Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dawkins’ Latest Book Sees Criticism of Evolution in Same Vein as Holocaust Denial

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The TimesOnline (go here) has an extract from Dawkins’ latest book, THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH. Here’s an extract of the extract:

…Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time…

Comments
To Upright Biped, I seem to fallen out of favour with the moderator. The spirit of DaveScott lives on.Graham
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
And the fallacy you're looking for DonaldM is the "true Scotsman" fallacy, described by the one and only Antony Flew.angryoldfatman
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Perhaps I'll listen to Dawkins when I see evidence this strong for evolution. Otherwise, he's a crank who's laying the groundwork for the New Inquisitors who will purify the world by purging the heretics.angryoldfatman
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
DonaldM:
The state of evolutionary theory is equivalent to saying (as Dr. Dembski has said more than once) that we can walk from Californial to Japan because we discovered the Hawiian Islands. Just ignore the thousands of miles of wet stuff in between, and you’ll be okay.
In this metaphor, what's the equivalent of the "wet stuff"? Would that be the intermediary forms that natural selection ought to cull, or the intermediary forms that mutation is simply incapable of? Or is it the intermediaries that are hypothetically possible, but man, for that die roll to come up again and again is just too much for statistics to handle…?Lenoxus
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
You can try to finesse this any way you wish, but in context of all he writes Dawkins clearly holds all evolution doubters in contempt and it is very fair to describe this quote as an ad homnimem and fallacious. You’re free to remain unconvinced…but I will say no more on this, as it is quite pointless. I don't mean to waste your time, and I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative. But what you're describing is just not an ad hominem argument. Saying that "X is disreputable" may be insulting, but it's not an ad hominem. He just doesn't contend that skeptics' claims are false because they are disreputable people. If has such a claim anywhere, I haven't seen it. I certainly don't see it here. In fact, his argument seems to be the reverse - he seems to be saying that the skeptics are disreputable because their positions are wrong, not vice versa.Learned Hand
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Learned Hand:
You’re asserting that Dawkins made an ad hominem assertion by calling science skeptics disreputable. But he’s only describing them, whether fairly or not–he’s not saying that their arguments are wrong because the skeptics are disreputable.
No, he's not "only describing them." He's saying that any scientist who doubts evolution is disreputable. That's the fair conclusion to draw from "no reputable scientist..." Put another way, he is saying that no reputable scientist could possibly read his book and still have doubts about evolution. If they do, they must be disreputable. You can try to finesse this any way you wish, but in context of all he writes Dawkins clearly holds all evolution doubters in contempt and it is very fair to describe this quote as an ad homnimem and fallacious. You're free to remain unconvinced...but I will say no more on this, as it is quite pointless.DonaldM
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
The implication being made here is clear: if you’re a scientist, and you read Dawkins’s book AND you still doubt evolution, then, by implication you are not a “reputable” scientist, and therefore disreputable. If you read the book and still doubt, you are “biased” because “no unbiased reader…” It amounts to a cleverly disguised ad hominem. Well, then we agree at least that he doesn't say the things you attribute to him. But even if we take your implication from this excerpt as Dawkins' explicit argument, it still isn't an ad hominem statement. An ad hominem claim is the assertion that a person's arguments are wrong because of that person's unrelated personal failings. You're asserting that Dawkins made an ad hominem assertion by calling science skeptics disreputable. But he's only describing them, whether fairly or not--he's not saying that their arguments are wrong because the skeptics are disreputable. You’re free to try and defend Dawkins all you like, but his characterization of evolution doubters is clear: he holds them in disdain as disreputable, biased, ignorant, stupid, insane and probably wicked. Therefore, those expressing doubts can be dismissed as one or all of the above. Once again, everything after "therefore" appears to be what you expect Dawkins to say, not what he actually wrote.Learned Hand
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Learned Hand
It is just obvious” is a powerful argument, especially with laypeople. Obvious, however, is not synonymous with true. The fact that obvious inferences are often wrong is why biologists test their ideas, and their colleagues’ ideas. ID’s reliance on “obvious” inferences, and reluctance to engage in any testing of its ideas, is one reason why Dawkins can credibly accuse IDists of being unserious.
The state of evolutionary theory is equivalent to saying (as Dr. Dembski has said more than once) that we can walk from Californial to Japan because we discovered the Hawiian Islands. Just ignore the thousands of miles of wet stuff in between, and you'll be okay. The reality is, evolution hasn't even explained how to walk from California to Catalina Island, much less go any further. It ought to be "just obvious" to anyone attempting it that there is no way at all to WALK from California to Japan. ID's claims have been tested. For example, Michael Behe's claim that certain biological systems are irreducibly complex has been tested many times. To date, no one has falsified his claim, because no one has been able to provide a detailed testable model of how evolution builds an IC system. There's been all sorts of articles providing wishful and sometimes wild speculations, but clearly no falsification. For a claim that was supposed to "unscientific", there sure seems to be a lot of work being done to falsify it. Dawkins claim is just plain silly and uninformed. As I've said many times here and elsewhere, Dawkins doesn't reject ID on scientific grounds, but on worldview grounds. In other words, his atheism dictates his science. On his atheistic worldview evolution isn't just the "greatest show on earth", its also the only game in town! When he writes
It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is.
, he's being disingenous. On atheism, evolution, or something very much like it, is the only possible way biological systems could have developed. There's nothing else but the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necssity. Nothing else whatsoever. So, naturally he scoffs at any notion of actual design in biological systems...the very notion runs afoul of his worldview!DonaldM
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Learned Hand
Would you mind pointing out where, exactly, you are reading that part of Dawkins’ essay? I don’t see anything in his writing arguing that because dissenters are disreputable, therefore their arguments are wrong.
I already did in my original post on the matter. Dawkins wrote in the quote provided by Dr. Dembski: "No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it." The implication being made here is clear: if you're a scientist, and you read Dawkins's book AND you still doubt evolution, then, by implication you are not a "reputable" scientist, and therefore disreputable. If you read the book and still doubt, you are "biased" because "no unbiased reader..." It amounts to a cleverly disguised ad hominem. Any doubts you maintain after reading Dawkins's book can only be the result of being either biased or disreputable (or perhaps both). Its in the same vein as his famous "...anyone who doubts evolution is either ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)", which he wrote in The Blind Watchmaker. These are ad hominem comments anyway you look at it. You're free to try and defend Dawkins all you like, but his characterization of evolution doubters is clear: he holds them in disdain as disreputable, biased, ignorant, stupid, insane and probably wicked. Therefore, those expressing doubts can be dismissed as one or all of the above. I see no reason whatsoever to give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt in his statement above, especially when viewed in the light of everything else he has said or written about evolution doubters over the years. His aim is to frame his argument such that only someone disreputable, biased, ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked would doubt it. That's why I point it out as an ad hominem, which it clearly is.DonaldM
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
"I don’t know where to draw the line between “micro” and “macro” evolution." Indeed. "I’d assume that most people who make the distinction would probably call it “micro” evolution." The educated man gets a cookie!IRQ Conflict
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Would you list the items in the previous post as examples of micrevolution? I would list them as examples of evolution. I don't know where to draw the line between "micro" and "macro" evolution. I'd assume that most people who make the distinction would probably call it "micro" evolution.Learned Hand
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Learned hand: Would you list the items in the previous post as examples of micrevolution?SpitfireIXA
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
PaulB says:
Accepting microevolution but denying macroevolution is like accepting teaspoons but denying gallons; accepting inches but denying miles.
To back up your claim, Paul, would you say that the following items are a process of microevolution: 1. Darwin's finch beaks. 2. Peppered moth coloration. 3. Labrador retrievers and other modern dog breeds. You may add some other examples if you wish.SpitfireIXA
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
It is just obvious they aren’t connected. "It is just obvious" is a powerful argument, especially with laypeople. Obvious, however, is not synonymous with true. The fact that obvious inferences are often wrong is why biologists test their ideas, and their colleagues' ideas. ID's reliance on "obvious" inferences, and reluctance to engage in any testing of its ideas, is one reason why Dawkins can credibly accuse IDists of being unserious.Learned Hand
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT
Applied to Dawkins’s claim then, person A, a scientist, reads Dawkins’s book and still doubts evolution. That scientist must be disreputable then, because no “reputable ” scientist doubts evolution. Therefore A’s doubts about evolution must be false, and can therefore be dismissed as coming from a disreputable source. The same applies to the non-scientist reader who still doubts – they’re biased. Would you mind pointing out where, exactly, you are reading that part of Dawkins' essay? I don't see anything in his writing arguing that because dissenters are disreputable, therefore their arguments are wrong.Learned Hand
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime.
This has to be one of the most ludicrous, lunatic statements ever to form on the lips of any respected 'scientist' in all history. An eye witness at a murder trial might say, "I saw the defendant pull out his gun and shoot the victim 3 times in the chest" Then 3 other proved eye witnesses say the same thing, backed by the smoking gun, the bullets etc etc. There 100's of such court cases wherein no shadow of doubt remained as to the events. So Dawkins is now claiming that NDE has better than eye witness testimony?! The man is insane and I swear I heard the pulpit thunderously being pounded to shreds while I read it. Still in one sense, one must thank God for poor Richard - he's doing more damage to NDE's credibility than his "formidable intellect" (from the book cover) could ever fathom.Borne
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Accepting micro but rejecting macro is like saying I can drive my car to the store but I can't drive it to the Moon. It is just obvious they aren't connected.Joseph
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
Learned Hand, The specific mechanism of design: In the absence of direct observation or designer input, the only possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) or the specific process(es) used is by studying the design in question. IOW the designer(s) and the process(es) are separate questions. Stonehenge- design determined then many years of investigation to try to figure out the who and how.Joseph
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Learned Hand
This is not an ad hominem. You may read it as an insult, but an ad hominem argument is something different.
No it isn't. An ad hominem argument takes the basic form of
Person A makes claim X There is something objectionable about Person A Therefore claim X is false
(from Wikipedia) Applied to Dawkins's claim then, person A, a scientist, reads Dawkins's book and still doubts evolution. That scientist must be disreputable then, because no "reputable " scientist doubts evolution. Therefore A's doubts about evolution must be false, and can therefore be dismissed as coming from a disreputable source. The same applies to the non-scientist reader who still doubts - they're biased. It's a perfect example of ad hominem. I've seen this same claim made in other ways. In one case the ID critic maintained that he had never met anyone who both understood and rejected evolution. Thus any objection raised against evolution is the result of the critic being uninformed, ignorant, uneducated, too thick to get it, etc etc. A cleverly disguiesed ad homimem, but an ad hominem none-the-less. Dawkins has essentially done the same here.DonaldM
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Lenoxus, I would love to read the paper that demonstrates all mutations are genetic accidents. The paper I have been referencing: Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution The paper was an attempt to refute Dr Behe's "Edge of Evolution" but on closer inspection actually substantiated his claim.Joseph
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
PaulBurnett in #20 writes:
Accepting microevolution but denying macroevolution is like accepting teaspoons but denying gallons; accepting inches but denying miles. Most actual scientists just use “evolution,” not using the terms microevolution and macroevolution, as eventually enough iterations of microevolution become macroevolution.
Hi Paul, I need to point out that this argument does not work becuase it committs the fallacy of begging the question. Whether or not micro evolution leads to macro evolution is precisely the point at issue. Here, you are merely assuming it to be true, thus assuming the consequent of your consequent of your argument. The analogies of teaspoons to gallons or inches to miles doesn't work either, because in those instances we can actually observe those accumulations and measurements. Whether or not we can with respect to biological systems is, again, precisely the point at issue. I know of no one who has ever demonstrated "beyond a reasonable doubt" that observed small scale adaptations and changes (microevlution) accumulate to large scale macroevolutionary changes above the species level. Its widely speculated upon and often just assumed, but where has it ever been acutally demonstrated? By whom? In what peer reviewed scientific journal were these findings reported? These questions form the heart of much of the debate. One cannot just assume that micro leads to macro evolution. That is begging the question!DonaldM
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
About evolution, Dawkins writes: “No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.” Note the clever ad hominem argument here. This is not an ad hominem. You may read it as an insult, but an ad hominem argument is something different.Learned Hand
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
About evolution, Dawkins writes: "No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it." Note the clever ad hominem argument here. If you're a scientist and you have doubts about evolution, then you're "disreputable" (Mike Behe, take note!). If you read the book and have doubts, you're "biased" (I guess that would include me and all the other UD ops). (Yawn)....we've heard all this before...<i.ad nauseum.DonaldM
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
I think it should now be clear that LearnedHand’s criticism is wide of the mark. As the above quote from Professor Lewontin shows, at the present time, we do not know for a fact that the “method” proposed by contemporary evolutionists (i.e. natural selection) is adequate to generate the diversity of life on earth. I think you're overstating Lewontin's argument, but even under your reading, please note the sharp distinction between the approaches the scientific community and the ID community take towards studying biology. Lewontin is discussing the state of scientists' knowledge regarding the mechanisms of evolution, which is the subject of diverse theories, experiments, tests, arguments, debates, etc. ID refuses investigate the mechanisms of design. Why is that?Learned Hand
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Oh, and what is this peer-reviewed paper you've been referring to lately?Lenoxus
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Joseph:
Also directed mutations and artificial selection are two specific design mechanisms.
Interestingly, I've never heard artificial selection put forth as an ID hypothesis before. Huh. Food for thought. As for directed mutation, I'd love to see a paper or study that estimates what percentage of mutations are directed. That's probably a tall order right now, given how relatively little we've sequenced so far.Lenoxus
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
Graham, Dover? The trial in which the judge wouldn't let the publisher defend its book? The book that was the center-piece of the anti-IDists? The trial in which the judge didn't listen to the ID experts rather he listened to the people who have an anti-ID agenda? That trial? Ya see it is also a fact that ID is not anti-evolution. However it has become obvious that no one outside of ID understands that fact.Joseph
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Lenoxus, Design is a mechanism. Also directed mutations and artificial selection are two specific design mechanisms. Also there is a peer-reviewed paper tat tells us there isn't enough time in the universe for non-telic processes to operate.Joseph
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
OK, here's an actual response to the quoted bit:
No mechanism has been identified that can do the job of turning a single living cell into every other living creature that now exists or has ever existed.
No mechanism, huh? Well, I guess that rules out ID!Lenoxus
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Janice:
No mechanism has been identified that can do the job of turning a single living cell into every other living creature that now exists or has ever existed.
I wonder, at what point in the process of its evolution would a species make the mistake of looking down and hence fall, Warner-Brothers-cartoon style? Hmm…Lenoxus
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply