by KateWild 189 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
You really need to draw a line between science and atheism. On science he is one of the best writers there is.-cofty
Is that a scientific theory, a fact or just your opinion cofty?
I have finishes Ch 2 now I have written my thoughts on a new thread-Kate xx
from the people who gave us "einsteins mind was to closed to accept quantum mechanics", "stephen hawkins isnt that bright" and "string theory is unscientific", we present "dawkins isnt that good either": A grand production made from the comfort of computer chairs, starring "profound" and other long words.
I've read "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The God Delusion". I don't mean to imply that he doesn't mention Evolutionary Biology. However, he is not an originator of such works. What he seems to do in his writings is use scientific disciplines in order to explain his own conclusions. None of the works you mention qualify in that respect. That doesn't mean his conclusions are all wrong. Still, I can't think of an original work in Evolutionary Biological research by Dawkins that has had peer reviews. Finally, many of his conclusions are challenged by other writers and scienties of equal or greater tenure than Dawkins.
Adam, you stated: “It seems you're confusing Dawkin's position on the existence of God (AKA atheism, a position which is outside of the realm of science, but well within the domain of skepticism, i.e. not believing in anything until AFTER there's evidence to justify the belief) with his position on the theory of evolution.”
I really don’t think so. Here’s why: From his book “The God Delusion”, Dawkins makes it clear that Natural selection is ultimately responsible for the condition of life as we know it. He believes in the inevitability of it which brought us to our present condition, which includes religion. While he feels that religion is useless and a problem in the world, he feels that Science must be able to answer its emergence in terms of the inevitability of Natural Selection. (See “religion as a by-product of something else” p. 172) From that and from the numerous commentaries in his book about religion (see chapts. 8 and 9 of “The God Delusion"), I infer that his position on Evolution leads him directly the absurdity of religion.
I deliberately used “profound” with agnostic to make a point. Many people think that agnosticism is the position of neither believing nor disbelieving in God or that of sitting on an ethical or ideological fence. Dawkins makes it a particular point to consider agnostics on an even keel with theists (see “The Poverty of Agnosticism” p. 46 of “The God Delusion”). This is why he criticized Paul Davies for saying that science must assume (a form of scientific faith) that the quantum laws are correct (obviously from experimentation), even if they cease to function (brake down) when applied to the sub-particle (the quantum) realm. I was not dissing other agnostics, just making emphasis on what it really means.
I think you failed to make that distinction above by stating: “If you say, "I'm not sure, since the evidence is inconclusive" AND you are a skeptic…”, etc. Yes, I am a skeptic. Agnosticism shares the skepticism and doubt of Atheism regarding religion. So that you understand it from my perspective as an agnostic, I am not in doubt about the existence of God per se. The idea is essentially meaningless because there is no valid or scientific means available to show such existence. That would encapsulate the fallacy of proving that the invisible man isn’t there. In the absence of some verification or evidence, it would be logically foolish to conclude that there is one. But that doesn’t mean that while there is no verification there can’t ever be one. Logically, we cannot dismiss the possibility, however remote, that some explanation for the support of a deity can arise, however unlikely. Atheism, on the other hand, does not entertain that possibility. A true scientist will never tell you that it is impossible for all the Oxygen atoms in a room to collect themselves in a single corner and suffocate you. What s/he may say is that the possibility is so remote as to make it highly improbable. Get it?
Etude: Still, I can't think of an original work in Evolutionary Biological research by Dawkins that has had peer reviews.
may i propose thats because you dont know jack shit about the litterature on evolutionary biology and you are not in the habbit of fact-checking your own bias?
five seconds on google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_by_Richard_Dawkins
i count five articles in the worlds most prestigious journal nature.
Wow cofty. The OP is 1 Ch of 1 book, calm down a little mister xx
That is an impressive list. However, if you really look at the topics please notice how much is commentary as opposed to original research. I don't need an impressive list to contradict whether Dawkins is a prolific writer, an intelligent person and eclectic in his range of scientific subjects. He is all of the above. All I'll give you is this article from The Guradian:in an interview with biologist Edwin Willson:
"Would you like to talk about Dawkins?" he continues – and when I say yes, he laughs. "I hesitate to do this because he's such a popular guy, but Dawkins is not a scientist. He's a writer on science and he hasn't participated in research directly or published in peer-reviewed journals for a long time. In other words, there is no Wilson-versus-Dawkins controversy: it's Wilson versus … well, I could give you a goodly list of other scientists doing peer-reviewed research."
The emphasis is mine.
If Dawkin's works are primarily commentary it's because he not a research scientist, he is a professor - a lecturer.
That is not really correct cantleave — if I may say so.
He has made a pretty important contribution to science... not just as a commentator.
http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/dawkins.htm
