Is Richard Dawkins a stage magician?
| August 24, 2009 | Posted by Steno under Intelligent Design |
Richard Dawkins has a new book out soon; ‘The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.’ An unfortunate title perhaps, bearing in mind the type of acts that have performed under that banner headline in the past. So is Dawkins no more than a travelling conjurer pulling bunnies out of hats in the name of science? Is his show cart of evolution just a charade of smoke and mirrors?
Let’s be frank, Dawkins is in reality more dangerous than a harmless travelling charlatan – the type of twisting rhetoric that Dawkins engages in is the type that leads to tyranny, not to respectful dialogue or family entertainment. He should be more careful, but he seems to have sacrificed his cares on some high alter; perhaps the million dollar book deals are clouding his judgment, but in reality his atheism leaves him unaccountable to anyone but himself or his atheist friends in the Royal Society. Yes, his rhetoric often appears to be as dangerous as that of the atheism of the twentieth century that led to fascist and communist regimes that abused human rights and led to the deaths of millions.
Dawkins is currently being serialised in The Times. A first article is Creationists, now they’re coming for your children.’ 24th August 2009 in which he makes unsubstantiated, fear-mongering statements and compare those who disagree with evolution to ‘Holocaust deniers.’ You only have to read some of the responses to his article to see the irrational fear that he has stirred up in people who claim to be acting purely in the name of reason. One wrote; “We must act now. Free people everywhere should unite and stamp out this menace” All in the name of reason of course.
How stupid is that? I won’t grace him with the platitude that he does not know what response his words have. He is too intelligent for that, but why is he doing it? Any belief on his part to moral superiority is pure fantasy.
I am sure Richard Dawkins is aware that Holocaust denial is illegal in some countries; perhaps it is his aim to make evolution denial illegal in those countries where there is a resistance to Darwinism. ‘If evolution cannot win in the market place of scientific ideas, then we’ll sure win in the courts once it is a mandated belief’ would appear to be the direction of his rhetoric. What is Dawkins afraid of? Can’t evolution hold its own in the science arena?
Next Dawkins thinks he ought to tell the Vicars and Bishops how to preach. He notes of course that all the leading clerics accept evolution, as if the authority of theologians will establish a truth in science.
But what of Dawkins’ scientific smoke and mirrors?
Nowhere in this article does he seek to qualify what he means by evolution. Evolution is a fact he asserts, a statement that even Henry Morris would have agreed with in part, but what type of evolution is ‘fact’? Natural selection of pre existing genetic information does not explain causally where that genetic information came from. Dawkins peddles the simplification that the process that gave a dalmatian spots is the same process that turns a bacterium into an ostrich, or a fish into a hippo. But Dawkins knows that neo-Darwinism is more complicated than that. The problem for Dawkins is that belief in evolution is dependant upon such over simplifications, because if people really understood the complexity of organic life and what is being claimed then they would not accept unguided molecule to man evolution. In other words evolution is rejected because people understand it too well, not too poorly, and Dawkins has to keep to the simple text to keep the illusion going.
So we may ask – why cannot Dawkins and others conduct the discussion of origins in a more rational manner without the type of smoke and mirrors and fear-mongering rhetoric that is being engaged in with his article? What is at stake really? Is it science or is it his atheism?
84 Responses to Is Richard Dawkins a stage magician?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
jerry,
You seem to think we are defending single step selection. We realize the interaction of biological processes with the multitude of environments is a very complicated process and that changes take place over periods of time.
So what is the issue?
I’m not trying to say you are defending single-tep selection. I’m merely pointing out that even the “trivial” examples you aren’t interested in still illustrate Dawkins’s basic point (as in the Peppered Moth example), and also in the far less trivial example regarding multicellularity.
If the fact cumulative selection works much better than single-step selection seems uncontroversial to you,then welcome to the club. One wonders why so much effort is being wasted trying to make Dawkins’s point more than it is or ever claimed to be.
Cabal said:
Well, number one, godless evolution is in precisely no danger of winning the culture war, if opinion polls are anything to go by.
Number two, a thoroughly robust case for theism can be made without reference to empirical science. See, for instance, Edward Feser’s “The Last Superstition” for an explanation of why this is so. Theism rests on solid philosophical, historical, and experiential grounds. ID is icing on the cake, of course, but it is not at all crucial.
My point is that Dawkins himself has basically asserted that Darwinism (or, if you prefer, unguided evolution) *is* crucial to what atheists believe, and this makes it ipso facto more likely to be coloring their interpretation of scientific evidence.
For the atheists to be asserting that theists are the ones with the bias is absurd on the face of it. Of course, both sides of the argument should be scrutinized for bias, but atheists have been allowed to skate over the issue of their own bias for far too long.
Matteo: “For the atheists to be asserting that theists are the ones with the bias is absurd on the face of it. Of course, both sides of the argument should be scrutinized for bias, but atheists have been allowed to skate over the issue of their own bias for far too long.”
I think it’s fair to say there is confirmation bias on both sides.
It does appear to be the case that most ID proponents are not only people of faith, but mostly mainstream Christian. There are exceptions of course (Berlinski comes to mind), but they seem rare. I think the question to ask then is – what came first, ID acceptance or faith? I’m sure there may be exceptions, think we all know the answer to that one (and if ID was or is ever intended to be an evangelical ministry I don’t think it would ever be an effective strategy).
Given the way religious mindsets tend to be extremely persuasive in influencing every part of a person’s life (sex, family, politics, science, etc), it isn’t hard to see that confirmation bias is likely to be at play. Perhaps for the religious believer there is a threat here too – after all the believer stands to lose a lot more than the average atheist does.
Do atheists have similar biases? Most certainly, but I think the story here is probably more complicated. Perhaps the biases are more set in those who have a public personae (Dawkins etc) than the general run-of-the-mill atheist.
I personally know I have biases and I try to deal with them as best I can – that’s partly why I come here to have those biases challenged and because ID does genuinely intrigue me (but I don’t think there’s nearly enough evidence yet). Although I identify as an atheist (and I’m a former Christian so I’ve been in both camps), I certainly don’t think I carry the same kind of protectionism that a committed person-of-faith might have. And again I’ve been in both camps, so I know the difference – when it comes to a defender of the “faith” of atheism, I’m a bit of a deal loss I’m afraid. If I “lost” my atheism it wouldn’t be a big deal – after all, who wouldn’t mind being wrong about something more “out there”? But for me atheism represents the best (and honest) approach to the evidence (or mostly lack of it) currently available.
Oddly enough though if I did ever get to the point of accepting ID, I think it would not bring me closer to Christianity – quite the opposite in fact; I personally think ID is very hard to reconcile with Christian theology and the Bible. I could see a better fit with any number of faiths or religions than Christianity (I know some have tried to do this reconciliation, but at best it looks jury-rigged and the result of post-hoc reasoning rather than a true meshing of ideas – and it usually ends up being a mish-mash of miscellaneous scriptures that really do not add up to a whole).
JTaylor,
Good points, but it does vary from person to person. I was a convinced Darwinist for awhile even after becoming Catholic. It was the scientific arguments that changed my mind. If materialism were somehow overthrown as a philosophy (perhaps due to ID), then that merely puts one in the position (a position I was in for a dozen years; for me materialism was overthrown by undeniable mystical experience) of trying to figure out just What The Deal really is. Yogic Hinduism, Buddhism, Deism, The Occult, etc, etc are all possible contenders. There is still a great deal that one must sort out for oneself…
Jtaylor,
Something that may interest you:
What I find very interesting, from what we now know to be true from 4-Dimensional space-time cosmology, is that each individual person/observer can be considered the “center of the universe” no matter where they are in the universe since, depending on where in the universe you are observing, the entire universe does in fact seem to “center” on you when you observe it.
This fact is clearly illustrated by the fact the Cosmic Background Radiation, left over from the creation of the universe, is coming at us equally from all points surrounding us in space.
COBE – WMAP Satellites – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huaS_iSITQs
Earth As The Center Of The Universe – image
http://universe-review.ca/R02-16-universe.htm
Plus, In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery; Space itself was created in the Big Bang and continues to “expand equally in all places” i.e. The universe is not expanding “into” anything outside of itself. Thus from a 3-dimensional perspective, any particular “material” spot in the universe is to be considered just as “center of the universe” as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered “center of the universe”.
To help you get your mind around this “observer centered” 4D space-time universe Taylor:
Quantum mechanics tells us that sub-atomic “reality” is not independent of the observer, and shows us that our “material” reality does not “materialize” from the “wave function” until observation occurs.
The Miraculous Foundation of Reality – Dr. Quantum – Double Slit & Entanglement – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzQuU6FpYAk
Thus since wave collapse is dependent on a observer, anywhere you are in the universe the wave collapse to quasi 3D particle will always center on you giving you a consistent position of centrality in the universe.
Pretty neat huh JTaylor? Why should the universe or the sub-atomic world even care if we exist?
Thus in summary:
Quantum mechanics tells us that wave collapse to quasi 3D particle is “centered” on each individual observer, whereas 4-D space-time cosmology tells us the universe is “centered” on each individual observer in space-time,,,a rather interesting congruence in science, between the very large and the very small! A stunning congruence that they apparently have an extremely hard time joining together mathematically (Penrose: Einstein). Yet a congruence that Jesus seems to have joined together with His resurrection from the dead as is somewhat clearly illustrated in this following video:
A Particle Physicist Looks At The Turin Shroud Image – 4:25 minute mark of video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgvEDfkuhGg
Pretty neat huh JTaylor?!? A Life centered cosmos! I wonder what Copernicus would have thought of these revelations of science.
John 1:4
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
“Given the way religious mindsets tend to be extremely persuasive in influencing every part of a person’s life (sex, family, politics, science, etc), it isn’t hard to see that confirmation bias is likely to be at play.”
I love the way people try to load the question or debate with nonsense. It is so typical here.
There are a whole bunch of theists out there who say they do not believe in ID. But then again what is meant by ID. The official definition here is
“The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause”
So if one believes in God, is this person a believer in ID? Yes, any believer in God is a supporter of ID except for those strange people who believe there is a God and He never did anything, maybe not even creating the universe. They may differ dramatically on how easily or difficult it is to discern design especially with science.
But are the mindsets of these theists being influenced by their religion? The range of opinions amongst them is so varied it would be hard to see where. But atheists must have a certain mindset. It would be tough to be an atheist and be a supporter of ID. An atheist must a priori restrict possible answers to certain questions about causes. So I can definitely see a bias there where the theist can accept a much wider set of solutions.
What about those people who believe in God and always thought Darwin’s ideas explained evolution till they started reading about it. What about those people who believe in God and thought Darwin’s ideas explained evolution before and after they started reading about it. Which ones are biased? Remember ID as a subject area is a recent phenomena but the idea of design is an old one.
I am one who thought Darwin’s ideas explained life until I started reading about it about 10 years ago. Nothing has changed about my religious beliefs, politics or beliefs in science because of it. Well that is not quite true. I do know a ton more science today than I did 10 years ago. I am now also convinced that most scientists are no better than used car salesmen and will do anything for money and position including biasing research conclusions or cherry picking results. I used to have respect for scientists but that is now gone. But what I believe about science itself has not changed.
What I am observing here is people who are anti ID trying to get religion into the discussion of ID anyway they can because they have no science to stand on. This thread is about Dawkins and on another thread it was sort of admitted that he is a fraud and has not provided anything of substance to the evolution debate. An incredible conclusion. He brings rhetoric only, just as Darwin did and like Darwin, Dawkin’s facts are irrelevant. Darwin wrote one of the greatest rhetorical masterpieces of all time. It was not good science but it was extremely well written. Dawkins is also a gifted writer but must bring religion into his discussion also.
By the way Darwin did do some good science but it was about barnacles and earth worms and his categorizing of species was decent and his description of the geology of South America was good. But his work on evolution was flawed and badly reasoned. But as I said extremely well written. So Darwin and Dawkins are exceptional writers but both are flawed when they wrote/write about evolution.
Jerry: “I love the way people try to load the question or debate with nonsense. It is so typical here.”
(In response to my statement: ““Given the way religious mindsets tend to be extremely persuasive in influencing every part of a person’s life (sex, family, politics, science, etc), it isn’t hard to see that confirmation bias is likely to be at play.”)
Why is it nonsense Jerry? It is a reasonable and I believe a very accurate statement of the faith position (and I speak from experience too). I’m assuming you are likely a believer of some fashion. Can you honestly tell me that your faith does not inform or influence probably every aspect of your life?
Jerry,
Good post. Also, I had forgotten about something pertinent: from the Darwinists we have both the Dawkins quote about being an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and, quite often a “reassurance” (when the heat is on them politically) that Darwinism and religion are compatible.
So, from their very own statements: they need unguided evolution in order to be intellectually fulfilled atheists, and we don’t need ID to continue with our theism.
JTaylor:
Someone else who’s not a Christian is Stuart Hameroff of Penrose/Hameroff fame, who acknowledges that his ideas about “quantum vitalism” touch on ID. In fact he deliberately provoked Richard Dawkins about it to his face, at Beyond Belief 2006:
Another person with beliefs similar to vitalism is Rupert Sheldrake, who is not particularly orthodox in his Christianity.
Overall, if you look around for people who have scientific beliefs which imply ID or are compatible with ID, as opposed to people who are explicit ID proponents or active in the ID scene, then orthodox Christians are much less predominant.
(More anon time permitting.)
“Can you honestly tell me that your faith does not inform or influence probably every aspect of your life?”
My faith certainly affects many aspects of my life but not all and certainly how I look at ID. I am a big Phillies fan which has nothing to do with religion and for the first time in a long time last year and this year have been pleasant because of this. I don’t make a big deal of this at home because my son is a big Mets fan. I will go to the shore for a vacation next week and that has nothing to do with religion. I went to Stanford and got an MBA and worked in advertising and that that nothing to do with religion. I was a math and physics major undergraduate and that had nothing to do with religion. I spent 4 1/2 years in the navy and that had nothing to do with religion. It has no effect on how I think about science or on a lot of other things I do every day. It does make me honest though. At least I think it does. So I call things as I see them. And ID has had no effect on my life other than it consumes too much of my time with science and answering inane questions on this site. It certainly has had nothing to do with my religious beliefs and does not influence any aspect of my life other than as I said, it is too time consuming. I rarely discuss it with others except here.
So all I see from comments such as yours is a desperate attempt to somehow impugn ID by diverting attention away from the failures of evolutionary biology and try to say the other side is religiously driven and thus, their ideas are therefore suspect. It is the tactic used here all the time and it is a bogus argument but it seems to be all that is in the arsenal of the anti ID people. They certainly do not have any science supporting their position. And I find that pathetic and dishonest. But today is just another day in trenches and the anti ID oblige because the average observer here can see right through the faux arguments and that continue to make the pro ID argument easy.
anonym
Thanks very much for the link to Stuart Hameroff’s Web site. Lots of good articles there.
Dave Wisker
I completely agree with your remark in #19 above. Foul language has no place on this Web site, and the author of the offending comments should apologize.
Seversky,
“Refresh my memory, which side has tried to “Wedge” itself into school science classrooms, tried to get itself mandated by law in compliant state legislatures…”
… and through fiat of the courts?
Sounds like Atheist and the ACLU to me. Their Wedge of atheism started some 40 years ago.
The insanity that is atheism led to hundreds of millions of deaths around the world.
Everywhere the Marxist go, nations fall, people die and tyrants rise.
High time that one-sided, atheistic fascist rule end. Before more people die or “become partners with God in matters of life and death.”
bornagain77,
I agree with vjtorley, you should apologize. I don’t want to have to moderate you, but you’re not immune from it.
PaulN:
Interesting statement. What hold would it get from very much contested ‘historical facts’, ‘geological evidences’, and even the shroud of Turin!?
Matteo,
How true. All you need for theism is faith. Scientists like Kurt Wise or John Baumgardner are proof of that.
DATCG
I have some questions, if you don’t mind.
What would you do with the atheists that refuse to become theists?
What particular god is it that you think people should believe in? Allah? Thor? Any god in particular? The god you happen to believe in?
You do know that the ACLU often defend theists and their rights, don’t you?
vjtorly,
Dave Wisker
I completely agree with your remark in #19 above. Foul language has no place on this Web site, and the author of the offending comments should apologize
Thanks. Actually, bornagain did post a ‘notpology’, essentially blaming the big bad atheists for his behavior, and also informing me that putting up with his rudeness was worth it since he was actually trying to save my soul. I know, pathetic.
He also seems to think he hurt my feelings. Not so. I have been called far worse by far better debaters than him, and had a beer with them afterwards. The fact is, his debating style is shallow, tiresome, selectively-informed and non-engaging. The “love it or leave it” remark finally convinced me he isn’t a serious participant. There are far more serious participants here that are worth engaging.
Dave Wisker,
Take it easy on calling people “pathetic”.
Cumulative selection only makes sense in a design scenario.
In a non-telic scenario there just isn’t enough time in the universe.
Denyse:
And “design” doesn’t explain where the designer came from. There are no ultimate explanations, and science doesn’t pretend to offer any.
Rob,
You’re welcome to believe that there aren’t any ultimate explanations, but let’s not mistake that as anything other than a belief that you hold.
“You’re welcome to believe that there aren’t any ultimate explanations, but let’s not mistake that as anything other than a belief that you hold.”
As is the belief that there is such a thing as an ultimate explanation.
In my mind, the greatest scientific offense of Dawkins was to use his fame to advance his pet notions of gene-centric evolution in the popular literature. He certainly was not reporting on scientific consensus.
We ID proponents are acutely aware that much of the “genetic” regulatory network is encoded in DNA regions that are transcribed, but not translated. Of course, there is also epigenetic regulation. Genes are only a small part of the story, and Dawkins has done a lot of the work in persuading the general public otherwise.
DATCG @ 72
What of the insanity of a god who wipes out almost the entire population of the world in one fell swoop?
Who is the greater monster?
Come to think of it, how great are the monsters who still believe that was the right thing to do?
Exactly. For all practical purposes, there is no difference between Marxist autocracy and fundamentalist theocracy. We don’t need either.