Dawkins on Evolution

@richrf,

Dawkins objects to any conception of God and to religion in general.
The sole exception might be the most basic form of pantheism in which the term God is basically shorthand for nature.

The god that Dawkins directly attacks is the god of supernatural theism (a god who directly intervences in history and nature by miraculous mean or special revelation).
Unfortunately this conception of god is the one attacked by atheism and far too often defended by organized religion.

The failure of religious leaders to abandon supernatural theism and to promote transcendent and mystical visions of the divine has contributed to the current problem
.
I do not believe in a god. Which god is it you do not believe in?
I do not believe in that god either.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;91068 wrote:

Dawkins objects to any conception of God and to religion in general.

That's fine. Many atheists share is views. So what is the big deal?

The big deal is that Dawkins' presents this high-brow scientific case as if science has figured it all out. That is why he is making money writing books and essays while other atheists are not. It is his presentation as if evolutionary theory that is some kind of fact that makes him the big bucks. Of course, in this essay he pretty much shows that he has nothing new to say. He is a simple atheist.

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

How exactly is evolution not a fact, but still a (scientific) theory?

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;91071 wrote:

The big deal is that Dawkins' presents this high-brow scientific case as if science has figured it all out.

That's only a big deal to those who make it a big deal. I've been entrenched in evolutionary biology for many many years, and I'd never even heard of Dawkins until I joined this forum about 18 months ago. He's irrelevant except to the people he annoys.

Read Stephen Jay Gould if you want to read about evolution from a brilliant, temperate, reasonable and interesting guy who actually made real contributions to the field.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Kielicious;91086 wrote:

How exactly is evolution not a fact, but still a (scientific) theory?

According to the definitions of fact and scientific theory, respectively.

(And I'm what you might call a "fan" of evolution)

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;91128 wrote:

According to the definitions of fact and scientific theory, respectively.

(And I'm what you might call a "fan" of evolution)

Well then you'd know that evolution is both a fact and a theory, right?

0 Replies

@richrf,

Who on earth cares about these terms?

It is what it is, "fact" or "theory" or whatever. In the domain of science it's THE explanation for the origin and diversity of life. It is evidence-based. And there is no alternative explanation that is 1) scientifically sound and 2) parsimonious enough to not be arbitrary.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

It becomes an issue when the audience discrediting evolution is using incorrect terminology. Its like if I asked you to prove evolution to me and you showed me a bunch of evidence -to which I respond by saying that isnt proof, that's evidence. If someone is using the wrong terminology they will never get the answer their looking for, and that's the point.

0 Replies

@richrf,

I get it. The problem is that colloquial use of words like "theory" and "fact" and "prove" make them imprecise. But it doesn't matter. As I said, within the domain of scientific investigations of life, its origins, and its diversity, evolution is the only legitimate explanation that has a scientific basis. In other words, I'm making the same point without using words like "proof" or "theory" or "fact" or whatever.

So let's move on and not waste our time with picayune semantics.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

And I think it does matter. They're not wanting evidence because that's not what they are asking for. You can throw mounds of evidence around but they dont want that, they want "proof". And that's something evolution and science doesnt deal with. Giving them something they're not asking for doesnt help the situation.

---------- Post added 09-17-2009 at 08:57 PM ----------

Although, maybe you can get through to them by giving them evidence and answering their questions but from my experiences I find that the disconnect more often than not is the misunderstanding of terminology and what science does and does not advocate. But I may be wrong so I retract my statements...

0 Replies

@richrf,

Proof is a matter of sufficiency. NOTHING is proof in this world so long as we're not omniscient. So we hold things as conventionally true because the evidence is overwhelming -- and that stands in for truth. Good enough for you to not doubt that your mother is your mother and that your legs will support you when you stand up, but there is no proof of those either.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Thats exactly the point. Proof deals with deductive reasoning, not empirical/inductive methodology. But Im not going to say dont try and persuade them so I retract my statements. Keep doin watcha doin Smile

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;91101 wrote:

Read Stephen Jay Gould if you want to read about evolution from a brilliant, temperate, reasonable and interesting guy who actually made real contributions to the field.

Frankly, you should read the following books if you want more brilliant, temperate, reasonable and interesting contributions to the field:

The Blind Watchmaker
The Selfish Gene
The Greatest Show on Earth

They don't include any theological polemic (unless you count some debunking of creationist arguments).

Of course his theological polemic does exist - but not in his popular science books (let alone his scientific papers).

I find Gould rather dry myself, though I did like Bully for Brontosaurus.

---------- Post added 09-18-2009 at 03:20 AM ----------

richrf;91071 wrote:

The big deal is that Dawkins' presents this high-brow scientific case as if science has figured it all out.

No, piffle.

He seems to regard science as being capable of working it all out, true, though I have never seen him claim that goal has been reached.

Once again, your conflating someone's personal opinion based (mainly though not wholly) on their enthusiasm for science with the science itself - which is rubbish. Dawkins' personal opinion isn't even wholly based on his personal understanding of science - it's just hunches informed by it.

Quote:

That is why he is making money writing books and essays while other atheists are not.

Philip Pullman did very well out out of his pro-atheist fantasy trilogy. Daniel Dennet, AC Grayling, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have all put bread on the table with atheist polemics. Schopenhauer and Bertrand Russell are hardly unknown.

The atheist publishing phenomenon has been in effect ever since athiesm stopped being a dangerously taboo subject for writers to address.

Dawkins might be the most prominent of the current authors in the field, though if he wasn't I suppose Hitchens would be.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;91184 wrote:

I find Gould rather dry myself, though I did like Bully for Brontosaurus.

Eight Little Piggies was great.

By the way, for those who keep insisting that major phenotypic changes (like development of whole organs) can't be accounted for by small genetic regulatory changes (in combination), I need only refer you to the phenomenal study done in Science a few years ago looking at the genetic diversity of domestic dogs (after the dog genome was sequenced).

All dogs are in the same species -- everything from greyhounds to pit bulls to newfoundlands to chihuahuas. They're all close relatives of wild wolves.

The differences between these dogs is clearly heritable, right? I mean if you put two chihuahuas together you get a chihuahua puppy and not a schnauzer.

All of the genetic variability in dogs, which must account for the size, shape, and behavioral signatures of different breeds, boils down to just a few regulatory genes -- all these different dogs are extremely closely related genetically. Some of them are the same gene but they have repeated motifs. It's amazing how little sequence variability results in so much morphologic variability.

Extrapolate this to organ systems. In embryogenesis all vertebrates have branchial arches. In fish these develop into gills. In mammals they develop into ears, the eustacian tubes, the thyroid, and other upper airway structures. In other words, the embryogenesis is shared for a major part of fetal development -- but with different regulatory signals and proximity to different structures (i.e. paracrine influence), the ultimate developmental paths diverge. In this way enormous changes in structure and function are produced by a relatively small amount of genetic variability.

Combinatorial probability is extremely important. If you take a 10 nucleotide segment of DNA, and each nucleotide is going to be one of four options (ATCG), then variability in just 3 of these 10 loci will give you 81 possible combinations. Now take a second and a third segment with the same parameters a measly 10 nucleotides that can each vary at 3 loci (and have 81 possibilities each) -- that makes more than 531,000 possible combinations. In other words, a tremendous amount of genetic diversity can be generated with very small changes in genetic sequence.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;91289 wrote:

Combinatorial probability is extremely important. If you take a 10 nucleotide segment of DNA, and each nucleotide is going to be one of four options (ATCG), then variability in just 3 of these 10 loci will give you 81 possible combinations. Now take a second and a third segment with the same parameters a measly 10 nucleotides that can each vary at 3 loci (and have 81 possibilities each) -- that makes more than 531,000 possible combinations. In other words, a tremendous amount of genetic diversity can be generated with very small changes in genetic sequence.

Paul,

You keep looking at all the genes as a child would look at blocks and you find all of the combinatorial possibilities exciting - just as I found playing with blocks exciting when I was a child and playing with colors when I was playing with art. It is all fun. It is all exploratory. And everyone does it differently. Some people build giant skyscrapers from blocks of stones, some analyze the universe from blocks of cosmic stuff and others build molecules from blocks of quanta.

However, the question still remains for me, as it has for a very long time - what is doing all of this playing? What is it that is peering through my eyes?

Dawkins doesn't know. I don't know. And I haven't found anyone anywhere who knows. Until we know, the mystery remains and we all continue to explore.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;91297 wrote:

However, the question still remains for me, as it has for a very long time - what is doing all of this playing? What is it that is peering through my eyes?

And I find that to be an irrelevant question that is not even part of a scientific inquiry. I don't begrudge you the question -- but it's an absurdity to critique science on metaphysical grounds. It makes just as much sense for a forensic pathologist to critique the resurrection of Jesus. All science can say about metaphysical ideas is that they are not supported by science -- because if they were they'd by definition no longer be metaphysical. And metaphysics abdicates its own relevance if it chooses to dismiss things that are observable.

richrf;91297 wrote:

Dawkins doesn't know.

This Dawkins again... he's no more the authority and spokesman for evolution than Jerry Falwell was the spokesman for Christians.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;91304 wrote:

And I find that to be an irrelevant question that is not even part of a scientific inquiry. I don't begrudge you the question -- but it's an absurdity to critique science on metaphysical grounds. It makes just as much sense for a forensic pathologist to critique the resurrection of Jesus. All science can say about metaphysical ideas is that they are not supported by science -- because if they were they'd by definition no longer be metaphysical. And metaphysics abdicates its own relevance if it chooses to dismiss things that are observable.

This Dawkins again... he's no more the authority and spokesman for evolution than Jerry Falwell was the spokesman for Christians.

I think that it is very relevant, particularly when science or religion, by mandate or coercion directly intercedes in the health and welfare of the individual human being.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

Science can't be critiqued on metaphysical grounds or it wouldn't be science. It's not a competition, only you made it into one, they are seperate, for a reason and you won't find out unless you look and I got a feeling they all hold something important and mysterious and until you look for them and find them you wont be able to bring it all together and make sense of it, it's logical thinking guys.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;91304 wrote:

All science can say about metaphysical ideas is that they are not supported by science -- because if they were they'd by definition no longer be metaphysical. And metaphysics abdicates its own relevance if it chooses to dismiss things that are observable.

I very much agree with the second sentence, but I'm not so sure about the first. Both science and metaphysics seek truth - the truth - so there must in principle be a point of intersection between them. In my opinion this point is represented by subjective experiences (qualia). It is for metaphysicians to clarify the concept of these, and it is ultimately for scientists to explain them. Then the currently metaphysical aspect can be taken over by science.

I don't see science and metaphysics as forever separate. All things are related; they are all part of "what is".

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;91422 wrote:

I very much agree with the second sentence, but I'm not so sure about the first. Both science and metaphysics seek truth - the truth - so there must in principle be a point of intersection between them. In my opinion this point is represented by subjective experiences (qualia). It is for metaphysicians to clarify the concept of these, and it is ultimately for scientists to explain them. Then the currently metaphysical aspect can be taken over by science.

I don't see science and metaphysics as forever separate. All things are related; they are all part of "what is".

I agree. It all depends upon "what is".

Now, suppose what is, is not measurable with current instrumentation. That leaves science, as presently constituted, out of the game unless science acknowledges the presence of something that cannot be measured.

In a sense, physics has done this with concepts such as dark matter and anti-gravity. And physicists continue to try to develop ideas and methods for possibly finding this stuff. Maybe they will and maybe they won't. However, at least physicists know that something is out of whack until these mysterious somethings are found.

However, will other sciences follow and acknowledge that there might be something is out there beyond measurement or any type of sensing at this time? If not, then only metaphysics can speculate about this.

First and foremost the sciences have to become cohesive in their view of things. Is there something mysterious out there that is yet to be found and is motivating everything that is (as physicists are attempting to discover) or are the only relevant things are those that we can currently view and measure?

Rich

0 Replies

Dawkins on Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know