Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)
Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: biblethumpers; cary; creation; crevolist; dawkins; evolution; excellentessay; funnyresponses; hahahahahahaha; liberalgarbage; phenryjerkalert; smegheads
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 2,661-2,678 next last
To: agrace
According the writers she did. And of course, there was Cassandra, cursed by the gods to be able to tell the future, but have no one believe her.

The ancient world is rife with stories of people chatting with gods and predicting the future (and having the prophesy come true). However, whereas you would dismiss such claims from another religion, you accept them in yours.

321 posted on 05/25/2005 12:51:38 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
And what, in your view, was Galileo's 'crime'? Is it your position that the church should be above criticism?

No. It is my position that when a man is condemned for his frontal attack on the Church, it should not be mis-interpreted as Church hatred for science. It was about politics, not science.

Shalom.

322 posted on 05/25/2005 12:52:14 PM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
And that you too, putty tat.


323 posted on 05/25/2005 12:53:14 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
No, but glaring empirical inaccuracy would detract from any other claims made.

Such as there being no evidence in Egyptian writings that the Hebrews were ever enslaved, or that 10 plagues occurred?

324 posted on 05/25/2005 12:53:33 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Yeah, this is great news for conservatives.

The "sarcasm" tag got lost somehow. This is terrible news for the conservatives.

325 posted on 05/25/2005 12:53:42 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: donh
...and rarely seen here coming from the defenders of evolutionary theory posting here, nor from scientists, that I am aware of.

I responded to one such in post #97. It may be rare, but I don't spend much time on these threads.

Just off hand, I'd guess that your distaste for some particular thrust of rhetoric is probably not universally the same thing as "playing some vague debating game".

Good guess, but I'd have to disagree. I suppose you scored a point, though I don't really understand the rules.

Shalom.

326 posted on 05/25/2005 12:55:07 PM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: billorites

Ping to self for later pingout.

One point the august author fails to mention is that there are many creationists who do not toe the standard "Biblical" line. Creationists or intelligent design people who recognize that the earth is millions of years old, but do not swallow Darwinist theory for a plethora of reasons.

Trying to promote evolution by dismantling "the earth is only 6,000 years old" and then patting oneself on the back is silliness.

"Forbidden Archeology - The Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael Cremo is a good place to start.


327 posted on 05/25/2005 12:56:08 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
It is my position that when a man is condemned for his frontal attack on the Church, it should not be mis-interpreted as Church hatred for science.

Do you dispute the accuracy of Ichneumon's citations of the Galileo case in his #266? How do you not read that as a condemnation of science?

328 posted on 05/25/2005 12:56:18 PM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes
BUT If our side is correct, I sure wouldn't want to be in your place at the last roundup!

Why is it that believers almost always refer to "us" and "ours" instead of "me" and "mine"? Good evidence for some insecurity in their faith, I think.

329 posted on 05/25/2005 1:00:05 PM PDT by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Thank you Gummy. When you're around I know that I'll end a thread smiling.


330 posted on 05/25/2005 1:01:56 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
But the specific politics were that the churches position was that the planets were moved by the will of God. Expressing any other opinion was criminal. It was a matter of faith and the pope had spoken.

That amounts to hatred of science.

You can't change that by focusing on Galileo's (correct and moral) defiance of church authority. Many other scientists of the day agreed with Galileo privately. Galileo was brave and honest putting his scientific opinion on paper. That's why everybody knows his name, nobody knows which of the corrupt midevil popes was on the other side.

331 posted on 05/25/2005 1:03:04 PM PDT by Dinsdale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Okay, so if speciation can be accomplished by nothing more than breeding, why can't it happen that way naturally?


332 posted on 05/25/2005 1:09:43 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
A few Galileo links from The List-O-Links:
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Galileo's opinion about science/scripture conflicts.
The Crime of Galileo: Indictment and Abjuration of 1633. The heresy confession.
Trial of Galileo Galilei in 1633.
Faith can never conflict with reason. The Pope's 1992 statement on Galileo and science/scripture conflicts.
333 posted on 05/25/2005 1:10:24 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Okay, so if speciation can be accomplished by nothing more than breeding, why can't it happen that way naturally?

It would cause unemployment among the angels, and their union won't allow it.

334 posted on 05/25/2005 1:11:35 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
The Church did misbehave. So did Galileo.

So you would agree that it's a crime (or at least misbehavior) to question church doctrine? Misbehavior punishable by imprisonment.

I'm wondering what the moral equivalence is between someone publishing a theory, and a church imprisoning a person for disagreeing with them.

How is this behaviour of the church different from the behavior of the Taliban?

335 posted on 05/25/2005 1:17:31 PM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Dawkins is not a Marxist. Please retract.

<creationistLogic>All Marxists are atheists, therefore all atheists are Marxists</creationistLogic>

336 posted on 05/25/2005 1:21:40 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
So many???? Out of what total, do you suppose?

I don't care about the "total."

Of course you don't, because than you'd have to wrestle with the absurdity of this argument--you don't care to uncover this question because you know perfectly well that virtually all biologists are pursuaded by evolutionary theory. There is no vast controversy within the scientific community about the reliability of the theory of evolution, no matter how much confident-looking preening and strutting you do. That is a plain and obvious fact anyone can check out for themselves by going to any reputable university natural history department or biology department, and taking a poll of the scientists you find lurking there.

337 posted on 05/25/2005 1:22:13 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: trisham

As a veteran of a thousand crevo wars, I can say we're well beyond that stage.


338 posted on 05/25/2005 1:23:10 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: fire and forget; Ichneumon

Ich is Ichneumon. However, ich bin nicht Ichneumon. Ich bin der Rechtsprofessor.


339 posted on 05/25/2005 1:24:40 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Danke fur das. Ich auch bin nicht Ich :)


340 posted on 05/25/2005 1:26:30 PM PDT by fire and forget
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 2,661-2,678 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson