i have to say, i am afraid i found this chapter labourious to read in most places.
imo i felt he just wasn't getting to the point.
i don't get why dawkins felt the need to teach me all about platoism, essentialism and rabbits.
Well, it stands to reason that large boobs and Natural Selection are intrinsically linked. That supports the idea of Group Selection and the distribution of the "large boob" gene into a population. I'm sure he had to restrict his examples for brevety's sake and therefore did not expand his discussion on the "large penis" gene. Oh yeah, let's not forget the "big butt" gene.
i have to say, i am afraid i found this chapter labourious to read in most places.
imo i felt he just wasn't getting to the point.
i don't get why dawkins felt the need to teach me all about platoism, essentialism and rabbits.
tec:
"I, personally, will not read Dawkins if i want to read something about science. I will go to a scientist who has no other agenda or bias. I would really just want it straight. Just the facts... no spin on them."
PRECISELY! It doesn't mean that Dawkins or any other similar writer can't be correct about something. But if one really wants to cut throught the bullshit (other than for entertainment purposes), there are better ways than reading popularists books.
this site is not a healthy forum for discussion or healing.
its an arena for jaded athiests to bash anything christian or god related.
yes, i know the jw's lied to us about god and the truth.
It would be easy to say and leave it at that, that if you really feel that way, there's the digital door and don't let it hit you in the behind on your way out. But in reality, some that you would term atheists are not necessarily against religion. I think religion is fine for those who need it. For me, I refuse to drink the Kool-Aid and I encourage everyone who wants to be a believer to do so but not with eyes closed. There is value in ritual and discipline and tradition. I just think people should be aware of what they’re doing and not do it because their parents did it or because they are desperately ignorant. This is where you will have the opportunity to challenge others on their views and have your views challenged. I can't think of a more egalitarian place. Other than that, your other choice is to tip the cup and drink away.
the company's slogan is: .
ice cream is our religion.. in which case it appears to be a bloody good religion!.
here's some of their advertising.. this one cause a bit of a fuss.. .
I bet the Vatican is pissed.
religion is for people who are scared to go to hell.
spirituality is for people who have already been there.
- bonnie raitt .
Check out this topic: can spirituality replace religion?
as 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?.
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.
as 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?.
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?
as 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?.
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.
as 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?.
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.
as 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?.
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.
