The Corner

David Klinghoffer On Darwin

A couple of readers have prodded me to make some rejoinder to David

Klinghoffer’s column yesterday, dissing poor old Chuck Darwin.

I beg to decline, mainly because I am too fond of David. He was my

first boss at NR–literary editor when I started doing book reviews for

the magazine 6-7 years ago. He is the nicest guy you could meet, and I

will only register a mild, sad regret that he has fallen in with the

wrong crowd.

I am, in any case, coming to believe that ID-ers and working scientists

have different types of brain organization. (Incipient speciation,

perhaps?) One thing I notice, talking to working scientists, is how

deeply, deeply uninterested most of them are in metaphysics–in the

topics that fill up ID websites and talk, and the emails I get when I

write about ID. If you try to talk metaphysics to the average working

scientist, his eyes glaze over at once. ID-ers want to talk about

nothing else. Scientists just want to get on with finding out things.

It’s Guelphs and Ghibellines, Yankees and Mets–some fundamental

difference in ways of thinking. A small number of scientists–Sagan,

Dawkins, et al.– make much noise with their opinions on metaphysics

(which are usually no more profound than what you or I could come up

with) but most couldn’t care less.

I recall a conversation I once had with an actual cosmologist (the only

such conversation I have ever had, I think). Eons ago (he said) the

universe was much hotter and denser than it is now. At earlier periods,

it was hotter and denser yet. At the remotest period we can theorize

about, it was so hot and dense that our current understandings break

down. If we can improve our understanding a bit, we might push back

that break-down point a few trillion trillion trillionths of a second.

That was his aim. But what (I asked) happened before that? How did

the whole thing get started? Where did it come from? What was there

before? I could see the guy’s eyes glaze over before I finished asking.

“How the **** should I know? I’m a physicist.” But those metaphysical questions are, of course, the ones everyone wants to talk about.

It is the same, incidentally, with mathematicians. The great “crisis of

foundations” that roiled the further edges of mathematics from the 1890s

to the 1960s, and many of whose big questions are still unresolved

today, left surprisingly little mark on the actual daily work of actual

mathematicians, and it is very hard to get a conversation about

“foundations” going in a group of working mathematicians (outside the

tiny number who specialize in it). They just don’t care much. They

want to get on with finding out stuff.

To alter the old joke slightly: Those who can, do; those who can’t,

talk metaphysics. Probably science is too important to be left to the

scientists. I’m beginning to wish it weren’t, though.

John Derbyshire — Mr. Derbyshire is a former contributing editor of National Review.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith Resigns

Fox News Channel's chief anchor, Shepard Smith, announced on air Friday that he would be resigning from his post after 23 years with the network. “This is my last newscast here,” said Smith. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News. After requesting that I stay, they obliged.” He ... Read More
NR Webathon

Don’t Let Michael Mann Succeed

I  enjoyed the running joke of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the great Dickens novel Bleak House, back when I first read it. Little did I know that one day I and the magazine that I love would effectively be caught up in a version of that interminable case, courtesy of a litigious climate scientist with zero regard ... Read More
White House

What Is Impeachment For?

W hat is impeachment for? Seems like a simple question. Constitutionally speaking, it also appears to have a simple answer: to cite and remove from power a president guilty of wrongdoing. Aye, there’s the rub. What sort of wrongdoing warrants removal from power? I’d wager that the flames of ... Read More

Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State

Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is within the margin of error of non-existence, but in his failure he has found a purpose: expressing the Democratic id. His latest bid for left-wing love came at a CNN forum on gay rights, where he said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have to pay ... Read More