Was
Darwin
Wrong?
Was Darwin Wrong? | Home | Intro | About | Feedback | Prev | Next | Search | |
| skyhook, orig. Aeronaut. An imaginary contrivance for attachment to the sky; an imaginary means of suspension in the sky. [Oxford English Dictionary]. |
|
"An aeroplane pilot commanded to remain in place (aloft) for another hour, replies:
'the machine is not fitted with skyhooks' " ... The skyhook concept is perhaps
a descendant of the deus ex machina of ancient Greek dramaturgy: when
second-rate play-wrights found their heroes into inescapable difficulties,
they were often tempted to crank down a god onto the scene, like Superman,
to save the situation supernaturally. ... Skyhooks would be wonderful things to have,
great for lifting unwieldy objects out of difficult circumstances, and
speeding up all sorts of construction projects. Sad to say,
they are impossible." (p74). Dennett uses the skyhook and crane as a magnificent metaphor. Just like objects can be lifted by imaginary skyhooks or cranes, so can design originate by 'skyhooks' or 'cranes'. The 'skyhook'-explanation of design invokes the supernatural, the 'crane' explanation invokes natural processes. The 'skyhook'-explanation of design is invoked by Creationists, the 'crane' explanation is invoked by 'evolutionists'. Darwin's Dangerous Idea is that all design can be explained without skyhooks: without Mind or God. Dennett gives a good historical overview of the use of these two types of explanation. Why this book ? "I have found not just lay people and religious thinkers, but secular philosophers, psychologists, physicists, and even biologists who would prefer, it seems, that Darwin were wrong."(preface). Dennett aims at disbelievers, doubters, misunderstanders, thinkers who cannot conceal their discomfort with Darwin's great idea, ranging from nagging skepticism to outright hostility. So, although Dennett claims (p17,18) that he is not going to refute Creationism, because it is already done by Kitcher(1982), Futuyma(1983), Gilkey(1985) and others, Dennett addresses himself often to creationism, mostly indirectly. How could it be otherwise when he is defending Darwinism? Aren't Creationists the 'skyhook-people'? If one wants to learn something about the dangerous idea of evolution (from a philosopher), I can recommend Dennett. Even Richard Dawkins learned something from Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Don't expect facts facts from a philosopher. There is no discussion of how good empirical data fit Darwin's theory. It's a book about ideas, the history of an idea, the impact of an idea, comparing and connecting ideas with each other. |
 |
Further Reading
| |
 |
home: www.wasdarwinwrong.com | http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho30.htm
|
| Copyright © 1998 G.Korthof . | First published: Aug 05 1998 | Updated: 20 Feb 2001 F.R.: 12 May 2007 |