h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

It's not so much championing of him, as that I've only just now read what he has to say, and whereas I'd expected someone as foaming at the mouth barking, as the usual run of creationists, I was surprised to discover that he knows his stuff (although his explanations of biochemistry were a wee bit simplified for the layperson) and that his tone is much more reasonable than expected.

<>

Previously, I had known nothing at all, about ID. I have always felt there are problems with evolution as it's usually stated. I'd read Elaine Morgan's Aquatic Ape hypothesis books, and couldn't understand the hostility they generated. It seemed to me that the ideas of some early researchers had got set in stone!


<>

I don't accept that atheism is *the* logical conclusion, although the impression I've got is that Dawkins and others think that I should.

<>

Ah, but he does, in a limited way. That was another surprise to me. He has some very harsh things to say about Creationists and creationism! (The book I read was 'Darwin's Black Box' and not his more recent one...)

Vicky

<>



from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,

>Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur.

shurely accepts 'in a limited way' = 'does not accept'

like you accept equal rights for gay people in a limited way, say

Hi Vicky,

Aha! A proper point, much more interesting to my 3-minute attention span.

OK, first up you are correct to suppose that I have not read Darwin's Black Box.

'Point 1 is that Behe *is* a scientist, very bit as much as Angry gurl there.'

Behe is a scientist. That's not the same as saying that ID is science. As az beat me to mentioning, Behe admitted in the Dover school trial that ID is no more science than astrology is. At the same trial, he was forced to admit that he had read virtually none of the research done on the evolutionary origins of the biochemical systems he used as examples.

'2. He never mentions God at all, in the book. Never.'

No, that was the whole point. ID was touted as a non-religious alternative to Creationism (since religion is illegal in US schools). But it was a front. The attitude was 'there must be an Intelligent Designer, but we can't say who He was (nudge, wink), perhaps it was aliens (snigger)'. Behe has said several times that he thinks the Intelligent Designer is God. The Discovery Institute had a secret 'Wedge Strategy' to use ID to get religion into American schools. The result of the Dover trial was ID being legally declared to be Creationism, and thus religion. Since then, cdesign proponentsists have been much more open about ID being religion - the game is up, so they might as well maximise their appeal to their core supporters.

'3. I have no scientific training, none. My education since high school has all been in the field of - well, education. Also language.'

So as I see it you have two options. You can give up and accept the scientific consensus (fortuantely there is one on this issue), which is that ID is bunk.

Alternatively, you can try to understand the issues for yourself. This is obviously the better option if you have the time and the interest. Since you're reading the book, I assume this is what you're doing. There are several explanations of why ID fails aimed at non-scientists. A selection of examples is collected at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html. To me, the interesting articles are those giving specific evolutionary pathways for the examples of 'Irreducible Complexity' that Behe gives in his book. I don't know if you might find something on the general assumptions of ID more interesting.

Dawkins' 'Ultimate 747 Argument' is also directed at ID as evidence for God, showing it to be self-contradictory. In fact, it's identical in everything except the specific examples used to William Paley's 'Divine Watchmaker' from the early 1800s.

Gif

Hi again Vicky,

'Of course she's angry - many of the slogans she quotes show that - and fearful... That's the most psychologically interesting part - the fear. If she's so 100% sure she is right, why is she (in common with many other angry-atheists) so unable to deal with opposing views?'

They say that 90% of feedback is self-analysis. Why do you suppose it is that such an obviously light-hearted post as this seems to you like 'fear'? Don't you feel you are on somewhat shakey ground to be coming over all politically correct on the use of words like 'schizophrenic' when you have so recently used 'Herr' as a perjorative? And do you not feel that you may often come over as angry and fearful in your posts here, despite your claimed 100% belief?

To me, this looked like an irreverent and lighthearted dig at religion in general. Some of the quotes are funnier than others, admittedly. But I guess that many atheists have a sense of humour about religion.

Gif

All,

I'm still trying to work out whether 'Evolutionary Psychology' is 'real science' or not. We had generally come to the conclusion that it isn't, since it doesn't make testable predictions. Then I saw a report on a recent piece of research suggesting that images of animals are more diverting that images of artefacts - our brains are more stimulated by pictures of lol catz, for instance, than by pictures of fast cars.

There is a screamingly obvious EP reason for this, i.e. that we are evolved to pay attention to animals but cars and guns are more recent inventions. So now I'm wondering whether it's improper to draw support for EP from this, and if so why? I can accept that EP could also have handled there being no difference in brain stimulation, but surely it could not have explained the reverse situation, i.e. that our minds are more stimulated by cars than cats.

Is this not a succesful prediction by EP, and in the absence of any competing explanation, is this not support for EP?

Gif

Hi Ed, az,

'Behe, of course, does not even accept evolution.'

Actually, he does. To the dismay of the Young Earthers, Behe fully accepts that the Earth is several billions of years old (I think I recall him having some reluctance to accept the specific figure of 4.6 billion years old, but he doesn't think that's wildly inaccurate). He accepts that all life on Earth came from a single common ancestor. He accepts that humans and chimps share a common ancestry. He even accepts that natural selection is the primary mechanism behind that.

He takes a 'theistic evolution' or 'Old Earth Creationist' view, that God directly intervened at a few points in evolution. As evidence for this, he believes he has found several structures that could not have formed naturally by evolution. Sadly, he has been unable to produce a single convincing example.

Gif

<>
Do I need to analyse myself? Y'all do it for me... (Thanks for letting me know that's az... I did wonder at her intimate knowledge of what I think, though she got it very wrong! )
<< Why do you suppose it is that such an obviously light-hearted post as this seems to you like 'fear'? >>
Light-hearted? That's not how it comes across at all, it seems far to confrontational and angry to be light-hearted.
<>
Absolutely not. It's not the same thing. I wasn't using Herr as a pejorative, no matter what you continue to insist. I admit, what I was aiming at was Dawkins = Hitler, and I should have come right out and said so. He's after all, very dictatorial! But I confess, he scares me rigid, I can see him passing laws to restrict the freedom of speech of those who disagree with his rigid views, and many of his followers are the same.
<>

Angry yes, I often am, and that's a fault in me, but I am angry at being attacked by people with a shaky grasp of reality, and who call me "it" and such like lovely things! Fearful, yes, I am fearful of them. I won't name names, I am sailing pretty close to the wind (to use a cliche) in even mentioning that person, who makes Hoo look like a peaceable friendly guy!
My beliefs aren't shaky. What I fear is the sh*tstorm known as "the Della Wars" by those who started and enjoyed them so much. That's why I abominate that name, and it's also while, although I forgive some people, I will *never ever trust them*. Az, you know who you are!

<>

Irreverent, no. As deliberately offensive as she could get, yes. Lighthearted, no. This woman's whole identity is wrapped up in her assumed superiority to those with religious belief. Not one, precisely none of those quotes are funny. Atheists seem to me, to have a sense of humour only about other's misfortune.

Vicky

<>

And the angry-atheists, you must admit that...

<>

Not the same thing...
<< Sadly, he has been unable to produce a single convincing example. >>

I think I disagree...

<>

Who? What are you talking about?

<>

Yes, I do know who I am. So I have no idea why you think I am someone else.

Have I missed something?


az

what is the convincing example then?

'I wasn't using Herr as a pejorative...what I was aiming at was Dawkins = Hitler"

!

Behe and Evolution...

Up to a point, yes, he appears to accept it. For clarity I should have said 'Evolution by Natural Selection'.

Which brings me to....

>>I don't accept that atheism is *the* logical conclusion, although the impression I've got is that Dawkins and others think that I should.

Yes, I know you don't, and this is the point I'm trying to make. As soon as one looks into it, it becomes apparent that the statements 'I believe in evolution [by natural selection]' and 'I believe in god [as the driving force behind the origin of species]' are incompatible. You don't have to take Dawkins' word on this - but as it happens he's written various books on biology which make the underlying processes of evolution extremely clear while not even mentioning god or explicitly arguing against religion. I'd recommend his 'The Ancestor's Tale', if only for its mind-boggling catalogue of the diversity of life. But if your aversion to Dawkins puts you off that (that would be a pity!), I'm sure there are other books by authors whose reputation does not preceed them. But I'm confident that no book by a competent biologist will need to invoke god to explain how anything happens.

Behe and his ilk are on a hiding to nothing trying to find god in te evolution or creation of life. We simply have shale bed loads of evidence, backed up by advances in DNA, which demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt the mechanism by which they proceded quite happily without divine intervention.

OK - so there might still be additional theological arguments for the existence of a god that had nothing to do with creation or evolution. But really - arguments for the compatibility of conventional Christianity and biology are a busted flush.

btw...in The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins reports how others have shown how the flegellum is not irreducibly complex.

<>

Yes, and Behe answers Dawkins regarding that! It's not as laughably simple as Dawkins makes it sound. I *have* read 'The Ancestor's Tale', and Dawkins is guilty of 'Just So' stories and a lot of what Behe cites from him and others - a lot of "it must have beens" and "then x developed" (how?) - really it doesn't satisfy a child... unless she has reasons for *wanting* to be satisfied by it!

I am reminded again, of the disproportionate rage directed at Elaine Morgan for her daring to question not, the fact of evolution, but the means of some of it. I couldn't understand that either when I read Morgan's first book on the subject in the 80s, or this year when I read her latest. Once again, it's that fear of opposing or questioning views...

Edward, it's a bit old-fashioned to think that creation is the best, or the only argument for God! What az would probably call the 'God hypothesis isn't so easily dismissed. I know that some atheist arguments hinge only on that, but they're the ones on a hiding to nothing! If God guided evolution, and I believe God did, would you expect God to label everything, for your convenience? It doesn't work that way.

@ post 6908 - what convincing example?

how dawkins makes it sound is irrelevant.

from the dover school board judgement:

*Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

>>Edward, it's a bit old-fashioned to think that creation is the best, or the only argument for God!

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough there. I fully accept thet many believers maintain that there are arguments for god *despite* there being none in creation. I'm interested in exploring those.

I undserstand, in fact, that this is one of McGrath's planks (I read about 2/3 of The Dawkins Delusion in a bookshop) - summarisable as 'Why do Atheists still think that creation/evolution are important? Theology has moved on!'. I regard this as a bit of a cop-out: theology hasn't so much moved on as ducked a centrally important issue. Their only option after Darwin was to carry on as though nothing had happened. Nevertheless, I'm happy to go with the 'Who cares about science - we have other fish to fry' angle.

So what are those fish? I did offer up my frying pan a while ago...

Hi az,

'So I have no idea why you think I am someone else. Have I missed something?'

You and me both. It looks like Vicky thinks I've said you're ScienceGrrrl. If so, I don't know why, and if not, I don't know what she meant.

Gif

Hi Vicky,

'I can see him passing laws to restrict the freedom of speech of those who disagree with his rigid views, and many of his followers are the same.'

Once again, you seem to be transferring your own views to others. You suggested that it was acceptable for Catholic schools to ban anti-Catholic books from their libraries, therefore you cannot believe that Dawkins would not also choose censorship if given the option. Which of hi 'followers' has said anything to remotely support that view?

The closest I can think of is that Creationism should not be taught as science. Not that it should censored, merely that the claim to be science does not entitle it to the status of science.

'<>
Not the same thing...'

If you can see any difference, you're clearly better informed than I am.

'I wasn't using Herr as a pejorative...what I was aiming at was Dawkins = Hitler"

Exactly. So if I said 'ScienceGrrrl wasn't using 'schizophrenia' as a pejorative...what she was aiming at was religion = stark staring bonkers', whould you not agree that that was analagous to your useage, and that both are (potentially) offensive?

'disproportionate rage directed at Elaine Morgan'

I suspect that this is yet another example of you assuming that everyone else in the world has the same level of rage and anger you do. Morgan has little evidence for her theory, and there is much against it. Other scientists point that out. That's not 'rage and anger'; it's simply how science works - peer review and looking for disproofs.

Gif

Hi Gif

Can't stand this. In post 6903 Gif, you said, >>As az beat me to mentioning, Behe admitted in the Dover school trial that ID is no more science than astrology is.<<

I think you may have confused az with cutie's post?? Yes? It seems to have caused confusion. Vicky thinks you mean cutie is az I suppose? I thought I'd help out. Hope I haven't caused muddle.