Did anyone else hear Kurt Vonnegut’s interview on NPR this morning? I wish there was a transcript available (so I’m paraphrasing). Vonnegut said he didn’t believe evolution could explain the complexity of human beings. He claimed he’s not following the religious extremists who say the same thing, but merely questioning the science/scientists.
What!? That just completely blew any respect I might have had for him. He’s really doubting such basic science? I can respect saying “I don’t understand”, but saying “I think the science has the simple stuff wrong” is egotistic and stupid. I guess he has no real understanding of how science works–scientists don’t “believe” theories because of personal loyalties. The evidence forces them to accept how the world actually works.
Get a clue, Kurt.
(Not sure what forum this thread goes in. I figured the Pit is good place to start. Sorry I’m not swearing.)
He said he believed that Jerry Falwell (or maybe it was Robertson) deep down knew that evolution was true yet denied it because of the mentality of seeing things in a black and white world. He said the opposite was true, that there are scientists who look at evolution and say, “there has to be something more at work here”, and that by locking out only that which is truly scientifically proven we close our minds to other possibilities.
Not what I believe, but who knows, maybe he’s right. I think that was his point, not that evolution is “wrong”. He was using that to illustrate his thought that America had become “Balkanized” over religion, to the point where it’s unacceptable to give any credit to the other side.
I think it’s mistake to believe that Vonnegut is incapable of understanding science. His brother was a well respected chemist, his son is a physician. Early in his career KV was a technical writer for General Electric.
I didn’t hear the piece, I’ll go see if I can find it on NPR’s website. But it sounds like what Vonnegut said was a little more nuanced than “I don’t believe in evolution.”
Finally, you’re dismissing everything the man wrote because you disagree with one position he holds? And you’re accusing him of being small-minded?
I did hear the interview and was taken aback for a moment as well. But in the next sentence he went on to describe himself as a secular humanist. I think his little attack on evolution was sarcastic and not to be taken seriously.
I don’t see why it burns peoples’ asses so much when someone doesn’t agree with everything about evolution. Why does it matter so much? It’s not like he’s using his stance to justify religious fundementalism. He seems only to be saying that the perspective that science holds every single answer to life and to the human soul is flawed.
This is why he’s writing creative fiction and not working in a laboratory.
His novel Galapagos dealt with the future evolution - and degeneration - of humans due to natural selection after a global catastrophe. Even if he was serious, his saying that he doesn’t think that science explains everything about humans doesn’t mean he doesn’t accept the scientific fact of evolution.
I couldn’t tell if he was being sarcastic (his voice is strained nowadays), and even if I could, I didn’t understand what he was saying anyway so I wouldn’t have understood the opposite of what he was saying. It was definitely more complex than just “I don’t believe in evolution” though.
I only heard pieces of the interview, but I was also a little unsure of what point he was making. He said something about the human body being a miracle, something that is well-designed, not merely evolved. It sounded like he was taking an Intelligent Design position, but again, I didn’t hear the whole thing.
No apparent sarcasm, no complex subtext of special wisdom. Just a cranky old man romanticizing his misunderstanding of the issues involved and sipping a little Koolaid through a bendy straw:
First, if anyone can find a transcript, please post a link. It’s certainly possible that he whooshed me. I’m working from my admittedly flaky memory.
I can agree with that point in general, but applying it to the evolution/creation scientific debate gives credibility to the creationists that just doesn’t exist. There is no scientific debate over the fact of evolution, just the usual quibbling over the details of theory. Creationists certainly have valid points to make in a theologival debate about the place of humans in the universe. They just need to stick to the theology.
I said only that I’ve lost respect for him.
and
I’d feel better if his statement was this general, because I’d agree with him then. I think he said something much more specific about evolution and the design of humans. Maybe he was using human evolution as a specific example for a more general idea, but in that case he chose poorly.
Because bad science is bad for all of us by obsfucating how the world works.
Also, Kurt himself majored in Chemistry at Cornell.
I haven’t heard the transcript, so I can’t comment on that, but I must say that Kurt has wiggy views on technology. He’s a Luddite and proud of it.
My problem with Kurt is that he writes very well, but once you get him out of the strict framework of a book and let him improvise in an interview, he comes off as a bit of a loon. I’ve always looked at him as literature’s answer to Tom Laughlin
Evolution doesn’t hold every answer to life (esp. the origin of life) and it holds no answers (nor does it attempt to) about the the human soul. No scientist that I know of is supporting that view.
