nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin Program - Does Dawkins annoy you?

Tim Robbins

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

Dawkins could have easily pointed out that most Christian Churches accept evolution and that creationism is really only a minority money making movement. I picked up a book of quotes from Pope John Paul II yesterday where he speaks about Science liberating people and helping us find truth. But Dawkins always tries to paint the opposite picture coming from Religion.

Dawkins could have used the program time to deal with the confusions over evolution theory that even a lot of agnostics have. Such as:
"they're gaps in the fossil record"
"no species has ever been seen transform into a species"
"evolution is only a theory".

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

As an atheist, I feel he's doing none of us any favours and just causing more tensions between our camp and your's. My view is we should be trying to find common crowd and unite against the money making creationist charlatans.

If you are a Christian how do you feel about this?

Apathetic, misrepresented?

Find more posts tagged with

evolution

richard dawkins

Quick Links

Comments

robindch

santing wrote: »

From Wikipedia...

Well, in all fairness, PDN did claim that anthropologists -- presumably in general -- reject the idea of memes as pseudo-science. I was rather hoping that he could back up his claim with some evidence. Wikipedia, wonderful and all as it often is, is not written exclusively by anthropologists.

santing wrote: »

It seems that indeed everybody accepts them, but nobody knows what they have accepted!

Well, out of interest and as you don't seem to accept that they exist, perhaps you'd care to explain what you understand by them, and then show why such things are impossible?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, my understanding of memetic theory was that it was fairly nebulous in its definitions

If you're interested in finding out that this is not really the case, then I recommend Susan Blackmore's excellent 'The Meme Machine' (TOC here).

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Because of this it is closer to a pseudo-science or a reactionary theory, and one most often used to assault and explain away religious belief at that.

Memetic theory does not "explain away" religious belief, it explains why religious belief happens, and how religious belief spreads from one person to another and sustains itself over long periods of time. It also explains much more -- transmission of "culture" in the broadest and narrowest senses, languages, humor, music, architecture and so on. It has predictive and applicative power far beyond the fascinating, if single, area of religion.

I suspect that a lot of the hostility to this simple and economic explanation for the existence of religious belief arises from the fact religion can be explained simply. It must be rather like looking at the skeleton of a dear friend.

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

His next program will be called "The Genius of Dawkins"

I suspect that many will refer to him as such in time. I'm not sure I'd call him a genius, but he's admirable to me for standing on the front line of the cause of science.

kelly1 wrote: »

Apart from his incredible arrogance, this is what bugs me most about him. This man for all intents and purposes is an anti-christ. I'll bet he's ruined the last shred of faith for hundreds of people.

Well that must indicate some very weak faith or some very strong reason. Or both, for that matter. Anti-christ is not a term I would bandy about so lightly in a world with such genuine horrors in it.

kelly1 wrote: »

I read about one man who went into a deep depression for a few years after reading the selfish gene.

The truth hurts. It hurts a lot, in fact. Dawkins himself emphasizes the need for humans to find their own purpose and to face the quite troubling nature of reality. He's not speaking of nihilism, but existentialism. He's trying to bring truth as well as hope.

For those with a strong faith, this is irrelevant. It matters more to those struggling with the conflicts between faith and reason.

kelly1 wrote: »

He may be an expert on evolution but he knows feck all about Christianity.
God have mercy on him.

Spare us please, nobody needs your wishes of mercy. I know you mean well, but it comes of as quite patronizing.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Spare us please, nobody needs your wishes of mercy. I know you mean well, but it comes of as quite patronizing.

Please try to remember where you are.

If Noel expressed such a sentiment in the A&A forum then it would certainly be patronising and you can object all you like. However, in the Christianity forum it is perfectly OK for a Christian to wish God's mercy on someone.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Don't worry about it. Some atheists like to believe that they alone are rational and everybody else is clinging to an irrational belief system. The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

My view would be on the meta-physical question soft-atheism is the most rational viewpoint, but that does not infer atheists are the most rational people.

Even if you look at Dawkins, if his objective really is to get more atheists, or less creationists, he'd be far better off using changing his tactics. But he's letting his personal disdain for religion, manifest through his arrogance to the point he even irks many other atheists.

The chances are we all have a mixture of rational and irrational viewpoints.
How you define irrational and rational objectively is another day's work.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The poor dears get quite emotional if you don't humour this dogmatic belief.

The dogmatists without a dogma -- that sounds more like Zen Buddhism to me

Any sign of those anthropologists you mentioned?

Minder

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

A bit late in the day, but I believe Dawkins dig on the church and the preacher in question stemmed from an attempt by the church to close an exhibition of skulls of human ancestors found in the Rift Valley. Is there something in the exhibition that the faithful need protecting from?

The Mad Hatter

I did think he was great on Doctor Who, though.

'But it's an imperical fact. Those planets didn't appear in our sky - we went to them. Look at the stars - they're different.'

thebaldsoprano

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The chances are we all have a mixture of rational and irrational viewpoints.

Yeah, agreed on that.

Tim Robbins

Minder wrote: »

A bit late in the day, but I believe Dawkins dig on the church and the preacher in question stemmed from an attempt by the church to close an exhibition of skulls of human ancestors found in the Rift Valley. Is there something in the exhibition that the faithful need protecting from?

If he wanted to bring Religion into it, he should have some how pointed out the majority of Christians that have had a scientific education have no problem with evolution. Dito the majority of Christian Churches. This glaring act of omission, is a propaganda technique.

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

Please try to remember where you are.

If Noel expressed such a sentiment in the A&A forum then it would certainly be patronising and you can object all you like. However, in the Christianity forum it is perfectly OK for a Christian to wish God's mercy on someone.

Duly noted. I have to wonder though how a Christian would feel about having the mercy of the Earth Mother called upon them for their heretical belief in the Abrahamic God. Is there any context at all in which that would be considered inoffensive? I'd even feel offended on the Christian's behalf.

Perhaps I am being too sensitive. It won't happen again.

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Duly noted. I have to wonder though how a Christian would feel about having the mercy of the Earth Mother called upon them for their heretical belief in the Abrahamic God. Is there any context at all in which that would be considered inoffensive? I'd even feel offended on the Christian's behalf.

Perhaps I am being too sensitive. It won't happen again.

If a Christian were to post in the Spirituality or Pagan fora then they would have no right to complain if they were subjected to wacky New Age claptrap.

Bottle_of_Smoke

sdep wrote: »

I rather prefer Steve Jones. In communicating his enthusiasm for all things Darwinian, he generally keeps clear of religion. When, as in this recent public lecture, he does discuss it, he points out that he has no time for creationism, but says he takes no issue with the late Pope's position that humans evolved from a common ancestor with all other species, yet were divinely infused with souls somewhere along the way.

My personal feeling is that evolution is too important to see it reduced to a weapon in arguments over religion.

wow, that's pretty impressive, is that then the position of the Catholic church? Come to think of it, you never really hear about Catholics complaining about evolution, more abortion clinics/stripclubs. Really did not know that about Pope Johnpaul

sdep

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

wow, that's pretty impressive, is that then the position of the Catholic church? Come to think of it, you never really hear about Catholics complaining about evolution, more abortion clinics/stripclubs. Really did not know that about Pope Johnpaul

I was just quoting [edit:] paraphrasing the one-line summary given by Steve Jones (not sure of his religion, if any) in the link I posted. However, as far as I'm aware the Catholic and Anglican churches don't dispute the Darwinian view that life had a single origin from which all modern species - humans included - are descended.

santing

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

wow, that's pretty impressive, is that then the position of the Catholic church?

The position of the Roman Catholic church seems to be a mixture of accepting Evolution and accepting the revelation of the Creator God. Read it all at:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P19.HTM

kelly1

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

wow, that's pretty impressive, is that then the position of the Catholic church? Come to think of it, you never really hear about Catholics complaining about evolution, more abortion clinics/stripclubs. Really did not know that about Pope Johnpaul

The Church is open to evolution. What is not up for debate is the teaching that Adam was the first human being to recieve a spiritual soul. God might have created Adam from clay but evolution seems more likely. But who knows?

AtomicHorror

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church is open to evolution. What is not up for debate is the teaching that Adam was the first human being to recieve a spiritual soul. God might have created Adam from clay but evolution seems more likely. But who knows?

Well if you take the line that abiogenesis resulted in lifeless materials becoming simple life which then evolved into man then that allows you to claim both to be true. "Muck to Man" evolution as J C would say.

Since abiogenesis is a theory up for grabs, you can speculatively insert God :pac:

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Any sign of those anthropologists you mentioned?

Adam Kuper, Professor of Anthropology at Brunel University: http://newhumanist.org.uk/974

Scott Atran, Research Director in Anthropology at the Jean Nicod Institute of the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique and author of "The trouble with memes". Atran, following his participation in the 2006 'Beyond Belief' symposium with Dawkins, Dennett & Harris wrote, "I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist."

Maurice Bloch, Professor of Anthropology at LSE and author of "A well-disposed social anthropologist's problems with memes." in Robert Aunger's Darwinizing Culture (2000).

Aunger himself (a Cambridge anthropologist), although open to the idea of memes, disagrees strongly with Dawkin's use of meme theory. I understand he is representative of many other anthropologists who find the comparison between genes and memes to be frustrating and unproductive, particularly the idea of them being self-replicating.

Splendour

santing wrote: »

Reading and listening to Dawkins, one get the impression that he is (negatively) obsessed with religion. He has his own crusade.

Ahh, but it is not his crusade Santing. He is merely a channel through which the crusade is being operated. Why else would he be so adamant to speak out against Christianity?!

I for one (Christian), actually feel sorry for Dawkins and see in him childlike quality. It's almost like he's trying to prove evolution to himself rather than his viewer and readers. He has been in my prayers many times. And just like Wolfsbane I don't worry a jot about him being against Christianity-after all God is bigger than Dawkins and who knows; God's hand could be right in the middle of it all...

Soul Winner

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

Dawkins could have easily pointed out that most Christian Churches accept evolution and that creationism is really only a minority money making movement. I picked up a book of quotes from Pope John Paul II yesterday where he speaks about Science liberating people and helping us find truth. But Dawkins always tries to paint the opposite picture coming from Religion.

Dawkins could have used the program time to deal with the confusions over evolution theory that even a lot of agnostics have. Such as:
"they're gaps in the fossil record"
"no species has ever been seen transform into a species"
"evolution is only a theory".

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

As an atheist, I feel he's doing none of us any favours and just causing more tensions between our camp and your's. My view is we should be trying to find common crowd and unite against the money making creationist charlatans.

If you are a Christian how do you feel about this?

Apathetic, misrepresented?

I actually like Dawkins at times, he can be very funny even when he's not trying to be. But I don't think he realizes how irritating he can be even to those who he thinks he is representing. I find it a breath of fresh air that a lot of atheist here will not just flock to his feet simply because he has the largest soap box from which he can spew forth his maligned view of religion. You should be commended for your free thinking. I applaud you for that.

He goes on about the genius of Darwin but haven't most of Darwin's original ideas been abandoned by modern day science? Aren't there many modern day evolutionists who would not recommend reading 'Origin of species' in order to get a good understanding of how evolution works? He might have got the ball rolling but surely there are others who deserve some plaudits too?

sink

PDN wrote: »

Except when he starts speculating about memes - what anthropologists refer to as 'pseudoscience'.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, my understanding of memetic theory was that it was fairly nebulous in its definitions. Because of this it is closer to a pseudo-science or a reactionary theory, and one most often used to assault and explain away religious belief at that.

robindch wrote: »

If you're interested in finding out that this is not really the case, then I recommend Susan Blackmore's excellent 'The Meme Machine' (TOC here).Memetic theory does not "explain away" religious belief, it explains why religious belief happens, and how religious belief spreads from one person to another and sustains itself over long periods of time. It also explains much more -- transmission of "culture" in the broadest and narrowest senses, languages, humor, music, architecture and so on. It has predictive and applicative power far beyond the fascinating, if single, area of religion.

I suspect that a lot of the hostility to this simple and economic explanation for the existence of religious belief arises from the fact religion can be explained simply. It must be rather like looking at the skeleton of a dear friend.

PDN wrote: »

Adam Kuper, Professor of Anthropology at Brunel University: http://newhumanist.org.uk/974

Scott Atran, Research Director in Anthropology at the Jean Nicod Institute of the French Centre national de la recherche scientifique and author of "The trouble with memes". Atran, following his participation in the 2006 'Beyond Belief' symposium with Dawkins, Dennett & Harris wrote, "I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist."

Maurice Bloch, Professor of Anthropology at LSE and author of "A well-disposed social anthropologist's problems with memes." in Robert Aunger's Darwinizing Culture (2000).

Aunger himself (a Cambridge anthropologist), although open to the idea of memes, disagrees strongly with Dawkin's use of meme theory. I understand he is representative of many other anthropologists who find the comparison between genes and memes to be frustrating and unproductive, particularly the idea of them being self-replicating.

I think the main trouble with Memetic theory is it's a social science distinct from evolution which is a natural science. Social science by it's very nature is less rigid than the natural sciences. The basic facts social science are rarely universal unlike natural science where basic facts such as the speed of light are universal.

When natural scientists such as evolutionary biologists take the models they developed in the field of natural sciences and apply them to the field of social science it never seems to fit quiet as neatly. The evidence is never as strong and the theories are rarely robust and rarely can be applied universally. This leads some social science such as memetics to appear more like pseudo-science but it is not and is no less worthy of study than natural science.

Soul Winner wrote: »

I actually like Dawkins at times, he can be very funny even when he's not trying to be. But I don't think he realizes how irritating he can be even to those who he thinks he is representing. I find it a breath of fresh air that a lot of atheist here will not just flock to his feet simply because he has the largest soap box from which he can spew forth his maligned view of religion. You should be commended for your free thinking. I applaud you for that.

The whole premise of atheism and agnosticism is that of freedom of thought. Atheist and agnostics tend to question everything and everyone so I don't think there will ever be any authoritative atheists/agnostics the way there are theists such as the Bishop of Rome or Canterbury. But thanks for applauding our open mindedness it is the basis of western society and philosophy.

Open mindedness is the opposite of wilful ignorance which is what fundamentalist theists practice. When wilful ignoranve is adopted by general society such as happened in the dark ages of Christianity and is ongoing now in many Islamic societies, scientific and social progress halts and even recedes. This scares atheists and agnostics to death as science is where we find our hope and dreams for the future and is basically our source for a positive outlook on life. Fundamentalists Christians an Muslims want to tear down science and cast it out of society.

Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists react as a defensive measure against these attacks on science and go on the offensive attacking religion in general. But many others myself included see this as counter productive as a fundamentalist is only going to harden their position when under attack. More moderate theist which do not threaten the progress of science and knowledge are going to get caught in the crossfire. As a result they can start to perceive science as a threat to their own beliefs (which it is not as science can't prove/disprove the supernatural). This creates more resistance to science and moves moderate theists towards fundamentalism.

Soul Winner wrote: »

He goes on about the genius of Darwin but haven't most of Darwin's original ideas been abandoned by modern day science? Aren't there many modern day evolutionists who would not recommend reading 'Origin of species' in order to get a good understanding of how evolution works? He might have got the ball rolling but surely there are others who deserve some plaudits too?

Darwins theories were incomplete because he had an incomplete picture of the biological process of evolution. Genetics which explains the process had not developed when 'The Origin of Species' was published. This theory began development towards the end of the 19th century but was not complete until the mapping of DNA in the late 20th century. These later discoveries reinforced Darwin's original principles but if you want to get a full picture of evolution as understood today you need to read something a little more recent.

Modern genetics came about because of the Darwins theory of evolution. The discovery of DNA was because of the theory of Genetics. So everything in the field of evolution is based on Darwins original work and that is why is held in so much regard.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

Why else would he be so adamant to speak out against Christianity?!

Christianity certainly has never done anything worthy of speaking out against, thats true :pac:

Splendour wrote: »

I for one (Christian), actually feel sorry for Dawkins and see in him childlike quality. It's almost like he's trying to prove evolution to himself rather than his viewer and readers.

I don't think Dawkins is trying to "prove" evolution to himself, I think he understands it quite well and he has been at the for front of how modern evolutionary theory is conceived with works like "The Selfish Gene"

I think a lot of his work is a reaction to the rather surprising lack of understand that one finds in the general public as to what evolution is and what it says. Evolution is a very wondrous and amazing process, its like the biological version of something like the Giant's Causeway or the Grand Canon, one can't help have their breath slightly take away when they start to grasp the ins and outs of the process.

I think Dawkins is bemused that this theory is not being properly communicated to the general public (I think Dawkins some times has a lack of patience for people who don't understand something straight away) and has set out a mission for himself to educate as many people as possible about one of the most important scientific theories ever conceived.

For Dawkins science and the understanding of the how the natural world actually is and works isn't something that should be in the lofty towers of some university research lab, with the general public largely oblivious to the theories and research until it ends up producing a new car or TV or drug.

Dawkins wants everyone to learn and be educated and marvel at the universe around us.

Where his distaste for what he sees as the the superstition and ancient doctrines of religion fits in is that he sees religion as fundamentally the main obstacle to this, stopping people from truly understand the wonders and detail of the natural world around us, not just in relation to evolution but in relation to all science, and ultimately all areas of understanding and truth.

To Dawkins religion is the opium of the people, but unlike Marx to Dawkins it keeps people happy in their ignorance, happy in not knowing what the world around them is actually like, happy in a dream land of magic and superstition, angels, gods, witches and warlocks. It blinds people to truths and dulls their brains to learning and understanding.

And to be honest with you I can't help be agree with him a lot of the time.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

He goes on about the genius of Darwin but haven't most of Darwin's original ideas been abandoned by modern day science?

No, and as I eluded to in my post above, comments like this no doubt set the hairs on Dawkins neck straight up like nails on a chalk board.

Darwin didn't know about genetics or mutation or DNA or a vast number of things that go into form the theories of neo-Darwinian Evolution.

That doesn't mean science has abandoned his works. What they have done is fill in the processes that allow Darwinian evolution to work in biological life on Earth.

Soul Winner wrote: »

He might have got the ball rolling but surely there are others who deserve some plaudits too?

Certainly, Dawkins himself deserves plaudits for his Selfish Gene work.

But it is hard to understate how fundamentally important Darwin's theories actually are, not simply for biology but in general.

Darwinian Evolution, applied to biology or a host of other things such as computer programming (genetic algorithms for example) is such a beautiful system that demonstrates a major counter-intuitive process of complexity arising from simplicity. Darwin didn't fully understand the details of how this actually happened in biological life, but he understood the process that would allow this to happen, that is the brilliance.

The sense of amazement when the process first clicks with someone and they understand the full ramifications of it, the beauty of both the simplicity and the complexity that can arise, it is hard to explain but I would arrogantly suggest that it makes any religious feelings of revelations pale and weak in comparison.

thebaldsoprano

I dunno what Dawkins thinks, but if this is his line of reasoning then he's a confused man.

Wicknight wrote: »

magic and superstition, angels, gods, witches and warlocks

It's perfectly possible to believe in all of these without hindering our grasp on the mechanics of the natural world around us. Let's not forget that Newton was an Alchemist and Einstein was a Theist.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

(I think Dawkins some times has a lack of patience for people who don't understand something straight away people who don't see things exactly the same way he sees them) and has set out a mission for himself to educate as many people as possible about one of the most important scientific theories ever conceived.

Fixed.

thebaldsoprano

PDN wrote: »

Fixed.

That's the thing though, there are plenty of Theists, Atheists and Agnostics who have a good understanding of science and can appreciate each other's points of view on the God question.

Mereckons what Dawkins is trying to do will take things back into the Dark Ages.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Fixed.

Well no, I think Dawkins would be over joyed if most people understood scientific theories such as Darwinian Evolution, yet argued different positions in relation to it. Dawkins has had long and (by his own admission) enjoyable debates and rivalries with people like Gould.

What appears to annoy him is not difference of opinion on these matters, but whole hearted ignorance.

PDN

sink wrote: »

I think the main trouble with Memetic theory is it's a social science distinct from evolution which is a natural science. Social science by it's very nature is less rigid than the natural sciences. The basic facts social science are rarely universal unlike natural science where basic facts such as the speed of light are universal.

When natural scientists such as evolutionary biologists take the models they developed in the field of natural sciences and apply them to the field of social science it never seems to fit quiet as neatly. The evidence is never as strong and the theories are rarely robust and rarely can be applied universally. This leads some social science such as memetics to appear more like pseudo-science but it is not and is no less worthy of study than natural science.

Good point. Social sciences are indeed not as cut and dried as natural science, but the misunderstanding lies with Dawkins and his disciples rather than with the critics of memetics. Remember, the major critics of memetics are themselves social scientists. Dawkins tries to apply his memetic theory as if it were natural science. Anthropologists are understandably frustrated when he arrogantly disregards and discounts all that they have discovered about the development of religions and instead tries to apply a biological-type solution to a cultural and educational problem. I'm sure Dawkins is a brilliant biologist - but he is not a brilliant anthropologist (and as a philosopher he sucks).

Modern genetics came about because of the Darwins theory of evolution. The discovery of DNA was because of the theory of Genetics. So everything in the field of evolution is based on Darwins original work and that is why is held in so much regard.

Another good point. The true genius is not the person who stands on the shoulders of giants and refines a theory. The true genius is the one who comes up with the theory in the first place.

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

It's perfectly possible to believe in all of these without hindering our grasp on the mechanics of the natural world around us. Let's not forget that Newton was an Alchemist and Einstein was a Theist.

Einstein wasn't a theist.

Newton wasted a huge amount of his life trying to get lead turn into gold. If you don't consider that a hinderence to his grasping of the mechanics of the natural world I don't know what is.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, I think Dawkins would be over joyed if most people understood scientific theories such as Darwinian Evolution, yet argued different positions in relation to it. Dawkins has had long and (by his own admission) enjoyable debates and rivalries with people like Gould.

What appears to annoy him is not difference of opinion on these matters, but whole hearted ignorance.

So Dawkins is overjoyed by people like Michael Behe who understands evolution, accepts common descent etc, but draws a different conclusion?