'Mommy, why are atheists dim-witted?'

Jerusalem Post ^ | 12-18-06 | JONATHAN ROSENBLUM

[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.

[jim35]

"How do you explain the ability of some bacteria to feed on synthetic material? (One example of many)."

Hey, if I can eat Cool-Whip, a bacterium should be able to also. That's not evolution, that's just adding to the menu.

[Pietro]

"witty opponents"

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes...."

Oh well you know the rest.

[grey_whiskers]

I think we're saying the same thing--my point was that for its time, scholasticism served a good purpose. When the major centers of your civilization are being sacked repeatedly--first by Vandals, Goths, Visigoths, what have you, and elsewhere by Vikings, and in other places by Muslims--and none of these groups have much use for orderly, systematic inquiry--acting to preserve as much as you can is probably the best you can do.

The re-discovery of empiricism in a large scale, to my mind, was as much a function of increasing societal safety in the West as anything else.

And in its own way, a lot of the the later medieval period was a hotbed of *applied* research. Horse collars, fletching, flying buttresses, etc.

The problem with the Greeks is they didn't *refine* hypotheses; try reading a translation of Aristotle's De Caelo.

Cheers!

[tacticalogic]

See any 'political view'? This post doesn't bother you. You manipulate, but badly.

We have many threads and discussions about various scientific theories. Most of these are hosted in New/Activism. I suppose such a discussion would be appropriatly hosted in a Science forum if there was one, but there isn't so I didn't see any particular reason to take exception to it. Judging by the title of the article, this is not a discussion of scientific theory, or political philosophy. It is purely theological. As far as being "uneasy" with your beliefs, let's just say that I'm a little concerned with the idea that the way to defend your religious beliefs is to attack other people for theirs.

[Elsie]

I already explained the observed evolution in fruit flies.

You did?

I missed it.

---

Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grampa!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Tree_of_life.jpg/722px-Tree_of_life.jpg

[Elsie]

They don't want to see DNA changes, they want to see a bacteria change to a lizard.

Now you understand!

We DO!!!

(Without the hand waving...)

[Elsie]

Discussions about science on FR lead to countless unexplained bannings....

OH?

There were countless warnings about bad behavior given to BOTH sides before the 'Unexplained' happened!

---

http://www.unexplainedmag.com/

[Elsie]

Or the Evolution creation story:

Stuff wuz, somehow - we really don't know....

then it changed

[westmichman]

Thanks for the short course. I guess then that the political party called the "Know nothings" from many years ago could have been called the "Agnostic" Party?
Regards,
WMM

[westmichman]

Thanks for the short course. I guess then that the political party called the "Know nothings" from many years ago could have been called the "Agnostic" Party?
Regards,
WMM

[betty boop]

No matter what scientists who work in this field tell you, you refuse to accept that abiogenesis has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. You refuse to accept that the only thing needed for evolution to work is life that can reproduce. No matter how much you try to widen the scope of the Theory, the definition will remain the same:

Not true; I know very well that Darwin did not deal with issues of origins at all. That is, the ToE does not consider either genesis or abiogenesis.

However, it is also true that many Darwinist scientists cannot resist the idea of abiogenesis, for it is a view that conforms very well with the Darwinist expectation that evolution is a purely natural development that is essentially random in character. Perhaps they recognize that you cannot say a theory of the evolution of life is truly complete without considering origins -- regardless of the fact that Darwin himself did not consider origins. Therefore their expectation is that the origin bottoms out in the material basis of life, "clever matter" or "clever chemicals" if you wish: This is what abiogenesis states.

You wrote: "All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record."

I beg to differ. Evolution is not the "source" of the vast diversity of life; it is only the means, the mechanism, or process that facilitates increasing biological diversity in space and time. Do you see the distinction here? Anyhoot, you don't find many non-Darwinists arguing for abiogenesis.

FWIW

[hosepipe]

[ regardless of the fact that Darwin himself did not consider origins. ]

You mean he didn't consider "origins" in the/his "Survival of the Fittest" gambit....

O.K.... O.K... maybe Charles Darwin WAS stupid?... I can read tea leaves too.. Jeese..
Course that would make him pretty stupid.. I'm still hung up on that Finch (IN Galapagos) that turned from vegetarian to carnivorous(Charlies book)... I failed to see(at 13 years of age) how that proves anything... except that "life" is very tenacious.. Yet some people see evolution in that.. Evolution like..... one species producing another species kind of evolution.. Who knows.. maybe Darwin was ..ugh!.. mentally challenged..

I have a theory... That when someone goes to a lot of effort to appear "intelligent" in demeanor, clothing, and physical appearance the opposite is true.. call it Hosepipes Law...

Currently I'm batting about @90%(or so) true...
Albert Einstein however was not as dumb as he looked..
But Dawkins seems to be.. I saw him on pBS the other night..

[cornelis]

Evolution is not the "source" of the vast diversity of life; it is only the means, the mechanism, or process that facilitates increasing biological diversity in space and time.

Good point.

Biology textbook writers don't foget to do the origin question. It's usually discussed in the chapter on the origin of life with pictures. I have one in front of me with a chapter called "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists" An irresistible topic and carefully placed right beside Mr. ToE. in most textbooks.

So, does abiogenesis have anything to do with this? LiberalGunNut thinks not. Perhaps he would like to explain his meaning. I'm tempted to think that he wants to ignore the question and insist that textbooks do the same.

[betty boop]

Biology textbook writers don't forget to do the origin question. It's usually discussed in the chapter on the origin of life with pictures ... carefully placed right beside Mr. ToE in most textbooks.

"I am shocked, shocked, to learn there's gambling going on in this casino!!!" :^)

Sometimes I wonder what Charles Darwin would have thought of some of his modern-day epigones....

Thanks so much for writing, cornelis!

[Coyoteman]

Biology textbook writers don't foget to do the origin question. It's usually discussed in the chapter on the origin of life with pictures. I have one in front of me with a chapter called "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists" An irresistible topic and carefully placed right beside Mr. ToE. in most textbooks.

Broad-subject textbooks will include many theories. That doesn't make them all the same theory.

If you want to see what evolutionary scientists are really doing, go to a good university library and check out the technical journals. You might be able to get the contents and abstracts on line. Try the list of journals at this blog: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/ (in the right column, down a bit).

[hosepipe]

LoL..

[cornelis]

That doesn't make them all the same theory.

I thought we had a question. Before you talk theory, you need a problem or question.

[LiberalGunNut]

It is impossible to argue with anyone here in an intelligent manner. There is a great amount of willful ignorance and muddying of a subject that is really quite simple.

[LiberalGunNut]

"Were they still fruit flies?"

Yes, but if you think you are making any debate points you obviously don't know what evolution is.

Evolution does not state that a fruit fly turns into a Thompson's Gazelle overnight.

[LiberalGunNut]

Cool Whip is composed of natural edible ingredients. THe Bacteris fed on NYLON. Read this:

The nylon problem

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn't exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont.

The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria poses a problem for ID proponents. Where did the CSI for nylonase—the actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nylon—come from?

There are three possibilities:

* The nylonase gene was present in the bacterial genome all along.
* The CSI for nylonase was inserted into the bacteria by a Supreme Being.
* The ability to digest nylon arose spontaneously as a result of mutation. Because it allowed the bacteria to take advantage of a new resource, the ability stuck and was eventually passed on to future generations.

Apart from simply being the most reasonable explanation, there are two other reasons that most scientists prefer the last option, which is an example of Darwinian natural selection.

First, hauling around a nylonase gene before the invention of nylon is at best useless to the bacteria; at worst, it could be harmful or lethal. Secondly, the nylonase enzyme is less efficient than the precursor protein it's believed to have developed from. Thus, if nylonase really was designed by a Supreme Being, it wasn't done very intelligently.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html

Please explain how this is possible? This is a clear example of observed evolution.