Michael Egnor

P.Z. Myers has a recent post (“Morality Doesn’t Equal God”) in which he takes issue with Robert Wright, who is proposing a new kind of rapprochement between religion and science. Wright recommends that we move to a consensus on the view that purpose and moral law is inherent in nature, a view cleverly dubbed ‘Neism’ (Naturalism melded with Deism) by Joe Carter. I believe that Wright’s view is philosophically incoherent and even pernicious. His motives for imputing teleology and morality to nature are clear enough: Darwinism is faltering under scrutiny, as it denies teleology and fails to explain the moral law, and it will crumble unless it is welded to an ideology that invokes both. It’s ironic that Darwinism may well segue into a nature religion, which is probably its only way out of its inexorable slide into the materialist dust-bin (Marxism and Freudianism will shift over to make room). But mankind has had plenty of nature religions, and they have never failed to be intellectually vacuous and culturally pernicious. We don’t need another.

P.Z. Myers takes issue with Wright from the Darwinist perspective:

As of late there has been a lot of spittle passed between two camps in the Darwin-sphere. Things are getting really nasty, as so often happens among atheist factions.

On one side are the new atheists: Coyne, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Myers.

On the other side are the … well for want of a better word — the “framing” atheists: Ruse, Mooney, Kirshenbaum, Nisbet, Scott.

With the exception of a few theist Darwinians (an oxymoron, I know) like Ken Miller, the motivation of the combatants seems to be the same: how to best advance an atheist-Darwinian understanding of man and nature. The factions differ on tactics.

The new atheists advocate militancy. They believe:

To: Ben Stein
From: Walter Duranty
New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning Journalist (deceased, but never fired).
936,287,434 Seventh Circle
Moloch Township, Gehenna.

Dearest Ben,
My condolences on your involuntary departure from the New York Times. Down Here, we all find it very amusing.
Yea, we all know that you got canned by the Grey Lady- by e-mail, no less. The pretense: your ‘crime’ was to hawk the services of an on-line credit report company that the Times management thought unethical.
Of course, causing people who trusted you to lose money would have been your quickest ticket to promotion at the ‘Newspaper with a of Record.’

Pinch Sulzberger reduced the value of the stock of the world’s ‘Newspaper of Record’ by 6 billion dollars (1999 50 bucks /share; 2009 8 bucks/share; current market cap $1.1 billion) in substantial part by using the newspaper as his ideological cudgel. And he fired you for risking other people’s money? Remember the above the fold coverage of McCain’s faux ‘sex scandal’ that coincided with the Grey Lady’s ‘writer’s block’ about John Edwards’ real sex scandal? How about the brutal dissection of Sara Palin’s family that coincided with the omerta about Barack Obama’s dubious Chicago associates? Which ‘significant other’ was more important for voters to know about–Levi Johnston or Tony Rezko? Which relationship got the most press at the ‘Newspaper of Record’?

So the public figured: why pay two bucks for the Times, when you can get the content for free from the Democratic National Committee?

You were fired for ideological reasons — your criticism of Goldman Sachs, your skepticism of President Obama’s policies, sure, but most of all, because you didn’t fit.
‘Didn’t fit,’ you ask? Let me explain.

Much of the debate about evolution turns on language, and there is much misrepresentation, mostly on one side of the debate. Darwinists assert that “evolution is a fact,” when what they really mean is that “Darwinism is a fact,” but they don’t want to assert that explicitly. They misrepresent their narrow theory of evolutionary change as synonymous with evolutionary change understood more broadly. They do so for several reasons, including the unfavorable connotations of Darwinism and the paucity of evidence and logic to support Darwin’s radical assertion.

In a previous post, I analyzed the writings of Presidential science czar John Holdren in his 1977 textbook Ecoscience. In the chapter on population control, Holdren and co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich endorse a range of coercive measures to decrease human population. I begin in Holdren’s book where I left off in my prior post.
In a section entitled “Involuntary Fertility Control,” Holdren wrote:

The third approach to population limitation is involuntary fertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means.

Note Holdren’s explicit endorsement of involuntary methods of birth control — “some countries may ultimately have to resort to them” unless birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. The “other means” that he has previously endorsed include forced abortions and the intentional infliction of economic catastrophe on poor countries.
Holdren continues:

Steven Novella has a post in which he discusses recent experiments in which scientists induce the perceptions common to out-of-body experiences (OBE’s), which are experienced by many people and are generally thought to be of mystical or spiritual origin. Dr. Novella:

New research builds upon the growing body of research into how our brains give us a sense that we are inside our bodies. That is one of the brain’s functions that we take for granted — and do not even realize that it is a function of the brain or that it is necessary — until it is not functioning. When that happens we have an out-of-body experience (OBE)…
Prior to modern neuroscience, OBEs were interpreted as mystical or spiritual experiences. In many cultures they were provoked by drugs during spiritual rituals. They have also been reported during certain dream states and in near-death experiences.

The eco-science community was rocked last week by the revelation of a scientific paper published in 1972 by presidential science advisor John Holdren. The paper, published in Eco-Science Proceedings, correctly predicted atmospheric CO2 levels for the month of March 1972.

It’s been called “The Veracity Incident,” and it has scandalized the eco-science community. There have been several calls for Holdren’s resignation, and organizations such as the Ecological Defense Fund and the Sierra Team have demanded an explanation from the embattled Presidential Science Advisor.
The outrage was summed up by Eugene Birkenstock, of the Sierra Team Malaria Memorial Calendar Project, which is an eco-charity that sends beautiful Sierra Team Memorial Calendars to the families of the 1.5 million children in the Third World who die of malaria each year since DDT was banned in 1970.

For decades, the eco-science community has scrupulously avoided veracity in its scientific predictions. Our forbearers have set the standards in the 1960’s and 70’s: Rachel Carson, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Nigel Calder, George Wald, and John Holdren. Scientific accuracy on the part of an investigator calls into question the investigator’s commitment to eco-science. We have standards.

Birkenstock notes that the standards set by the pioneers are high. He handed this commentator an honor roll of scientific eco-predictions:

“65 million Americans” will die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to “22.6 million”. Paul Ehrlich, 1968

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . [AND] hundreds of millions of people [including Americans] are going to starve to death.” Paul Ehrlich (Holdren’s co-author and mentor) 1968

“Smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. Paul Ehrlich 1969

“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich 1969

In case you were wondering about that radicalism of Global Warming Climate Change fundamentalists, the President’s new science czar John Holdren made some recent assertions that should put your doubts to rest.

In a July 2008 interview on the leftist television program Democracy Now!, Holdren reiterates conventional Malthusian alarmism, complete with a running video of wildfires, storms, and floods positioned over his left shoulder. He takes shots at global warming Climate Change ‘deniers’ (at about 3:20 into the video), attributing the success of skeptics to “the preoccupation of the media with balance and with controversy”.
“Balance” and “controversy” are a bête-noire for climate alarmists.

Further into the interview (at about 7:45 into the video), the moderator raises a question about the recommendation of climate alarmist and top NASA climate scientist James Hansen that the chief executives of oil companies to “be tried for their role in spreading disinformation on climate change”. Hansen recommended that they be indicted and tried for “crimes against humanity” if they continue to “dispute” and “to fund contrarians”.

The moderator asked Holdren:

In the growing public debate about coercive population control policies and Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren, it is important to read exactly what Holdren (and his co-authors Paul and Anna Ehrlich) wrote in their 1977 textbook Ecoscience.

The question is this: were Holdren’s recommendations merely the academic exercise of listing other people’s recommendations (with disavowal or without any kind of endorsement), or did Holdren endorse any of these measures or counsel serious consideration of them.

Here are the relevant pages of Holdren’s book; there is much more than I can deal with in this post, and I will be reviewing all of Holdren’s writings in Ecoscience in future posts, word for word.

Let’s begin. Holdren bottom of first paragraph, p786):

In LDC’s [less developed countries] a childless or single lifestyle might be encouraged deliberately as the status of women approaches parity with that of men. Although free and easy association of the sexes might be tolerated in such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged.

How could illegitimate childbearing be “strongly discouraged”? Holdren continues:

One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement or adoption, depending on the society. [emphasis mine]

Holdren’s next paragraph is astonishing:

Atheist Jerry Coyne has been “chewing over” the President’s selection of Francis Collins as head of the National Institutes of Health. Collins, by consensus, is superbly qualified as a scientist and an administrator to run NIH. He’s a distinguished geneticist and directed the Human Genome Project. He’s also a Christian, and has no problem with publicly discussing his reasons and faith. For Coyne, that’s the rub. Coyne begins his post by wanting to “give the guy a break,” but his patience is quickly exhausted.
Coyne: