Dawkins

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.'

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

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:

---

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