This article was temporarily taken down on legal advice after 快猫短视频鈥檚 editor, Roger Highfield, received a letter from a law firm on behalf of James Le Fanu, the GP and author of the book Why Us? Following discussions, 快猫短视频 has now reinstated the article accompanied by a comment from Dr Le Fanu.
AS A book reviews editor at 快猫短视频, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to鈥� well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I鈥檇 share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science鈥檚 clothing.
Red flag number one: the term 鈥渟cientific materialism鈥�. 鈥淢aterialism鈥� is most often used in contrast to something else 鈥� something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.
Advertisement
The invocation of 鈥� where the brain and mind are viewed as two distinct entities, one material and the other immaterial 鈥� is also a red flag. And if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that matter, as 鈥渋rreducibly complex鈥�, let the alarm bells ring.
Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense.
When you come across the terms 鈥淒arwinism鈥� or 鈥淒arwinists鈥�, take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for 鈥渆volution鈥� and 鈥渂iologists鈥�, respectively. When evolution is described as a 鈥渂lind, random, undirected process鈥�, be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as 鈥渁stonishingly complex molecular machines鈥�, it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a 鈥渕achine鈥� requires an 鈥渆ngineer鈥�. If an author wishes for 鈥渁cademic freedom鈥�, it is usually ID code for 鈥渢he acceptance of creationism鈥�.
聯If an author wishes for 鈥榓cademic freedom鈥�, it is usually code for 鈥榯he acceptance of creationism鈥櫬�
Some general sentiments are also red flags. Authors with religious motives make shameless appeals to common sense, from the staid 鈥� 鈥淭here is nothing we can be more certain of than the reality of our sense of self鈥� (James Le Fanu in Why Us?) 鈥� to the silly 鈥� 鈥淵er granny was an ape!鈥� (creationist blogger Denyse O鈥橪eary). If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn鈥檛 need science in the first place.
Religiously motivated authors also have a bad habit of linking the cultural implications of a theory to the truth-value of that theory. The ID crowd, for instance, loves to draw a line from Darwin to the Holocaust, as they did in the 鈥渄ocumentary鈥� film . Even if such an absurd link were justified, it would have zero relevance to the question of whether or not the theory of evolution is correct. Similarly, when Le Fanu writes that Darwin鈥檚 On the Origin of Species 鈥渁rticulated the desire of many scientists for an exclusively materialist explanation of natural history that would liberate it from the sticky fingers of the theological inference that the beauty and wonder of the natural world was direct evidence for 鈥楢 Designer'鈥�, his statement has no bearing on the scientific merits of evolution.
It is crucial to the public鈥檚 intellectual health to know when science really is science. Those with a religious agenda will continue to disguise their true views in their effort to win supporters, so please read between the lines.
James Le Fanu writes: The critical website Reponses to Ms Gefter鈥檚 article (鈥榚pistemological hubris鈥�, 鈥榮traw-man argument鈥�, 鈥榙ualism a valid field of study鈥�, [the necessity to distinguish between] 鈥榓ssertions that contradict the best scientific thinking from those that cannot be resolved by the techniques of science鈥� etc etc) speak for themselves. But her specific allegation against myself of covertly promoting 鈥榩seudoscientific concepts鈥� in pursuit of a hidden religion agenda is unfairly prejudicial to my reputation.
My interpretation of the recent dramatic findings in genetics and neuroscience, as set out in my book, 鈥樷�橶hy Us?鈥� is that they are so extraordinary and unexpected as to challenge the prevailing view that the phenomenon of life 鈥� and in particular the twin enigmas of 鈥榝orm鈥� and 鈥榤ind鈥� 鈥� can be accounted for by the materialist properties of the chemical genes and the electrochemistry of the brain alone.
This interpretation requires, by necessity, an examination of philosophical notions such as scientific materialism and Cartesian dualism that Ms Gefter alleges is typical of arguments deployed by closet creationists who 鈥渄isguise their true views in their effort to win supporters鈥�. But to whom can she be referring? Scarcely the protagonists of Intelligent Design, whose theistic inferences could not be more explicit. Perhaps she has in mind the many respected biologists, philosophers and science writers who, in different ways, are sceptical of the explanatory power of science鈥檚 radical reductionist programme to account for 鈥榝orm鈥� or 鈥榤ind鈥� 鈥� but are we to assume they too are motivated by a covert religious agenda? And if not them, whom?
Ms Gefter鈥檚 supposition that there is a genre of science books written by creationists 鈥榙isguising their true views鈥� is, I would suggest, a mirage invoked to condemn by association those like myself who draw attention to the limits of science and its exclusively materialist explanations and theories. I believe that the 快猫短视频 should do more to examine such ideas to promote the spirit of open and intellectual enquiry.