What does Fodor’s “anti-darwinism” mean to natural theology?
- First Online:
- 24 Downloads
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.
Keywordsadaptationism algorithm atheism counterfactual-supporting laws Darwinism Fodor law-maker natural theology
- Boden, M. (2006). Mind as Machine: A History of Cognitive Science. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life. New York: Simon & SchusterGoogle Scholar
- Fodor, J. (2007). “Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings?” London Book Reviews, retrieved from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html
- Fodor, J., and Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (2010). What Darwin Got Wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus and GirouxGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Richard, D. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W. W. Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar