En un artículo escrito para el "New York Reviews of Books" el desaparecido científico Stephen Jay Gould escribió una crítica a lo que él calificó como "darwinian fundamentalism" o fundamentalismo darwinista, tal como es representado especialmente por Richard Dawkins y Daniel Dennett (calificado por Gould como el "publicista de Dawkins").
Al respecto, Gould señaló "In this light, especially given history's tendency to recycle great issues, I am amused by an irony that has recently ensnared evolutionary theory. A movement of strict constructionism, a self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism, has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett (who entitled his latest book Darwin's Dangerous Idea).[1] Moreover, a larger group of strict constructionists are now engaged in an almost mordantly self-conscious effort to "revolutionize" the study of human behavior along a Darwinian straight and narrow under the name of "evolutionary psychology".
Al respecto, Gould señaló "In this light, especially given history's tendency to recycle great issues, I am amused by an irony that has recently ensnared evolutionary theory. A movement of strict constructionism, a self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism, has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett (who entitled his latest book Darwin's Dangerous Idea).[1] Moreover, a larger group of strict constructionists are now engaged in an almost mordantly self-conscious effort to "revolutionize" the study of human behavior along a Darwinian straight and narrow under the name of "evolutionary psychology".
Some of these ideas have filtered into the general press, but the uniting theme of Darwinian fundamentalism has not been adequately stressed or identified. Professionals, on the other hand, are well aware of the connections. My colleague Niles Eldredge, for example, speaks of this coordinated movement as Ultra-Darwinism in his recent book, Reinventing Darwin.[2] Amid the variety of their subject matter, the ultra-Darwinists share a conviction that natural selection regulates everything of any importance in evolution, and that adaptation emerges as a universal result and ultimate test of selection's ubiquity"
Allí Gould señala los aspectos esenciales del darwinismo fanático. Los lectores de este blog sabrán que existen diversas críticas científicas al darwinismo, y en particular a la actual teoría sintética de la evolución; pero que éstas son silenciadas, ridiculizadas y deliberadamente confundidas y entremezcladas con el creacionismo o con el movimiento del diseño inteligente.
Esta tendencia a estigmatizar a los oponentes teóricos es también comentada por Gould: "Since the ultras are fundamentalists at heart, and since fundamentalists generally try to stigmatize their opponents by depicting them as apostates from the one true way, may I state for the record that I (along with all other Darwinian pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central importance of adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural selection".
Sobre el filósofo ateo y materialista Daniel Dennett, Gould señala: "Daniel Dennett's 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, presents itself as the ultras' philosophical manifesto of pure adaptationism. Dennett explains the strict adaptationist view well enough, but he defends a miserly and blinkered picture of evolution in assuming that all important phenomena can be explained thereby. His limited and superficial book reads like a caricature of a caricature—for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized Darwin's richness by adhering to the strictest form of adaptationist argument in a maximally reductionist mode, then Dennett, as Dawkins's publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable account into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine. If history, as often noted, replays grandeurs as farces, and if T.H. Huxley truly acted as "Darwin's bulldog," then it is hard to resist thinking of Dennett, in this book, as "Dawkins's lapdog.""
Se puede ver que a Dennett lo critican científicos ateos (como Gould) y no solo creacionistas o defensores del diseño inteligente (como Phillip Johnson, que criticó el libro de Dennett en este artículo titulado "La idea peligrosa de Daniel Dennett")
Toda esta retórica y propaganda ultra-darwinista solo será convincente para los darwinistas radicales y acríticos, o para los que intentan promover su ideología atea personal abusando de la ciencia, o para los séquitos y seguidores incondicionales de los representantes del darwinismo fundamentalista. Pero un lector crítico e interesado en la verdad no será convencido tan fácilmente.
Afortunadamente, existen personas que buscan la verdad, y están dispuestas a examinar las evidencias a favor y en contra de las diversas teorías en pugna, y a ajustar sus creencias personales sobre el tema a dichas evidencias.
Esta tendencia a estigmatizar a los oponentes teóricos es también comentada por Gould: "Since the ultras are fundamentalists at heart, and since fundamentalists generally try to stigmatize their opponents by depicting them as apostates from the one true way, may I state for the record that I (along with all other Darwinian pluralists) do not deny either the existence and central importance of adaptation, or the production of adaptation by natural selection".
Sobre el filósofo ateo y materialista Daniel Dennett, Gould señala: "Daniel Dennett's 1995 book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, presents itself as the ultras' philosophical manifesto of pure adaptationism. Dennett explains the strict adaptationist view well enough, but he defends a miserly and blinkered picture of evolution in assuming that all important phenomena can be explained thereby. His limited and superficial book reads like a caricature of a caricature—for if Richard Dawkins has trivialized Darwin's richness by adhering to the strictest form of adaptationist argument in a maximally reductionist mode, then Dennett, as Dawkins's publicist, manages to convert an already vitiated and improbable account into an even more simplistic and uncompromising doctrine. If history, as often noted, replays grandeurs as farces, and if T.H. Huxley truly acted as "Darwin's bulldog," then it is hard to resist thinking of Dennett, in this book, as "Dawkins's lapdog.""
Se puede ver que a Dennett lo critican científicos ateos (como Gould) y no solo creacionistas o defensores del diseño inteligente (como Phillip Johnson, que criticó el libro de Dennett en este artículo titulado "La idea peligrosa de Daniel Dennett")
Toda esta retórica y propaganda ultra-darwinista solo será convincente para los darwinistas radicales y acríticos, o para los que intentan promover su ideología atea personal abusando de la ciencia, o para los séquitos y seguidores incondicionales de los representantes del darwinismo fundamentalista. Pero un lector crítico e interesado en la verdad no será convencido tan fácilmente.
Afortunadamente, existen personas que buscan la verdad, y están dispuestas a examinar las evidencias a favor y en contra de las diversas teorías en pugna, y a ajustar sus creencias personales sobre el tema a dichas evidencias.
Quizás las observaciones de Gould sirvan de acicate para despertar del letargo intelectual que parecen padecer algunas personas cuando se toca algún aspecto relacionado con el darwinismo, u otro tema tabú considerado incuestionable.
