One of my new favorite authors is agnostic sociologist Rodney Stark. While he has Catholic sympathies, he is not above letting them have it in his reviews of history. A professor at Baylor University, he has written many journal articles and books on the sociology of religion, including
- CITIES OF GOD: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome (2006)
- The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (2005)
- The Rise of Mormonism (2005)
- For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (2003, one of my favorites)
- One True God: Historical Consequence of Monotheism (2001)
However, I just stumbled upon a 2004 article he wrote called Fact, Fable, and Darwin, in which he takes Darwinism to task (though he says he is not a creationist) for its hubris and outright exaggerations. Typical anti-Darwin stuff, but written in Stark’s non-nonsense agnostic style. I’ve excerpted below.
- The battle over evolution is not an example of how heroic scientists have withstood the relentless persecution of religious fanatics. Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.
- When a thoroughly ideological Darwinist like Richard Dawkins claims, “The theory is about as much in doubt as that the earth goes round the sun,” he does not state a fact, but merely aims to discredit a priori anyone who dares to express reservations about evolution.
- One may note the serious shortcomings of neo-Darwinism without opting for any rival theory.
- While acknowledging that “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record” is a major embarrassment for Darwinism, Stephen Jay Gould confided that this has been held as a “trade secret of paleontology” and acknowledged that the evolutionary diagrams “that adorn our textbooks” are based on “inference…not the evidence of fossils.”
- Paleontologist Niles Eldridge and his colleagues have said that the history of life demonstrates gradual transformations of species, “all the while really knowing that it does not.” This is not how science is conducted; it is how ideological crusades are run.
- As the eminent and committed Darwinist Ernst Mayr explained,The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation…is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can only be designated as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flyer….To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles.
- The eminent observer Everett Olson notes that there is “a generally silent group” of biological scientists “who tend to disagree with much of the current thought” about evolution, but who remain silent for fear of censure.
One more quote from Stark, which I found interesting, in a 2004 interview.
Interviewer: You once wrote that you’re ‘not religious as that term is conventionally understood.’
RS: That’s true, though I’ve never been an atheist. Atheism is an active faith; it says, ‘I believe there is no God.’ But I don’t know what I believe. I was brought up a Lutheran in Jamestown, North Dakota. I have trouble with faith. I’m not proud of this. I don’t think it makes me an intellectual. I would believe if I could, and I may be able to before it’s over. I would welcome that.
Unsurprising that Seeker likes Stark since they're both Christian triumphalists. The only difference is that Seeker is honest about it. Stark is too embarrassed to admit to openly being a creationist (yet).
Here's one small example of Stark's level of understanding of biology.
(http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18132/article_detail.asp)
"The biological world is now classified into a set of nested categories. Within each genus (mammals, reptiles, etc.) are species (dogs, horses, elephants, etc.) and within each species are many specific varieties, or breeds (Great Dane, Poodle, Beagle, etc.)."
That's not even close. Mammals and reptiles are classes, way up the taxonomic hierarchy. Horses and elephant represent families, not species. This is elementary stuff, folks.
If you REALLY dig into what guys like Stark are up to, something which takes some tedious sleuthing, their game is very much aimed at "fuzzy middle," money, swelling student body, and prestige/power. They pander to conservatives while trying to sway the fuzzy middle to their side, pouncing on wedge issues to reel people in with tactical and "logical" hooks. For example, see Stark try to find and play the fuzzy middle with the evolution is not a proven theory meme, here. Don't miss the little blurb on Stark's understanding of biology, also on that page. I can pull up an array of other examples of guys like this playing the fuzzy middle to bring them closer to the Religious Reich in the field of academics. Money = power.
Stark is a stark proponent of the controversial Baylor University Vision 2012 – the "Christian" University. Baylor staff has become and remains polarized their game is getting more savvy. With Vision 2012, they will require staff to profess their Christian faith. So, to Stark and some other staff at Baylor, Christian Rational Choice equals top-tier placement in academia, cultural-financial-scientific-technical superiority, and progressiveness in education … and beyond!
Strategy of a hungry careerist — that's what is behind particular twists in the love story of Reason and Stark, with his vested interests. Interestingly enough, he indicates that hungry careerists previously hurt the Churches' attendance and Christianity's hold on populations. He claims careerists alienate the population. Heh.
Now Stark is neither deluded or a moron by a long shot – so why does he profess to have these beliefs? One clue – although sociologists don't take him seriously anymore, he gets a lot of money from conservative institutions. Baylor literally shit itself to give him a raise when he transferred from Washington. The dumb rubes just lap this stuff up – and "think" tanks like AEI gives him speaking fees and fund his books. Why stick with the boring truth when the opposition will pay you handsomely to shill for them?
Maybe he really is an atheist. If these suckers will give you money to say the earth is flat, why not say it? It's the perfect application of the rational choice theory he is known for. Go Christian Baylor University! Jesus is the reason for the season! Can you make me department head?
No Plausible Theory of Origins, Says Stark
Wow, impressive ad hominem attack. But all I am saying is that I like his ideas and style, despite whatever mistakes he may make.
The amount of self-deception and deception of the public by evolutionary supporters as to the soundness of evolutionary theory should be exposed for the zealotry it is. Hence, Stark's accurate statement
The battle over evolution is not an example of how heroic scientists have withstood the relentless persecution of religious fanatics. Rather, from the very start it primarily has been an attack on religion by militant atheists who wrap themselves in the mantle of science.