Friday we peeped in a television feature about evolution. I missed the intro so I didn't catch the title, but after a while I realized that the old, stuffy centerpiece of the show was a certain Richard Dawkins, patron saint of the sceptics. Despite having read some of his work and even listened to a couple of interviews, I'd actually never laid my eyes on him before. Oh well.
As I got into the show, it started reasonable enough; Dawkins was being depicted interacting with some creationists who turned out to be complete whackjobs, complete with a belief that the Earth is 6000 years old, man and dinosaurs roamed the earth together - the works. Being perhaps the foremost defender of Darwinism, Dawkins was arguing his points, at first appearing to be rational and at least borderline sane. They even showed a segment where Dawkins opened his email (on a Mac) to reveal a number of threatening messages from religious nutjobs, including but not limited to "You're going to burn in Hell, sinner".
Then all of a sudden Dawkins started writing third-party checks in the name of science that are doomed to bounce. While discussing with an American evangelical something-or-other, said nutjob starts mentioning controversies within the framework of Darwinism, when Dawkins interrupts, claiming that "There is no controversy and no missing evidence within the theory of evolution".
Now; I am definitely in favor of the theory of evolution, and if the alternative is creationism, I'm even more in favor of it. However; if Dawkins' statement had been true, nobody would have cared about the discovery of Ida, for example. Then it really took a left turn.
Dawkins went on to make one horrific statement after another, displaying a boundless faith in the infallibility of current scientific understanding of physical processes that was eerily reminiscent of religious extremism - just substitute the word "science" for "God", and you're there. All of a sudden, Dawkins was more or less the leader of a cult of personality, with himself being the One to know All Truths. For example, I did not know that science has completely cracked the genetic code and that we now know exactly where all traits can be traced to and how to tailor DNA to our every whim. It got worse still.
While talking to some high school science teachers, Dawkins called the teachers cowards because they taught evolution but didn't try to dissuade the students from having religious beliefs by "convincing them through science". Later, while hanging out with another old curmudgeon, the geriatric duo were laughing about how preposterous religion was, and that based on science, the thought of an afterlife is laughable.
Here it should be mentioned neither of the two old coots in question really qualify as hard scientists. Dawkins is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist, and the other old salt was a soft science schnuck as well. Moreover, Dawkins is not known for his science so much as for being a very good polemic writer.
One of the things I find intriguing about science - hard science, not some Macintosh and goatee branch - is that there is SO MUCH about very fundamental things we don't know. There are so many discoveries still to be made, which I personally find to be exciting. I physically cringe when zealots like Dawkins extol how science can currently explain everything when I know that, for example, we can't at present come up with any universal mechanistic description of how proteins interact with interfaces. We don't know whether small drugs and peptides interact with membranes through specific ligands or by membrane fluidity. Does crystallization of metal particles occur through single crystal growth or via an aggregation mechanism? Polymer glasses - kinetic phenomenon or true second order phase transition? And could you hook a brother up with the exact solutions to wavefunctions beyond Hydrogen while you're at it?
More to the point, there's something known as interpolation and another thing called extrapolation for data sets. As (hopefully) all hard scientists and statisticians know, the accuracy of interpolation vastly exceeds extrapolation. Thus, making conclusive claims about there being no afterlife based on science is a fantastic way to demonstrate that you suck as a scientist. Unless, that is, Dawkins and a couple of his cronies have returned from the dead to report on the conditions enough times to warrant a Gaussian distribution. Personally I don't think he has. Looking like death warmed over is not conclusive evidence of having journeyed beyond the grave repeatedly.
Wildly exaggerating the limits of current scientific understanding hardly helps science. The willingness to drink the Dawkins Kool-Aid and swing from his balls without any critical thought at all is why I'm unwilling to accept the label of sceptic. To my mind, the only favorable distinction between Dawkins and religious extremists is that Dawkins and his ballswingers are less likely to commit acts of terrorism.
As I got into the show, it started reasonable enough; Dawkins was being depicted interacting with some creationists who turned out to be complete whackjobs, complete with a belief that the Earth is 6000 years old, man and dinosaurs roamed the earth together - the works. Being perhaps the foremost defender of Darwinism, Dawkins was arguing his points, at first appearing to be rational and at least borderline sane. They even showed a segment where Dawkins opened his email (on a Mac) to reveal a number of threatening messages from religious nutjobs, including but not limited to "You're going to burn in Hell, sinner".
Then all of a sudden Dawkins started writing third-party checks in the name of science that are doomed to bounce. While discussing with an American evangelical something-or-other, said nutjob starts mentioning controversies within the framework of Darwinism, when Dawkins interrupts, claiming that "There is no controversy and no missing evidence within the theory of evolution".
Now; I am definitely in favor of the theory of evolution, and if the alternative is creationism, I'm even more in favor of it. However; if Dawkins' statement had been true, nobody would have cared about the discovery of Ida, for example. Then it really took a left turn.
Dawkins went on to make one horrific statement after another, displaying a boundless faith in the infallibility of current scientific understanding of physical processes that was eerily reminiscent of religious extremism - just substitute the word "science" for "God", and you're there. All of a sudden, Dawkins was more or less the leader of a cult of personality, with himself being the One to know All Truths. For example, I did not know that science has completely cracked the genetic code and that we now know exactly where all traits can be traced to and how to tailor DNA to our every whim. It got worse still.
While talking to some high school science teachers, Dawkins called the teachers cowards because they taught evolution but didn't try to dissuade the students from having religious beliefs by "convincing them through science". Later, while hanging out with another old curmudgeon, the geriatric duo were laughing about how preposterous religion was, and that based on science, the thought of an afterlife is laughable.
Here it should be mentioned neither of the two old coots in question really qualify as hard scientists. Dawkins is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist, and the other old salt was a soft science schnuck as well. Moreover, Dawkins is not known for his science so much as for being a very good polemic writer.
One of the things I find intriguing about science - hard science, not some Macintosh and goatee branch - is that there is SO MUCH about very fundamental things we don't know. There are so many discoveries still to be made, which I personally find to be exciting. I physically cringe when zealots like Dawkins extol how science can currently explain everything when I know that, for example, we can't at present come up with any universal mechanistic description of how proteins interact with interfaces. We don't know whether small drugs and peptides interact with membranes through specific ligands or by membrane fluidity. Does crystallization of metal particles occur through single crystal growth or via an aggregation mechanism? Polymer glasses - kinetic phenomenon or true second order phase transition? And could you hook a brother up with the exact solutions to wavefunctions beyond Hydrogen while you're at it?
More to the point, there's something known as interpolation and another thing called extrapolation for data sets. As (hopefully) all hard scientists and statisticians know, the accuracy of interpolation vastly exceeds extrapolation. Thus, making conclusive claims about there being no afterlife based on science is a fantastic way to demonstrate that you suck as a scientist. Unless, that is, Dawkins and a couple of his cronies have returned from the dead to report on the conditions enough times to warrant a Gaussian distribution. Personally I don't think he has. Looking like death warmed over is not conclusive evidence of having journeyed beyond the grave repeatedly.
Wildly exaggerating the limits of current scientific understanding hardly helps science. The willingness to drink the Dawkins Kool-Aid and swing from his balls without any critical thought at all is why I'm unwilling to accept the label of sceptic. To my mind, the only favorable distinction between Dawkins and religious extremists is that Dawkins and his ballswingers are less likely to commit acts of terrorism.
Posts
19 comments:
First, I admire that you have still have time to post these long posts on this blog. I know you're pretty busy with your new won position in the chess club and all.
And this program must be a rerun, since I've seen it before.
My thoughts: First of all, I do understand the need for some broad statements when you're up against creationist and other whack-jobs. If you have too many reservations, which there often then not are in science, they would claim that science can't explain it.
"There is no controversy and no missing evidence within the theory of evolution".....
...if Dawkins' statement had been true, nobody would have cared about the discovery of Ida, for example.¨
Well, most of the critizsm towards the Ida PR campaign was the use of the term "missing link", since evolution biologists today mean there aren't any "missing link". And mr. Dawkins main point is there isn't any real doubt about evolution. It's impossible to have fossils of every step since evolution happens in minute steps, a nearly continuous process. Hence, the fuzz about Ida, where there aren't any good fossils as intact as this one.
My main problem with Dawkins, is when he went to war with moderate christians, who accepts science, and accusing them for paving way creationists nutjobs. Dawkins basically "confronted" them with that fact that some of the stories in the bible wouldn't hold water when using scientific methods to evaluate them. I do believe that religion and science is two different paradigms, and it's per definition useless to mix them. You end up with creationism or the equally bad attempt from Dawkins.
... Dawkins opened his email (on a Mac)...
LOL.
You got him pegged there... :-D
First, I admire that you have still have time to post these long posts on this blog. I know you're pretty busy with your new won position in the chess club and all.
Why thank you - I try between countergambits and polishing my glasses.
And this program must be a rerun, since I've seen it before.
Summer is rerun time - would make sense. I sure haven't seen it before.
First of all, I do understand the need for some broad statements when you're up against creationist and other whack-jobs.
Those same statements and worse also made their way to the commentary, so...
And mr. Dawkins main point is there isn't any real doubt about evolution. It's impossible to have fossils of every step since evolution happens in minute steps, a nearly continuous process. Hence, the fuzz about Ida, where there aren't any good fossils as intact as this one.
Which still means that getting a good look at a transient is rare and a big deal. I'm not at all dissing the scientific merits of the theory of evolution, but by adopting the vernacular of religious extremists, Dawkins pretty much stooped to their level. In hard science, you don't use the word "proof" lightly. I don't know how they view the concept of absolute, incontrovertible proofs in the business of glorified stamp collection, but in hard science it's generally very hard to prove anything.
I do believe that religion and science is two different paradigms, and it's per definition useless to mix them. You end up with creationism or the equally bad attempt from Dawkins.
I agree
Is there chess dissing going on in this blog? In that case, I object!
Which still means that getting a good look at a transient is rare and a big deal.
It sure is. Hence the fuzz about Ida and Idar. But it also means there is no such thing as a single, missing link that needs to be discovered to "prove" evolution for man.
In hard science, you don't use the word "proof" lightly.
Excatly. But I believe that the target audience for this program isn't hard science scientist. How do you explain the meaning of the word "theory" to them? Let alone that no proof is absolute. It's hard, I admit, and I do agree that Dawkins might have crossed the line. I just don't have that mush of a problem with that as you do.
I don't know how they view the concept of absolute, incontrovertible proofs in the business of glorified stamp collection...
Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel about "soft" sciences.
Objection overruled!
Is there chess dissing going on in this blog? In that case, I object!
Wouldn't dream of it, boss
Hence the fuzz about Ida and Idar. But it also means there is no such thing as a single, missing link that needs to be discovered to "prove" evolution for man.
Agree that no single missing link was needed, but it should not be downplayed how big of a deal it is.
But I believe that the target audience for this program isn't hard science scientist. How do you explain the meaning of the word "theory" to them? Let alone that no proof is absolute. It's hard, I admit, and I do agree that Dawkins might have crossed the line. I just don't have that mush of a problem with that as you do.
No kiddin' the program wasn't made for hard scientists. But my problem doesn't stem from that, but rather that with someone like Dawkins, there's nothing but a shouting match between zealots - one side claiming that science knows nothing and the other claiming that science presently knows it all. I don't think it's possible to glean any useful info from this show other than both sides being extremists.
Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel about "soft" sciences.
Contrary to how it appears, I'm not vehemently opposed to soft sciences at all. The instances where I balk is where people with no mathematical or hard skills misrepresent hard science and math to back up some fringe claim. And let's face it; soft scientists are not as skilled in math as those working in the hard branches as a general rule. Thus, when they venture out of the comfort zone of their competence profile, things can go wrong. And they do.
one side claiming that science knows nothing and the other claiming that science presently knows it all. I don't think it's possible to glean any useful info from this show other than both sides being extremists.
Yes, I do feel that Dawkins did cross the line a bit, so I agree with that. And I don't like the way he uses "science" to rebunk religion. Then he's just as guilty and wrong as the creationists.
It's been a while, so I may not remember everything correctly, but as I seem to understand Dawkins statement, is that evolution theory is broadly accepted as the process of which the different speices has formed. No serious biologist believes in an alternative theory that debunks evolution. In that sense, Dawkins is correct in his statement about no controversy about the theory of evolution. However, that doesn't mean that everything is explained and every step of evolution is documented through fossils or such.
Also, the human genom is (more or less) completely mapped. A great achievement, and in that sense, Dawkins is again correct in his statement. But again it's just a tool to understand the expression of genes and how this works. Dawkins greatest error is omitting these reservations from his statement. But the similarity in the genom between vastly different spices is a really good evidence of evolution.
To summarize: I do have respect for Dawkins work and it's interesting to follow his arguments, but I have the same problem with him as with Sceptics in general: They are way too little sceptic to their own work/ beliefs.
as I seem to understand Dawkins statement, is that evolution theory is broadly accepted as the process of which the different speices has formed. No serious biologist believes in an alternative theory that debunks evolution. In that sense, Dawkins is correct in his statement about no controversy about the theory of evolution. However, that doesn't mean that everything is explained and every step of evolution is documented through fossils or such.
The problem is that Dawkins leads off with the first one, then immediately veers into the other.
Also, the human genom is (more or less) completely mapped. A great achievement, and in that sense, Dawkins is again correct in his statement. But again it's just a tool to understand the expression of genes and how this works. Dawkins greatest error is omitting these reservations from his statement.
I look at Dawkins much the same way I do Erich von Däniken. Däniken starts to describe something interesting, explains that at present we do not how something was done, and immediately concludes that it must've been done by little green men. Both Däniken and Dawkins overextend their data sets, as do the religious extremists, and to me the only difference is the sign of the deviation.
Both Däniken and Dawkins overextend their data sets, as do the religious extremists, and to me the only difference is the sign of the deviation.
I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.
Say whuut?
...was that a really clever way to tell me I'm full of $hit? :-)
I think we basically agrees on the main points on Dawkins. Where we disagree, which is basically the same argument everytime we discuss media and science, is how inaccurate you can allow yourself to be in your statement.
...was that a really clever way to tell me I'm full of $hit? :-)
No. Just trying to be funny. Since I think we have nothing new to add to this discussion at this point. :-D
I guess the level of detail is a matter of shades of grey. However, I feel Dawkins is way past any reasonable description of the current scientific capabilities
Why can't everybody just be friends?
I guess the level of detail is a matter of shades of grey. However, I feel Dawkins is way past any reasonable description of the current scientific capabilities
We both that Dawkins steped over the line, but I think I draw the line in the more darker grey areas then you.
;-)
Post a Comment