nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin Program - Does Dawkins annoy you?

Tim Robbins

Richard Dawkins is currently presenting a program on Channel Four, entitled "The Genius of Darwin". Inevitably, Dawkins gets a dig in on Religion. Last Monday he spoke to an African preacher who did not believe in evolution, but upon questioning it was clear he didn't really understand it and perhaps if all his legitimate questions answered he would have been ok with it.

Dawkins could have easily pointed out that most Christian Churches accept evolution and that creationism is really only a minority money making movement. I picked up a book of quotes from Pope John Paul II yesterday where he speaks about Science liberating people and helping us find truth. But Dawkins always tries to paint the opposite picture coming from Religion.

Dawkins could have used the program time to deal with the confusions over evolution theory that even a lot of agnostics have. Such as:
"they're gaps in the fossil record"
"no species has ever been seen transform into a species"
"evolution is only a theory".

He could have interviewed several Christians who do have a good understanding of evolution, such as Kenneth Miller. He could have left religion completly out of it. But no, he had to get his usual dig in.

As an atheist, I feel he's doing none of us any favours and just causing more tensions between our camp and your's. My view is we should be trying to find common crowd and unite against the money making creationist charlatans.

If you are a Christian how do you feel about this?

Apathetic, misrepresented?

Find more posts tagged with

evolution

richard dawkins

Quick Links

Comments

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Einstein wasn't a theist.

Indeed, more of a deist.

Newton wasted a huge amount of his life trying to get lead turn into gold. If you don't consider that a hinderence to his grasping of the mechanics of the natural world I don't know what is.

If he had succeeded then it would have helped scientific research considerably.

death1234567

Wicknight wrote: »

And to be honest with you I can't help be agree with him a lot of the time.

Same here, His points and beliefs are usually spot on IMO.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

but the misunderstanding lies with Dawkins and his disciples rather than with the critics of memetics.

I wouldn't quite say that. I read that article by Adam Kuper, and he says a number of times

In any case, ideas are not independent gene-like entities, much less parasites.

While he is correct about ideas he is wrong about genes. Genes are not independent entities either, that simply demonstrates an ignorance of how evolution operates.

Genes are units of biological information, but how they evolve cannot be divorced the phenotype they produce and the environment of which the organism finds itself it that all go to make up the replication machinery.

These are all the arguments Kuper makes, that memes (units of information) cannot be divorced from the person holding the idea and the environment they are in at the time. He is correct, but then that is the point.

The issue, at least with this single antropologist, doesn't seem to be a problem applying Darwinian principles to units of culture, but a lack of understanding on the part of Kuper as to what Darwinian principles actually say.

As Blackmore says

"Are we supposed, asks Kuper, to believe that their destiny depends on their innate talent for reproducing themselves? Not quite – at least, not if he is suggesting that they can replicate themselves in isolation. This they cannot do, but then nor can genes or prions or learned behaviours. They all need copying machinery, and in the case of memes we humans are the copying machines."

Again this misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution is something that would no doubt cause Dawkins to wrinkle his brow.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, more of a deist.

I wouldn't say that either, he believed that if anything was to be called "God" it was the rules and principles of the universe, but that didn't equate to a being or entity

PDN wrote: »

If he had succeeded then it would have helped scientific research considerably.

You jest, but it is important to point out that even if he had succeeded it wouldn't have helped scientific understanding at all unless he had a testable model of how he succeeded.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So Dawkins is overjoyed by people like Michael Behe who understands evolution, accepts common descent etc, but draws a different conclusion?

Behe doesn't understand evolution (or privately does and public misrepresents it), a fact he is has demonstrated a number of times in his writings, so it isn't a question of Dawkins accepting his difference of opinion on evolutionary processes.

I imagine it frustrates Dawkins no end that someone like Behe can publish work about Darwinian evolution without actually understanding it, and even more that a large number of people seem to get their ideas from Behe's incorrect representation of Darwinian theory.

And because Behe is on a Creationist crusade, rather than interested in science truth, he is oblivious to the rest of biological science pointing out the fundamental flaws in his work. I think, but I could be wrong, Behe subscribes to the idea presented in movies such as Expelled, that "Big Science" refuses to accept his criticism of evolution for some conspiracy reason, rather than because they are, well, nonsense.

Again this type of nonsense really annoys Dawkins.

Really when you start list this stuff is it any wonder that Dawkins appears annoyed a lot of the time.

Tim Robbins

Soul Winner wrote: »

He goes on about the genius of Darwin but haven't most of Darwin's original ideas been abandoned by modern day science? Aren't there many modern day evolutionists who would not recommend reading 'Origin of species' in order to get a good understanding of how evolution works? He might have got the ball rolling but surely there are others who deserve some plaudits too?

No they have been vindicated by modern Science, more specifically DNA and any fossil we find. What's really annoying is that after 150 years the theory is still misunderstood and called into question when there's over - whelming evidence in favour of it and absolutely nothing which rebutts it.

This usually comes from religious extremists who use fud tactics, and blatant lies to confuse religious moderets and the hole thing turns into a mess but very few churches are brave enough to tackle the question and instead say things like: it doesn't really matter.

You cannot claim to have any interest in truth and say such nonsense.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

Einstein wasn't a theist.

Einstein believed in God, if the semantics weren't quite right, apologies.

Wicknight wrote: »

Newton wasted a huge amount of his life trying to get lead turn into gold. If you don't consider that a hinderence to his grasping of the mechanics of the natural world I don't know what is.

It would hinder his grasp of such mechanics about as much as my last painting hinders my grasp of mathematics, I'd say. His grasp on such matters didn't seem particularly hindered to me though.

death1234567

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Einstein believed in God.

Where did you get that from?

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

Source

thebaldsoprano

death1234567 wrote: »

Where did you get that from?

In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

Source

Well, I did have to study his stuff in college and one phrase indicating his belief in God would be "God does not play dice with the universe".

There are others, and like many of us his belief on the matter may have changed. Afaik he would have believed in God while developing Special Relativity and quite possibly General Relativity aswell.

My point being that such beliefs don't hinder or understanding of the natural world.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Again this type of nonsense really annoys Dawkins.

The thing that always strikes me about Dawkins is that he's fundamentally a genteel Oxford academic and seems, much of the time, to be trying to debate according to the rules of common-room etiquette. That standard is obviously ignored by creationists, and Dawkins frequently comes across as a man armed with a handbag turning up to a gunfight.

Hitchens is much better at dealing with creationists -- I'd certainly pay to see him and (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken Ham go head to head. Must be my inner Roman coming out.

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Einstein believed in God, if the semantics weren't quite right, apologies.

No he didn't. His famous letter saying just the opposite was just auctioned a few months ago

Extracts

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

And as he said in 1954

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

And here is discusses his belief in God being simply as nature (Spinoza's God)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

It would hinder his grasp of such mechanics about as much as my last painting hinders my grasp of mathematics, I'd say. His grasp on such matters didn't seem particularly hindered to me though.

Just because he figured out the laws of motion doesn't mean he understood the mechanics of the natural world. That is a ridiculous thing to assert.

His grasps of the mechanics where severely hindered, he clearly knew nothing of the nature of matter and little of chemistry. Who knows what his genius could have discovered about the mechanics and nature of particles and forces if he hadn't wasted so much of his time on pointless superstitions.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

The thing that always strikes me about Dawkins is that he's fundamentally a genteel Oxford academic and seems, much of the time, to be trying to debate according to the rules of common-room etiquette. That standard is obviously ignored by creationists, and Dawkins frequently comes across as a man armed with a handbag turning up to a gunfight.

He's gone on record several times to say he won't debate, under official rules, with any creationist as that gives their side some credibility as if there are two sides to the story. He'll only do the cut - thrust arguing he currently does.

Hitchens is much better at dealing with creationists -- I'd certainly pay to see him and (diploma-mill-doctor) Ken Ham go head to head. Must be my inner Roman coming out.

Hitchens is even more obnoxious and arrogant than Dawkins. Oscar Wilde said the best debaters could argue their opponents side better than them. Hitchens and Dawkins fail abysmally in this regard. They make funny, dramatic tv but don't really convince anyone to change their mind imo.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Dawkins is overjoyed by people like Michael Behe who understands evolution, accepts common descent etc, but draws a different conclusion?

If this is your point of view, then I strongly suggest that you read Judge Jones' judgment in the Dover trial from 2005 in order to correct your understanding of what Behe thinks, and why he thinks it. There's a PDF of this available from:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

...and in it, you can read how Behe's arguments evaporated during the case, as well as learn quite a lot about how the ID movement is managed, and who's doing it.

The document is 139 pages long and shouldn't take more than an hour or so to read. You will also learn what Behe, unaccountably, forgot to include in any of his books.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He's gone on record several times to say he won't debate, under official rules, with any creationist as that gives their side some credibility as if there are two sides to the story. He'll only do the cut - thrust arguing he currently does.

He did, on the advice of Gould, who said the following -

Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

As Gould pointed out to Creationists it isn't about winning or losing a debate, it is about appearing respectable so they can go back and claim that ultimately the Creationist vs Evolution debate is just that, an actual debate about differences of opinion, when in fact it isn't.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

No he didn't. His famous letter saying just the opposite was just auctioned a few months ago

Extracts

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."

And as he said in 1954

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

And here is discusses his belief in God being simply as nature (Spinoza's God)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Afaik he did believe in God while developing at least Special Relativity and possibly General aswell. I really don't see what relevance a letter written in 1954 has got to do with Einstein's exceptionally good grasp of the natural world at the start of the century.

His creative output had long dwindled by 1954.

Wicknight wrote: »

Just because he figured out the laws of motion doesn't mean he understood the mechanics of the natural world. That is a ridiculous thing to assert.

Absolutely, what have the laws of motion got to do with the natural world?

Wicknight wrote: »

His grasps of the mechanics where severely hindered, he clearly knew nothing of the nature of matter and little of chemistry. Who knows what his genius could have discovered about the mechanics and nature of particles and forces if he hadn't wasted so much of his time on pointless superstitions.

Neither had his contemporaries... Good knowledge on Chemistry didn't start appearing until the 19th century, good knowledge of matter didn't appear until the 20th.

Yes you coud argue that had he not dabbled in alchemy that he might have made more inroad into the area of chemistry but that's about as relevant as saying that a physicist who enjoys a round of golf might have made more inroads in the area of biology were it not for his golf hobby.
Personally, I'd reckon getting a break from physics for a round of golf will increase his understanding of the world.

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Afaik he did believe in God while developing at least Special Relativity and possibly General aswell. I really don't see what relevance a letter written in 1954 has got to do with Einstein's exceptionally good grasp of the natural world at the start of the century.

Firstly of all I've never seen an evidence Einstein believed in God when developing the theories of Relativity.

But secondly, and more fundamentally, you keep trotting out individual theories as if this some how demonstrates that a person isn't hindered by supernatural belief. Why? There is more to the universe that one or two specific theories. It is the process I'm talking about.

Using a quick analogy, if I make bread I may bake 12 loafs in a day. Or I may bake 4 loafs in a day because every few minutes I nip down to the church to have a good old pray. Praying hindered my loaf making ability. The fact that I still made 4 loafs doesn't change this fact.

You keep going on about what someone like Newton did as if that demonstrates he wasn't hindered by his supernatural belief. Of course he was, because look at what he didn't do or look at what he wasted his time on.

Newtons obsession with the supernatural areas such as alchemy hindered his understand of the world. He died without understand the materials he was working with, understand what they were actually like, because the obsession with the supernatural nonsense he believed in that blinded him to properly looking at what he was dealing with.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

Firstly of all I've never seen an evidence Einstein believed in God when developing the theories of Relativity.

He did mention a certain person who doesn't like playing dice with the universe... There's more evidence aswell, but I've nay got time to go digging for it now... Perhaps some nice Christian might help with the digging?

Wicknight wrote: »

But secondly, and more fundamentally, you keep trotting out individual theories as if this some how demonstrates that a person isn't hindered by supernatural belief.

I can see where you're coming from here alright. Developing something like Newton's laws of motion or Einsteins's Special Relativity would require seeing the world, or at least a part of it, in an exceptionally clear manner, breaking with contemporary ideas on the subject and facing a backlash.

Yes, you can point out that their knowledge of the natural world was far from perfect, as no doubt people 1000 years from now will look back at ours as far from perfect, but this has little to do with the subject being discussed.

Re your analogy, it doesn't hold in this case for the following reason; imagine developing something, from first principals, such as calculus. Now, you're head, and quite possibly Newton's head aswell would get a little wrecked by this. What better place to unwind after this kind of work that a steaming furnace full of smoldering metal. Very different altogether from mathematics and you could then go back to it with a renewed vigour.

robindch

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

He did mention a certain person who doesn't like playing dice with the universe.

And when I hit my thumb with a hammer, I invoke the name of a well-known mid-Eastern deity. Doesn't mean that I think he's up there watching me.

thebaldsoprano

robindch wrote: »

And when I hit my thumb with a hammer, I invoke the name of a well-known mid-Eastern deity. Doesn't mean that I think he's up there watching me.

Oh come on, perfect evidence of an Atheist waiting to come out of the closet

There was some alternative theory to the big bang that he was a supporter of, one thing he also happed to like about it is that God could nicely be explained into it. Damned if I can think of the name though, I'll have to dig later...

santing

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

He did mention a certain person who doesn't like playing dice with the universe...

I think we can't attribute faith to personal God to Einstein. He was a pantheist, and firmly believed in "knowledge" His quote that "God doesn't play dice" is against the relativivity theory, Einstein firmly believed it was just a matter of having more knowlegde.

http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/tl/philosophy/einstein_god.cfm

From my days at the university I remember that with one difficult experiment EInstein proposed to attribute "knowledge" to particles in order to resolve the problem. That is still the solution today to that problem!

death1234567

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

He did mention a certain person who doesn't like playing dice with the universe...

you say that like it means something? That quote was a throw away remark about einsteins struggle to understand quantum mechanics and not a proof that he believed in God. (IMO)

Note: Einstein was wrong in his belief about quantum mechanics. (If there is a god he's one hell of a gambler cos he's rolling dice all over the place.

)

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

He did mention a certain person who doesn't like playing dice with the universe...

I always took that as a metaphor, even when I was religious. The man was agnostic at the most. The quote was just a soundbite he was using to illustrate his belief that the universe is not fundementally random.

I have little doubt that Newton could have achieved more if he'd stopped fussing over issues of faith and pseudoscience. The laws of gravity are an impressive feat, but he made one untestable assumption made a huge difference. Instead of continuing to question why the planets are drawn together or why they are in motion about each other, he used the great question-ender. God did it.

Fanny Cradock

Agnostic or Deist. Why do people place so much importance on what Einstein did or didn't believe? I'd be much more affected by somebody either turning to or away from faith after years of a certain belief.

thebaldsoprano

The theory I referred to earlier was that of the static universe, which was widely favoured to the notion of an expanding universe by Theists at the time. A brief description can be found in "A Brief History of Time" pp 44 - 45.

Evidence, he also liked this theory cos of implications for the God question will have to wait another little bit though, meant to be doing some work

thebaldsoprano

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Agnostic or Deist. Why do people place so much importance on what Einstein did or didn't believe? I'd be much more affected by somebody either turning to or away from faith after years of a certain belief.

Yeah, the point I'm trying to make though is that one's views of the natural world needn't be affected by views of the supernatural one.

sink

death1234567 wrote: »

you say that like it means something? That quote was a throw away remark about einsteins struggle to understand quantum mechanics and not a proof that he believed in God. (IMO)

Note: Einstein was wrong in his belief about quantum mechanics. (If there is a god he's one hell of a gambler cos he's rolling dice all over the place. )

Wasn't one of Einsteins Predictions that if you could know the exact location and velocity of all the particles in the universe you could essentially predict the future signifying some order to the universe but it is impossible for us to know both the location and the velocity of an electron.

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Yeah, the point I'm trying to make though is that one's views of the natural world needn't be affected by views of the supernatural one.

It is impossible for that not to happen given the nature of the supernatural.

You get around that by separating out what the individual is looking at into distinct areas which is a fudge.

Newtons views on alchemy didn't effect his views on the laws of motion, but they did effect his views on chemistry and the nature of matter, as he believed, incorrectly, that matter such as lead could be transformed into gold.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

Newtons views on alchemy didn't effect his views on the laws of motion, but they did effect his views on chemistry and the nature of matter, as he believed, incorrectly, that matter such as lead could be transformed into gold.

Firstly, Newton wasn't a chemist. I suspect his views on the area of chemistry in general were on par with his contemporaries at the time.

thebaldsoprano

sink wrote: »

Wasn't one of Einsteins Predictions that if you could know the exact location and velocity of all the particles in the universe you could essentially predict the future signifying some order to the universe but it is impossible for us to know both the location and the velocity of an electron.

I suspect this question would be more than welcome on the Physics and Chemistry forum

Unfortunately, when I studied this stuff it really wrecked my head rather a lot...

But yes, what you're referring to is Hiesenburg's Uncertainty Principal. This has been well demonstrated at this point.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

It is impossible for that not to happen given the nature of the supernatural.

If there were a God who didn't interfere with the natural but kept an eye on us and settled up in the afterlife, that alone is enough to break your statement.

Most of the major faiths adapt their beliefs to be compatible with the current scientific view of the world fairly well these days.