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
Wait, did someone here just say that the phenomenon of design is not known? Holy schnikeys, the Darwinist position has become self-parodying of late. When you wrote that the phenomenon of design is not known, did you use the well-known phenomenon of language design to express that belief?SpitfireIXA
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Lenoxus:
The murder of one human being by another with a knife is a known phenomenon, unlike the proposed phenomenon of design.
Like what planet are you from? How the heck do you think your computer got there -- by neo-Darwinian evolution. Oh, I know, you were referring to biology by design. However, your satatement overreaches badly enough that it is invalid on its face.bFast
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
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.
Common ancestry ipso facto neo-Darwinism is a non sequitur. Common ancestry does not disprove ID in the least. Common ancestry does not establish neo-Darwinism as its cause in the least.bFast
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
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.Berceuse
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Yeah, Dawkins is losing it. Just a matter of time now...Gods iPod
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
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)? Is this the level of self-delusional poppycock that Darwinists have stooped to? I'll have to agree with Jerry, the anti-I.D. arguments are absolutely pathetic. No wonder you people have to resort to censorship. Anyways, this is what I've gathered from about 18 months of following this debate:
Microevolution is as proven as the law of gravity; Both are observable in real-time thus both can be said to be fact (as far as anything can be said to be fact). No one disputes this, not even the six-day creationists. Macroevolution is as proven as the big bang; neither can be observed in real-time, thus neither can be said to be fact. However both have enough evidence supporting them that they're perfectly valid conclusions, although neither are absolute certainties. (for the record, I would put I.D. in this category as well) Darwinian Evolution (Darwinism) is valid on a small-scale (micro) basis, but on a large-scale (macro) basis is as unproven as astrology; both have little to no supporting evidence and plenty of opposing evidence (inconsistent fossil record, mutation rates, genetic entropy, etc.). Just like rational people abandoned astrology, we're now seeing rational people abandon Darwinism. There are those that still cling to a belief in astrology (Miss Cleo, for financial reasons) just as there are those that still cling to a belief in Darwinism (Richard Dawkins, for religious reasons). That will likely never change.
Would you more knowledgeable folks say these are pretty accurate descriptions? If not, in what ways would you say they could be corrected?ShawnBoy
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
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.
This is a strawman. Who is disputing this? I am a Christian and I certainly believe that humans are related to chimpanzees and manatees. The DNA evidence for this is irrefutable. I believe in it for the same reason that I believe that Windows 7 is related to Windows 95. I still don't see how that supports Darwinian evolution.Mapou
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
The murder of one human being by another with a knife is a known phenomenon, unlike the proposed phenomenon of design. 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. A more analogous situation, although still strained, would be a mathematician or computer scientist arriving at an incident scene that has already been thoroughly studied and well-documented by trained professionals, who unanimously concluded that death was by natural causes. Having given the scene a cursory examination, the new arrival declares that the death could not possibly have occurred by natural causes, but that she has no idea how the murder was committed, and she will not attempt to find out. Moreover, she announces, the investigators who preceded her are moral monsters whose materialism caused the Holocaust. Few professionals would take this conclusion seriously.Learned Hand
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
The engineering of a digital error correction system is a known phenomenon.landru
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
I saw a recent video of Dawkins, and I must say, the man's starting to look as nutty as he sounds.ShawnBoy
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
landru:
Once a medical examiner demonstrates that a death is consistent with deliberate cause based on scientific observation of the body an the scene of the death, and on the historical body of knowledge on what things cause death, how easy is it to dismiss this design inference by saying he’s given up on finding some as-yet-undescribed natural cause?
It's easy if he's also given up on finding the unnatural phenomenon responsible. The murder of one human being by another with a knife is a known phenomenon, unlike the proposed phenomenon of design. The "historical body of knowledge on what things cause death" (or in this case, cause life) is irrelevant to ID. Beyond "design, not evolution, of complex forms", no claims have been made that are agreed upon throughout the ID community.Lenoxus
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Good point, Barry. What's more, many of ID's critics are demanding a burden of proof on design detection far beyond what we are used to in determining cause of death. 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? Once a medical examiner demonstrates that a death is consistent with deliberate cause based on scientific observation of the body an the scene of the death, and on the historical body of knowledge on what things cause death, how easy is it to dismiss this design inference by saying he's given up on finding some as-yet-undescribed natural cause?landru
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
So Dawkins whole book can be summed down to "Evolution is a fact, inescapable fact, it's the truth, undeniable truth, better believe it or you are stupid or insane". Sounds like brainwashing to me. Just repeat after me: Evolution is a fact Evolution is a fact Evolution is a fact Evolution is a fact Evolution is a fact Evolution is a fact Evolution is a fact Evolution is a fact Evolution is a fact ...ab
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Dawkins has slipped badly here by inviting his readers to consider the crime scene analogy. That analogy plays right into the hands of ID. The police detective's essential task it to detect the presence or absence of design.Barry Arrington
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
After quick scan of the excerpt, I don't see that Dawkins is drawing a moral equivalence between science denialism and Holocaust denialism. Let us pause to observe that, in contrast, ID's media campaign does attempt to pin responsibility for the Holocaust itself--not merely revisionist history, but the actual murders--on biologists.Learned Hand
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply