Posted on 01/05/2005 9:15:52 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Science's scourge of believers declares his faith in Darwin
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
(Filed: 05/01/2005)
Prof Richard Dawkins, the scourge of those who maintain their belief in a god, has declared that he, too, holds a belief that cannot yet be proved.
In a recent letter to a national newspaper, Prof Dawkins said believers might now be disillusioned with an omnipotent being who had just drowned tens of thousands of innocent people in Asia. "My naive guess was that believers might be feeling more inclined to curse their god than pray to him."
|
|
|
|
|
Now the Oxford University evolutionary biologist is among the 117 scientists, futurists and other creative thinkers who have responded to the question: "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" posed by John Brockman, a New York-based literary agent and publisher of The Edge, a website devoted to science.
"I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection," said Prof Dawkins in the responses published yesterday on www.edge.org.
That, of course, means that there is no need for a god to design the universe: "It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe."
Other respondents to the Edge survey include:
Sir Martin Rees, of Cambridge University, Astronomer Royal: "I believe that intelligent life may presently be unique to our Earth but that, even so, it has the potential to spread through the galaxy and beyond.
"Advanced intelligences billions of years hence might even create new universes. Perhaps they'll be able to choose what physical laws prevail in their creations.
"My belief may remain unprovable for billions of years. It could be falsified sooner - for instance, we (or our immediate post-human descendents) may develop theories that reveal inherent limits to complexity. But it's a substitute for religious belief, and I hope it's true."
Dr Stephen Schneider, Stanford University climatologist: "I believe that global warming is both a real phenomenon and at least partially a result of human activities such as dumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Prof Dan Dennett, philosopher, Tufts University: "I believe, but cannot yet prove, that acquiring a human language (an oral or sign language) is a necessary precondition for consciousness - in the strong sense of there being a subject, an I, a `something it is like something to be'.
"It would follow that non-human animals and pre-linguistic children, although they can be sensitive, alert, responsive to pain and suffering, and cognitively competent in many remarkable ways are not really conscious (in this strong sense). This assertion is shocking to many people, who fear that it would demote animals and pre-linguistic children from moral protection, but this would not follow."
Tom Standage, Technology Editor of The Economist: "I believe that the radiation emitted by mobile phones is harmless. My argument is not based so much on the scientific evidence because there isn't very much of it, and what little there is has either found no effect or is statistically dubious. Instead, it is based on a historical analogy with previous scares about overhead power lines and cathode-ray computer monitors (VDUs). Both were also thought to be dangerous, yet years of research failed to find conclusive evidence of harm.
"Mobile phones seem to be the latest example of what has become a familiar pattern: anecdotal evidence suggests that a technology might be harmful, and however many studies fail to find evidence of harm, there are always calls for more research. The underlying problem, of course, is the impossibility of proving a negative."
Prof Joseph LeDoux, New York University neuroscientist: "I believe that animals have feelings and other states of consciousness, but neither I nor anyone else has been able to prove it.
"We can't even prove that other people are conscious, much less other animals. In the case of other people, though, we at least can have a little confidence since all people have brains with the same basic configurations."
And here's a related thread containing a New York Times article.
That really lets the cat out of the bag! Thanks for the post, snarks_when_bored.
His Selfish Gene is showing.
I believe I'll have a beer.
DU makes this point debatable...
These researchers failed to consider that the harm that results from CRT's comes mainly from the program content displayed thereon.
LCD's can get you just as easily.
""My naive guess was that believers might be feeling more inclined to curse their god than pray to him."
Why?
How convenient of atheists to forget that it is Satan who creates hardship and death on the earth .
It is up to man to overcome his influence.
Here's another from Dawkins, from The Edge (1999): "Is Science Killing the Soul?"
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge53.html
Just in case you haven't seen it.
Thanks for the link!
Well, that's honest at least. As the intelligent design theorists have shown, the odds against present day reality having evolved out of primordial hydrogen by pure chance and among living things by natural selection are so astronomical that you have to posit the existence of an infinite number of universes, in one of which the constants are slanted in a way that makes possible the existence of earthly life. Of course we happen to live in that one. In an infinite number of other universes, of course, there are no human beings to notice that the constants are wrong for them to exist.
In other words, Darwinists are more credible than Christians. Darwin himself was driven by hatred of his father, whose religious faith he resented and learned to despise, much like the hero of Samuel Butler's "The Way of All Flesh."
"How convenient of atheists to forget that it is Satan who creates hardship and death on the earth."
"Forget"? I think the word is "disbelieve".
"How convenient of atheists to forget that it is Satan who creates hardship and death on the earth."
Who created Job's hardships? and Noah's? and Jesus'? or are we to believe that these are merely tests of faith that must be endured?
"How convenient of atheists to forget that it is Satan who creates hardship and death on the earth. It is up to man to overcome his influence."
I won't defend atheists, so don't take it this way. However, you are incorrect in your statements. You need to go back and actually read the Bible. God is ultimately in control of everything that occurs. He either allows it to happen (as in Job) or causes it to happen (the Ten Plagues of Eygyt - the hardening of Pharoah's heart). God is sovereign and not held hostage to the either the will of Satan or Man. Everything occurs according to His purpose which is always not evident to us.
Be assured of this though. God does All thing well.
So who created the intellegent designer?
It would be so much easier for Christians if they would acknowledge that God has the power to have created evolution. They would avoid having to answer such questions as "which designer" and where did he come from, and what about all those fossils.
In the end, creationism/ID will be damaging to Christianity as well as conservative politics. It will split the conservative movment, which is why the left brought up the subject the day after the election.
It's a modest position, probably held tentatively. And it lies beyond the possibility of confirmation in his (or our) lifetimes.
Nobody's going to found a religion on that sort of view, that's for sure.
Maybe someone at the Discovery Institute will do some real science for once and use Mitocondrial DNA to show how long it's been since those animals on the Ark lived.
I don't have any religious objections to evolution. As a Catholic, I believe that God created Adam and Eve, but He could have ensouled them from the children of primates. My objections are scientific. The odds against are just prohibitive.
Yes, if you introduce God GUIDING evolution, then that takes care of the improbability. God could have created the Big Bang, etc., as far as I'm concerned. But Darwinism rules God out as its first premise.
Sir Martin Rees, of Cambridge University, Astronomer Royal: "I believe that intelligent life may presently be unique to our Earth but that, even so, it has the potential to spread through the galaxy and beyond.
"Advanced intelligences billions of years hence might even create new universes. Perhaps they'll be able to choose what physical laws prevail in their creations.
"My belief may remain unprovable for billions of years. It could be falsified sooner - for instance, we (or our immediate post-human descendents) may develop theories that reveal inherent limits to complexity. But it's a substitute for religious belief, and I hope it's true."
Weird.
I believe Dawkin's willfully resisting the evidence because he wants to believe his own myth.
He has a "I am at the center of the cosmos" meme
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.