Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dawkins’ Latest Book Sees Criticism of Evolution in Same Vein as Holocaust Denial

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The TimesOnline (go here) has an extract from Dawkins’ latest book, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH. Here’s an extract of the extract:

…Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time…

Comments
The unexhausted variable is all of the other variables not at hand in the active information. The new information is the fact that not all of the variables are exhausted, that active information isn’t all variables whatsoever, but particular. I don't follow. Rob's point was that active information is quantified by the improvement in the search over a random search, no? If that's correct, then any quantifiable amount of active information means that the search in question must, also by definition, outperform a random search. It's the same as defining a "moving" car as having a non-zero velocity; it's tautological to say that the moving car has non-zero velocity. It's tautological to say that a better-than random search has non-zero active information. It's a rhetorical tautology--the repetition of the same concept in different terms.Learned Hand
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Learned Hand,
What is the unexhausted variable? What is the new information?
The unexhausted variable is all of the other variables not at hand in the active information. The new information is the fact that not all of the variables are exhausted, that active information isn't all variables whatsoever, but particular.Clive Hayden
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
R0b, I answered you, your example is not a tautology. If you had said "a car is either in motion or not" then it would be. Asserting that it must have a velocity greater than zero is the same as saying that it must have a velocity, which is giving information, namely, what would occur, "velocity", if a car were in motion on our planet given all of our natural laws. In certain circumstances, "velocity" wouldn't be a given, so there is information that is obtained. But that's only one instance of how your analogy isn't a tautology.Clive Hayden
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
This is not the case when citing active information that produces a refined search better than random, for not all of the variables have been exhausted. There is new information being given. What is the unexhausted variable? What is the new information?Learned Hand
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Clive, is there a hidden premise or ambiguity in my question that prevents you from answering yes or no? Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I intentionally used vague language in this thread.R0b
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
R0b,
Setting aside the question of whether considering an amount of active information can render the statement non-tautological, is the statement a tautology if no particular amount of active information is being considered?
A tautology is true by definition, like saying that it's either raining outside, or it's not; it has to be true for all values of its variables, meaning, that all values have been exhausted and there is no new information being given. This is not the case when citing active information that produces a refined search better than random, for not all of the variables have been exhausted. There is new information being given. It is tantamount to saying that, to use your analogy, the car is moving, which conveys that it is not still. If we say that the car is either moving or not, then it is a tautology, for no information at all is given. Thus, your question to Barry is a non sequitur.Clive Hayden
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Clive:
That’s not a tautology when you consider an amount of active information.
Setting aside the question of whether considering an amount of active information can render the statement non-tautological, is the statement a tautology if no particular amount of active information is being considered?R0b
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
Clive, saying that a search can use (positive) active info is the same as saying it will outperform a random search. This is exhaustively true for all values of active info. Saying a car has a velocity is the same as saying that it moves faster then a non-moving object. Saying that a search uses active info is the same as saying it outperforms a random search. Saying a car moves at a velocity of 10 mph is the same as saying it moves 10 mph faster than an unmoving object. Saying that a search uses x bits of active info is the same as saying it outperforms a random search by a corresponding factor (look at Eq 4 in the D+M paper). It is tautological because all members of the group "having active info" are part of the group "outperform a random search". We can also describe this in terms of information: Let´s say you have the information that a search can use active info. You then gain no additional info when somebody tells you that it outperfroms a random search. You knew that already, because it´s part of the definition of active info. Please have a look at Chapter II of the D+M paper for a definition of active info if you don´t believe me (especially Eq 4 and its explanation). -- Just to be sure: In this discussion having 0 active info is called having no active info. Having 0 velocity is called having no velocity.Indium
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
Clive, What units is active information measured in? Is that different to the units FSCI is measured in? As to the tautology, could you give a few examples perhaps of both tautologys and non-tautologys realting to the subject matter at hand. That would help clear the picture I think.Blue Lotus
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
01:10 AM
1
01
10
AM
PDT
Indium,
Active info is DEFINED as by how much a search algorithm outperforms a random search. Therefore its is also tautological for specific values of active info.
No it's not. You may as well say that any value, in any setting, is tautological because it's that value. It could have been some other value. It's not exhaustive among all sets of probabilities or instances, therefore it's not a tautology. A tautology is exhaustive, particular values or specifics within a range, are not.Clive Hayden
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
Clive, performing better than a random search is tautological with having active info, because this is just how active info is defined. Active info is DEFINED as by how much a search algorithm outperforms a random search. Therefore its is also tautological for specific values of active info. It is certainly tautological the way ROb has phrased it. This is a perfect example of a tautology. I could give you the advice to have a look at Wikipedia for a definition of "Tautology" but I am sure you know that already. So, why are you doing this?Indium
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT
R0b,
“If any search algorithm is to perform better than random search, active information must be resident.”
That's not a tautology when you consider an amount of active information. How are you defining tautology?Clive Hayden
September 3, 2009
September
09
Sep
3
03
2009
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
Learned Hand, Barrett Brown and I have a bit of fun at each others expense. You should read his post.
R0b wrote, “In order for a car to move, it must have a non-zero velocity.” His example is a tautology; yours either misreads his or misunderstands the concept.
The misunderstanding is with him applying a tautology to active information, I don't care what he has to say about a misleading car analogy that has no import to Dembski and Marks' paper, and is a total non sequitur in reference to his question to Barry.Clive Hayden
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
Spitfire, Speaking of tautologies, it appears that you have adopted an idiosyncratic definition of "evolution" that excludes, for some reason, genetic drift. Using your terminology, then changes in allele frequency caused by genetic drift are not "evolution." I don't know of anyone else who defines "evolution" that way, though. Perhaps you could consult a biologist regarding the best definition to use.Learned Hand
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Learned Hand:
Genetic drift also causes evolution, doesn’t it?
Since no-one has ever empirically witnessed cross-species (much less cross-class and above) evolution via genetic drift, it's anybody's guess. Makes for a nice story, though.
Aren’t the morphological changes you identify caused by a change in allele frequency?
Exactly, which occurs within the existing gene pool. Within a species, the gene pool does not cross outside of its constraints without mutation. Which is why in the case of the finches, the beak returns to its more common size average several generations after a drought. It's like cards. The gene pool is like a fixed deck of 52, but yet highly variable when dealing out four cards. You can deal yourself four Twos from a deck of cards (and thus make an annoying, inbred little yap dog). But you can never, ever deal yourself five. Inches versus gallons...SpitfireIXA
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Thanks for the update about Barrett Clown, I’ll be sure to spell his name correctly. That comment is embarrassingly juvenile. To say that a car moves at a certain velocity is not tautological. So you’re still asserting a non sequitur about a certain amount of active information being tautological, so your question to Barry is a non starter. R0b wrote, “In order for a car to move, it must have a non-zero velocity.” His example is a tautology; yours either misreads his or misunderstands the concept.Learned Hand
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Clive:
To say that a car moves at a certain velocity is not tautological.
That, of course, does not answer the question that I asked.
So you’re still asserting a non sequitur about a certain amount of active information being tautological
I'm not asserting anything about a certain amount of active information being tautological. As I said, I don't even know what that means. I only know what it means for a statement to be tautological. And the statement that I'm saying is tautological is, "If any search algorithm is to perform better than random search, active information must be resident." Not sure we're communicating here.R0b
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
R0b, To say that a car moves at a certain velocity is not tautological. So you're still asserting a non sequitur about a certain amount of active information being tautological, so your question to Barry is a non starter.Clive Hayden
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Upright Biped, Thanks for the update about Barrett Clown, I'll be sure to spell his name correctly.Clive Hayden
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
By the way, Blue What causes one nucleotide to be followed by another along the linear chain of DNA?Upright BiPed
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Clive, Way off topic - - - - - - - - Not to inhibit this thread's progress, but... Barrett Brown wants you to know that he is sensitive to having his name mis-spelled. http://trueslant.com/barrettbrown/2009/08/30/breaking-crazy-intelligent-design-advocate-says-something-crazy/#post_comments Being one of UD's more gracious regulars, I wanted to relay this important information to you, and ask that we all be more respectful in the future. /gratuitous satireUpright BiPed
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Hi Clive
So, your question to Barry is a non sequitur, for the “active information” involved is not a tautology.
Out of interest, what units are "active information" measured in?Blue Lotus
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
for the “active information” involved is not a tautology
Clive, I don't understand what it means for "active information" to be (or not be) a tautology. Is it your position that the sentence, "In order for a car to move, it must have a non-zero velocity," is not tautological?R0b
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
R0b,
I’m afraid that I don’t understand how the analogy applies. The sentence in question communicates no specifics. I would analogize it to something like “In order for a car to move, it must have a non-zero velocity.”
Of course, but the velocity is something in particular, not just generic "velocity" or all "velocities". It is a particular, so it is not exhaustive, so it is not a tautology. So, your question to Barry is a non sequitur, for the "active information" involved is not a tautology.Clive Hayden
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT
Clive:
So, to give an anology, to give any positive number, is to say that it is more than zero. That’s not a tautology, for the positive number isn’t all positive numbers, it is a specific number, a specific amount. It’s not exhaustive, so it’s not a tautology, because it is not all numbers, but rather a specific number.
I'm afraid that I don't understand how the analogy applies. The sentence in question communicates no specifics. I would analogize it to something like "In order for a car to move, it must have a non-zero velocity."R0b
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington
Is the Darwinist camp so intellectually bankrupt that it attempts to divert attention from its failures
Nope, but I'd like you to explain how that paper supports ID please, in your own words.Blue Lotus
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington
Is the Darwinist camp so intellectually bankrupt that it attempts to divert attention from its failures by suggesting that ID proponents should have made a scientific case for ID 1,600 years before the scientific method was invented?
1: According to many on this site it was Christinanity that trigged scientific understanding with the understanding that your god make the universe suitable for human understanding. Despite that, it takes the invention of the scientific method (deity agnostic) to make a start. And Barry, I don't represent "the Darwinist camp". And yes, I can see how tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers, articles and university level text books on "Darwinism" and it's acceptance by 99%+ of the worlds biologists would be considered a failure by you. 2:
You want me to demonstrate that which has been demonstrated dozens (if not hundreds) of times before on this site?
You said it, now back it up or admit it's just bluster. 3:
Scientific orthodoxies come and go. A theory is orthodox up until the time it isn’t. Let me give you two examples. Plate tectonics went from lunacy to orthodoxy in a matter of decades. The steady state universe was orthodoxy until it was not longer tenable and had to be replaced by the standard model. In summary, your appeal to authority instead of evidence and logic would make a medieval churchman blush and proves nothing.
This is true, however such orthodoxy is only ever overturned when the replacement can better explain the observed facts. I don't think ID is in that position is it? Not now, not in 20 years time. If in 15 years all ID has is a single peer reviewed paper that does not explicity support ID then, well.... 4:
You point to some defunct websites to demonstrate . . .what? That those websites are defunct. I’ll grant you that. So? The action has moved on to other forums. Do try to keep up won’t you Blue.
To demonstrate that your claim that ID is about to take over is wrong. If there is no ground work being done then there is no takeover. Tell me Barry, where is the science of ID being discussed? And those websites are not just defunct, ISCID represents the only ID peer reviewed journal out there. So it's not "just" a website it represents, it's the scientific side of ID. Which, from looking at those websites has not progressed since 2005. 5:
5. Your assertion that that Dembski-Marks paper does not support the basic premises of ID is risible. Do you know better than the authors themselves, both of whom say the opposite? That question was rhetorical Blue. Stop typing.
And what I asked you was in what way does it support ID? It's ironic that one moment you can say
In summary, your appeal to authority instead of evidence and logic would make a medieval churchman blush and proves nothing.
and then with a straight face you say
Do you know better than the authors themselves, both of whom say the opposite? That question was rhetorical Blue. Stop typing.
And appeal to authority if ever I saw one. Tell you what Barry, I'll stop typing if you say in your own words exactly how the Dembski/Marks paper supports ID. Why don't you show me up in front of all these people by simply explaining to me how that paper supports ID?Blue Lotus
September 2, 2009
September
09
Sep
2
02
2009
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
To Upright Biped, I read your comments, and I think weve done this to death. Its intersting but Ive got work to do.Graham
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
R0b, So, to give an anology, to give any positive number, is to say that it is more than zero. That's not a tautology, for the positive number isn't all positive numbers, it is a specific number, a specific amount. It's not exhaustive, so it's not a tautology, because it is not all numbers, but rather a specific number.Clive Hayden
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Clive:
How is that a tautology?
Active information is quantified by measuring how much better the search is than random search. To say that a search is better than random search is to say that there is non-zero active information, by definition.R0b
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply