"Meanwhile they busy themselves teaching children truly enlightened science: Nothing made everything out of nothing. Life came into being when lightning struck a swamp. You are a glorified animals."
To start with, you are discussing Dawkins in this article, and he deals with evolutionary biology. The first two points you make address abiogenesis, not the evolution of life. Evolution does not have any opinion on how life started, and while evolutionary biologists may have opinions on the matter, it is not what is addressed by evolution. Also, I challenge you to provide evidence of any peer-reviewed study or a publication by a scientist that says life started as lightning striking a swamp.
"- Find a fossil - Somehow conclude that it is “tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years old”
Science does just make fun guesses at how old things are, and then just get everyone to join in. Dating of fossils is a well documented process that has been supported by reliable testing over and over and over, primarily using geology and radiometric dating. There are people who will challenge dating of a fossil, and they are free to show, using evidence, why they feel something in wrong. These challenges help ensure that our knowledge is as accurate as possible. No one just "somehow conclude(s)" anything.
"However, Prof. Dawkins already had a child indoctrination session as recorded in 'Growing up in the Universe'"
This is a variation of the apologist argument, "it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be religious." The statement you made indicates that science is just another form of indoctrination, no different that religion, where the only way to make people believe it is to teach 'em young. Absolute tripe. Science (and Dawkins himself) encourages children to view the world realistically, based on what is actually known. The scientific method allows for ideas to be refined, adapted, changed, or tossed out entirely if new evidence makes it clear that we were previously wrong.
Teaching children critical thinking and current scientific thought is the opposite of religious indoctrination, which makes it a virtue to not question and to shut off your mind and accept things with no evidence.
"Besides, since there are countless examples of fossils and prettification occurring quickly, fossilization and prettification seem to be more about circumstance than about time."
Any actual evidence to support this statement? The most widely known example was provided by Kent Hovind (a bone in a boot), but this is a well known fraud. If you have some other evidence that calls fossilization into question, please list it.
Your opinion of Dawkins is one shared by many. He is aggressive in sharing his thoughts with others, and doesn't feel that religion is due any more respect than a belief in Bigfoot. But your personal opinion on Dawkins tactics has nothing to do with the facts at the core. Your attempt to cast doubt upon evolution is ham-handed at best. Use critical thought to challenge evolution. Otherwise, stick to statements of religious conviction, which do not require evidence or reason.
Craig; I appreciate the comment, points and questions. I am afraid that you have committed some category mistakes which caused part of the confusion and caused you to read too much into my post.
You are correct in stating that I am “discussing Dawkins in this article” and that “evolutionary biologists may have opinions on the matter [of life’s origins]” even if “it is not what is addressed by evolution.” Since I am discussing Dawkins and he has an opinion it is apropos to mention his opinion.
Stating that life began when lightning striking a swamp is a slightly hyperbolic statement that represent what I, and I am sure that you, were taught in science class. Go to the library, pick up any book on science, or biology in particular, and it will present the primordial soup concept. Urey and Miller sent electrical charges into their chemical mixture based on this concept. Charles Darwin, after whom the terms “Darwinism” or “Darwinian evolution” were coined, speculated about life beginning in a “warm little pond.”
Dawkins picked up a fossil and without having it tested merely proclaimed its age—he did “somehow conclude.” You may claim that he was doing so based on similar fossils but the fact is that he found a fossil and proclaimed its age—no test. The children were skeptical of a mere authoritarian pronouncement—good for those young scientists.
I did not present a variation of an apologist argument. I am afraid that you missed the point. If you actually view the video of Dawkins lecturing children entitled “Growing up in the universe” you will readily see that he mixes scientific observations with his personal atheistic assertions. I can parse the two and I am sure that you can too, although I do not know if the children could—he saturates them with false information.
Dawkins was taught what ever form of Darwinian evolution was being taught at the time that he was a teenager, he believed it because he was taught it, he realized that it could do away with God (How? God only knows) and he has spent a lifetime solidifying his resolve that Darwinian evolution makes God only 1% likely to exist (until he is asked how he know that, at which point he admits to having no reason).
While I am sure that somewhere out there, there are some people who make it a virtue to not question and to shut off their minds I have not met any. Actually, what the Bible states and what people choose to do are two vastly different things.
The Bible states, “Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, ‘I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.’” This was scientific methodology. Moses’ first reaction is to think critically, skeptically and scientifically: he thought about what he was seeing, he planed a course of action, he approached the phenomenon and he determined to examine it.
In Judaism illiteracy is considered a sin and Christian scholarship of every sort has been alive and well for two millennia. Judaism and Christianity have produces some of the top minds in history (scientists, lawyers, historians, businessmen, linguists, scholars, doctors, etc., etc., etc.).
To this day the Bereans are revered as they were praise by Paul because every day after he taught them they went off and double checked what he said.
The Apostle Thomas demanded evidence of what others had claimed to have seen. This is yet another point utterly misunderstood, misinterpreted, misrepresented and misapplied by Dawkins (see my essay The Apostle Thomas: Patron Saint of Scientists?).
Also, I am not making an “attempt to cast doubt upon evolution,” I was critiquing Dawkins and if anything thought my blog, attempting to demonstrate that he may know what he is talking about when he is speaking as a biologist and sticking to observed phenomenon but otherwise he is very wrong on many issues.
What is it that you think some people accept without evidence?
Just saw your response when I checked in on your most recent entry. As this is a huge issue, I will just speak to a few points I feel are important.
"Stating that life began when lightning striking a swamp is a slightly hyperbolic statement that represent what I, and I am sure that you, were taught in science class. Go to the library, pick up any book on science, or biology in particular, and it will present the primordial soup concept. Urey and Miller sent electrical charges into their chemical mixture based on this concept."
First, I have never been taught lightning striking a swamp is the origin of life, and I would like to see the text book you used that made the statement. I have, however, seen this imagery used in a variety of creationist/ID videos, as a way to try and cast scientists as foolish, therefore allowing people to disregard other things they say as well.
Second, I am very aware of the Miller-Urey experiment. It is one very interesting experiement among many, showing that amino acids can be created in solutions when electricity in introduced. Experiments conducted have supported a variety of hypothesis. Complex carbon formations have been created in impact studies, giving us insight into how amino acids may have formed during comet or asteroid impacts. Tests on the survival of amino acids and carbon structures in space conditions have suggested that panspermia can't be ruled out.
Darwin's suggestion on a "warm pool" is irrelevant in your discussion of current scientific study. Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. He was a misogynist and a racist. He wrote 150 years ago, and his proposals had problems. His idea of Natural Selection, however, is more than just a few statements, and has survived the test of time. Evolution isn't taught because people run around with a copy of Origin of Species and say that it is fact. Evolution persists because it is supported over and over and over by facts. And every time we learn more about biology, anthropology and geology, the theory is proved and made stronger and stronger.
Your suggestion that children are being taught life came into being when lightning struck a swamp is more than a "slightly hyperbolic statement", it is a gross misstatement. This is not to say that children are not being taught the idea of abiogenesis and why it is valid. Good science education in school will include ideas that have been supported by testing. As we learn more and more, those ideas are refined, adapted, or cast aside, depending on the information we have.
"If you actually view the video of Dawkins lecturing children entitled “Growing up in the universe” you will readily see that he mixes scientific observations with his personal atheistic assertions."
I've seen "Growing Up In the Universe", and saw no atheistic assertions. I saw lots of scientific assertions, and assertions that science does in fact have a place in the discussions of origins. I can readily parse the two as well. If you have some examples you would like to present, that would be more valid than just a blank assertion.
"Christianity have produces some of the top minds in history (scientists, lawyers, historians, businessmen, linguists, scholars, doctors, etc., etc., etc.)."
This is part of your response to my suggestion that religion shuts down peoples reasoning skills. The idea that Christianity, Judaism or Islam "produced" great minds is often propositioned, but has no validity. Many great people were religious, there is no doubt. Great art was produced for the church. Muslim scholars made huge advancements in math. These things were done by religious people, but not due to their religion. Man is curious and has the ability to grow their knowledge. Study of the Bible will not give you insight into the orbit of planets. Study of the Torah will not develop medicine. Study of Koran will not reveal calculus. These things all happen by curiosity and without religion.
To say that knowledge is should be destroyed, to persecute people for "witchcraft" (ungodly knowledge), to stone women who are raped, to consider mental illness demonic possession, to assert that condoms are evil, to ignore fact and science because it conflicts with what the creator the universe has told you through a book; that takes religion.
This is how religion shuts off rational thought. It makes it a virtue to accept a god or gods with no evidence. It allows people to say that some things are unquestionable. It allows people to say that God is the only answer. It allows good people to accept atrocities. Learning and Science is not a result of religion. It has developed despite of religion. Reason and science has brought religion kicking and screaming from darkness into the light, and only when it becomes so undeniable that people begin to turn their back on a belief does religion finally absorb it.
My goal is for people to think clearly, and base their decisions and opinions on solid logic. The article you wrote has logical fallacies, and false assertions. I am not suggesting your arguments are wrong, even though I disagree with you, but in its current form it is not a strong argument against Dawkins.
You claim that you were never taught that “lightning striking a swamp is the origin of life” and state that you “would like to see the text book you used that made the statement.” I must say that I am flummoxed, I thought that this was biology 101 and common knowledge. But since you ask, so you shall receive:
The following is from my, about 35 LB badboy, Neil A. Campbell and Jane B. Reece, Biology 6th ed. (San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings, 2002), pp. 516, 518
“Although there is no evidence that spontaneous generation occurs today, conditions on the early Earth were very different. For instance, there was relatively little atmospheric oxygen to tear apart complex molecules. And such energy sources as lightning, volcanic activity, and ultraviolet sunlight were all more intense than what we experience today.”
Of the Miller-Urrey experiment, “A warmed flask of water simulated the primeval sea…sparks were discharged in the synthetic atmosphere to mimic lightning.”
They say “Primeval sea” and “ancient aquatic environments.” Others, “primordial soup.” Urey-Miller are said to have used a “warmed flask of water.” Charles Darwin referred to a “warm little pond.” And I say “swamp.” You virtually validate my claim yourself by referring to the Miller-Urey experiment which included electrical charge and you further speculate about life arising from whatever you wish to call the swamp and comet or asteroid impacts.
I not only do not know of anyone but have never even heard of anyone who does not hold to Natural Selection.
As for “Growing Up In the Universe” in the very near future I will begin posting a series which critiques the first lecture.
Speaking of blank assertions: the fact is that the reason why theists established the fields and methods of science is that they believed in a rational God who created rational human being who could explore a rational creation. The fact is that scriptural scholarship lead Judaism and Christianity towards scholarship in order areas. Considering literacy and scholarship to be a virtue leads to further education.
When atheists criticize religion I am right beside them saying “Amen!!!!!!!!” Yet, statements such as yours about destroying knowledge, demonism, condoms, etc. are a cacophonous mixture of various aspects of the question a mixture of rightly condemning religions with misrepresenting the Bible. Please, elucidate if you wish.
Sir, I do not know you, nor your education level, nor your social status (and I do not care to know) yet, I wonder if you truly are as high up in your ivory tower as you think you are, or as you come across as being. Then again if you generically refer to “religion” I barely know what that means. For example, the Bible is the most anti-religion books I know. Generally, people who believe in God do so based on evidence. But what would you consider evidence of God’s existence?
I am afraid that your statements “Learning and Science is not a result of religion” is simply counter to history and “Reason and science has brought religion kicking and screaming from darkness into the light” is tantamount to my stating that this “Reason and science” which rid us of God brought us the bloodiest century in human history.
Professor Richard Dawkins is not only a scientist but a celebrity. He is not only lecturer but a debater. He is not only a teacher but an author.
Prof. Richard Dawkins has long been one of the world’s leading voices for the activists atheist movement, one of the leaders of the “New Atheists.”
This blog, Richard Dawkins : Scientist or Activist?, which was established in Nov. 2007, provides a careful dissection of his various statements on a wide range of issue: biology, evolution, morality, abortion, religion, the Bible, and much more.
Get my ebook, "The Apocryphal Jesus," here
"Meanwhile they busy themselves teaching children truly enlightened science: Nothing made everything out of nothing. Life came into being when lightning struck a swamp.
ReplyDeleteYou are a glorified animals."
To start with, you are discussing Dawkins in this article, and he deals with evolutionary biology. The first two points you make address abiogenesis, not the evolution of life. Evolution does not have any opinion on how life started, and while evolutionary biologists may have opinions on the matter, it is not what is addressed by evolution. Also, I challenge you to provide evidence of any peer-reviewed study or a publication by a scientist that says life started as lightning striking a swamp.
"- Find a fossil
- Somehow conclude that it is “tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years old”
Science does just make fun guesses at how old things are, and then just get everyone to join in. Dating of fossils is a well documented process that has been supported by reliable testing over and over and over, primarily using geology and radiometric dating. There are people who will challenge dating of a fossil, and they are free to show, using evidence, why they feel something in wrong. These challenges help ensure that our knowledge is as accurate as possible. No one just "somehow conclude(s)" anything.
"However, Prof. Dawkins already had a child indoctrination session as recorded in 'Growing up in the Universe'"
This is a variation of the apologist argument, "it takes as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be religious." The statement you made indicates that science is just another form of indoctrination, no different that religion, where the only way to make people believe it is to teach 'em young. Absolute tripe. Science (and Dawkins himself) encourages children to view the world realistically, based on what is actually known. The scientific method allows for ideas to be refined, adapted, changed, or tossed out entirely if new evidence makes it clear that we were previously wrong.
Teaching children critical thinking and current scientific thought is the opposite of religious indoctrination, which makes it a virtue to not question and to shut off your mind and accept things with no evidence.
"Besides, since there are countless examples of fossils and prettification occurring quickly, fossilization and prettification seem to be more about circumstance than about time."
Any actual evidence to support this statement? The most widely known example was provided by Kent Hovind (a bone in a boot), but this is a well known fraud. If you have some other evidence that calls fossilization into question, please list it.
Your opinion of Dawkins is one shared by many. He is aggressive in sharing his thoughts with others, and doesn't feel that religion is due any more respect than a belief in Bigfoot. But your personal opinion on Dawkins tactics has nothing to do with the facts at the core. Your attempt to cast doubt upon evolution is ham-handed at best. Use critical thought to challenge evolution. Otherwise, stick to statements of religious conviction, which do not require evidence or reason.
Craig;
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the comment, points and questions.
I am afraid that you have committed some category mistakes which caused part of the confusion and caused you to read too much into my post.
You are correct in stating that I am “discussing Dawkins in this article” and that “evolutionary biologists may have opinions on the matter [of life’s origins]” even if “it is not what is addressed by evolution.” Since I am discussing Dawkins and he has an opinion it is apropos to mention his opinion.
Stating that life began when lightning striking a swamp is a slightly hyperbolic statement that represent what I, and I am sure that you, were taught in science class. Go to the library, pick up any book on science, or biology in particular, and it will present the primordial soup concept.
Urey and Miller sent electrical charges into their chemical mixture based on this concept.
Charles Darwin, after whom the terms “Darwinism” or “Darwinian evolution” were coined, speculated about life beginning in a “warm little pond.”
Dawkins picked up a fossil and without having it tested merely proclaimed its age—he did “somehow conclude.” You may claim that he was doing so based on similar fossils but the fact is that he found a fossil and proclaimed its age—no test. The children were skeptical of a mere authoritarian pronouncement—good for those young scientists.
I did not present a variation of an apologist argument. I am afraid that you missed the point. If you actually view the video of Dawkins lecturing children entitled “Growing up in the universe” you will readily see that he mixes scientific observations with his personal atheistic assertions. I can parse the two and I am sure that you can too, although I do not know if the children could—he saturates them with false information.
Dawkins was taught what ever form of Darwinian evolution was being taught at the time that he was a teenager, he believed it because he was taught it, he realized that it could do away with God (How? God only knows) and he has spent a lifetime solidifying his resolve that Darwinian evolution makes God only 1% likely to exist (until he is asked how he know that, at which point he admits to having no reason).
While I am sure that somewhere out there, there are some people who make it a virtue to not question and to shut off their minds I have not met any. Actually, what the Bible states and what people choose to do are two vastly different things.
The Bible states, “Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, ‘I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.’” This was scientific methodology. Moses’ first reaction is to think critically, skeptically and scientifically: he thought about what he was seeing, he planed a course of action, he approached the phenomenon and he determined to examine it.
In Judaism illiteracy is considered a sin and Christian scholarship of every sort has been alive and well for two millennia. Judaism and Christianity have produces some of the top minds in history (scientists, lawyers, historians, businessmen, linguists, scholars, doctors, etc., etc., etc.).
To this day the Bereans are revered as they were praise by Paul because every day after he taught them they went off and double checked what he said.
The Apostle Thomas demanded evidence of what others had claimed to have seen. This is yet another point utterly misunderstood, misinterpreted, misrepresented and misapplied by Dawkins (see my essay The Apostle Thomas: Patron Saint of Scientists?).
Also, I am not making an “attempt to cast doubt upon evolution,” I was critiquing Dawkins and if anything thought my blog, attempting to demonstrate that he may know what he is talking about when he is speaking as a biologist and sticking to observed phenomenon but otherwise he is very wrong on many issues.
What is it that you think some people accept without evidence?
aDios,
Mariano
Mariano,
ReplyDeleteJust saw your response when I checked in on your most recent entry. As this is a huge issue, I will just speak to a few points I feel are important.
"Stating that life began when lightning striking a swamp is a slightly hyperbolic statement that represent what I, and I am sure that you, were taught in science class. Go to the library, pick up any book on science, or biology in particular, and it will present the primordial soup concept.
Urey and Miller sent electrical charges into their chemical mixture based on this concept."
First, I have never been taught lightning striking a swamp is the origin of life, and I would like to see the text book you used that made the statement. I have, however, seen this imagery used in a variety of creationist/ID videos, as a way to try and cast scientists as foolish, therefore allowing people to disregard other things they say as well.
Second, I am very aware of the Miller-Urey experiment. It is one very interesting experiement among many, showing that amino acids can be created in solutions when electricity in introduced. Experiments conducted have supported a variety of hypothesis. Complex carbon formations have been created in impact studies, giving us insight into how amino acids may have formed during comet or asteroid impacts. Tests on the survival of amino acids and carbon structures in space conditions have suggested that panspermia can't be ruled out.
Darwin's suggestion on a "warm pool" is irrelevant in your discussion of current scientific study. Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. He was a misogynist and a racist. He wrote 150 years ago, and his proposals had problems. His idea of Natural Selection, however, is more than just a few statements, and has survived the test of time. Evolution isn't taught because people run around with a copy of Origin of Species and say that it is fact. Evolution persists because it is supported over and over and over by facts. And every time we learn more about biology, anthropology and geology, the theory is proved and made stronger and stronger.
Your suggestion that children are being taught life came into being when lightning struck a swamp is more than a "slightly hyperbolic statement", it is a gross misstatement. This is not to say that children are not being taught the idea of abiogenesis and why it is valid. Good science education in school will include ideas that have been supported by testing. As we learn more and more, those ideas are refined, adapted, or cast aside, depending on the information we have.
"If you actually view the video of Dawkins lecturing children entitled “Growing up in the universe” you will readily see that he mixes scientific observations with his personal atheistic assertions."
I've seen "Growing Up In the Universe", and saw no atheistic assertions. I saw lots of scientific assertions, and assertions that science does in fact have a place in the discussions of origins. I can readily parse the two as well. If you have some examples you would like to present, that would be more valid than just a blank assertion.
"Christianity have produces some of the top minds in history (scientists, lawyers, historians, businessmen, linguists, scholars, doctors, etc., etc., etc.)."
This is part of your response to my suggestion that religion shuts down peoples reasoning skills. The idea that Christianity, Judaism or Islam "produced" great minds is often propositioned, but has no validity. Many great people were religious, there is no doubt. Great art was produced for the church. Muslim scholars made huge advancements in math. These things were done by religious people, but not due to their religion. Man is curious and has the ability to grow their knowledge. Study of the Bible will not give you insight into the orbit of planets. Study of the Torah will not develop medicine. Study of Koran will not reveal calculus. These things all happen by curiosity and without religion.
To say that knowledge is should be destroyed, to persecute people for "witchcraft" (ungodly knowledge), to stone women who are raped, to consider mental illness demonic possession, to assert that condoms are evil, to ignore fact and science because it conflicts with what the creator the universe has told you through a book; that takes religion.
This is how religion shuts off rational thought. It makes it a virtue to accept a god or gods with no evidence. It allows people to say that some things are unquestionable. It allows people to say that God is the only answer. It allows good people to accept atrocities. Learning and Science is not a result of religion. It has developed despite of religion. Reason and science has brought religion kicking and screaming from darkness into the light, and only when it becomes so undeniable that people begin to turn their back on a belief does religion finally absorb it.
My goal is for people to think clearly, and base their decisions and opinions on solid logic. The article you wrote has logical fallacies, and false assertions. I am not suggesting your arguments are wrong, even though I disagree with you, but in its current form it is not a strong argument against Dawkins.
Craig;
ReplyDeleteGood to hear (or, read) from you again.
You claim that you were never taught that “lightning striking a swamp is the origin of life” and state that you “would like to see the text book you used that made the statement.”
I must say that I am flummoxed, I thought that this was biology 101 and common knowledge. But since you ask, so you shall receive:
The following is from my, about 35 LB badboy, Neil A. Campbell and Jane B. Reece, Biology 6th ed. (San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings, 2002), pp. 516, 518
“Although there is no evidence that spontaneous generation occurs today, conditions on the early Earth were very different. For instance, there was relatively little atmospheric oxygen to tear apart complex molecules. And such energy sources as lightning, volcanic activity, and ultraviolet sunlight were all more intense than what we experience today.”
Of the Miller-Urrey experiment, “A warmed flask of water simulated the primeval sea…sparks were discharged in the synthetic atmosphere to mimic lightning.”
They say “Primeval sea” and “ancient aquatic environments.” Others, “primordial soup.” Urey-Miller are said to have used a “warmed flask of water.” Charles Darwin referred to a “warm little pond.” And I say “swamp.” You virtually validate my claim yourself by referring to the Miller-Urey experiment which included electrical charge and you further speculate about life arising from whatever you wish to call the swamp and comet or asteroid impacts.
John Horgan, “In the Beginning…” may be of interest.
I not only do not know of anyone but have never even heard of anyone who does not hold to Natural Selection.
As for “Growing Up In the Universe” in the very near future I will begin posting a series which critiques the first lecture.
Speaking of blank assertions: the fact is that the reason why theists established the fields and methods of science is that they believed in a rational God who created rational human being who could explore a rational creation. The fact is that scriptural scholarship lead Judaism and Christianity towards scholarship in order areas. Considering literacy and scholarship to be a virtue leads to further education.
When atheists criticize religion I am right beside them saying “Amen!!!!!!!!”
Yet, statements such as yours about destroying knowledge, demonism, condoms, etc. are a cacophonous mixture of various aspects of the question a mixture of rightly condemning religions with misrepresenting the Bible. Please, elucidate if you wish.
Sir, I do not know you, nor your education level, nor your social status (and I do not care to know) yet, I wonder if you truly are as high up in your ivory tower as you think you are, or as you come across as being.
Then again if you generically refer to “religion” I barely know what that means. For example, the Bible is the most anti-religion books I know.
Generally, people who believe in God do so based on evidence. But what would you consider evidence of God’s existence?
I am afraid that your statements “Learning and Science is not a result of religion” is simply counter to history and “Reason and science has brought religion kicking and screaming from darkness into the light” is tantamount to my stating that this “Reason and science” which rid us of God brought us the bloodiest century in human history.
aDios,
Mariano