Richard Dawkins' Meaningful Meaninglessness

evolutionnews.org ^ | March 11, 2009 | Robert Crowther

[Gordon Greene]

Alas, poor Richard. Ever since being thrashed by Ben Stein in Expelled he's just gotten more and more nonsensical. Then, it was that there is no intelligent design of life, except of course maybe alien-directed intelligent design. Now, it seems he has decided to follow some recent sage advice and avoid using the “d” word. And, he’s scrapped his previous idea of using designoid as a replacement.

Then Dawkins got to the essential framework of the rest of his talk, making a distinction within purpose between the purpose that comes about as adaptation via natural selection, which he called “archi-purpose”, and the purpose that comes about through the intent of a planning brain, which he called “neo-purpose”. Archi-purpose, then, resembles an intentional purpose, but is not such: the resemblance is an illusion. Neo-purpose, as Dawkins views it, is itself an evolved adaptation. Now it looks like he’ll just go with purpose instead. You can have unintentional design, or instinctual design, or whatever you want to call it — spider’s webs, snowflakes, etc. But you can’t have unintentional intention, or unpurposeful purpose. It seems that purpose is less of an illusion even than design is.

So, what do Lewis Carroll and Richard Dawkins have in common? They both taught at Oxford and they both spouted nonsense (but only in one case intentionally).

"You are old, Father Williams," the young man said, "And your hair has become very white; and yet you incessantly stand on your head. Do you think, at your age it is right?"

"In my youth," Father Williams replied to his son, "I feared it might injure the brain; But, now that I'm perfectly sure I have none, Why, I do it again and again." (Lewis Carroll)

[Gordon Greene]

A discussion of the twisted logic and nonsensical reasoning the Evolutionists go through to explain their theory... er... religion. I particularly liked this excerpt;

"But you can’t have unintentional intention, or unpurposeful purpose. It seems that purpose is less of an illusion even than design is."

[pnh102]

Richard Dawkins is still alive? Wow!

[grey_whiskers]

Then Dawkins got to the essential framework of the rest of his talk, making a distinction within purpose between the purpose that comes about as adaptation via natural selection, which he called “archi-purpose”, and the purpose that comes about through the intent of a planning brain, which he called “neo-purpose”.

Sounds *exactly* like Weston's description of "The Force" or "Life-Force" in Out of the Silent Planet.

New generations, same old errors.

Cheers!

[Star Traveler]

“Meaningful Meaninglessness”

Ummmm..., what?! Is Dawkins writing his biography now?

[tacticalogic]

A discussion of the twisted logic and nonsensical reasoning the Evolutionists go through to explain their theory... er... religion.

Ah yes. All "evolutionists" are Richard Dawkins.......

[Gordon Greene]

Refer to my, “Whipped Puppy” theory on the previous evolution post...

Bless Pooh.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

You can have unintentional design, or instinctual design, ...... But you can’t have unintentional intention, or unpurposeful purpose.

[tacticalogic]

Refer to "glittering generalities" and "guilt by association"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/546409/posts

[Gordon Greene]

Pictures perfect! Good catch.

[Gordon Greene]

Word of advice... You shouldn’t make your side’s methods so obvious. Someone’s bound to catch on.

Or maybe you should talk to some of your evolution buddies who seem to share all the same methods. It’s like having to pay more for car insurance because your kid’s younger than 25. He may be a great driver but all the rest of the 16-25 year old’s give him a bad name.

[tacticalogic]

Word of advice... You shouldn’t make your side’s methods so obvious. Someone’s bound to catch on.

I'm counting on them figuring it out. That's why I keep giving them that infomation.

[Rudder]

...a distinction...between the purpose that comes about as adaptation via natural selection, which he called “archi-purpose”, and the purpose that comes about through the intent of a planning brain, which he called “neo-purpose”. Archi-purpose, then, resembles an intentional purpose, but is not such: the resemblance is an illusion. Neo-purpose, as Dawkins views it, is itself an evolved adaptation.

This point of Dawkins, however, has been successfully established as fact. For example, finding and eating food, would be a "archipurpose" to Dawkens, and is historically referred to a a basic drive in the parlance of biology. And in that quest for food, knowing what is edible and proper to eat is what Dawkin's would call "neopurpose," and which biologists and animal behaviorists term, "learned behavior." Both the ability to benefit from such learned behaviors (neopurpose) and the expression of basic drives (eating when hungry) have been well- demonstrated adaptive advantages in the evolutionary sense.

[melsec]

While I know what you say is true it hasn’t stopped many evolutionists and especially the media hitching a ride on his shooting star - so they can all crash and burn with him and if other evolutionists have to suffer through that then tough.

Many Evolutionists have long used stupid or dead arguements used by some ill informed Christians to lampoon anyone who may be a creationist - now you may be getting some backlash from that - not nice and very frustrating isn’t it.

Cheers

Mel

[hinckley buzzard]

I often wonder what private demons drive these rabid anti-religionists. Regardless of the virtue of, for example Richard Dawkins' argument, such as it is, the feverish hostility toward a belief system that has done him no harm is itself highly irrational.

A normal person might lack faith and assume that religous faith is mere superstition; but a normal person doesn't launch a vendetta against people whose views simply differ in ways which make no difference to his life.

I don't believe in aliens from other planets visiting earth. I think those who claim to have been abducted by them are deluded. But I feel no reason to hate them and attack them in public.

So maybe some atheist can explain, believe what you will, but why the anger and logical contortions?

[cookcounty]

It certainly is humorous to see how frequently the language of design and intent is used to deny that there is design or intent.

It’s as if the evolutionists have not evolved language to carry their thoughts.

But for some of us, it at least provides comic relief.

[cookcounty]

"Ah yes. All "evolutionists" are Richard Dawkins.......

Well no. Some believe God used an unintended process to arrive at the intended and purposed a purposeless process to arrive at a purposed end.

[Fichori]

In case you haven't seen it:
Atheism: An Irrational Worldview

[leonid]

Well no. Some believe God used an unintended process to arrive at the intended and purposed a purposeless process to arrive at a purposed end.

THANK YOU!

I believe my God is powerful and smart enough to create purposeful life with mere "dirt" and gracious enough to send his son as a dirt-born being to save us! :o)

Some people seem to act like scientists enjoy manipulating data/fossils/whatever to fit some crazy world-view on eugenics and then compare the theory (theory as in "Can be changed if new data/deviation is found") of evolution to the racial beliefs of Hitler.. It is quite a sad technique. "In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it." - St.Augustine of Hippo

[tacticalogic]

I know a lot of people of good faith and character who have Christian beliefs that don't conflict with evolution or old-Earth theory.

I'd consider it a cheap shot to portray all Christians as Jim Jones or Fred Phelps.

[tacticalogic]

Well no. Some believe God used an unintended process to arrive at the intended and purposed a purposeless process to arrive at a purposed end.

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone express those beliefs.