The Afrikaner psyche of superstition

I revisited two comments made by Leon Rousseau who reacted to my previous argument that it was scandalous that he was awarded this year’s Via Afrika Recht Malan prize for non-fiction for his book Die Groot Avontuur. (I write this in English because I think this debate needs a wider audience and exposure. And because Prof. Phillip Tobias’s reputation as a scientist was misused to propagate Rousseau’s book. And is still misused although Tobias has since the publication of the book distanced himself from it).  

Rousseau wrote to Die Burger’s arts blog and also to Prometheus Unbound that it was untrue that he tried to provide evidence for the scientific truth of Intelligent Design or that he was furthering its cause. (“Dit is onwaar dat ek in Die groot avontuur die hipotese van IO (Intelligente Ontwerp) as wetenskaplik korrek probeer bewys of ’n pleidooi daarvoor lewer.).

Secondly, Rousseau uses the absurd argument that Tobias recanted on the Avant propos in Rousseau’s book because I threatened his international reputation as a scientist in my review of his book in Die Burger in a similar way Galileo was forced to recant about heliocentrism. (Toe Claassen hom in sy resensie dreig met skade aan sy internasionale wetenskaplike reputasie omdat hy kwansuis die beweerde IO-elemente in my boek steun, moes hy ’n besluit neem. Op vergelykbare wyse is Galileo deur die Inkwisisie met foltering gedreig tensy hy sekere van sy astronomiese bevindings terugtrek. In albei gevalle was dit die groot en breë gees wat voor kleingeestigheid moes swig.)

Let’s first look at argument number one used by Rousseau, that his book is not a defence of Intelligent Design. He is misleading the readers. His book is filled with examples of Intelligent Design being propagated. The first example is when he tries to explain the potential of young children to learn their own language and other languages at a very young age.

He then makes the following astonishing observation on page 145: “Atheists can please call me a phantasist, or slur me with being superstitious, but to me this sounds as if a very great, an incomprehensible great Intelligence must be responsible for this.”  (Äteïste kan my gerus maar ’n fantas noem, of my uitkryt vir bygelowig, maar vir my klink dit asof ’n baie groot, ’n onbegryplik grote Intelligensie hiervoor verantwoordelik moet wees.”)

He elaborates on this on the next page (p. 146): “What Intelligence had visualised 2.5 million years ago that humans would probably have to learn extra-terrestrial languages, learn extra-terrestrial sciences, and have a notion of extra-terrestrial norms and values that do not remind them of anything on their own planet? Was the evidence Tobias discovered, the gradual development of the ability of Homo habilis (the Handyman) to speak, perhaps part of a comprehensive long term plan? Briefly put: a masterplan?”

This obsession with a masterplan, an Intelligent Designer for things he cannot explain, is rife in Die Groot Avontuur. On page 69, with reference to the development of the mammal’s inner ear from the jaw of a reptile, he calls that an example of God’s sense of humor. (“God het ’n humorsin.”)

On page 237 he finally shows his cards in a chapter, “Is evolution in clash with faith?” He shows, typically and copied very adeptly from the arguments of the Discovery Institute, the bogus research body propagating Intelligent Design from Seattle, that he is a strong supporter of Intelligent Design. Just listen to the following sentence, after he quoted the religious scientist Cuvier who said God allows things to happen, even scientific discoveries. Rousseau then writes: “It is in fact arrogant of us, humans, to try to determine the grand plan of a Creator who holds the Universe in his hand.”

Readers can read chapters 46 tot 54 to see how openly Rousseau propagates Intelligent Design. He misinterprets scientific discoveries, uses secondary sources to “substantiate” his arguments, and calls everyone who disagrees with his Intelligent Design world view (Dawkins et al) “fundamentalists”.

But the absurdities of Rousseau’s arguments reach a dizzying new height when he compares Tobias to Galileo. And me then by implication to Pope Urbanus VIII,  “threatening” the poor scientist! Tobias did not recant because an unimportant science journalist from a Cape Town Afrikaans daily paper “threatened” him that his reputation was on the line. He is more than man enough to protect himself. He could have ignored the review.

But he could not ignore the fact that his name was blatantly paraded on the cover of a book that is openly propagating Intelligent Design as an explanation for things we do not understand.

 My question is: why did Tobias not read the book properly in the first place? Or did he not see the full manuscript as Rousseau made many last minute changes?

Tobias recanted because he knew he had made a mistake to write such a glowing Avant propos when Rousseau was in fact an open Intelligent Design supporter and propagating that in his book. Tobias was honest enough.

Tobias was never threatened. In my review I only asked the question whether Tobias was aware what could happen to his reputation for writing this Avant propos. To compare this to the Inquisition, is like comparing the size of the Indian Ocean with the fish pond in your garden.

Tobias wrote his own letter six weeks later, distancing him from the book’s Intelligent Design propagation. There was no need for him to do that.

My question again: why is the Afrikaner (read Gideon Joubert and Leon Rousseau and virtually every Afrikaner sportsman and public figure) still clinging to their religious background when they have to explain things that happen to them?  If you win the Super-14: it must be God. If you are saved from the bullet of a criminal: it must be God. If you cannot explain the way babies learn a language: it must be God. If you cannot explain the depths of the Universe or the development of a new cell, it must be God.

Will this superstitious shadow of some god continue to lurk over the Afrikaner psyche and mind? And for how long will this prevail?  

That the judges of the Recht Malan prize ignored Tobias and three reviews of the book by knowledgable writers in the mainstream Afrikaans press tells a story of scientific illiteracy.