Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Richard Dawkins.net ^ | 4/20/08 | Richard Dawkins

[Fichori]

"Is the test of the theory who believes it, or who survives?"

Quite irrelevant to my rhetorical question to which you replied.

[Fichori]

"My understanding of Evolution is that the stronger animals kill the weaker animals."

"Stop right there and go read evolution 101"

I actually read that in an Evolutionary textbook.

Of course that book was from ~20-30 years ago, so it might not be up to your standard for Evolution.

[Fichori]

"ID does not have a competing scientific argument to evolution. Hence the reason it can't be taught in science class. It could be discussed in philosophy or comparative religion, however. If you know what scientific evidence exists for ID, please share it. No one else will."

Then why not let students debate and decide?

Why are 'educators' so afraid of ID?

[Fichori]

"Why is it that whenever people who are anti-science want to make their anti-science points, they drag out Einstein making quotes on social issues? Einstein was no better qualified to make a statement on social science or cultural issues than Forrest Gump.

If pictures of Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi Solute doesn’t convince you that some members of the Church were nazis, then nothing will."

Enough of the 'anti-science' garbage.

There is a difference between Evolution and Empirical Science and you know it.

[Soliton]

There is a difference between Evolution and Empirical Science and you know it.

Evolution theory includes an immense amount of empirical science. ID has none. For each experiment you provide that supports ID (not criticizes evolution), I will provide 5 that supports some aspect of evolution theory.

[Soliton]

There is a difference between Evolution and Empirical Science and you know it.

Evolution theory includes an immense amount of empirical science. ID has none. For each experiment you provide that supports ID (not criticizes evolution), I will provide 5 that supports some aspect of evolution theory.

[Fichori]

You can post it a couple more times for good measure, but that will not change the facts.

Evolution is based on Naturalistic Science.

Naturalistic Science is based on Dogmatic Assumptions.

Dogmatic Assumptions are not Empirical Science.

[tacticalogic]

Quite irrelevant to my rhetorical question to which you replied.

If you're going to use Hitler as an individual as your example, then his fitness as a leader is measured by his ability to attract followers. If he finds himself opposed by a majority, and fails to survive as a result then it's a distinction without a difference.

[Fichori]

Enough of the stawmen.

You are twisting my statement to mean something I never intended.

[Soliton]

Scientists force evolution in the lab
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/

Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030508075843.htm

Evolution in the Laboratory: Up Close and Personal
http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=84

To Test Evolution, Press the ‘Undo’ Button
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DEFD61731F93BA25750C0A9659C8B63

[tacticalogic]

What did you intend? To judge the validity of the theory by the actions of someone who professed to believe it?

[Fichori]

What I intended to show was that survival of the fittest does not apply to all battlefields all the time.

Which I am quite sure was totally obvious to anyone endowed with intelligence.

Descendants of monkeys not included.

[Caramelgal]

I’m inclined to consider the entire subject more apropos for a survey of religions and belief systems class.

A distinction between all these different belief systems and hard, replicable true science would go a long way toward making the whole discussion more honest.

And where there are historical proofs, such as the finding of Sodom, of the submerged Egyptian chariots circa the Exodus, etc. then let them be considered historial proofs, yet not science.

Like it or not, Archeology is a scientific discipline and subjected to the same objective scientific methods as any other scientific discipline.

You may wish to relegate the discussions of all the relative merits of all the possible theories of who the “intelligent designer” is or was to what you call “a survey of religions and belief systems class” (what in academia is referred to as “Comparative Religion” or “Theology” or “Philosophy” or “Ethical” studies) and rightly so because that’s just were such discussions belong – because these spiritual arguments really have no place in a Biology class. But if you are going to propose ID as a relevant and alternate scientific biological theory and subject to the scientific method, then you just can’t ignore the very basic question of who or what is or was the “designer” – where did he or she or it come from, who designed the designer and what is his or her or it’s nature – is it singular or plural? Is the theory of one possible intelligent designer superior to another and why? These are answers that science doesn’t wish or choose to answer. These are questions best left to theologians and even atheists to debate among one another in some forum but not in the science classroom.

And the archeological discovery of an ancient city like Sodom, referenced in the Bible, gives the Bible no more credence as a scientific text book as does the discovery of the ancient city of Troy gives Greek mythology equal credence as a scientific text. The Bible references many historical places and historical events but doesn’t once mention the city of Troy but that doesn’t mean that Troy didn’t exist historically.

And without further investigation, the finding of a single chariot wheel at the bottom of the Red Sea is not alone substantive proof of the story of Exodus. Of course if you already firmly believe that Exodus is an irrefutable historical fact without any need for further evidence, then this finding only buttresses your beliefs and any discovery to the contrary is going to be dismissed by you as false and irrelevant. And isn’t that the same argument that the ID’ers and creationists use against evolutionary theory? But I would submit that evolutionary theory has “evolved” to some extent and expanded due to an open and honest and sometimes very spirited debate among evolutionary biologists given additional empirical evidence that doesn’t dismiss the original theory in it’s entirety but may either prove or modify some of it’s earlier premises.

It is rather obvious that you already have the firm and unmovable belief that it is the God of Abraham who is the “intelligent designer” of your ID theory. I say this because you affirm and firmly believe that “historial proofs”, mentioning Sodom and Exodus, and making your belief system more “honest” and scientifically and historically provable over all and every other possible creation theory.

I really have no axe to grind with you on what you choose to believe in spiritually or what religion you choose to follow. I defend your right to exercise your religious beliefs freely under our Constitution. But I do have a problem with theology and in particular that one specific theological belief being forcibly taught as “scientific fact” when there is no basis in fact to substantiate that your religious belief is more scientifically provable than any other. If you really need science to substantiate your belief then perhaps your belief isn’t all that strong to begin with.

And even the most ardent supporters of Evolution, some of whom, but not all of whom are also Atheists (even Dawkins), are not demanding that science and Evolution and Atheism be taught in your Sunday school classes as a religious theory equal to your religious beliefs as some religious creationists and ID’ers are demanding that their religiously based creationism and ID theories have to be given an equal voice in the science classroom.

[Petronski]

The letter seems very fake and contrived. The public response makes the entire exercise self-serving and bizarre.

[Soliton]

Thanks for your input!

[Soliton]

I gave you four examples of empirical evidence supporting evolution. Where’s yours supporting ID?

[Soliton]

But if you are going to propose ID as a relevant and alternate scientific biological theory and subject to the scientific method, then you just can’t ignore the very basic question of who or what is or was the “designer” – where did he or she or it come from, who designed the designer and what is his or her or it’s nature – is it singular or plural? Is the theory of one possible intelligent designer superior to another and why?

You have a beautiful mind.

[js1138]

The “not so well known” quote from Einstien is all over the internet. What is not documented is when he said it and to whom. There is no reference to it or source in the Einstein archives in Israel. The custodian of the archives is on record as thinking the quote is bogus.

[Fichori]

Evolutionary Science is based on Methodological Naturalism.

Methodological Naturalism is based on philosophical assumptions.

It is technically impossible to disprove a philosophical assumption.[1]

Methodological Naturalism can not give a non-naturalistic explanation, even if the evidence clearly indicates a non-naturalistic explanation.[1]

Methodological Naturalism makes the philosophical assumption that all things are naturalistic and all explanations must be naturalistic, regardless of evidence.


It doesn't mater how many links to articles you post, Evolution is still based on philosophical assumptions and that is still not empirical science.


Empirical Science is the best thing that ever happened for the observation of phoneme.

Methodological Naturalism is the worst.


The difference being, the former can validate what is observed, and the later can validate what is not observed.

[Fichori]

"I gave you four examples of empirical evidence supporting evolution. Where’s yours supporting ID?"

You can demand of me evidence for ID after I start teaching it in public schools.

For now, I am happy to discuss with such people as yourself the merits of what is currently being taught in afore mentioned schools.