That Bad Pun Again
by tristero
Unforgivably, PZ Myers linked to an exceptionally weird - in an unpleasant way - interview with creationist George Gilder. One thing is certain: this "expert on microchips" can pack more bullshit into less space than just about anyone: The Darwinians essentially uphold that the human brain is all the intelligence in the universe.
I have never heard anyone, ever "uphold" this, even essentially.
Here's another little bit of classic Gilderiana:It seems that Darwinian materialism is the kind of hard science that all the social theorists use to justify their blindness to creativity or ideas or mind.
I confess that like many Americans of my generation, I failed to learn a foreign language with anything remotely resembling facility. It is something I'm deeply ashamed of, but I can only understand English. Therefore, I have absolutely no idea what Gilder could possibly be talking about. I've read quite a bit of Darwin recently, and I'm talking in the realm of several thousand pages of Darwin. To associate Darwin, of all people, wtih supporting anyone's "blindness to creativity or ideas or mind" - No, Gilder is not talking English but some strange language that uses the words and grammar of English to mean something entirely different. What that meaning could be, I have no idea.
But maybe it's not my fault, after all. Maybe Gilder is speaking English but ingested the wrong kind of 'shrooms at a crucial age. For if we read on, it becomes more and more likely that he inhabits one of those parallel universes he asserts in the interview can't exist, one in which we are still in the 20th Century: It's a blindness that covers the whole intellectual world in the aftermath of Marx and the other materialist theories that have afflicted this century.
Surely, this century hasn't been afflicted by "Marx and other materialist theories." No, this century has been afflicted by fundamentalisms - political movements that exploit the iconography of religion in order to seize and wield secular power. Christianism and islamism for starters, but there are many others. It is one of the most salient features of 21st century human culture (and a very ominous one).
But let's cut to the chase. "Materialism" and its cognates are mentioned at least 12 times by Gilder (and several times by the interviewer). "Materialism" allows Gilder, somehow, to link Marx and Darwin. Hmm... Now, there's a thought, not a smart thought, but it is a thought.
Darwin. Marx. Darwin. Marx... Well, I guess they did both sport white, fluffy beards. And "Karl" is German for Charles... In a time when Michael Totten thought it helpful to point out that there was precious little similarity between Iraq and Vietnam because one is mostly flat and arid and the other jungle, I suppose all this does imply intellectual affinity, if not identity. But to be honest, the only real intellectual association between Darwin and Marx is that George Gilder has completely misunderstood both of them.* [also, see update.]
But I digress. Once again, an intelligent design creationist has made that bad pun that deliberately confuses two meanings of materialism, the philosophical (a theory of reality) and the colloquial (greedy materialists). But I'm beginning to suspect that bad puns and searching for the deep meaning behind homophones are two major distinguishing features of this particular brand of rightwing discourse. For in addition to mating Darwin with Paris Hilton - now, there's another thought - Gilder jumbles up human creativity with divine creation in utterly remarkable ways - talk about primordial chaos! He does the same thing with the hierarchical design of microchips, implying that somehow Carver and Mead's theories are relevant to the structure of the universe and imply God (geez, don't ask me to explain it, I haven't even smoked pot in 25 years). Somehow all this means that scientists have become idolators. "They made idols of math," Gilder says but then allows that, "the Tree of Knowledge might be a particularly exalted source code."
I have a question for Dr. Gilder. Has he ever considered that "dog" spelled backwards is "God?" Think about it.
---
*I hope Michael was joking, but frankly, it was difficult to tell because he also advanced a lot of other arguments using the same tone, and, ridiculous as they were, he clearly meant them to be taken seriously.
[updated slightly]
[UPDATE: Several commenters wrote that I am mistaken, that there is a connection between Darwin and Marx. They suggested the following readings:
The Part Played by Labor in the Transition From Ape to Man
colp, ralph, jr. "the contacts between karl marx and charles darwin" journal of the history of ideas, v35 #2, (apr-jun, 1974).
ball, terence. "marx and darwin. a reconsideration." political theory, v7#4, nov 1979.
I want to thank yellowdogblue and fellow traveler for this information. There are many pleasures to bloggings. One of them, of course, is being right when the professionals get it wrong. But just as enjoyable is being wrong and have knowledgeable, intelligent people correct you. I'm always amazed at bloggers who have to be right all the time. Nothing pleases me more than learning something new that helps me understand a subject better, especially if it causes me to change my mind.
I look forward to reading some of this material.]
[UPDATE 2: I've read the article linked to above by Engels. Eh. It's not very good. Nor do I see any fundamental relationship or derivation of Engels' ideas from Darwin.
Clearly, Engels had read Darwin or descriptions of his work, and accepted his ideas. But I don't see where he built upon them. Had natural selection never been described, he could still have argued that in the beginning was labor. Evolution per se is not what Darwin is about. It's evolution by specific means and Engels' arguement does not depend upon Darwin's specifcs.
Also their methods are totally different. Engels simply reads, speculates, and fantasizes, whereas Darwin collects facts, observes, experiments, and infers.
To make the kind of causal connecetion that Gilder makes between Marxism and Darwin is a stretch, based on reading that article. Maybe the other articles can make a better case for a real connection but merely being aware of Darwin and citing him does not mean that Darwin and Marx have related ideas, regardless of what Marx may have written. If Darwin refused to comment on Marx's citations of him, as someone in comments said, the reason is obvious: Engels, at least, is a lightweight when it comes to the science. Marx himself (I assume) had other fish to fry than refining the arguments on the origin of species, which was Darwin's interest. Theories of economic production and revolution most certainly were not.
So I still fail to see any serious relationship, based on what I've read and I continue to assert that Gilder's talking out of his hat.]