There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
James Le Fanu
| Style over substance|
In his book The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, Le Fanu criticised modern medicine and sciences for focusing on genetics which Le Fanu claims is wrong as in his opinion genes have nothing to do with disease and little to do with biology. In the book Le Fanu also attacks evolution and quotes from Michael Denton, an intelligent design proponent, and others in an attempt to prove that evolution is limited and that evolution fails to explain the mysteries of biology. Le Fanu says he is not a creationist but proposes that science is limited only to the material and that a non-physical cosmic force exists which explains consciousness which science has not yet explored.
In Le Fanu's next book Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves he writes that Darwin's theory of evolution is a materialistic theory that fails to explain consciousness and the experience of the human being, instead of supporting creationism Le Fanu further advocates vitalism the belief that an immaterial "life force" is directing evolution and life and supports other fringe thinkers in defence of his worldview, he also spends many pages attacking genetics and the gene-centric view of evolution. The main claim of Le Fanu is that materialism cannot explain consciousness.
Critics have pointed out that Le Fanu has used many arguments similar to creationists and that his immaterial force is little different from the God of the gaps argument and because of this he may well be a creationist.