Home » Darwinism, Evolution » Dawkins’ Latest Book Sees Criticism of Evolution in Same Vein as Holocaust Denial

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

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…

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

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

  1. 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.

    • 121.1

      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.

  2. 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?

    • 122.1

      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.

  3. 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.

Leave a Reply