lobby for them, misrepresent the views of the scientific community regarding the viability of TE. They obfuscate professional and legal protections of teachers' rights to academic freedom, and they propagate inaccurate scientific information.
    [Show full text]
  • What's the Matter with Kansas?: the Development and Confirmation of the Evolutionary Attitudes and Literacy Survey (EALS)
    Evo Edu Outreach (2011) 4:117–132 DOI 10.1007/s12052-010-0294-1 EDUCATION ARTICLE What’s the Matter with Kansas?: The Development and Confirmation of the Evolutionary Attitudes and Literacy Survey (EALS) Patricia H. Hawley & Stephen D. Short & Luke A. McCune & Mark R. Osman & Todd D. Little Published online: 3 December 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010 Abstract The present survey was designed to assess interest in this university-based sample, the personality factor predominant regional belief systems and the roles these openness to experience appears to be highly relevant for beliefs play in science understanding and attitudes, and several higher order factors (e.g., exposure, knowledge and curricular effectiveness in colleges and universities. To this relevance, and creationist reasoning). We close with implica- end, we created a wide variety of theory-driven subscales tions for educators and the next steps in survey development. (lower order factors) reflecting, for example, exposure to evolutionary material, young earth creationist beliefs, moral Keywords Evolution . Survey . Confirmatory factor and social objections, political ideology, endorsement of analysis . Attitudes . Knowledge intelligent design fallacies, knowledge (and distrust) of the scientific enterprise, and attitudes of evolutionary theory’s relevance in several domains (e.g., sciences and humani- Evolution is a theory. God is the true creator and He ties). We also included potentially important demographic created animals to change w/their environment. variables (e.g., rural upbringing, family size). Finally, we –KS teacher assessed openness to experience, a key facet of personality. Hierarchical Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis Thank you for trying to teach what they’re not in showed the 16 constructs to have a theoretically meaningful Kansas public schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} the Battle Over the Meaning of Everything Evolution Intelligent Design and a School Board in Dover P Gordy Slack Interview
    Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything Evolution Intelligent Design and a School Board in Dover P Gordy Slack interview. Gordy Slack was on the radio in the Bay Area yesterday and the show is now online. I haven’t listened to the whole thing yet but I’m sure it was good, since Gordy is quite a thoughtful guy. Gordy is also doing a reading at Books Inc. Opera Plaza, 601 Van Ness Ave. SF, CA, on Monday, 7/16. 7:00 pm – I might go myself if I get the chance… Fri, Jul 13, 2007 – 10:00 AM Author Gordy Slack Listen (RealMedia stream) Download (MP3) (Windows: right-click and choose “Save Target As.” Mac: hold Ctrl, click link, and choose “Save As.”) The show welcomes author Gordy Slack for a conversation focusing on his book, “The Battle over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design and a School Board in Dover, PA.” Host: Dave Iverson Guests: Gordy Slack , author of “The Battle over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design and a School Board in Dover, PA.” To see earlier posts, select the Archives at the top of this page. Recent Comments. To see the comment in context of the discussion click on the text that indicates how long ago the comment was posted, such as "2 hours ago". Then wait for the post and then the comments to load. Copyright © The Panda’s Thumb and original authors — Content provided under Creative Commons BY-NC-ND License 4.0. The Dover Books Cometh.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality
    Darwin’s Poisoned Tree: Atheistic Advocacy and the Constitutionality of Teaching Evolution in Public Schools By Casey Luskin M.S., J.D., ESQ Trinity Law Review Fall, 2015 Volume 21, Issue 1, Pp. 130-233 Published by Trinity Law School lawschool.tiu.edu '$5:,1¶632,621('75(($7+(,67,& $'92&$&<$1'7+(&2167,787,21$/,7<2) 7($&+,1*(92/87,21,138%/,&6&+22/6 &$6(</86.,1 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KHWHDFKLQJRIELRORJLFDORULJLQVLQSXEOLFVFKRROVLVDFRQWHQWLRXV DQGKLJKO\GHEDWHGDUHDRIWKHODZ,IWKHUHLVDQ\IL[HGVWDURIWKLVHYROYLQJ OHJDO ILHOG LW LV WKH 86 6XSUHPH &RXUW¶V KROGLQJ LQ Epperson v. ArkansasWKDW³>W@KH)LUVW$PHQGPHQWPDQGDWHVJRYHUQPHQWDOQHXWUDOLW\ EHWZHHQUHOLJLRQDQGUHOLJLRQDQGEHWZHHQUHOLJLRQDQGQRQUHOLJLRQ´ )ROORZLQJWKLVPDQGDWHIRUVWDWHQHXWUDOLW\LQHYROXWLRQHGXFDWLRQ YDULRXVFRXUWVDQGOHJDOVFKRODUVKDYHRSSRVHGWKHWHDFKLQJRIDOWHUQDWLYHV WR HYROXWLRQ E\ FLWLQJ DQ KLVWRULFDO FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ RSSRVLWLRQ WR HYROXWLRQ DQG WKH DGYRFDF\ RI ³IXQGDPHQWDOLVW´ UHOLJLRQ 2QH DXWKRU FRQWHQGVWKDWDWWHPSWVWRWHDFKQRQHYROXWLRQDU\YLHZSRLQWVRIELRORJLFDO RULJLQV DUHXQFRQVWLWXWLRQDO EHFDXVH VXFK YLHZSRLQWVDUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK UHOLJLRQ PDNLQJ WKHP ³>I@UXLW RI WKH SRLVRQ WUHH´ $QRWKHU VFKRODU VLPLODUO\VXJJHVWVWKDWVRPHHGXFDWLRQDOSROLFLHVWKDWVDQFWLRQFULWLTXHRI HYROXWLRQ HQWDLO ³JRYHUQPHQW PHDVXUHVWKDW DULVH IURP D FRQVWLWXWLRQDOO\ SUREOHPDWLFKLVWRU\´DQGDUHWKHUHIRUH³WDLQWHGIUXLWRIWKHSRLVRQRXV WUHH´ .ULVWL / %RZPDQ ZDUQV WKDW XQGHU FXUUHQW ODZ WKH ³UHOLJLRXV $WWRUQH\DW/DZ5HVHDUFK&RRUGLQDWRU'LVFRYHU\,QVWLWXWH6HDWWOH:$%6 8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD6DQ'LHJR068QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD6DQ'LHJR-' 8QLYHUVLW\RI6DQ'LHJR7KHDXWKRUWKDQNV$QLND6PLWK'DYLG'H:ROI6DUDK&KDIIHH
    [Show full text]
  • Varieties of an Atheist Public in a Digital Age: the Politics of Recognition and the Recognition of Politics
    315 http://jrmdc.com Varieties of an Atheist Public in a Digital Age: The Politics of Recognition and the Recognition of Politics By Jack C. Laughlin University of Sudbury, Canada Contact: [email protected] Keywords: Atheism, Internet, Publics, Counterpublics, Humanism, Secularism Abstract: With the rise of atheism as a cause célèbre in the last decade or more, media and others have offered many interpretations for the apparent growth of nonbelief, ranging from the apocalyptic to the utopian. Many cite the Internet as a major contributing factor to this growth; undoubtedly new media have provided atheism with greater visibility. In this article it is argued that atheism as an Internet phenomenon ought to be understood less as the manifestation of a social fact and more as the discursive constitution of one or more publics in Michael Warner’s sense of the term. To this end, the article draws attention to a body of data that has received limited attention in scholarship to date, namely the blogs of some notable atheists. These are limited to blogs originating in the United States, and especially those by authors who identify as ‘progressive’. Thus, the conclusions drawn are not imagined to apply outside that context, nor are the sources employed considered to be representative of American atheism. But these limitations present no bar to the analysis of the particular discursive practices of the authors in question. Following Warner, virtual atheism as a public or publics has little capacity for agency: even if its growth as a social fact is true, and even as it develops agendas for social change, it is neither discursively or substantively robust enough to challenge any aspect of the contemporary neo-liberal order.
    [Show full text]