Evolutionary theory says nothing about the existence or the non-existence of god. - Hunter R. Rawlings III, Interim President of Cornell University.
If anyone stands up and says "˜I am an atheist because I am a Dawinian,' which I do sort of do, they think their birthday has arrived. "“ Richard Dawkins, Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
February 1st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Is this the point where some wag brings up Douglas Adams' "Electric Monk" and its capability to hold multiple contradictory beliefs in its matrix?
Mebbe not.
J
Comment by tenstrings — February 1, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
February 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Sorry Mike, did I miss the post where you established that Richard Dawkins and Hunter R. Rawlings III were actually the same person, or members of some cohesive organisation in which each person speaks for everyone?
Or can I legitimately use the differences of opinion between Telic Thoughts and Uncommon Descent to draw some broad conclusions about the confused nature of the ID movement?
Comment by Mesk — February 1, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
February 1st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Well, that clears up a lot. The scientific view on evolution versus the militant atheist view on evolution; and I do not prefer the latter. Does Richard Dawkins even know that his idol -Charles Darwin- in fact disagrees with him regarding his comments on Darwinism? To quote Darwin himself:
"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates… In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
Also, MikeGene, I have two questions for you: will your upcoming book be a hardcover one, and is it going to be sold in the Netherlands as well?
Comment by Godward — February 1, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 5:34 am
Mesk,
You raise a valid point. But the problem is that when a Philip Johnson-type makes a Dawkins-type argument, the Rawlings-types jump all over the Johnson-types. What's missing are the many examples of the Rawlings-types jumping all over the Dawkins-types. This creates a deeply entrenched perception that the Rawlings-types are not sincere and are just playing "good cop" with their fellow "bad cops."
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 5:34 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Mike:
And that is precisely what Dawkins' Main Man in the US - one PZ Myers - said in Karl Mogel's podcast he shared with Ken Miller. It's a "strategy."
Comment by Joy — February 2, 2007 @ 9:11 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:11 am
Mike,
I've seen plenty of negative reviews of The God Delusion from people who would normally be regarded as "on Dawkins' side". And the series of well-publicised spats between the Churchillians and the Chamberlainites demonstrates that there are a number of pro-evolutionists willing to call out Dawkins and his ilk when they step over some line in the sand.
Sure, not every moderate evolutionist spends much of their internet time deriding Dawkins and PZ - but then, how many posts have we seen on Telic Thoughts critiquing the worst arguments of the ID extremists? Are you and Krauze just being insincere, playing good cop to the bad cops at Uncommon Descent or Answers in Genesis?
Of course not - it's natural to spend most of your time criticising those with views that are furthest from yours. We should be surprised to see anything else.
My concern is that posts like this reinforce the notion of a hard dichotomy where none exists. If we keep subtly propping up the notion that there are two cohesive sides with a hard boundary between them, the conversation will become even more polarised and futile than it is now.
Comment by Mesk — February 2, 2007 @ 9:11 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
Methinks Mesk makes a pretty good point here, Mike.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — February 2, 2007 @ 11:13 am
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Mesk,
I think I need two clarifications.
I certainly don't expect any ol' moderate evolutionist to spend a lot of time criticizing Dawkins. The two people I quote above are not pajama-clad bloggers. They are very visible real-world people: a president of a major university and the most famous scientist alive. Such high profile figures require responses from other high profile people. So I'm thinking more along the lines of someone like Ken Miller or Eugenie Scott.
Second, I don't expect a Miller or Scott to denigrate Dawkins or give his book a bad review. I'm talking about a very specific claim/argument that concerns the relationship between science and religion; a claim that undercuts the Dover decision. People like Miller and Scott have long been arguing the point made by Rawlings. But their arguments have always been directed at people like Johnson. Well, what is wrong with expecting someone like Miller or Scott to reaffirm the same argument, but in this case, directed against someone like Dawkins?
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Mike, go read the Kitzmiller transcripts at Talkorigins. Search on "Dawkins."
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 2, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Or better yet, go to Miller's website and search for "Dawkins". What will we find, Nick?
Comment by Krauze — February 2, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Mike,
Thanks for the clarification - but I'll note that there's absolutely nothing in your original post to suggest that this is your complaint. Instead, you give the strong impression that your problem with Rawlings and Dawkins is simply that they disagree with one another, when in fact they should "make up their minds" and pick one stance or the other. I've already pointed out that this view is both unfair and counter-productive for the discussion as a whole, so I won't labour the point.
As for the anti-ID big-wigs criticising Dawkins - I admit that I don't really follow the public pronouncements of Miller and Scott. However, I did see Scott talk at the American Society of Human Genetics meeting two years ago: she mentioned Dawkins by name as an example of people who are falsely conflating evolution and atheism. In the question time following her talk, Francis Collins also singled out Dawkins for criticism for much the same reason. This was in front of a large crowd (200+) of human geneticists, and I've heard that Scott has made similar points at other scientific gatherings.
I can't speak to why she hasn't made similar criticisms in print (assuming she hasn't - I'll have to trust you on that), although I presume it's strategic. Nonetheless, I can testify that she has been explicitly criticising this idea of Dawkins in front of scientific audiences for at least two years.
Comment by Mesk — February 2, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Nick,
This makes my point. Why should I have to fish for some comment that is stashed away in some court document? Why can't you a) point to something like a NYT editorial that b) responds to Dawkins' specific claims since he has been promoting his book?
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Mike et al — I'm sorry that googling TalkOrigins.org on "Kitzmiller" "Dawkins" is such a chore for you guys.
Mesk — Heck, Genie Scott made the same point yesterday in this lecture I linked to on PT:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc...
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 2, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Mesk,
Yes, but this is simply an expression of disagreement. I'd like to see the specific claims addressed and the explanation for why they are wrong. An expression of disagreement is not an argument. Back in the pre-dover days, I did not simply express disagreement with teaching in ID in schools. I explained why I thought it was wrong to do so. I argued there is no ID theory and that ID does not even qualify as science, thus it was wrong to use a political method to inject it into the science curricula. All I am saying is that I would like to see Miller and Scott (high profile figures) explain to the public why Richard Dawkins (or Sam Harris) is wrong. I am sure some major media outlet would love to run with such an essay.
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Consider two populations.
Pop A: The people who read the NYT.
Pop B: People who google TalkOrgins.org on "Kitzmiller" "Dawkins"
Which is likely to be larger?
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
If you want to arrange an invitation for Genie Scott to write an op-ed in the NYT, be my guest.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 2, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Mike, don't be so demanding. Miller has loudly and clearly expressed his disagreement with Dawkins in some courtroom. It's not Nick's fault if trawling through trial transcripts at Talk.Origins is such a chore for the public.
Comment by Krauze — February 2, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
It's such a chore to read Miller's book also.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 2, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Nick:
Now you are trying to evade the point by being too literal. Look, is Dawkins making his claims in courtroom transcripts? No. He is a high profile person making his claims in popular media. His message is intended to reach a larger audience. To reach the same audience, you need another high-profile person pointing out the errors in popular media.
Come to think of it, with all that Dover-fame, you are kind-of high profile yourself, Nick. Have you ever thought of explaining to the public why Dawkins is in error?
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Mike, it pains me to say this, but I think Nick is right. IIRC, this is what Myers was so upset with about Miller a while back. Miller was making the point that Rawlings made and Myers thought he was taking some jab at all atheists. And Scott did make this point in the lecture that Nick linked to, too.
Comment by macht — February 2, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Macht,
Miller went a little further. Rather than explain why Dawkins is in error, he suggested that the creationists/fundamentalists be set on the EAs. This led Myers to go ballastic, accusing Miller of throwing him and his kind to the wolves. What I am looking for is an argument in some popular media. The argument would lay out Dawkins' actual position on science and religion and then proceed to lay out the errors in Dawkins' position.
It doesnt' do us any good to say "Miller disagrees with Dawkins." What we need are Miller's arguments as a response to Dawkins.
Comment by MikeGene — February 2, 2007 @ 9:37 pm