What does Fodor’s “anti-darwinism” mean to natural theology?

Research Article


In the current dialogue of “science and religion,” it is widely assumed that the thoughts of Darwinists and that of atheists overlap. However, Jerry Fodor, a full-fledged atheist, recently announced a war against Darwinism with his atheistic campaign. Prima facie, this “civil war” might offer a chance for theists: If Fodor is right, Darwinistic atheism will lose the cover of Darwinism and become less tenable. This paper provides a more pessimistic evaluation of the situation by explaining the following: Fodor’s criticism of adaptationism (as the backbone of Darwinism), viz., his refutation of any counterfactual-supporting laws on the macro-evolutionary level, implies that a law-maker is dispensable on this level. This will either encourage skepticism against the omniscience (at least that concerning the future of macro-evolution) of the Creator, or render the notion of God less appealing.


adaptationism algorithm atheism counterfactual-supporting laws Darwinism Fodor law-maker natural theology 


  1. Boden, M. (2006). Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life. New York: Simon & SchusterGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennett, D. (2008). “Fun and Games in Fantasyland.” Mind and Language, 23(1): 30–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fodor, J. (2007). “Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings?” London Book Reviews, retrieved from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html
  5. Fodor, J. (2008). “Anti-Darwinism.” Mind and Language, 23(1): 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fodor, J., and Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010). What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and GirouxGoogle Scholar
  7. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2008). “Explanation in Evolutionary Biology: Comments on Fodor.” Mind and Language, 23(1): 32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. (1979). “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 205(1161): 581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewens, T. (2007). “Adaptation,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology, eds. by Ruse, M., and Hull, D. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Richard, D. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar
  11. Searle, J. (1980). “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3: 417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyFudan UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations