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
landru wrote @ 4:
When is a crime scene investigator ever forced to name the murderer and his motives before the evidence for the death being deliberate can be considered?
Excellent point. I saw an episode of "Cold Case Files" recently in which a woman's death had previously been ruled a suicide but it was later proved that she had been murdered. This was the result of the development of a new body of knowledge - blood spatter analysis - which wasn't available at the time of her death. And that's the thing; if you're going to correctly determine the cause of any historical event you have to know everything, absolutely everything, about how such events may occur. If you don't know absolutely everything then you might guess right but you might also guess wrong because you are committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. All this blather about "overwhelming" evidence for macroevolution is just that, blather. The reason is that after a hundred years of irradiating and otherwise stressing fruit flies, and a few decades less of studying the Galapagos finches, what we know about microevolution gives no comfort to those who want to believe that one living thing can turn into something completely different. 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 think Dawkins has cut his own throat with this analogy because he is admitting that how people put together the story of macroevolution has nothing to do with experimentation and everything to do with logic and court room tactics. That is, it's not science; it's merely a logically fallacious argument based on the presupposition that matter is all there is.Janice
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT
To Upright Biped, My previous posting was a bit fruity and is 'awaiting moderation', so I dont know if you will ever see it. In the meantime, I followed both links and both lead to papers prepared as part of the Origin-of-Life Foundation. The lead author David Abels is the director. If you go there you will see, um, a religious site. Its even got an appeal to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Yep, its all there. So, Jones got it right at Dover. Scratch ID and you uncover religion. Its always there, just beneath the surface. Maybe Abels paper is great stuff, but its a credibility thing.Graham1
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT
Hi Denyse,
It all sounds a bit hysterical to me, and well below Dawkins’s usual standard of writing.
I'm (mostly) skeptical of the ID/UD position, and this statement piques my interest. Which of Dawkins's writings do you recommend as representing his usual (or even better) standard of writing?PaulT
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
Graham, "I can only repeat: Dover." Well you are certainly welcome to repeat whatever nonsense comes to your mind. Empirically speaking though, you have an empty bag where the balls go. Even though you can say you've slayed the dragon, all you've actually done is ignored it. That suffices for many, and you too can be one of them. If you decide you want back in the game, you might try: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958 or http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247 Let me know what the authors have wrong.Upright BiPed
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
To Upright Biped, Some of the items on the list are a bit vague (eg: Genetic instructions), but some I recognize, eg: Irreducible Complexity (Behe) and Functional Spcificity (Dembski ?). The stuff from these 2 authors, at least, has been pretty well shredded by the scientific/mathematical community (eg: Dembskys NFL fiasco, written in Jello). Theres a reason that its all been published in popular books, rather than the usual scientific publishing route. I can only repeat: Dover.Graham
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
Graham,
Yeah, right. Remember Dover ?, the wedge document ?. Dont be coy now.
Yeah, don't be coy about the Jewish, Muslim, agnostic and atheistic ID advocates now.Clive Hayden
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
Graham, ID is based on evidence contained within such studies as: Abiogenesis Genetic Instructions Irreducible Complexity Cellular Orgainization Functional Specificity Biological Information Ect... - - - - Which of these empirical disciplines deals with political trials regarding grammar school teaching standards? If it is in none of them, then the demarcation should be apparent.Upright BiPed
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
Upright Biped, ID is about recognizing design Yeah, right. Remember Dover ?, the wedge document ?. Dont be coy now.Graham
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
Graham, Don't be coy, its hardly your best suit. You know that ID is about recognizing the observational design instantiated within living things. The fact that organisms can adapt and change within an environment is hardly the issue.Upright BiPed
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
To Upright Biped, We meet again. Id is not about evolution ? Eh ? Are we on the same planet here ?Graham
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Indeed, the "just not" story.lamarck
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT
Graham, "Evolution is so widely supported by the evidence that its really the only game in town" A perfect example. You DO KNOW, that ID is not specifically about evolution, right? Dawkin's repeated conflation is con-job. Dawkins isn't "strident" because he wishes to caringly cajole the public herd for their own good. He is a intellectual coward, wanting no one to go anywhere that he might find he is as wrong as the evidence suggests.Upright BiPed
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT
The more they talk the more thay make Corenelius Hunter's point. They (Dawkins and his tribe) are not driven by empiricism, they are driven only (only) by their need to do away with the Divine. Apparently, for them, the facts of biology lead to a spooky ghost that haunts them in having their own way with the world. Recently on UD there was another such article posted; one linking out to a peer-reviewed paper. The author of the paper commented in the article that they could show how this and that could happen "without any need for Divine intervention". Oops. The same applies to the self-assured thimbleriggers here on UD. Diffy can't have a conversation if all the possibilities are on the table. Emotionally speaking, it's simply too much to ask of him. He must (without exception) rig the outcome prior to the start. Dave Whisker musters his intellect and happily steps off into the same revine. His imagination flys with eviable ease past any empirically-based chemical challenge to his speculations (read: conclusions). Formose reaction? Who cares! Nucleic acids and sugars forming alongside amino acids? Who cares! Reverse transcription? Who cares! What templating might be used to perform such a thing? Who cares! In his estimation, the explanations only start after the conclusions have been made. The details (particularly those that have any viable explanatory value) matter not in the least. The only thing that's truly important - is the conclusion. The reason is always the same: "anything but design"Upright BiPed
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Hmm, common descent without evolution, common descent without evolution… *chews on pencil* Non-random mutation all the way? Whaddya say, gang? What non-naturalistic means does it take to, say, get a whale from a land-going creature? Cuz I think all those 'cetuses are pretty awesome and don't want to see them ignored.Lenoxus
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
To Edson, I think Dawkins point is that appeasement isnt part of science. If the evidence supports an idea, then watering it down to keep everyone happy is just a cop out. Evolution is so widely supported by the evidence that its really the only game in town. Thats why the science community (and yes, with a few exceptions) accepts it. If, for eg, the geological evidence showed no change over time, we wouldnt have a subject called 'evolution', but we do and we do. Dawkins sounds strident, simply because he is uncompromising in his refusal to placate some special interest groups.Graham
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
vjtorley:
LearnedHand’s criticism that the mechanism of ID is unknown is equally telling against neo-Darwinism, where the mechanism is known, but its capacity to produce large scale changes, over a very long term, remains open to reasonable doubt.
I wonder, could the mechanism of ID be thought of inversely so — that is, we know that "design" is capable of large scale changes, but we don't know how (mechanistically) it does them?Lenoxus
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
Graham,
I think the reaction would be that the statement is correct, but so limited that its of little value. All humans are (ultimately) ‘related’ but how does this help us understand anything ?
I think those here who dispute common descent would object to the statement I posted above. Of course some would be ok with it as well.yakky d
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:32 PM
8
08
32
PM
PDT
Of course this long debate betrays personal feelings beyond rationality. Beliefs of a defender of one side may slightly tremble inside when touched by the opponents. When emotions come along, it's expected that people on the discussion table will stand up and start to cry. yakky d's comment remembers that both sides should sit down and find a solution as civilized men. Feeling highly unsecured like Dawkins will lead nowhere. ID defenders must always be ready to acknowledge and cite darwinist's correct assertions as well. After all, isn't it the truth that we must reach? Or it's the success of our ideologies?Edson
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
Of course evolution is a fact. Things are not now as they once were, so evolution has taken place by definition, and is a fact. I've evolved. I was once a little baby, and now I'm a great big baby. ...we should celebrate [evolution's]...simplicity... Say what? There is nothing simple about complex information-processing machinery. (Yes, I know, he thinks that random errors with the bad mistakes being thrown out and the good mistakes being kept around explains everything, and that's simple. It is simple, but it's also naive, except in the cases of the utterly trivial.) Dawkins is still fighting those who propose that the universe is 6,000 years old and that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. He is simply a dinosaur himself, and has no comprehension of the challenges presented by ID, the discoveries of modern molecular biology, or information theory. As Phil Johnson once quipped (in good humor about Will Provine), Dawkins is one of the great minds of the 19th century.GilDodgen
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
yakky d, Same as it is now. Show me the money.IRQ Conflict
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
To yakky d, I think the reaction would be that the statement is correct, but so limited that its of little value. All humans are (ultimately) 'related' but how does this help us understand anything ? The power of evolution is that it makes sense of the the 'relatedness', in that it enable us to organize all of life into a tree, so we can also tell who are our closer and who the more distant 'relatives'.Graham
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Oops, blockquote fail. Here's a corrected version:
The more Dawkins insists that evolution is “fact,” the less I am convinced. He comes off as a childish brat, kicking and screaming that no one will believe him.
Suppose he took a less strident tone, and instead wrote this:
Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.
What would your reaction be then?yakky d
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
Berceuse and any other takers,
The more Dawkins insists that evolution is “fact,” the less I am convinced. He comes off as a childish brat, kicking and screaming that no one will believe him. </blockquote Suppose he took a less strident tone, and instead wrote this:
Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.
What would your reaction be then?
yakky d
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
For the benefit of readers, I'd like to contrast Professor Dawkins' bald statement that although "in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes," nevertheless "[t]he 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," with the more measured remarks recently made by Professor Richard C. Lewontin in The New York Review of Books (Volume 56, Number 9, May 28, 2009), in a book review entitled "Why Darwin?" (see http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22694 ):
Coyne is an evolutionary biologist who, like his former student H. Allen Orr, has been a leader in our understanding of the genetic changes that occur when species are formed. His primary object in writing this book [Why Evolution Is True - VJT] is to present the incontrovertible evidence that evolution is a physical fact of the history of life on earth. In referring to the theory of evolution he makes it clear that we do not mean the weak sense of "theory," an ingenious tentative mental construct that might or might not be objectively true, but the strong sense of a coherent set of true assertions about physical reality. In this he is entirely successful. Where he is less successful, as all other commentators have been, is in his insistence that the evidence for natural selection as the driving force of evolution is of the same inferential strength as the evidence that evolution has occurred. So, for example, he gives the game away by writing that when we examine a sequence of changes in the fossil record, we can
determine whether the sequences of changes at least conform to a step-by-step adaptive process. And in every case, we can find at least a feasible Darwinian explanation.
But to say that some example is not falsification of a theory because we can always "find" (invent) a feasible explanation says more about the flexibility of the theory and the ingenuity of its supporters than it says about physical nature. Indeed in his later discussion of theories of behavioral evolution he becomes appropriately skeptical when he writes that
imaginative reconstructions of how things might have evolved are not science; they are stories.
While this is a perfectly good argument against those who claim that there are things that are so complex that evolutionary biology cannot explain them, it allows evolutionary "theory" to fall back into the category of being reasonable but not an incontrovertible material fact. There is, of course, nothing that Coyne can do about the situation. There are different modes of "knowing," and we "know" that evolution has, in fact, occurred in a stronger sense than we "know" that some sequence of evolutionary change has been the result of natural selection. Despite these misgivings, it is the case that Coyne's book is the best general explication of evolution that I know of and deserves its success as a best seller. (Emphases mine - VJT.)
Many ID theorists, including Professor Michael Behe, readily accept common descent. If Professor Dawkins wants to argue for common descent then the ID community has no quarrel with him. However, evolutionary mechanisms are another matter. In his critique of ID, Learned Hand (#8) made the following comment on the act of murder, used by Dawkins to illustrate his case for evolution:
Not only the act itself, but also the various methods by which the act was accomplished. MEs don’t ask just “was a murder committed,” but rather, “how did this person die?” An ME’s report that could not connect the cause of death with the proposed method of murder would not be credible in court, or otherwise. This makes it a poor analogy to ID, which rejects any attempt to analyze the methods and techniques of design.
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. LearnedHand's criticism that the mechanism of ID is unknown is equally telling against neo-Darwinism, where the mechanism is known, but its capacity to produce large scale changes, over a very long term, remains open to reasonable doubt.vjtorley
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
When ID is asked to define complexity, shouldn't the same be asked of Darwinists, to define randomity? Little off topic but just occurred to me.lamarck
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
"ShawnBoy" (#9) asks: "Are there really people in this very blog entry denying the process of design and instead pleading to what amounts to magic (ascribing supernatural attributes to nature)?" Yes, I will admit to denying the likelihood of the process of design as proposed by intelligent design proponents. I prefer "design" by natural variation, random mutation and natural selection over deep time as making far more sense than design by the supernatural anonymous invisible intelligent designer (who almost everybody unofficially admits is actually the Creator God of Genesis). "ShawnBoy" continued (possibly quoting): "Macroevolution is as proven as the big bang; neither can be observed in real-time, thus neither can be said to be fact. " So nothing unobservable in real-time can be a fact? You don't do astronomy, astrophysics or cosmology, do you? Are you denying the factuality of astronomy? 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.PaulBurnett
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
It all sounds a bit hysterical to me, and well below Dawkins's usual standard of writing.O'Leary
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Evolution must be in dire straits if Dawkins requires all this rhetoric to make a case.tragic mishap
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
“The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.” So, um, who are the eyewitnesses who saw the evolution of a fish from a marine animal to a land-dwelling animal? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?Barb
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
Dawkins immediately confuses "evolution" (change over time) with "Darwinism" (RM + NS)and gets no more precise from there. He compares the evidence for evolution as being equal to that for the Holocaust, then decries the "history-deniers". It's reasonable to interpret that to mean "Holocaust-deniers" given his imprecise language. By the way, for what it's worth, I think ShawnBoy nailed it.jpg564
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply