Dawkins

I've noticed that you're factually incorrect about some of the main things in the book, like the main hypothesis that organisms are essentially selfish, and only by exception display some altruistic traits, and that you ignore my paraphrasings of the book.Besides when you say that comparing religion and a tank is a wonderful metaphore, then you have lost all credibility with me. That is spuriously hateful towards religion, and towards basic humanity really.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu:I am honored to discover that you now consider me worthy of the same misrepresentation and insults that you direct toward the author whom we have been discussing. I wish I could say that it has been a pleasure debating you, but the thread has degenerated beyond that point. Your paraphrasing is quite clearly not supported by an actual reading of the book (I have it at home) and since you will not debate in good faith, I am recusing myself from discussion. Please note that I have not questioned your credibility or thrown any insults in your direction, but have offered only simple requests for quotes to justify your claims. That's all it would take to revive this thread. Until then, I'm staying out.

You have avoided my arguments, and in stead have concentrated on trying to make this discussion into a meaningless issue of authority.You have avoided my argument about a fundamental flaw in the book, talking about Nature red in tooth and claw.You have avoided my paraphrasings of the book, even when you were insistently and repeatedly asking that I would give quotes of the book.You're also wrong on what the Selfish Gene is about:
Zephyr:
"Bottom line: "altruistic" behaviors, in the long term, can be favored by natural selection. That's what The Selfish Gene is about."The Selfish Gene hypothesises that organisms are generally selfish, and by exception some have some altruistic traits, although those traits are not really altruistic.So why are you arguing about authority on the book, when you yourself are wrong about what the book says?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, please stop being insulting.zephyr has not avoided your arguments, and I do not understand how you think they have been "trying to make this discussion into a meaningless issue of authority." I have read the entire string and I can't see where you're coming from - all I see is someone trying to understand your point of view, and explain theirs in return.The Selfish Gene appears to be a metaphor using a human concept of morality applied to a particular aspect of genetics, producing a new way of looking at evolution etc. This may be useful and enlightening in some ways - but ultimately I believe it is too open to misunderstanding, and that clouds the issue. Probably inevitable in pop science - use a metaphor to explain something to a layperson, and some will take it the wrong way.Is it possible that his work was not peer-reviewed because biologists don't need this kind of metaphor?I don't think he meant for it to seem hateful or anti-religion or whatever - the piece of the preface posted by zephyr shows this.Bear in mind as well that if you want to support your arguments, paraphrasing just isn't good enough. Only citing your references or quoting directly (like what zephyr has done) will do.The Rock Hound

But before in the tread he did answer a paraphrase from the book of someone. Could that be because the other person was an evolutionist, not very critical of Dawkins?Sure one can remotely conceive that it is not hateful towards religion, to say that we can discard all theories about origin prior to Darwin. We can do this if we conceive of Darwinism, and Dawkins particular conception of Darwinism, as well as those of Haeckel, Lorenz, Galton, and Darwin in "Descent of Man", as a religion itself. .I've seen the book referred to as the most important work in evolutionary biology in the last 30 years or something. The proponents of Dawkins tend to be more vocal, and therefore influential, then other scientists.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

But before in the tread he did answer a paraphrase from the book of someone. Could that be because the other person was an evolutionist, not very critical of Dawkins?

---

I don't understand this - what tread? What other person?

quote:

---

Sure one can remotely conceive that it is not hateful towards religion, to say that we can discard all theories about origin prior to Darwin.

---

Ah, but therein lies the problem - it is not hateful towards all religions if you say this, just the Christian ones that are obsessed with Bible literalism. I don't find the idea hateful to my religion at all, which suggests that the problem lies in misinterpretation.Just out of curiosity, where is the book referred to as the most important work in evolutionary biology in the last 30 years?The Rock Hound

I consider Dawkins a fascinating writer. I'm sure his smug atheism is by itself responsible for his unpopularity among believers, most of whom seem more likely to revile Dawkins's work than to read it. Your correspondent here seems typical.However, his writings themselves are centered on the unguided, mechanistic processes responsible for the diversity of life on Earth. His assertion that the thing most impressive about the biosphere is its illusory appearance of having been intelligently designed would be sufficient to rile the believers, if they bothered to examine his work and not his sound-bites.This is more radical than it appears at first. Dawkins takes great pains to provide plausible evolutionary pathways for complex natural phenomena, which leaves the believers in the position of having to provide a similarly intelligible scenario for its 'design' through Intelligent Agency. It's significant that none exist. Otherwise, believers would have offered at least one instead of attempting to dismiss Dawkins's proposals as just-so-stories, since even those are lacking in the ID literature. The irony in this recent post should have been obvious to its ID-addled author: 'It must be comfy when your hypotheses about the world only need to be possible.'

If that's your interpretation of the theme of the book, you'll have to support it with evidence (quotes) from the text. That's how literary criticism is done.I know for a fact that the theme of the book is not "organisms have, by exception, some altruistic traits" but that alturistic traits can be looked at in a way that is advantageous to the organisms genes. Hence, "The Selfish Gene" and not "The Selfish Organism". How did you miss the title?

When you have eliminated the possible, whatever remains, no matter how irrational, must be the truth. Is that how it goes?

Shouldn't that be the impossible instead of the possible? ------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Now you're talking some sense. Interested in a fellowship at the Discovery Institute?

quote:

---

I consider Dawkins a fascinating writer. I'm sure his smug atheism is by itself responsible for his unpopularity among believers, most of whom seem more likely to revile Dawkins's work than to read it. Your correspondent here seems typical

---

"Smug atheist" is an epithet which seems to follow Dawkins around, but I don't see why this is considered a problem, or even distasteful. What's wrong with Dawkins wearing his atheism on his sleeve?From reading his books and seeing some of his layman lectures, I'd say his central themes on the God issue are that you should never believe an extraordinary claim without having some kind of objective evidence for it and that the truth is the truth, irrespective of the consequences that would have. If an overarching hypothetical "truth" was one day discovered that made young people go out and rob old ladies, then it would still be a truth. It doesn't become a lie simply because you don't like the consequences. I don't know of any scientist or popular writer (except perhaps Douglas Adams) who would write with such clarity and conviction on this whole atheism / evidence topic.PE

quote:

---

"Smug atheist" is an epithet which seems to follow Dawkins around, but I don't see why this is considered a problem, or even distasteful. What's wrong with Dawkins wearing his atheism on his sleeve?

---

You're the one who called it an epithet. I have no problem with his atheism, so what's wrong with stating how proudly he wears it?I envy you having heard Dawkins speak. I've been a fan of his for a long time, and I've enjoyed reading his works and articles. You're absolutely right that he respects no opinion that isn't formulated on some rational basis. This puts him in the position of preaching to the choir, since anyone who does not share his views will be unlikely to read his work. Don't you recall how many times in "Watchmaker" he mentioned the Paluxy hoax, whether or not it was pertinent to his argument?As much as I enjoy works by Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (and I enjoy them immensely), I realize they are serving a completely different purpose than this forum we have at EvC. They dismiss creationism as folly and mention it only scornfully, as if it were only a failed scientific model. Robert Pennock and Kenneth Miller at least give creationists credit for their philosophical concerns, even as they point out the weakness of their arguments against science.------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

You're the one who called it an epithet. I have no problem with his atheism, so what's wrong with stating how proudly he wears it?

---

Ah, then I have misunderstood you, or was too eager to believe that "smug atheist" could only be interpreted as a disparaging comment. When I initiated this thread, I was hoping to hear and understand some "evolutionist" criticisms of Dawkins. Sounds like neither of us has an issue with his rabid, drooling brand of atheistic fundamentalism.

quote:

---

This puts him in the position of preaching to the choir, since anyone who does not share his views will be unlikely to read his work.

---

Completely agree, although you do hear the odd story of road to Damascus type stories about fundies who read the Selfish Gene and lost their faith. His style can come over curiously precious and abrasive at the same time, and for those who start disliking him, there seems to be little way back.

quote:

---

As much as I enjoy works by Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (and I enjoy them immensely), I realize they are serving a completely different purpose than this forum we have at EvC. They dismiss creationism as folly and mention it only scornfully, as if it were only a failed scientific model.

---

I'm not sure there is any merit in Creationism per se at all - well, none that I can see anyhows. Dawkins does not want to tackle this because he feels it gives them the oxygen of publicity - a creationist would claim victory if he / she managed to get any of Dawkins' time whatsoever. Personally, I do enjoy Evo vs Creo arguments as I find arguments and debates to be a particularly effective way of learning for me - so maybe Creationism inadvertently has that much going for it. Unfortunately the more one learns about Creationism, the less credible it seems, so it loses its utility as an coherent counterpoint over time.PE

quote:

---

I'm not sure there is any merit in Creationism per se at all - well, none that I can see anyhows.

---

You'll get no argument from me. As I mentioned before, the atheister-than-thou pronouncements of Dawkins and Dennett (et. al.) aren't going to rile me any, but neither are they going to change any minds in the creationist camp.Robert Pennock, in 'Tower of Babel,' made it clear that while creationism may be a pathetic excuse for a scientific construct, its appeal is psychological. We want to believe our lives have purpose and meaning, and Darwinism doesn't deliver that for many. Kenneth Miller, in 'Finding Darwin's God,' demolished every argument from the intelligent design creationists. However, he too tried to clear up the misconception that Darwin's theory somehow robs our existence of its wonder.Dawkins and the rest of the arch-atheists have every right to assert the truth of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. They can in fact claim that their opinions concerning the history of life on Earth are more substantial and rational. However, their attitude toward creationism is as naive as the creationists' attempts at science.------------------
Quien busca, halla