Posted on 12/18/2006 8:12:55 AM PST by SJackson
Reviewers have not been kind to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, professor of something called "the public understanding of science" at Oxford. Critics have found it to be the atheist's mirror image of Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism - long on in-your-face rhetoric and offensively dismissive of all those holding an opposing view.
Princeton University philosopher Thomas Nagel found Dawkins's "attempts at philosophy, along with a later chapter on religion and ethics, particularly weak." Prof. Terry Eagleton began his London Review of Books critique: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the British Book of Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
Dawkins's "central argument" is that because every complex system must be created by an even more complex system, an intelligent designer would have had to be created by an even greater super-intellect.
New York Times reviewer Jim Holt described this argument as the equivalent of the child's question, "Mommy, who created God?"
Nagel provides the grounds for rejecting this supposed proof. People do not mean by God "a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world" but rather a Being outside the physical world - the "purpose or intention of a mind without a body, capable nevertheless of creating and forming the entire physical world."
He points out further that the same kind of problem Dawkins poses to the theory of design plagues evolutionary theory, of which Dawkins is the preeminent contemporary popularizer. Evolution depends on the existence of pre-existing genetic material - DNA - of incredible complexity, the existence of which cannot be explained by evolutionary theory.
So who created DNA? Dawkins's response to this problem, writes Nagel, is "pure hand-waving" - speculation about billions of alternative universes and the like.
As a charter member of the Church of Darwin, Dawkins not only subscribes to evolutionary theory as the explanation for the morphology of living creatures, but to the sociobiologists' claim that evolution explains all human behavior. For sociobiologists, human development, like that of all other species, is the result of a ruthless struggle for existence. Genes seek to reproduce themselves and compete with one another in this regard. In the words of the best-known sociobiologist, Harvard's E.O. Wilson, "An organism is only DNA's way of making more DNA."
THAT PICTURE of human existence, argues the late Australian philosopher of science David Stove in Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution, constitutes a massive slander against the human race, as well as a distortion of reality.
The Darwinian account, for instance, flounders on widespread altruistic impulses that have always characterized humans in all places and times. Nor can it explain why some men act as heroes even though by doing so they risk their own lives and therefore their capacity to reproduce, or why societies should idealize altruism and heroism. How, from an evolutionary perspective, could such traits have developed or survived?
The traditional Darwinian answer is that altruism is but an illusion, or a veneer of civilization imposed upon our real natures. That answer fails to explain how that veneer could have come about in the first place. How could the first appeal to higher moral values have ever found an author or an audience? David Stove offers perhaps the most compelling reason for rejecting the views of those who deny the very existence of human altruism: "I am not a lunatic."
IN 1964, biologist W.D. Hamilton first expounded a theory explaining how much of what appears to us as altruism is merely genes' clever way of assuring the propagation of their type via relatives sharing that gene pool. The preeminent defender of Darwin - Dawkins - popularized this theory in The Selfish Gene.
Among the predictions Hamilton made is: "We expect to find that no one is prepared to sacrifice his life for any single person, but that everyone will sacrifice it for more than two brothers [or offspring], or four half-brothers, or eight first cousins," because those choices result in a greater dissemination of a particular gene pool.
To which Stove responds: "Was an expectation more obviously false than this one ever held (let alone published) by any human being?" Throughout history, men have sacrificed themselves for those bearing no relationship to them, just as others have refused to do so for more than two brothers. Here is a supposedly scientific theory bearing no relationship to any empirical reality ever observed. Stove offers further commonsense objections: Parents act more altruistically toward their offspring than siblings toward one another, even though in each pair there is an overlap of half the genetic material. If Hamilton's theory were true, we should expect to find incest widespread. In fact, it is taboo. Finally, the theory is predicated on the dubious proposition that animals, or their genes, can tell a sibling from a cousin, and a cousin from other members of the same species.
SOCIOBIOLOGY, Stove demonstrates, is a religion and genes are its gods. In traditional religion, humans exist for the greater glory of God; in sociobiology, humans and all other living things exist for the benefit of their genes. "We are... robot-vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes," writes Dawkins. Like God, Dawkins's genes are purposeful agents, far smarter than man.
He describes how a certain cuckoo parasitically lays its eggs in the nest of the reed warbler, where the cuckoo young get more food by virtue of their wider mouths and brighter crests, as a process in which the cuckoo genes have tricked the reed warbler. Thus, for Dawkins, genes are capable of conceiving a strategy no man could have thought of and of putting into motion the complicated engineering necessary to execute that strategy.
Writing in 1979, Prof. R.D. Alexander made the bald assertion: "We are programmed to use all our effort, and in fact to use our lives, in production." And yet it is obvious that most of what we do has nothing to do with reproduction, and never more so than at the present, when large parts of the civilized world are becoming rapidly depopulated. Confronted with these obvious facts about human nature and behavior, sociobiologists respond by ascribing them to "errors of heredity."
As Stove tartly observes: "Because their theory of man is badly wrong, they say that man is badly wrong; that he incorporates many and grievous biological errors." But the one thing a scientific theory may never do, Stove observes, is "reprehend the facts."
It may observe them, or predict new facts to be discovered, but not criticize those before it. The only question that remains is: How could so many intelligent men say so many patently silly things? For Dawkins, the answer would no doubt be one of those evolutionary "misfires," such as that to which he attributes religious belief.
Okay. Is that the process by which you find these long equidistant sequences?
But observing the effects of gravity doesn't explain what it is, or why it is. The effects of gravity can be explained mathematically. Can the effects of evolution? The analogy doesn't fit.
You can believe that all you want, but it doesnt make it so. Show me one piece of evidence that was shoehorned into the theory.
If you believe in the Judaeo Christian explanation I can show you dozens of cases of shoehorning facts. The facts do not support Adam and Eve, Noah, Samson and all of the Bronze Age Hebrew myths. I apologize if you are a follower of Odin, SHiva or any of the other gods.
I dont have the ability to digest synthetic material, do you?
You mean that it's not Bill Clinton? ;o)
Absolutely not. Its by spacing; say you read every 50th character, ignoring the ones in between. The written text literally contains multiple statements, each at it's own spacing, but all of them agree as to subject. Read the book.
What do you mean "absolutely not?"? The only way you can read every 50th character is to start by enumerating the characters, so that you know which ones to read.
"But observing the effects of gravity doesn't explain what it is, or why it is."
You're finally coming around! So can we now agree that evolution is observable?
"The effects of gravity can be explained mathematically. Can the effects of evolution? The analogy doesn't fit."
The Theory of Gravity is much more tenuous than the theory of evolution. There is more evidence supporting the THeory of Evolution than there is supporting the various Theories of Gravity. There is no overwhelming scientific consensus as to how gravity really works because there are too many variables. The effects of gravity can be explained mathematically but the phenomenon of Gravity cannot. Of course there are no strident opponents of Gravity so that is often overlooked.
Good grief. Take a look at just about every one of PatrickHenry's posts that supposedly brought forth some new evidence to "confirm" evolutionary theory. Those articles always had some scientist describing how the find fit in with the theory. And that circular logic was always fairly well exposed in the course of the discussion on the thread. For example, some fossil is discovered which is spliced into the "Tree of Life." Why is it assumed that this new discovery necessarily has to be a "missing link" in the development of species, and wasn't, rather, just a dead-end that resulted in the ascent of nothing?
And as to the biblical story of origins, I have my own beliefs, but frankly, it's much more fun tearing down the presumptions of the Darwinists. All that has to be shown is that Darwinism isn't as bulletproof as the professional evolutionists say it is.
"What are you talking about? First of all the first living cell CAN be explained without recourse to ID. THere are a few very plausible and likely explanations. But they have nothing to do with EVOLUTION."
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Even the top experts who study abiogenesis concede that they cannot explain the astounding complexity of the simplest known living cell in terms of random natural processes without ID. That's a well known fact. Even Dawkins more or less admits that we don't have an explanation yet. In fact, although I don't have a reference handy, several mathematicians claim to have *proved* that the simplest living cell could *not* have come about through purely random processes.
It's not wonder people like you are so confused about evolution. You don't understand even the most basic reality about our understanding of the origin of life.
I am a believer now but you have a very valid point.As a child,I noticed that the"religious"folks acted no better or moral than the atheists and agnostics.I saw how phony so many of the churchgoers were,worshipping money and status over Jesus and His teachings.
Yet as I got older,I came to God on my own.I simply saw too many patterns to my life that indicated that I was fulfilling a higher purpose and that there HAD to be a higher power somewhere directing it all.That could be MY delusion,I am skeptical enough to admit,but it makes more sense than to believe were are just cell clusters blindly walking the Earth with no Soul and no life beyond this one.
Gravity is a "fact".
Things falling is an observation of the pull of bodies towards each other.
Bodies pulling towards each other is called gravity. (do you dispute any of these facts?)
Evolution is a "fact".
Fruit flies changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change.
Organisms changing generation to generation is called evolution. (do you dispute any of these facts?)
The "facts" of gravity require an explanation.
Aristotle and Galileo, created explanations of the "fact" of gravity. These are now obsolete explanations. Newton created an explanation which is substantially correct as far as it goes but turned out to require refinement.
Einstein's explanation, refining Newton's is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of gravity.
The "facts" of evolution require an explanation.
Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis were created as explanations of the "fact" of evolution. These are now obsolete explanations. Darwin created an explanation which is substantially correct as far as it goes, but turned out to require refinement.
The Neo-Darwinist explanation is currently the most accepted explanation of the "fact" of evolution.
Gravity is a "fact" and a "theory."
Evolution is a "fact" and a "theory."
So, as you have stated, we have the atheists and agnostics and then all the rest, the idiots.
Is that what you meant?
Exactly what will be accomplished once that has been shown, assuming there's some way to reach an agreement on how to measure bulletproofing of an abstract, so we'll know when it's actually been done.
Well,all Communists are atheists by defintion of their founder.
Many environmentalists are believers but their faith is mostly New Agey and nature worship rather than traditional religion.
Most of us would call that counting, or spacing. Enumerating would be like A=1, B=2, etc.
(Even the top experts who study abiogenesis concede that they cannot explain the astounding complexity of the simplest known living cell in terms of random natural processes without ID.)
Show me one "top expert" (actual scientist working in the field) who even acknowledges ID when doing science.
But what you dont understand is that even if some entity designed the first living cell on earth, EVOLUTION STILL WORKS.
Personally, I love the idea of ODIN or SHIVA creating the first cell and setting off life as we know it! That sounds awesome!
If we're talking about the political party, that may be an accurate assesment.
Many environmentalists are believers but their faith is mostly New Agey and nature worship rather than traditional religion.
Unless we're playing games with the meaning of "atheist", any theistic belief, however misguided, would disqualify them.
If he is, the Antichrist's a LLC.
...Merry Christmas, e-s. ;^)
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.