Dawkins on Evolution

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.

let's not loose sight of the fact that Dawkins has published a book based on the argument that evoutionary science shows that God is a delusion.

I too think Gould is an excellent writer on evolutionary science, and even that much of Dawkins science writing is first rate. If he stuck with what he knows and advanced the cause of rational science as the basis of education and civil discourse, I would have no problem with him, I would probably even be a fan.

But this territory that Dawkins got into, largely as a result of 9/11, is something else entirely. (I think it all goes back to Dawkins reaction to the Twin Towers falling: AHA! he said. So this is what religion really means.)

I think the God Delusion, which this opinion piece summarises, is a dreadful book and the reasoning behind it entirely specious. He is totally ignorant of theology and barely educated in philosophy. I was not even aware of myself as being religious until this book, and several others, came out and attacked the whole spiritual basis of Western civilization. This is one of the reasons that I went back and started to study the real basis of traditional philosophy (so I suppose that is one good result at least. I find, as a result, that I am much more of a Christian than I thought I was, although I will never be a vulgar creationist and probably never again a 'formal' Christian either.)

But let's not forget how this discussion started and the dimensions of the claim being made. If you really look into the ideas behind the God Delusion, you would realise that what is being proposed would make Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution seem like a tea party.

That is a social critique of the role of science in society. It is not a scientific critique of science, which you still have not really voiced.

If science did not directly intercede in the health and welfare of the human being, how would we have clothes, or anything else for that matter?

How could we grow enough food to sustain our population? How could we have the medical equipment and practices used to make giving birth safer for mother and child? And on and on ad infinitum.

More than that, I am critiquing the tendency of scientists of taking theory (a plausible view the creates order) and treating that theory as some sort of axiom of unquestionable validity.

But you're basing this judgment on baseless extrapolations out of statements made by irritating demagogues like Dawkins. You can't take Dawkins and reframe him as "scientists".

I won't let it become heated, you and I have been through it before with evolution. I don't care what you believe about it. But I hope an authentic look will reveal to you that you haven't ever really contested any aspect of evolution in scientific terms. Something about it just doesn't sit well with you, and this augments how annoying the dogmatists are to you. But still, it's a complex science built out of innumerable building blocks of investigation, and a critique of it would be a lot more credible if it took on the science proper, study by study.

you haven't ever really contested any aspect of evolution in scientific terms. Something about it just doesn't sit well with you, and this augments how annoying the dogmatists are to you.

Since evolution is a historical process the exact details may never be known.

This is the point. The exact details cannot be known. Yet we have Dawkins' brand of evolution, and we have Darwin's brand, and we have this scientist's brand, etc. Everyone borrows from this and that to suit their current purpose. It is more like dealing with a used car salesman than a precise science.

On the other hand, quantum physics has very precise and predictive equations that either work, for all practical purposes, or don't. It is not a guessing game, smoke and mirrors. For me, this is science. Similarly chemistry of material substances. Rich

Predictive power and direct demonstration do not define "science", scientific theory or scientific method.

But you're basing this judgment on baseless extrapolations out of statements made by irritating demagogues like Dawkins. You can't take Dawkins and reframe him as "scientists".

let's not loose sight of the fact that Dawkins has published a book based on the argument that evoutionary science shows that God is a delusion.

As I have said many times before, the first problem I find (and there are many) is that there is no valid definition of what is meant by scientific evolution. It is like mercury oozing through fingers. The definition changes to suit the argument. First it is this, and then it is that. You can't discuss the shape of flying dust.

interesting you should say that when his official designation is THE CHAIR FOR THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY.

That is what is so deeply disturbing about Dawkins. If he was just another scientific materialist on some two-bit campus then what the... But as it is, he is the public face of science at Oxford University, arguably the oldest and most prestigious University in the world.

My point about comparing the God Delusion to the Cultural Revolution is that Dawkins is proposing the demolition of the ethical, philosophical and religious underpinnings of Western civilization.

On the other hand, quantum physics has very precise and predictive equations that either work, for all practical purposes, or don't. It is not a guessing game, smoke and mirrors. For me, this is science. Similarly chemistry of material substances.