Dawkins on Evolution

@prothero,

prothero;91866 wrote:

Well, Yes and No. Part of the problem is that Dawkins respected professor and evolutionary biologist that he is seems to be saying that evolution shows that "god is a delusion and an unncecessary one at that".

In general, or in the essay that inspired this thread, maybe - but that isn't an argument in the actual book The God Delusion as I recall.

Er, I'm sorry to be so literal about it - but that was what I was debating with Jeeprs. I agree with everything else you say - and I know I'm being a nitpicker - but it's clear to me that to characterise the book as an evolutionary argument designed to show the non-existence of God as he did is grossly misleading. The book weighs in with far more observations about the unpleasant and hypocritical behaviour of the religious (for example) than evolution 'showing' godlessness.

So even if everything else Dawkins said and wrote could be summed up as "evolution shows godlessness" - it still a misrepresentation of that particular book.

It's overly fastidious of me perhaps - but I've been arguing about it for pages now and so am inclined to be fussy.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;91866 wrote:

I think Dawkins is also making an important point in that "religous beliefs" which are promoted in a public forum should not be "priveleged belief". Religous beliefs should be subjected to criticism, rationality and evidence just like any other belief. The fact that something is claimed as "a religon" does not exempt it from examination and scrutiny. If you do not want your religious beliefs questioned they should remain private not public convictions. Part of what Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett have done is make public criticism of religon mainstream and acceptable.
This may prove to be the needed impetus for religion to change and adapt to a more modern worldview and more sophisticated (non supernatural) theology.

The problem here is that Dawkins wants to replace one belief/faith with his own - and he doesn't even realize it. I don't know if most scientists even realize it.

Evolutionary theory works as long as you believe that life magically appeared, or as Dawkins put it, the Universe did it!

One strong belief (faith) is no different than another. I am comfortable with this:

I don't have any idea at all how life began, but this is what I believe ....

I don't think at this time in human knowledge we can go any further. And if something else is being taught in the classroom, then faith is being introduced into the study and Creationist have a case.

But when one starts replacing Genesis with their own faith, then it is all the same.

Rich

4 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;91871 wrote:

Evolutionary theory works as long as you believe that life magically appeared, or as Dawkins put it, the Universe did it!

Evolutionary theory has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the appearance of life.

It explains why life - once it got going - diversified into the plethora of forms seen on the Earth today.

A body of scientific hypotheses under the umbrella of Abiogenesis explains how simple chemicals may have formed self-replicating polymers that were subject to natural selection and thus became simple lifeforms.

---------- Post added 09-19-2009 at 12:09 PM ----------

richrf;91871 wrote:

One strong belief (faith) is no different than another. I am comfortable with this:

I don't have any idea at all how life began, but this is what I believe ....

Sure, a sensible position. I tend to prefer the arguments which have the most evidence to support them myself.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;91870 wrote:

In general, or in the essay that inspired this thread, maybe - but that isn't an argument in the actual book The God Delusion as I recall.

Er, I'm sorry to be so literal about it - but that was what I was debating with Jeeprs. I agree with everything else you say - and I know I'm being a nitpicker - but it's clear to me that to characterise the book as an evolutionary argument designed to show the non-existence of God is misleading. The book weighs in with far more observations about the unpleasant and hypocritical behaviour of the religious (for example) than evolution 'showing' godlessness.

So even if everything else Dawkins said and wrote could be summed up as "evolution shows godlessness" - it still a misrepresentation of that particular book.

It's overly fastidious of me perhaps - but I've been arguing about it for pages now and so am inclined to be fussy.

Well that is why I said "seems to say" as opposed to "actually does say". People in certain public positions or positions of authority (like Dawkins) need to be more careful to separate their personal opinions from their position as a spokesman for science and biology. The public often can not tell when you are speaking for yourself or when you are speaking in your official capacity. I think Dawkins does not even try to make the distinction and in fact uses his official position to promote his personal views (something that is often done, movie stars, any famous person) but it still lacks integrity.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;91871 wrote:

I don't think at this time in human knowledge we can go any further. And if something else is being taught in the classroom, then faith is being introduced into the study and Creationist have a case.

No - because they seek to have something taught in science classes that fundamentally fails to adopt the standards of evidence based argument that proper scientific theories (like evolution) meet.

If it were a philosophy class, or comparitive theology class, that they were arguing to have their ideas discussed in then I'd say fair enough (the argument would then become which theological versions of events to examine).

But science adopts a standard of being able to test your assumptions about the world and demonstrate them to others and not have those tests falsified by peer review.

Which creationists have failed to do.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;91751 wrote:

Aedes is, frankly, buying into the poorly-informed muck people like you and Rich fling about regarding Dawkins - ie: that he conflates atheism and evolution in his scientific teaching - rather than merely informs his personal opinion on theology on what he understands about science, and reserves these opinions to opinion pieces such as the God Delusion or the newspaper article.

I don't believe I've ever "flung" anything about him conflating atheism with his scientific presentation of evolution.

But I'll be frank -- I'm completely uninformed about Dawkins. I've never read a book of his, nor do I care to. I've seen him on a lot of talk shows. My take based on this is that he is a POOR spokesman for evolutionary biologists (at least to a non sympathetic audience), because he is too much of a rabble rouser, too opinionated. In so doing, even though a well-educated person would quickly realize that his personal opinions about religion contaminate his personal presentation of evolutionary science.

I don't read very much popular press about evolution. If I had time in my life I'd love to read Discover or Scientific American, because they're fun.

But I read journals -- I subscribe to several infectious disease journals, and the evolution of infectious microorganisms is a very well-represented area of research. I also read the PLoS journals and often will browse Nature and Science.

So I'm reading a lot of pure science about evolution, and because of this I don't much care about the spin in the popular press -- you're never going to TRULY understand the basis of evolutionary biology research if you're reading syntheses presented for laypeople.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;91882 wrote:

I don't believe I've ever "flung" anything about him conflating atheism with his scientific presentation of evolution.

I wasn't accusing you of flinging anything.

But I accept that it looked that a way on second reading, so I retract that particular bit of hyperbole.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;91871 wrote:

Evolutionary theory works as long as you believe that life magically appeared, or as Dawkins put it, the Universe did it!

One strong belief (faith) is no different than another. I am comfortable with this:

I don't have any idea at all how life began, but this is what I believe ....

This is a gross misunderstanding of the scientific process and the evidence. But since I think that no amount of primary research can alter your opinion, let me just reemphasize that you are ill informed about the nature of the research and the stated strength of its conclusions.

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;91871 wrote:

The problem here is that Dawkins wants to replace one belief/faith with his own - and he doesn't even realize it. I don't know if most scientists even realize it.
Evolutionary theory works as long as you believe that life magically appeared, or as Dawkins put it, the Universe did it!
One strong belief (faith) is no different than another. I am comfortable with this:
I don't have any idea at all how life began, but this is what I believe ....
I don't think at this time in human knowledge we can go any further. And if something else is being taught in the classroom, then faith is being introduced into the study and Creationist have a case.
But when one starts replacing Genesis with their own faith, then it is all the same.Rich

The problem here is one does not seem to be able to disthinguish between science and belief/faith. Somehow you draw the line for science at physics and possibly chemistry and everything after that gets classified as belief or faith.
Belief or faith (is a speculation) and does not require evidence.

Science is also a speculation but one based on facts, observations and reason. Science will modify or alter its explanations or theories based on new facts, new obserations or new evidence. So scientific theories are always incomplete, partial, tenative and subject to change. Granted scientists do not take pains to indicate the tenative, contingent and speculative nature of their views.

Evolutions is science, the current unifying theory in all of biology. Creationism is not science it is religion (belief/faith). Maybe one should teach the history of science or the philosophy of science before one teaches current scientific theory; but evolution is current science our best available explanation based on currently avaialble evidence subject to change.

You do not believe it, fine but you seem to have no alternative explanation. So your objections are based on belief/faith not science.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;91886 wrote:

I wasn't accusing you of flinging anything.

I apologize, you'd said I was buying into what Rich et al are flinging.

But I'm not buying into it, I've got a diametrically opposed point of view. I reject the idea that Dawkins' rants and raves about god have anything to do with even his own science.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;91889 wrote:

I apologize, you'd said I was buying into what Rich et al are flinging.

But I'm not buying into it, I've got a diametrically opposed point of view. I reject the idea that Dawkins' rants and raves about god have anything to do with even his own science.

Yes, yes, I see that now. I thought your summation of him as an "irritating demagogue" was cedeing their PoV.

Which would be a shame - because I think you'd get a lot out of his books that actually discuss evolution seriously.

Then again - it might be old news.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;91881 wrote:

But science adopts a standard of being able to test your assumptions about the world and demonstrate them to others and not have those tests falsified by peer review.

This is the claim. But I have found scientists full of faith and beliefs that are never challenged. Why? Because they agree not to challenge them, and anyone who does is drummed out of the business. It is very similar to excommunication. But you don't see it, because of your own faith.

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

I might enjoy them. But I sort of pick and choose amid the journals. My major interest has been the co-evolution of humans alongside disease pathogens and (in some cases) the arthropod vectors of these pathogens. This stuff mostly comes in my medical journals, so I'm content with that.

---------- Post added 09-19-2009 at 01:57 PM ----------

Dave Allen;91891 wrote:

I thought your summation of him as an "irritating demagogue" was cedeing their PoV.

Nah -- I just recognize that he undermines the rhetorical strength of his evolution argument when people regard him as an irritating demagogue about faith, god, etc. This stuff is important to people, whether it's true or false.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;91887 wrote:

This is a gross misunderstanding of the scientific process and the evidence. But since I think that no amount of primary research can alter your opinion, let me just reemphasize that you are ill informed about the nature of the research and the stated strength of its conclusions.

Not at all. I read tons of studies, particularly in medical journals, and it is easy to point out the biases, as is often done. However, whoever seeks to challenge the powers to be, quickly gets shut down and drummed out of the business. Why? Follow the money.

That there is real unbiased peer review is a pretense, and if I was in the business, I would be drummed out for making such a statement.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;91893 wrote:

This is the claim. But I have found scientists full of faith and beliefs that are never challenged. Why?

Could you give one example of a scientist full of faith and belief in something who has gone unchallenged when he or she tried to make it an article of scientific consensus?

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;91893 wrote:

This is the claim. But I have found scientists full of faith and beliefs that are never challenged. Why? Because they agree not to challenge them, and anyone who does is drummed out of the business. It is very similar to excommunication. But you don't see it, because of your own faith. Rich

This part is true. Scientists have their own belief faith systems and worldviews. Plate techtonics was scoffed at for 50 years. Einsteins theory of relativity awaited experimental confirmation before acceptance. Einstein had trouble accepting quantum mechanics. Scientist have as much trouble as anyone else dramatically modifying their world views or faith belief systems. This is especially true for those who have devoted a life time of work or professional reputation to a particular theory or area.

The revelance of this admission to evolution is marginal however because one you are not offering any alternative theory or explanation, facts or evidence.

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;91902 wrote:

The revelance of this admission to evolution is marginal however because one you are not offering any alternative theory or explanation, facts or evidence.

I have many beliefs about evolution and I have even suggested the evolution of a soul. However, these are beliefs. I do not suggest that they are scientific until they cross the threshold, which may or may not happen in this lifetime. I am in no rush, and see no reason to suggest something is scientific before it is. Of the physicists that I have read, particularly in the realm of quantum and relativity, this is precisely the position that they take, to their credit.

If I ever hear of a concrete definition of evolutionary theory, I will let you know whether I believe it crosses the threshold. But I can tell you this, natural selection, in my view, does not. It is a strong belief put forward by scientists who feel that they must have a theory to counteract other beliefs about the nature of life. I believe that they do this to satisfy their own need for some personal belief. But for me it is no different than any other belief, e.g. in order for something to exist it must be created, and anything that is created must have a creator. One belief is as good as another as far as I am concerned. I have my own beliefs that are more along the notions of Heraclitus and Daoism and other Eastern metaphysics.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-19-2009 at 01:30 PM ----------

Dave Allen;91901 wrote:

Could you give one example of a scientist full of faith and belief in something who has gone unchallenged when he or she tried to make it an article of scientific consensus?

I could give many, many. However, I do not want to start a heated argument. I see no reason for it. A scientist, can if he/she wish, examine the same theories and studies as I do, and quickly grasp the assumptions and the beliefs that follow. It is not rocket science. All one has to do is to approach it with the idea that I am going to drop all assumptions that one might have and see what is being assumed. This is what I do with all of my beliefs.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;91913 wrote:

I could give many, many. However, I do not want to start a heated argument. I see no reason for it.

I'm not suggesting there aren't any out there, but I cannot think of a single scientist whose ideas based on faith and belief have made an article of scientific consensus without challenge.

So I'm asking - politely enough I feel - for you to enlighten me.

If you can't do it - fine, just admit it - but don't say "oh there's loads but I won't mention them for fear of a fight" - that's a bit spurious.

If you mention a name and idea that I think has been challenged I'll explain why I think so - but it needn't become a argument at all really. I promise to be gentle.

1 Reply

@richrf,

Moderator has chosen not to respond. I don't own this book, The God Delusion. I borrowed it from a friend, read all of chapers 1-4, and quite a few sections thereafter. That, combined with the essay that is the subject of this thread, and several other interviews provided by Dawkins, support my original contention. Dawkins says, numerous times, that the discovery of natural selection makes it unnecessary to believe in the work or existence of any divine agency. I don't see how that is different from what I wrote. He says in the Washington Post piece that "Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip". Now I am accused of 'spreading lies'. The depiction I provided is entirely accurate. That is all I intend to say on the matter.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;91967 wrote:

Moderator has chosen not to respond.

Probably thinks it's not worth bothering with.

jeeprs;91967 wrote:

He says in the Washington Post piece that "Evolution is God's redundancy notice, his pink slip". Now I am accused of 'spreading lies'. The depiction I provided is entirely accurate. That is all I intend to say on the matter.

Your description of his book The God Delusion as "showing" that evolution demonstrates godlessness is not accurate. It's not even ballpark. I'd say it was grossly misleading, to put it mildly. The book is a collection of atheist essays covering a variety of topics and hardly brushes on the subject of evolution.

It's the book I said you were wrong about, not the article, remember? When you claimed things like:

jeeprs;91967 wrote:

Richard Dawkins has written a book called the God Delusion, which shows that the evolution of life can be completely explained by Darwins Theory of Natural Selection, and that, therefore, any notion of Divine Creation is entirely false.

His article for the newspaper is another matter - but you weren't talking about his essay when you made the claims you did, as quoted above, specifically about his book.

I didn't dispute you in regard to the newspaper article, for what it's worth. (However - and to further demonstrate the validity of your testimony in general - it was written for the Wall Street Journal, not the Washington Post.)

But you are wrong about the book - it doesn't use evolution as a big angle in favour of irreligion. I have read it - all of it - and examples of the poor and hypocritical behaviour of religious people features far more than evolution - which I don't recall taking up much space at all.

I'd be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt based on Prothero's valid point that as Dawkins does widely credit evolution to leading him confidently into atheist territory it might be therefore understandable why a layman could think he conflates the two issues under the banner of scientific knowledge and in The God Delusion.

But he doesn't do so in that particular book. To characterise it as you did is misleading.

It seems to me that you are now trying to suggest I'm calling you a liar for your overall opinion on Dawkins - which is also misleading - I only said your account of The God Delusion was a lie.

EDIT: Look, if it will help I'll admit that the word 'lie' is a rude one to use - I'll stick to 'misleading' if you prefer.

0 Replies

Dawkins on Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know