'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.

[LiberalGunNut]

Here's another example of observed evolution:

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

[LiberalGunNut]

"That is, the ToE does not consider either genesis or abiogenesis."

Ok great! That's all I'm saying. THere is no need to psychoanalyze scientists who accept evolution (which is the vast vast majority) by saying they can't "resist" the idea of abiogenesis.


"Perhaps they recognize that you cannot say a theory of the evolution of life is truly complete without considering origins"

This is seriously flawed logic. If a prosecutor says, "My Theory is that OJ Simpson killed his wife, based on scientific evidence" is his theory not complete because it doesn't include the birth of OJ Simpson?

The birth of OJ Simpson is absolutely essential to the Theory of OJ Killing Nicole. But only essential as far as he needs to exist in order for the Theory to work. The only way The Theory od OJ Killing Nicole would break down is if OJ didn't exist at ALL. The theory of what happened that faithful night IS complete without addressing the Origins of OJ and NIcole since most sane people stipulate the OJ and NIcole existed.

"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."

If you are saying God used evolution to acheive biological diversity, that is ENTIRELY COMPATIBLE with the Theory of Evolution. I'm glad to see you accept the Theory!

[LiberalGunNut]

My main point, for the 1000th time, is that the theory of evolution does not depend on abiogenesis to work. PERIOD. THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING. Now you can say "YES IT DOES!", but the thousands of scientists that actually defined the theory would beg to differ.

Instead of hovering around this largely irrelevant point, why don't you take a stab at picking apart the actual Theory?

[LiberalGunNut]

Why do whales have reminants of feet?:

How can bacteria consume nylon, which was invented in 1935: http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050923_ID_science.html 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? Those two should keep you busy for a while.

[Hacksaw]

Flapdoodle! This is why: The Republican War on Science This is what the scientists who used to be on FR were trying refute. Like it or not, this is becoming the mainstream perception here in the US.

I think you need to get out more. The mainstream is not concerned how people feel about evolution, they are concerned with the Iraq war, taxes, and employment.

If the scientists (or at least those who think they were scientitsts) were trying to counter a given perception, then they couldn't have gone about it in a more self defeating way. Hijacking a prayer thread, mocking Christians, and generally behaving like all around louts seems a strange way of spreading the word.

[beckett]

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 [LiberalGunNut] see the distinction here?

In reading LGN's posts I've noticed a certain lack of care regarding terms and definitions. The flaw goes directly to his misuse of the term "source," which you've highlighted, BB.

It's worth noting that even the "mechanism" of evolution has not been demonstrated conclusively. The ToE is elegant and compelling, and no doubt (to my mind anyway) in large part true, but the abscence of evidence (which is not evidence of abscence, as doctrinaire evolutionists never tire of repeating) for crucial aspects of the theory nonetheless make holes in it which could accomodate the proverbial Mack truck. Until those holes shrink to the size of pinholes by the discovery of repeatable, falsifiable evidence, it will be an essentially partial theory, with restricted explanatory power.

The big question remains: Why is there something rather than nothing? A corollary is: How did the Big Bang create energy, and at least a trilllion trillion trillion kilograms of matter, when we know from the First Law of Thermodynamics that energy cannot be created or destroyed? Despite LGN's protestations, these questions most certainly do relate to ToE, and ToE will remain a partial theory until they are answered.

[LiberalGunNut]

I'm using the current definition on WIkipedia, which is the one used by scientists.

"Until those holes shrink to the size of pinholes by the discovery of repeatable, falsifiable evidence, it will be an essentially partial theory, with restricted explanatory power."

This is just plain silly. Evolution has been OBSERVED. Does gravity need repeatable. "falsifiable evidence" beyond observation?

From Talk ORigins:

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

"when we know from the First Law of Thermodynamics that energy cannot be created or destroyed? Despite LGN's protestations, these questions most certainly do relate to ToE, and ToE will remain a partial theory until they are answered."

From talk origins:

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

[beckett]

You've confused the first and second law of thermodynamics! I never mentioned the second law, and, although entropy is a dauntingly difficult subject even for the most brilliant scientist, I have not related problems with entropy to evolution!

You're an amateur, sir. And it shows. And by the way, except in short doses, it's bad form to use someone else's words to talk for you in a discussion forum.

[LiberalGunNut]

I am not a scientist, if that's what you mean by "amateur". But upir argument about the first law of thermodynamics is ludicrous, and not even ID proponants use it as an argument.

[betty boop]

The big question remains: Why is there something rather than nothing? A corollary is: How did the Big Bang create energy, and at least a trilllion trillion trillion kilograms of matter, when we know from the First Law of Thermodynamics that energy cannot be created or destroyed? Despite LGN's protestations, these questions most certainly do relate to ToE, and ToE will remain a partial theory until they are answered.

Oh, I so agree, beckett! And then there is Leibniz's second question: Why are things the way they are, and not some other way? The ToE purports to explain the latter. Yet to the extent that it relies on randomness for its answers, I fail to see what has been explained....

One thing I've noticed about some neo-Darwinists I know: They seem to think that the ToE is somehow a kind of standalone phenomenon that doesn't in any way depend on such things as physics, mathematics, or information theory. They let chemistry in the front door, but then slam it shut to the other disciplines of science.

That to me is just another way in which the Darwinist ToE is a partial account (theory).

I know there is incredible specialization in the natural sciences these days. But the reality is, accounting for the totality of life will need the insights of all the disciplines. Or so it seems to me. FWIW

Thanks for your great essay/post beckett! It's great to see you again.

[Elsie]

"Were they still fruit flies?"

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

Then, obviously, they did not 'evolve'.

[Elsie]

* 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.

 

most reasonable???  OPINION!!!!

---

 

 

 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.

 

could be?? is MORE opinion, not 'science'..

 

---

 

Thus, if nylonase really was designed by a Supreme Being, it wasn't done very intelligently.

 

THUS?? is MORE opinion, not 'science'..

[LiberalGunNut]

Again, you don't understand evolution. Fruit flies can and do evolve while remaining fruit flies. The fact that two sets of fruit flies from the same parent were unable to breed after a certain point is evolution.

[Elsie]

Evolution has been OBSERVED.

SOMETHING has been OBSERVED; and it is CLAIMED to be 'evolution' at work.

[LiberalGunNut]

So you are basically saying you cannot refute that instance of evolution.

It is a FACT that there are bacteria that is able to digest nylon exist. It is a fact that nylon was created in 1935.

What is your explanation as to how bacteria is able to digest nylon?

[blowfish]

One thing I've noticed about some neo-Darwinists I know: They seem to think that the ToE is somehow a kind of standalone phenomenon that doesn't in any way depend on such things as physics, mathematics, or information theory. They let chemistry in the front door, but then slam it shut to the other disciplines of science. That to me is just another way in which the Darwinist ToE is a partial account (theory).

The theory of evolution simply states that species can change over time, which is amply supported in the geologic record. It says nothing about the Big Bang, alternate universes, undetectable spirit beings or any of the other things you are fond of speculating about.

Knocking over strawmen is easy but ultimately not very productive.

[Elsie]

What is your explanation as to how bacteria is able to digest nylon?

I don't need one.

YOU are referencing someone who has claimed that the eating ability is PROOF of evolution.

As they used to tell me in school: Show Your Work.

CLAIMING it's Evolution is NOT going to cut it.

[LiberalGunNut]

"Why are things the way they are, and not some other way? The ToE purports to explain the latter. Yet to the extent that it relies on randomness for its answers, I fail to see what has been explained..."

You have it exactly backwards. The theory can only explain why things are the way they are. It cannot predict the path of evolution and it doesn't try to. You are talking nonsense now. Are you saying that the theory should explain humans don't have four eyes? That is silly.

"One thing I've noticed about some neo-Darwinists I know: They seem to think that the ToE is somehow a kind of standalone phenomenon that doesn't in any way depend on such things as physics, mathematics, or information theory."

What are you saying? For the theory to work you certainly have to agree to a certain amount of knowns. Some of them involve physics and mathematics.

I'd love to hear your alternative theory. But I sense that you have none. You've already said you agree with evolution. Please tell me what you are arguing!

Can you PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS FOR ME:

What difference would it make to the Theory of Evolution if we found out that a) aliens implanted the first life b) god created the first life or c) life first appeared by a random chemical reaction? How would any of these three effect the Theory of Evolution?


Explain how bacteria can digest nylon.

Explain why whales have reminants of feet.

Explain how AIDS, E. Coli, Ebola and various other diseases came about in the past 25 years.

Explain the Archaeoptryx(I mangled the spelling)fossils.

Explain the entire fossil record.

Let's hear your explanation and then we can match it up with the Theory of Evolution. You are making circular arguments without stating a position because you have none.

[LiberalGunNut]

"CLAIMING it's Evolution is NOT going to cut it"

So if you say to me "Show me a Red Pencil"

And I show you a red pencil, you then say,

"You are just claiming it is red"

Do you even know what evolution means?

Why can an organism that has been around for millions of years be able to digest a material that was created in 1935?

Are you being willfully difficult or do you just not understand?

[Hacksaw]

What is your explanation as to how bacteria is able to digest nylon?

Easy - the fact that bacterial DNA can be exchanged through a pilus or it can be exchanged virally through transformation or transduction. It's probably the reason that virulent E. Coli outbreaks are becoming common. But it is still bacteria and it is still E. Coli. All that is happening is that a gene(s) that give the bacteria the ability to digest nylon was incorporated into the bacterial DNA. It's not as if the bacteria suddenly developed the ability to digest nylon on its own - and it is still bacteria.