Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

@farmerman,

puzzledperson: " So far as I know, almost all dinosaur species were wiped out in the extinction event."

farmerman: "I think you can speak with greater certainty."

Last time I checked, the prevailing theory was that birds evolved from small quasi-avian dinosaurs that survived the extinction event. And the only thing more certain than almost all would be all.

farmerman: "Actually I was talking about chickens."

The last chicken farmer to obsess about evolutionary fitness ended up causing a heap o' trouble over in Europe. He was a Lamarckian too.

0 Replies

@layman,

" Epigenetics is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence."

That's perfectly consistent with the exception I noted, where certain chemicals or radioactivity affects cells performing administrative or regulatory functions related to reproduction. The "related to reproduction" clause is essential when talking about heritability, though epigenetic changes can affect an organism without being heritable.

Contrast that with farmerman's much broader statement that genes don't cause but merely record morphological changes.

3 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

That's perfectly consistent with the exception I noted...

It's "consistent" with it, but does not acknowledge it, if you didn't intend it as exclusive. But it seemed to read that ONLY "damage" caused by the environment could have any impact. You didn't say "one exception," you said THE exception, so I guess I misread your intent, eh?:

Quote:

The exception would be environmental factors (some chemicals, radioactivity, etc.) which cause gametic damage or damage to cells performing administrative or regulatory functions related to reproduction.

0 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

Contrast that with farmerman's much broader statement that genes don't cause but merely record morphological changes.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he intended by that. Gould suggested something to the effect that population genetics were only "bookkeeping entries," as I recall.

Quote:

The misidentification of replicators [genes] as causal agents of selection--the foundation of the gene-centred approach--rests upon a logical error best characterised as a confusion of bookkeeping with causality....When we consider the character of natural selection as a causal process, we can only wonder why so many people confused a need for measuring the results of natural selection by counting the differential increase of some hereditary attribute (bookkeeping) with the mechanism that produces relative reproductive success (causality). (Gould)

0 Replies

@puzzledperson,

Quote:

That's perfectly consistent with the exception I noted, where certain chemicals or radioactivity affects cells...

Of course, if you go back a step in the posting process, I was actually responding to your statement about "universal agreement" about rejecting Lamarck:

Quote:

It's quite universally agreed since the time of Lamarck that the phenotype is an expression of the genotype: if I start with an ordinary physique and become a bodybuilder, my enhanced musculature isn't written into my genes much less passed on to my progeny.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You're starting to get defensive. I had in mind fundamentalists in my remarks about giving up reason and logic. The message for you was that giving them up is not a requirement in order to contemplate the existence of God. Nor does that mean you have to involve yourself in some sinister plot to conduct church services in school.

Don't get paranoid on me.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I would be interested to hear from psychologists whether there is real evidence bearing on the question. My expectation would be that violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse, especially by a family member such as a father or grandfather, probably has a more damaging effect on a child’s mental well-being than sincerely believing in hell. (Dawkins)

Take your pick, Sukka. You can either:

1. "sincerely believe in hell, " or
2. Be in it, starting now.

Uhhh, tough one, sho nuff, but I think Imma go with the belief part this time.

Violent, painful, repeated sexual abuse just don't seem to have much appeal, somehow. Then again, if only it wasn't my own Pappy, I might think otherwise. Sure wish I had more evidence about it. I like to make "informed choices."

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

How does that support an adaptational viewpoint, Farmer?

Obviously we do not hve any DNA from the fossil record, what we do have are the examples seen in the living species that have (presumably by the edaphic evidence) curiously evidenced a genetic AND an environmentally induced phenotype chnge. (Geographic isolation has given us changes of genera not only species, )
Ill relate some specifics when I get back hom from the gas fields

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I forgot. Dawkins good works include his last 2 "The Ancestor's Tale" and "The Greatest Show on Earth"
These two discuss adaptaqtionql genetics and the role of nat selection within the genome. I can understqnd why he and Jy Gould didnt see eye to eye.
Both had some good insights . I tend to ride with Gould's ideas that genes are a captured "rider" of evolution, not a "machine"

So far, no real good eveidence can cast a winning vote to this whole teacup volcano that is more an issue amoing non-scientists and creationists.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

You're starting to get defensive. I had in mind fundamentalists in my remarks about giving up reason and logic. The message for you was that giving them up is not a requirement in order to contemplate the existence of God. Nor does that mean you have to involve yourself in some sinister plot to conduct church services in school.

Don't get paranoid on me.

Reasoning and logic are abandoned at the point where faith takes over. The theist may use them elsewhere, but sets them aside in order to take that leap of faith.

1 Reply

@FBM,

Quote:

Reasoning and logic are abandoned at the point where faith takes over. The theist may use them elsewhere, but sets them aside in order to take that leap of faith.

That would explain your (and others) emotional response to the idea of a God. It would repel most anyone who accepted your 'truism' of having to give up their intellectual integrity to contemplate the possibility of God.

Obviously I disagree and so now ask for your proof of that absurd notion.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

actually, the concept of a "god" is only a topic of conversation when Im in the company of religious folks. They seem astounded that I dont "believe" like they, even though I was raised in a devout Catholic , Russian Orthodox/jewish heritage.

The Jews have it best. Their god is a transcendental figure of the old testament, the concept of a personal. imminent god is not part of their worldview. AS is also, a rejection of an afterlife.

I feel comfortable in that there is sufficient evidence to show the planet nd the universe obeys known laws of physics, chemitry, geology, and bio.

Many of the religious, rather than just feeling comfortable with their own belief, seem to want to feel that they "know" what makes me tick and how much more complete my life would be with a personal god.

History recounts the "invention and evolution" of the gods . That is about the only thing we can fully test about such worldviews,( their timelines.)

Trying to understand the laws of biology and chemistry and "force fitting" them into your own worldview is really a difficult task IMHO. I dont know where youd begin.
You stated earlier that science is trying to reverse engineer into the dawn of life. That is true, but in no case (At least none Im aware of) has this reverse engineering NOT related itself to existing (natural) conditions on the planet as we can discern from other worlds.

Religions cannot do that at all, they try to adopt some pieces of scientific evidence, but in so doing, they must ignore (or worse) reject entire scientific concepts. (like Uniformitarinism or Superposition, or Dollos LAw or even radioisotopic decay).Also, a favorite religious "buy-in" is the well worn concept that all of history and geology, has led to us. Religion sort of forces you to buy that teleological path. Geology evidence disagrees. Im sort of certain that you have trouble with a fully opportunistic web of life, with no direction . However, it doesnt bother me if you have trouble with it, Im sure you try to come up with some sort of "plan and intelligence behind the plan"

I think that Its waay easier to really follow the easiest pathways of physical reactions and carefully analyze what evidence exists and shows us .

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Interesting that you are around religious people enough to have them astounded that you don't believe as they do, guess it comes with family associations?

I have the opposite experience. I currently know almost no religious people, mostly just motor heads, hackers, pilots and philosophy types. When the subject of God (rarely) worms it's way into the conversation, they are astounded that I believe in one. I have to come here to have any kind of conversation about the subject without it being awkward. I hate making friends feel uncomfortable.

I recently learned about the Jewish non-belief in an afterlife. I was kind of blown away by that and assume that is a relatively modern phenomenon. A variation on that is the Unitarian Universalist Church which does not even believe in a God. WTF...

I would think it would be almost impossible to arrive at an accurate history of the 'invention' of god(s). It appears to predate written language. Cave drawings hint at the belief.

I admit that I am a very small minority; I look to see but never 'force fit' well proven science into my beliefs nor do I reject any. As I've said, if your theology is right, science ought to fit without using a hammer. If that becomes necessary, the fault is probably with your theology rather than science.

I wouldn't think it would be necessary to say and haven't before but if the whole God scenario has any truth to it, it is at right angles to science. The known universe is to the reality of God as a Pyrex beaker is to the research chemist. The glassware is interesting but knowing everything about it reveals nothing about the experiment being conducted. Ultimately, it's the evidence of an experiment going on that convinces me, not how the beaker is made.

Enjoying the conversation..

4 Replies

@Leadfoot,

All very reasonable, except for the claim that cave drawings hint at the invention of gods.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

if your theology is right, science ought to fit without using a hammer. If that becomes necessary, the fault is probably with your theology rather than science.

As a rule, the "secular humanists," tend to be ontological naturalists and subscribe to the creed of "scientism." They will often scoff and sneer at the very concept of "God."

What they overlook is that some of the most brilliant scientists in history, their icons, came to the conclusion, based on what they thought "science" told them, that there must be a God. Granted this was not any kind of personal God. Their conception of god was deistic, rather than theistic in the common sense.

Far too often, adherents of scientism are quite parochial in their own conception of god, and equate it with the god of the particular religion they were exposed to as children--no more, no less. They do a poor job of understanding some of their scientific heroes in this regard.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I suspect that a rather simple shamanism was the first form of human religion. Of that, we can know nothing. Many archaeologist, notably the Lithuanian archaeologist Marija Gimbutas, have posited an "earth mother" cult of one description or another as the first form of organized religion. Although that, too, is uncertain, it would explain the goddess cult of ancient Crete, as well as goddesses such as Gaia, Rhea, as well as Demeter, Diana and Athena. Those who support this thesis also point to the goddess Cybele in Anatolia.

This video at youtube is an exposition of the earth mother thesis, The World of the Goddess - Marija Gimbutas. Don't make the mistake of thinking that she is alone in the promulgation of this thesis. It's origins go back at least to the late 19th century. The video is almost an hour and three quarters long, though, so i wouldn't blame you if you passed on it.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I admit that I am a very small minority;

Not sure what kind of minority it is

Quote:

84 percent of the world population has faith; a third are Christian. “Worldwide, more than eight-in-ten people identify with a religious group,” says a new comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.Dec 23, 2012

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/dec/23/84-percent-world-population-has-faith-third-are-ch/

What has led to your God belief?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

All very reasonable, except for the claim that cave drawings hint at the invention of gods.

Definitely not an area of active study or deep interest for me but a Google search turns up more than I can possibly read from respected anthropologists at universities that say absolutely that in some cases they even display "a religious sophistication".

I'll find some time to check out the video you linked.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Far too often, adherents of scientism are quite parochial in their own conception of god, and equate it with the god of the particular religion they were exposed to as children--no more, no less. They do a poor job of understanding some of their scientific heroes in this regard.

Yes, I do see the tendency to compartmentalize their belief in God from their science. I assume that is driven by a fear that they will find a conflict with their religion. Silly way to approach it.

Maybe there is a parallel there for believers in scientism.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Quote:
The known universe is to the reality of God as a Pyrex beaker is to the research chemist. The glassware is interesting but knowing everything about it reveals nothing about the experiment being conducted. Ultimately, it's the evidence of an experiment going on that convinces me, not how the beaker is made.

I have to admit that youve lost me in this one. Much science is interested in the interaction between the solvent and solute with its container. (In chemistry its one of the bases of phase rules , catalysts and quantum fields.).

I need it explained a bit simpler to even respond

1 Reply

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know