John Lennox is an idiot and other musings on intelligent design

Intelligent designers are hilarious, because they have all the blustering certainty and assholery that comes from being really smart and knowing it, without the actually being smart. Most of them come from scientific fields not associated with biology (Lennox, for instance, is a mathematician) and they regularly say hilariously idiotic things. I remember watching Lennox speak and he said, “There were three great thinkers of the 20th century, Marx, Freud and Darwin. Two have fallen, when will the third?” Obviously, only one of those men lived in the 20th century, and Darwin’s theories were pretty well-established within the scientific community before the turn of the 20th century, but we’ll skip over that. Have Marx and Freud fallen? Really!? I know it’s all in vogue to be like, all past Freud or whatever, but what happens here is that Marx or Freud are vulgarized (i.e. oh, Marx thought capitalism sucked and it was doomed and Freud that you could explain all human actions in terms of penises) and then kick the shit out of that vulgarization. To a large extent, this is what the ID community (which is creationism, let’s stop with the B.S.) does to Darwin. But if the idea that Freud and Marx could be dead given that every serious thinker has to grapple with them is absurd, the idea that Darwin could die is even more absurd. To even do biology, you have to accept Darwin’s theories. Important disciplines (paleontology and neuroscience come to mind) rely of Darwinian mechanisms. There are even fields dedicated strictly to a applying Darwinian methods more broadly (i.e. evolutionary psychology). Have we in many ways transcended Darwin? Not quite as much as with Freud and Marx, but certainly there have been modifications, brought about by fields like genetics, neuroscience and paleontology, but broadly speaking, even those who move beyond Darwin (say a Dawkins or a Gould) owe him a huge debt.

4 thoughts on “John Lennox is an idiot and other musings on intelligent design

  1. Phillip Rodgers

    Sir, in reading your blog, I find your lack of evidence disturbing. You claim that those who believe intelligent design are hilarious based on the quote of one man. Seriously? One quote defines everything about a person? I would think that you might have a larger body of evidence than one quote. Also, you don’t even refute the quote. You only claim that Lennox is wrong. I’m sure there is some sort of evidence out there that might show him wrong, but it is not in your post. I think you need FAR more proof before you use profanity to support what you think.

    Reply
    1. seanadrianmc@gmail.com Post author

      The piece argues that Marx, Freud and Darwin will all continue to be respected and widely read among people interested in the fields of economics, psychology and science. My goal is not to disprove intelligent design because it is not a scientific argument and cannot therefore be addressed on scientific grounds. Citing evidence would be meaningless.

      Reply
      1. Phillip Rodgers

        I wanted to take the time to thank for responding to my post. Some people might not and I am glad that you took the time to do so. I have to agree with you, each of those men will be respected as the founders of each of their respective beliefs. Each of them truly did expand the fields and have caused people to explore those fields. I do still have the question as to how this applies to the whole of Intelligent design. I mean, are you talking about all people who believe the world was created by some being or about a group in particular? Also, does Lennox explain what he means by “dead”? I don’t know how much you check this blog or how often you respond to people, but I would really like to know more about what you think and how you got to the conclusion you did.

        Reply
  2. Sanford Sharp

    Sean – first of all, I enjoy your writing, keep up the good work. Second, I agree that the ID’ers are so off far off base with many of their arguments that they’re “not even wrong”. The questions they pose belie an underlying depth of misunderstanding that precludes an answer! Yet, they clothe it all in the vestments of science, to lend the imprimatur of authority. Frustrating!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *