The Dawkins Delusion a.k.a. The God Delusion
| September 28, 2006 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
A more apt title for Dawkins’ tome, based on his essay describing it, would be The Dawkins Delusion.
More pap from it:
If, as Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel once playfully speculated, life on this planet was deliberately seeded by a payload of bacteria in the nose cone of a rocket, we still need an explanation for the intelligent aliens who dispatched the rocket.
Playfully? Let’s see about that.
Francis Crick Remembered:
Life on a Meteor Ride
‘Directed Panspermia’ suggests that life may be distributed by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Crick and Orgel argued that DNA encapsulated within small grains could be fired in all directions by such a civilization in order to spread life within the universe. Their abstract in the 1973 Icarus paper reads:
“It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic.
Crick and Orgel further expanded on this idea in their 1981 book, ‘Life Itself.’. They believed there was little chance that microorganisms could be transported between planets and across interstellar distances by random accident. But a technological civilization could direct panspermia by stocking a spacecraft with a genetic starter kit. They suggested that a large sample of different microorganisms with minimal nutritional needs could survive the long journey between worlds.
Many scientists are critical of the Panspermia hypothesis, because it does not try to answer the question of how life first originated. Instead, it passes the responsibility on to another place and another time, offering at best a partial solution to the question.
Crick and Orgel suggested that Directed Panspermia might help resolve some mysteries about life’s biochemistry. For instance, it could be the reason why the biological systems of Earth are dependent on molybdenum, when the chemically similar metals chromium and nickel are far more abundant. They suggested that the seeds for life on Earth could have originated from a location far richer in molybdenum.
Other scientists have noted, however, that in seawater molybdenum is more abundant than either chromium or nickel.
Coming full circle to his groundbreaking discovery of DNA’s structure, Crick wondered, if life began in the great “primeval soup” suggested by the Miller/Urey experiment, why there wouldn’t be a multitude of genetic materials among the different life forms. Instead, all life on Earth shares the same basic DNA structure.
Crick and Orgel wrote in their book ‘Life Itself,’ “an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
This doesn’t sound very “playful” to me. Crick and Orgel were as serious as a heart attack. I wonder if Crick would have classified Richard Dawkins as “an honest man”? If I seem to be giving Orgel short shrift it’s probably because I’m personally acquainted with Francis Crick’s son Michael who I collaborated with on an online multiplayer computer game design in the recent past.
29 Responses to The Dawkins Delusion a.k.a. The God Delusion
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think you are nitpicking on Dawkins choice of words, rather than really examining whether his ideas have merit. After his point is still quite valid – if an alien species did bring bacteria to earth, we do have to ask: how was that done?
This is actually an arguement I use often in debate when I argue against the existance of God. So far, used unsuccessfully due to the rather vaguely-defined nature of said God.
It is easy enough to convince someone when I refer to aliens creating life. The obvious question then is ‘where did the aliens come from?’ and so the idea of directed panspermia (Oh, people do love those long words) is often refered to informally as the ‘bootstraps theory.’ It is equivilent to trying to life yourself by your own bootstraps. The theory doesn’t answer the question of the origin of life at all – it only moves it.
It would seem obvious, at that point, to substitute God in place of the alient. Unfortunatly, as soon as I get God involved, excuses appear. The most common I see are suggestions that either God has always existed and so needs to origin, or that God exists outside of time and so, again, needs no origin. Xe soon aquires a new title, the ‘uncaused cause.’
This is rather an annoyance to me, but serves only to strengthen my own atheistic convictions: Declareing that God is beyond the realm of time sounds uncannily familiar to another mythical character with a reputation for delivering gifts to over a billion houses in one night.
I have yet to convince one person with the arguement: In every case, the debate degenerates into metaphysical ramblings on the nature of time. The problem with supernatural things is that you cant argue that they violate the laws of physics, causality, or even common-sense – they have the magical property that they can be redefined to be beyond any rational arguement.
I’ve just checked Pandas Thumb to see if they have posted anything on Dawkins wayward claims. They are dead against scientists being misrepresented, conflating science and metaphysics, etc, etc. Or so I have been led to believe.
Nothing yet. Funny, they are usually quite quick on this…
Come to think of it… what are the chances of seeing a review of The God Delusion on PT by, say, Nick Matzke?
if an alien species did bring bacteria to earth, we do have to ask: how was that done?
The Voyager spacecraft, like Elvis, has left the building for parts unknown. Also like Elvis it probably has some microbes hitching a ride on it. It’s not a huge step to purposely preserve microbes for the long haul and target the payload to a soft landing on a young earth-like world around another star. Indeed, the next generation of telescopes vying for funding are geared towards being able to resolve earth-size planets around stars and get spectroscopic analysis of their surface environment. If you ask me this is strong evidence that the evolution of a technologic species able to continue the cycle of life beyond the hospitable lifetime of any given planet was planned in advance. I would point out that this is in complete accord with Davison’s conviction that man is the terminal product of evolution. All that remains is for us to fulfill our mission or die trying.
raven
Naturalism contains all that exists within the observable universe. The consensus in cosmology is that there is more to the universe than what we are limited in seeing by the light speed barrier. Thus the supernatural is confirmed as much as it can be confirmed at this time.
antg
I’m not holding my breath waiting for the thumbsters to castigate Dawkins for removing the embarrassing essay I’m finding so entertaining. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place… they either acknowledge the embarrassing essay by their bright shining star or be righteously branded as double standard bearing hypocrites (DSBH).
I’ll have to work this into my now famous characterization of the them as the “Church Burnin’ Ebola Boys” (CBEB). Any ideas on how to modify it to reflect this?
We won’t have time to die trying to leave the earth for points unkown. This is it folks. Try to render this planet habitable once again instead of trying to find another one to screw up.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
Dr. Davison: Who needs a hug today?
Heh, that’s what I was thinking yesterday…all Dawkins really needs is a hug.
I have yet to convince one person with the arguement: In every case, the debate degenerates into metaphysical ramblings on the nature of time. The problem with supernatural things is that you cant argue that they violate the laws of physics, causality, or even common-sense – they have the magical property that they can be redefined to be beyond any rational arguement.
Comment by SuricouRaven  September 28, 2006 @ 10:30 am
Mmmmm, is not what you just defined the supernatural which is beyond the natural of this universe? The problem seems worse in your favor because to argue that they break such said laws you have to first establish what those laws are binding on and from whence they came.
IMHO : Cause and Effect are always needed within the known universe, such things cannot be said for those outside of it. Nothing creating something is beyond rational, it’s impossible!
By this we can see that Darwinism does NOT predict biological universals, contrary to what we hear today.
Francis Crick adds:
However, biological universals fit perfectly with Message Theory, since it serves as a unifying principle.
John Singleton,
You said, “I think you are nitpicking on Dawkins choice of words, rather than really examining whether his ideas have merit.”
No it is not nitpicking, Dawkins choice of words is important. Dawkins knows that Crick is making an intelligent design argument when he says that life came from aliens, so Dawkins attempts to minimize the seriousness of Crick’s assertion by calling it a “playful” specultation.
Considering that non-intelligent mechanisms could cause panspermia (e.g. a meteorite strikes an inhabited planet and lifts large amounts of matter into “space” in several directions), I have a hard time understanding why panspermia would be any sort of evidence of intelligent design. Sure, it could have been “directed” panspermia, but inventing a catch-phrase is hardly evidence.
More about panspermia:
– The Omni Space Almanac (1987) by Neil McAleer.
– Freeman Dyson in Infinite in All Directions (1988, from lectures written in 1985)
We won’t have time to die trying to leave the earth for points unkown. This is it folks. Try to render this planet habitable once again instead of trying to find another one to screw up.
Do we have a choice of whether or not to try? If you’re *really* a hardcore determinist then you must believe it doesn’t matter because the outcome is already written in granite. Why bother getting out of bed in the morning if free will is an illusion? Just go with the flow, man. Burn up those fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow. If you do it’s your unalterable destiny and if you don’t it’s still your unalterable destiny. No need to think about anything. It’s already been thought out for you and nothing you think can change anything. Hardcore determinism is depressing. Life has no meaning whatsoever absent free will.
SuricouRaven,
But if you do not have a God who is without origin, then how do you accept that matter is without origin? No matter how you work it, something exists without origin.
Hawks
In the interest of furthering your education I pulled your comment out of banned land.
Considering that non-intelligent mechanisms could cause panspermia (e.g. a meteorite strikes an inhabited planet and lifts large amounts of matter into “space†in several directions), I have a hard time understanding why panspermia would be any sort of evidence of intelligent design. Sure, it could have been “directed†panspermia, but inventing a catch-phrase is hardly evidence.
H.J. Melosh. 2003. “Exchange of Meteorites (and Life?) Between Stellar Systems.†Astrobiology 3:207.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jm.....permia.pdf
In other words, there ain’t a chance in hell a microbe arrived here by accident from another solar system. Because life appeared on earth so early in our solar system’s history it isn’t any more likely to have originated elsewhere in our solar system as on earth. So the only plausible panspermia is directed panspermia. QED
One thing we have to give credit to the “panspermianists”; their arguements put more knails in the coffin of abiogenesis. If hardline materialists/evolutionists are seeking elsewhere for the origin of life (except looking for God), and moving away from the religious belief that nature did its own creating, what does that tell you about all those abiogenetic scenarions still being proposed from time to time all over the globe? If they themselves have a hard time accepting it, why should we? Why should we have it taught in public schools using our money?
#16 by DaveScot
Yes indeed I am a hard core determinist just as Einstein was. What you forget is that we don’t know is what is going to happen next. Nobody does. I would like to think that Homo sapiens (literally wise man) would wake up and save himself from autodestruction. I don’t regard that as very likely judging from what I see going on around me. I don’t think anyone else does either.
I sincerely hope that the cosmic “prescribed” program includes the realization that we are committing suicide and that we have the good sense to reverse our policies before it is too late.
Let us pray to the God or Gods of our choice.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
Now, was my finding of the below essay, John Davison, by chance or by “design”? We began a dialog on Phi in another post; a Google search led me to this website and an excellent rebuttal to Dawkins. Obviously, totally random.
I will cite what I found of interest, because the write lets Dawkins have it with both barrels.
My own belief, which I found the writer echoes, is Dawkins confusion of God with human religion and his Utopian hope that the absence of belief in God will lead to “Paradise” on earth.
Let’s accept, as an oxymoronic “thought experiment”, that Darwin was right !
Then based on evolution, and being frail organisms without teeth and claws, human beings are the most violent species in the known Universe.
The cruelty of individuals and the governments made up of individual human beings will not cease were Dawkins accepted as the Messiah of atheisim!
Now, for the link and an excerpt:
http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/rdawkins.htm
Oh, to clarify, without “teeth and claws” I meant on the order of any other predator; thus, to survive, humans must be more “violent”. I don’t agree with that thought, but there you have it. However, I did admire the above “rebuttal” of “Dawkinism”!
Well, perhaps Dawkins will offer himself as an argument against “intelligent design”? Actually, I suspect “free will” is demonstrated by Dawkins’ beliefs and choices.
For those who want to learn more about “Phi”, here’s the link:
http://goldennumber.net/
In his own words – “I have a product to sell.” I told you he was a snake oil salesman didn’t I.? Of course I did. Don’t you folks ever listen? Apparently not. Invite him to participate here so you can have the have the pleasure of being snubbed by him.
Dawkins is to neo-Darwinism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckism, the quintessential charlatan.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
Maybe I too am wasting my time here, but this is a new review of Dawkins, highly critical. It appears Wiki is updating links to new reviews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
From today’s Sunday Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2375182.html
EXCERPT
From The Observer – the wit and wisdom of Richard Dawkins (kidding)!
This article also makes it clear that “big bang” cosmology may be used to support atheistic tenets.
I will just provide a link and avoid any inflamatory opinion, except I will quote from today’s review of in The Times, and I do agree:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2375182.html
Now, as to the interview and essay in The Observer, with the link, and no comments from me; draw your own conclusions. Feel free to Google (while Googling is still legal) Paul Davies and read his Templeton speech. Yawn!
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1873989,00.html
Excerpt from article:
Panspermia is hardly original with Francis Crick. It was first proposed by Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish physical chemist early in the last century. There is not a shred of evidence for it any more than there is that lfe exists anywhere else except here on earth. I have always regaded it as science fiction myself.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
I hate to inflict this upon readers, but here is Paul Davies’ Templeton Prize address, an excerpt, which makes my point that belief in the “big bang” is not necessarily conducive to theism.
Feel free to comment; I am always interested in intelligent observations.
http://aca.mq.edu.au/PaulDavies/prize_address.htm
EXCERPT
Davies is often cited as a Christian scientist, but he says he’s not affiliated with any religion. His God is a weak, pitiful joke who can do nothing and is worthy of no praise, let alone worship. I often ask myself why on earth Christians ever quote him or use him as a resource, since it’s obvious his God is not the God of Christianity.
For Jason the Greek, and anyone else reading:
Just in – The Spectator review today of Dawkins The God Delusion . You have to register to read the review, but I’ll provide the link and an excerpt. I have quoted Charles Moore, i.e., this essay:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opi.....do0801.xml
Now, on to his review, and as I just did, he quotes Shakespeare:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the.....ness.thtml