Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What’s Your Favorite Dawkins Quote?

William Dembski
September 9, 2005
Darwinism, Evolution
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Quotes like “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” and “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” are right up there, but my all-time favorite is “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” (All these quotes are from The Blind Watchmaker.)

It’s comforting that evolutionary theory is in the capable hands of rigorous empirical scientists like Dawkins.

Comments
Take this: „The fact that only very small creatures have evolved the wheel suggests what may be the most plausible reason why larger creatures have not. (...) But what would the evolutionary intermediates have looked like? Evolutionary improvement is like climbing a mountain (“Mount Improbable”). You can’t jump from the bottom of a cliff to the top in a single leap. Sudden, precipitous change is an option for engineers, but in wild nature the summit of Mount Improbable can be reached only if a gradual ramp upwards from a given starting point can be found. The wheel may be one of those cases where the engineering solution can be seen in plain view, yet be unattainable in evolution because its lies the other side of a deep valley, cutting unbridgeably across the massif of Mount Improbable.“ "Why don't animals have wheels?" The Sunday Times 24 November 1996 URL.: http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1996-11-24wheels.shtml Yes, small creatures have wheels - but where is the "gradual ramp"? Dawkins explanation(-logic) concerning the absence of wheels on the macro-level is also applicable to the wheels of "small creatures". Ups: The fact that they have wheels is proof enough that there must be a "gradual ramp";-)Markus Rammerstorfer
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
The one where he calls David Berlinski a creationist. hahahaBen Z
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
"(insert 11 second pause here)" Which was his response when asked: "Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?" (from From A Frog To A Prince) and then went on to give an 'answer' that had nothing to do with the question.jzs
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Dawkins on religion: "The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved —Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal — God is the Omnipotent Father — hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is not just in place for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good." From "Stop respecting religion and start submitting it to the same scutiny as any other idea or argument, says Richard Dawkins. And September 11th 2001 makes this scrutiny more urgent than ever..." Written for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Madison, Wisconsin, September 2001. The entire article can be read here: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09time_to_stand_up.shtmlDonaldM
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
On debating ID: "You might as well have a reproductive biologist debating the stork theory of where babies come from."Charlie
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Steve B asks: "I am curious though: there’s an implied “because…” here (I mean, there’s gotta be, right?). Does Dawkins provide any stated reason for his preference?" Yes, he's an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."DonaldM
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
(sigh)... nice shirt, Richard: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/cruise/archives/images/112.jpg Unbelievable. (no pun intended)Bombadill
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
“It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.” – Is Science a Religion? The Humanist Vol 57 Jan/Feb “Life is just bytes and bytes of bytes of digital information. Genes are pure information – information that can be encoded, recoded and decoded, without any degradation or change of meaning” – River out of Eden I vaguely recall a dude name Bill Dembski has written a thing or two about information as evidence for design, hmm….. :Dteleologist
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Here are a couple of his thoughts from the recent radio program OnPoint: "We would be a lot better off without religion." Referring to a belief in a Biblical creation and young earth: "that's the kind of stone-age mentality we are talking about among these clergymen."Charlie
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
"It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe".-The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.316 Surely he meant "apparently designed?"EdH
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
I like the one about raising a Child Catholic being worse than sexual abuse...Giff
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
The actual quote (with the preceding sentence, which provides necessary context) is: "My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." Just an FYI.Hookflash
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Oh snap! He met Behe? I can't imagine the sparks when that convergence occured. I wonder what sort of small talk, if any, was exchanged.Bombadill
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Can't recall the exact wording, but its the one that says that anyone who doesn't accept evolution is either ignorant, stupid, ... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that. When he met Behe, he added lazy. Said Behe was just too lazy to work on the real answer.es58
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
SteveB, I suspect that like so many other materialists/naturalists, his intellectual identity/pride is so interwoven into his Darwinian faith, that he'd be shattered if he were to admit that there's any other plausible alternative.Bombadill
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
"Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory, we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories." This is an amazing quotation: Imagine how he would likely react if someone were to replace the word "Darwinian" with "Creationist." I am curious though: there's an implied "because..." here (I mean, there's gotta be, right?). Does Dawkins provide any stated reason for his preference?SteveB
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
"Do you realize that if the Creationists are correct, the world was created during the most recent ice age!?" - From a radio interview with a fellow Atheist, from a couple of years ago.Bombadill
September 9, 2005
September
09
Sep
9
09
2005
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply