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.
Posts by Etude
-
189Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
I guess we would be in agreement that just because there are problems with a theory that doesn’t invalidate the entire theory. So, given some aspects important to Evolution (the fossil record, the enormous periods of time, mutations, etc), it’s important to explore the aspects of what we call Evolution, but in particular, Natural Selection. My problem with Dawkins is not in the area of Evolution but in the way he attempts to interpret Natural Selection and the way that clashes with other scientists. Darwin did it empirically (and cleverly so). Today we use genetics to confirm the aggregation and survival of traits in species.
Dawkins rejection of Group Selection in favor for his own proposals pits him against individuals like David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober. Dawkins refers to his hero Darwin as being “schizophrenic” about the idea (even though the term was not used in Darwin’s day) by Darwin’s promotion of inheritance and the distribution of traits over a population. What Wilson and Sober contend is that it’s possible to have both. An article by Wilson titled Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion) takes Dawkins to task for not dealing with the evolutionary aspects of religion as is practiced by an increasing number of scientists and for Dawkins’ alternative theory of Extended Phenotype.
The more obvious problem is that, from what I’ve read by Dawkins, there is little Evolutionary Biology in his works. What I see largely is an attempt at unifying some of the sciences with his version or suggestions of processes that could explain the outcome. For example, he proposes the “moth flying into the candle” as an example of misguided and suicidal use of an instinct, just like religion. At the same time, he suggests that the misfiring of different brain modules (the trusting module, the coalition forming module, the discriminating module, etc) that normally work cooperatively may be responsible for the irrationality of religion. So, which is it? Some, all of the above? Perhaps yes, all of them. The problem is that, while it may be a nice suggestion, it isn’t fact for several reasons: 1) we can infer that there are modules in the brain but there is not definitive experiment that can clearly identify them, map them and show the relationship to one another; 2) In the case of the Moth, we can strongly infer that it has a navigation system and say that its misuse is responsible for guiding it to a candle or bug zapper. However, that mechanism remains elusive. Bottom line is that Dawkins can suggest all day long, but not come close to verifiable theory. Remember, he is essentially a botanist.
Along with other fervent proponents of atheism, Dawkins promotes things like Peter Boghossian’s “A Manual for Creating Atheists”. That is more indicative of an aim to sway for one ideology but not by presenting scientific papers or peer reviewed works. In my opinion, the evidence should speak for itself rather than necessitating a how-to manual for atheism. But wait, there’s more! If you go to his website (http://store.richarddawkins.net) you will find every sort of paraphernalia, from jewelry to T-shirts to bumper stickers promoting the A-line. The marketing is worthy of the Kardashians. And let’s not forget that the site asks you to add a monthly donation to the cause. All of that has the same trappings as an Evangelical pitch on TV. I just don’t see most serious scientists doing that. Their work speaks for itself. So, I don’t oppose or criticize Dawkins’ defense of scientific facts. I question some of his proposals as fact and have the argument to support that from several just-as-worthy scientists. If I’m disingenuous about that you can count a lot of other people in that group, including yourself for not seeing both sides of the issue.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
In my post # 358, instead of:
“This also brings confusion about the verb “prove” (/pro͞ov/). The parent root “proof” (n.) is simply a repeatable process which will either confirm a thing or to validate it.”
It should read:
“This also brings confusion about the verb “prove” (/pro͞ov/). The parent root “proof” (n.) is simply a repeatable process which will either confirm a thing or fail to validate it.”
I should also mention that in the sentence “That could simply mean that the organism already has the ability in its genotype to produce changes, not that it spontaneously arose”, the word spontaneously is a relative term in the context of “Evolution in action”. It simply means that it happened relatively quickly for us to observe it and not that it happened in an instant, considering that the postulate of Evolution is that significant changes occur over millions of years.
-
103
My life ... and how JWD came to be - Part 5
by Simon inmy life ... and how jwd came to be - part 1. my life ... and how jwd came to be - part 2. my life ... and how jwd came to be - part 3. my life ... and how jwd came to be - part 4. i swear, i thought it was only a couple of years at most since i wrote part 4 of "my life and how jwd came to be".
i re-read it after someone posted to it and brought it back on active topics and it was kind of prophetic in a way ... well, i had the 5 years part right if nothing else:.
it would be nice to visit the site (or whatever one is around then) in 5 years time to let people know how we're doing and find only a few of the same people still around.
-
-
Etude
I cannot express sufficiently how appreciative I am for the existence of this forum. Not even FaceBook can give me the kind of reward accompanied by a good range of emotions that I receive here. It’s not only unique due to the reason why we’re here (the JWs). It’s also unique because I can’t imagine finding a more diverse set of subjects and a vastly diverse conglomeration of people in one place. There is a good number of very interesting and intelligent people here from whom I’ve learned so much. There are others that challenge the rest with their unique perspective. I don’t know where else I would address those challenges with the ease and freedom this forum provides.
Years ago, I thought about what a shame it would be if the forum were to disappear. I was thinking that, even though you’re ultimately 100% responsible for its existence, it has become something greater than any one person. It collectively presents slices of history and events and unique stories that I doubt you find gathered anywhere else. If Armageddon does not come by the year 2525 (I’m counting decades from 1975), that generation may be looking at a great historical perspective while examining the content here. Even if observers know nothing about the JWs because the organization has disappeared, I think they will view the stories here as having a unique and significant perspective in history.
I beg that you don’t ever think again about abandoning the site and that you trust somebody to keep it going when you’re no longer able. Thank you for your investment in time, effort and dedication.
Etude.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
I understand what you mean, but only partially. The very intent of Dawkins, as a scientist, is to explain that which seems counter intuitive. As a scientist, he feels the need to explain, via the process of Natural Selection, the anomaly of a diety. The problem is that he does not differentiate the idea of deity, religion and that sense of "more" some people call spirituality. Instead he lumps all of that into a single entity. I consider myself a profound agnostic NOT for the reason that the idea of God is impossible, but for the reason that there is no way to demonstrate that such an idea is a reality. So, I'm not ruling out the prospect that Natural Selection would have something to do with the creation of the deity concept. However, I can't assume that it did from Dawkins' explanations. They just don't hold up.
-
32
NNew member...1st post
by Oh Gawd innew guy here so i thought i would make a brief introduction.. my exposure to the jw's is indirect, as i have never been a member; however my wife of 22 years grew up in a jw household.
her dad is the grand-pooba or whatever level of "elder" you call it for his kh.
her mom, sister, brother, and their spouses all died in the wool witnesses.
-
-
Etude
I realize this is difficult since I have a wife already, but can I marry you? I can't get over the clarity of your thoughts in assessing not just your personal preferences but the JW religion and relating your tenacity in belief and your recognition of what's really going on in the family dynamic. You like the right things and yet have a good grasp of ideology (and where it is lacking). By way of explanation, what you describe (F-I-L not contributing money to the Borg, family still talking to you, etc) tells me that they have a clue (even if not fully conscious) on which side their bread is buttered. You can't argue with success. That happens when intelligent people who reach that state. They set different priorities. Still, we're all humans and try to keep the ties that will save us, just in case. It's like the Mafioso who puts people in cement shoes asking for the last rites at his death bed from a priest. That's why they stay. Enjoy it while it lasts. Who knows, you may present a good case to them of live a fulfilling life and not be involved with the JWs.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
That fact that his work is criticized is because what some, or even Dawkins, characterize as "evidence", is really not evidence and hence is being challenged. That's not to say that it is out of the realm of possibility. But it can't be considered evidence unless it's been corroborated and verified.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
“It is not presented as gospel. It is not presented as infallible.”
Not quite. In fact, Dawkins’ fervor is as militant and emphatic as the best of Evangelicals on TV. As I mentioned before, I get the feeling that Dawkins is rather smug about his theories to the chagrin of other scientists. He criticizes Paul Davis (a renowned physicist) for pointing out the failure of science to explain its own foundations (beyond the Anthropic Principle) while Dawkins himself has difficulty justifying his own theories.
For example: Carl Coon (an atheist and vice president of the American Humanist Association and author of several books) puts the dismissal of Group Selection [as an alternate explication for certain non-genetic behavior], particularly coming from Dawkins, this way: “It was as though he [Dawkins] had informed me that the American Association for the Advancement of Science had repealed the law of gravity.” Now, that’s smugness and intellectual protectionism. He is not in agreement in many specific ways with the rest of the scientific community. He can advance the idea of Evolution by repeating it in his books, but not because he has all the right answers.
-
189
Dawkins-The Greatest Show on Earth
by KateWild inas many may be aware.
i don't like the man.
but i have chosen to review the first chapter of his book.. chapter 1... only a theory?.
-
-
Etude
Yeah. I think he's a great writer, just not a very accurate one in the way he proposes his affirmations (his take on the Anthropic Principle, for example). His prose is superb, being English and all. I just think that in the realm of content, he stretches things a bit.
-
23
False Prophecy Part 3 With A Jehovahs Witness Elder
by Watchtower-Free injw: they are not.. kw: but if they were, would you want to know?.
jw: they are not.. kw: im not saying they are.
jw: no.. kw: really?
-
-
Etude
It seems you were well prepared and sufficiently cunning to not piss him off and have him walk off. I think the conversation is a testament to a clear and logical approach that can persuade. I went into Bethel around February of 1974. In about or shortly after April of 1974, I attended the Gilead graduation at Sunny Side, Queens, NY. There, Fred Franz first stated, as I heard with my own ears, that the fulfillment of 6,000 years since Adam's creation would happen in 1975 and how appropriate it would be for the 1,000 years of Christ's reign to start (meaning after Armageddon). I didn't really care because I was at Bethel and didn't have to make life-changing decisions. Nevertheless, I didn't fail to notice what that meant. After that, I really didn't hear much about people selling their houses and giving up everything because Armageddon was about to come. Even after I did, the commentary between the brothers tended to blame the people who made those decisions rather than the organization for promoting. I was very much one with the Borg.