Dawkins on Evolution

Do you have a link for that article or was it not on the web? I'd be very interested to read if its electronically available.

1) If biblical text contradicted reputable science, it mus be interpreted allegroically. This remained standard practice in the West until the 17th century, when in an effort to emulate the exact scientific method, Christians began to read scripture with a literalness that is without parallel in religious history.

2) Most cultures believed that there were two recognized ways of arriving at truth. The greeks called them mythos and logos. BOth were essential and neither was superior. to the other .. Logos ("reason") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to function effectively in the world ... but it did not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life's struggle. Fo that people turned to mythos, stories that made no pretensions to historical accuracy but should rather be seen as an early form of psychology,; if translated into retual or ethical action, a good myth showed you how to cope with mortality, discover and inner source of strength, and endure pain an sorrow with serenity.

Hi all,

Richard Dawkins ran a piece in the Weekend Wall Street Journal, here is some of my critique on the article. His quotes are in italics.

1) He begins the article with: Evolution is the universe's greatest work.

This is the crux of his whole article. All he has done is substituted the word Universe for God. That is basically it. So you don't have to read any further if this doesn't interest you.

2) What is so special about life? It never violates the laws of physics.

Well, that is because there is no law of physics for life.

3) But although life never violates physics, it pushes them into unexpected avenues that stagger the imagination.

So, life keeps evolving in ways that stagger the imagination. How? Why? What is the impetus? Dawkins doesn't care. Life is doing it on its own. The Universe (God) is doing it.

4) never a pebble that crawled like a beetle seeking a mate, never a grain that swam like a water flea.

So whatever Dawkins hasn't view, never happened. Dawkins is presenting himself as omniscient. He does remark earlier that it is also very unlikely that there isn't alien life. He is just using opinion and making it fact.

5) Never once are the laws of physics violated, yet life emerges into uncharted territory.

This is because the laws of physics are constantly being modified in order to match observed results. E.g. Newtons laws were modified to match the orbit of mercury. Relativity made light a constant in all frames of references. But this is all beside the point. Physics does not pretend to have a law for life, and Dawkins pretends it does.

6) Darwinian evolution, the nonrandom survival of randomly varying coded information.

Dawkins offers no evidence that survival is nonrandom, he just supposes so because everything that survived, survived. He then goes on to speculate that evolution is randomly varying coded information. How does he arrive at the fact that evolution is the result of random information? He does not say. He doesn't even suggest that it may possibly be the other way around because his own biases (nor does the money he makes from his books) doesn't allow him to entertain the thought.

7) But, however god-like the aliens might seem, they would not be gods, and for one very important reasons. They did not create the universe; it created them, just as it created us.

Dawkins substitutes Universe for God again. Sounds to me like his God is Einstein's and Spinoza's God. He believes in a creator but the creator is everything.
Rich

("reason") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to function effectively in the world ... but it did not assuage human grief or find ultimate meaning in life's struggle.

3) But although life never violates physics, it pushes them into unexpected avenues that stagger the imagination.

So, life keeps evolving in ways that stagger the imagination. How? Why? What is the impetus? Dawkins doesn't care. Life is doing it on its own. The Universe (God) is doing it.

This literalism obviously came from a power-struggle between the Priests who wanted to hoard spiritual knowledge as a source of power.

I've always found Dawkins to be a hypocrite, basically kneeling at the altar of science and ruthlessly condemning those who would dare find faith in a different sort of divinity.

And this is exactly what it stems from. We in the West take our intellectual traditions from the Greeks (which of course had influences from other Eastern cultures), but for some reason ignore the emphasis the Greeks placed on, shall we say, non-rational modes of thought/experience.

For some reason we have filtered out that Dionysian aspect of the Greek mind from our institutional worldview.

Dawkins is a public intellectual of great stature in the Academy, and it is important for the System that these positions are filled with those whose views are politically correct and will help further the interests of a techno-industrial civilization on the verge of collapse.

1) If biblical text contradicted reputable science, it mus be interpreted allegroically.

some of his quotes are really just tautologies (and so it is kind of insane that he would state what he does as if it were something novel).

Clearly figurative and somewhat odd. Evolution is part of the Universe. I assume he is saying that life is the finest and most interesting phenomena in the known universe. The fact remains that he is saying this as though it were a fact rather than an opinion.

I'm not sure I get what you mean. As far as Dawkins goes: There are no real laws of physics period.

There are only good estimates based on what we have seen in the past. If we think that something can 'violate the laws of physics' it is because we have forgotten that the 'laws'of physics are supposed to reflect what happens, if something happens that contradicts the 'laws' that means that the 'laws' need to be revised and rethought.

In anycase, it doesn't make life any more special than rainbows or the sun or a piece of concrete for that matter.

Saying the 'universe is doing it' really just means that 'it is happening'. It is a pointless statment to make.

Your point is kind of strained here Rich. I think he is simply using a literary technique to express the wonder with which he views the phenomena of life rather than trying to assert the impossibility of a rock rolling along a beach of its own accord.

Good point, though I'm not sure about the last sentence. Where does Dawkins assert that physics has a law for life? He seems to just be saying that life is consitent with current physics.

Well, nonrandom in the sense that on average it is likely that species more suited to their environment will outlive species that are not as well suited. Still, there can certainly be mitigating factors like comets (and alien intervention if you are into that kind of speculation)

He believes that everything has a mechanism that brings it into being and defines the universe as the totality of all things. Thus his conclusion is logically necessary given his premises. There is a bit of hand waving in his premises.

The important thing is that genetic variation appears to be random. Whether it is actually random or not, all that matters is how it appears.

The fact that we cannot disprove a guiding consciousness does nothing to prove that there actually is one.

At best, your argument here is that there is no evidence either way. This is a perfectly fine argument, I am an agnostic myself. But you are still in the wrong for throwing an entity in without any meaningful basis.

So whatever Armstrong hasn't viewed, never happened! Armstrong is presenting herself as omniscient! She is just using opinion and making it fact!

i read the god delusion. More like the delusion of "look at me i am a philosopher". Very poor in places.

There is a basis, and that is consciousness is the only known force in the universe that behaves evolutively, and we are looking for something that might account for the progressive organizing found behind the evolution of life. I don't know about you, but I am an obsessive evolver, as most healthy consciousnesses are. It isn't that far fetched that we are descended from a more basic field that has been part of the universe from the start.

And there are, after all, several thousand years of people reporting they have experienced a conscious universe, and experience is the basis of empiricism.

I think to seriously consider if the universe might be within some sort of conscious field, religion has to be left out of modeling such a conscious field. Even if someone in religion has experienced the greater field of consciousness, their expressions about it tend to be poetic or devotional, and very seldom made with the intent of realistically modeling what they were experiencing (or how the universe might work in conjunction with it).

However I think what Dawkins is trying to do, is say that theists have no "right" to say that evolution is God driven, he is just saying, that there is a theory its just universe driven, its just the natural way of the universe, just like gravity or magnetism.

It follows the same line of thought as his FSM idea, once you prove there is a God, how do you think link it to your version of God? why is it not the FSM or simply the universe?

I do not agree with him, I have my own reasons for that, I would just like to see what you guys have to say.

At best, your argument here is that there is no evidence either way.

It is necessary to engage in speculative philosophy or metaphysical assumption to construct an "adequate" worldview.

One should not abandon reaosn, ignore fact (science) or ignore experience in the construction of a worldview but it is necessary to go beyond what is or can be "known".

The other option is to just call it all a "mystery" and leave it at that. The task of philosophy is to offer a tenative explanation for "total reality"and a guide to lving well.

I am always uncomfortable stating a belief as a fact, which is why I usually preface my beliefs by clearly saying that I believe .... But then I get told that I should say I believe, so I don't know.

In any case, I think she is stating a belief that something more is needed to assuage grief in life, and people turn to mythos for this help. Logos and Mythos are reasonable concepts to explore, but I do agree, that these are all beliefs on her part.

Rich