Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dear Richard Dawkins – what is new in your book?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Dawkins’ new book is reviewed in the Economist.

How humans are related to chimpanzees—and to cheese mites and cherry trees too, Sep 3rd 2009, The Economist,

From the review there are no new arguments, just more of the same polemical rhetoric and the same tired old evidences. If this is the best RD can do then Darwinian evolution is clearly on its last legs.

Does Dawkins really appeal to the homology of skeletal plan which could be equally evidence of common design, or to the fossil record with all its out of place fossils including a Jurassic Beaver, Carboniferous dragonflies and Cambrian vertebrates.

Does Dawkins really retreat to the rhetoric and polemics of a schoolyard bully again by misrepresenting arguments and people’s positions?

The reviewer writes “Perhaps some evolution-deniers will read this book and be convinced. But even to pick it up they would have to ignore a determined campaign of misinformation: polemicists demanding that schools “teach the controversy” (there is none); books about “intelligent design” written by “creationist scientists” (a ragbag of nonentities, mostly engineers or chemists rather than biologists); untruths and ad hominem attacks (few [scientists] “accept that an amoeba can evolve into a human being, even one as flawed as Richard Dawkins,” wrote one Christian essayist recently, neatly combining both genres).”

If this is the level of debate then it is clearly not about science, but about a struggle for supremacy over control of the educational institutions and direction of society. Perhaps if Dawkins understood some of the new philosophy taking place in biology involving cooperation, epigenetics and lateral gene transfer, and not simple struggle for survival, he might be more willing to engage in a respectful and reasoned debate and dialogue.

One may wonder whether Dawkins’ position is looking more and more like one of those extinct Cretaceous dinosaurs that fill the British Natural History Museum.

Comments
I’d say Dawkins is on his last leg. He essentially takes breeding – something we’ve known about for 1000’s of years – and tries to make it support evolution.
That's what Darwin did in Origin of Species. You should check out TH Morgan's criticisms of breeding in support of evolution. Go here and scroll down a bit to the "Dissent" section.Vladimir Krondan
September 10, 2009
September
09
Sep
10
10
2009
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT
@61. Let's probe deeper= Q: What is the underlying mechanism of why inbreeding is bad? A: Because the selection pool of alleles is greatly reduced, and deleterious/negative mutations are thus more likely to be selected rather than selected out. Dog breeds have hereditary defects because they have been artificially selected for. I shall repeat: Breed diversity = neutral/negative mutation, +/- phenotype selection. Or is there another method to diversification in dog breeds? The mutations are negative (or at best neutral) because they interefere with the body systems and function of the animal = clinical disease. Again, the example of dog breeds shows the mechanism of darwinian mutation: lots of diversity, lots of genetic disease. Are we going to build a new species from a broken one? -Tristan.Avonwatches
September 9, 2009
September
09
Sep
9
09
2009
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT
"I’ve read and reread this statement and the links you provided. I’m sorry to say, but ultimately this all sounds like magic to me. It’s speculative thinking. " It is not magic or speculative thinking and is based on logic and reason and the genomic evidence in the various organisms that inhabit the planet. My guess is one of two things: You do not understand the simple argument being made and maybe do not have the background in the biology necessary to evaluate what is being said. or You do understand and are thwarted. Either way you should probably remove yourself from comments since you can not be constructive. If you want to ask questions, fine. But you should not make judgments on things you do not understand or willfully don't want to consider. You are entitled to your faith and we accept that, but you should acknowledge that what you are operating on is faith.jerry
September 9, 2009
September
09
Sep
9
09
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
jerry: "You are making an inappropriate assumption about what science should look like for ID. A lot of science examines natural laws as they are mitigated by chance and other contingencies and makes predictions based on these ongoing circumstances. But this will not work when the natural laws are mitigated by intelligence which by its nature could be a one time event." I've read and reread this statement and the links you provided. I'm sorry to say, but ultimately this all sounds like magic to me. It's speculative thinking. The world abounds with speculative thinking. Without taking the time to coalesce your ideas into a workable hypothesis that can be tested, it must stop here. Even if it were true, we have no way of knowing it, testing it, so we're right back to square one...we must take it on faith.n8rphelps
September 9, 2009
September
09
Sep
9
09
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
Jerry: I'm not your teacher. The thing about science, actual science, is that it takes work, and of course it's much easier to stand in the background and throw stones. I will never understand how this can be satisfying though. I fear I have fallen into the trap of debating entirely on the opponent's terms. ID is not a controversy that deserves argument; it's a joke, only not a very funny one.aramael
September 7, 2009
September
09
Sep
7
07
2009
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
Avonwatches:
I have not read it, but perchance does Dawkins mention that the genome of every single canid is littered with hereditary disease/disorders as a result of the much vaunted ‘Darwinian mutation’?
Well, the human genome is littered with hereditary diseases, and I somehow doubt that wolves have none. When it comes to specific breeds, there is often association with specific disorders; a fair amount of this is a result of inbreeding from bottlenecks. There is certainly no evidence that it results from breeding per se, or that diseases are a result of varying from an ideal form.Lenoxus
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
Chp2 dogs and wolves? I have not read it, but perchance does Dawkins mention that the genome of every single canid is littered with hereditary disease/disorders as a result of the much vaunted 'Darwinian mutation'? Breed diversity = neutral/negative mutation, +/- phenotype selection. It is important to pay attention to the mechanism of evolution: all we see are broken bits of genomes from breed diversity. Give us 20mil years and who knows if the breeds as a whole have not run into the ground (aka extinct) from mutation? Let some dogs, of all breeds, run back into the wild and over only a few generations their body shape recedes to that of a dingo/wolf. Back to the 'original design' if you are so inclined. Same with horses and cats, and I predict any species. But maybe evolution has perfectly evolved every single creature on the earth already, and any changes are thus negative...? -Tristan.Avonwatches
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
jerry:
I believe the best estimate is about 4.5 billion years based on radiometric dating and the sun is about the same age.
Would this be the same radiometric dating method whose accuracy has been confirmed time and again and is used to date the fossil record and corroborate the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection ? Do not point to anything, answer this in your own words. Otherwise I will assume you are just asserting something you cannot back up.amuck
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
StephenB (57), "The law of non-contradiction and uncompromised causality," Who formulated these alleged "laws"?Gaz
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
---n8rphelps: "Okay, that’s an interesting point. But it seems to me that the scientific method tests the belief and is willing to discard or alter it when empirical evidence requires. I don’t see that willingness here." The scientific method assumes those beliefs apriori and gains its legitimacy from them. The law of non-contradiction and uncompromised causality, for example, are two among many fundamental principles of right reason that provide the lens through which empirical evidence is judged and evaluated. It doesn't judge or evalutate those principles, it depends on them and follows them, knowing that if they aren't true, there would be no rational standards to interpret data, do science, or even talk about anything.StephenB
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
"You tell me that I am making an argument from assertion, but isn’t “information cannot be created by unconscious processes” the mother of all assertions?" You have misinterpreted what I said. I did not assert that information cannot be created by unconscious processes. Where the information came from is the issue at hand. I would stick with the argument and not make things up. For irreducible complexity take any of Behe's examples and refute them here. Do not point to anything, refute them in your own words. Otherwise I will assume you are just asserting something you cannot back up.jerry
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
The analogy with language concerns the way imperceptible and unconscious changes, over a sufficient length of time, diverge in a way that makes the result incompatible with its ancestor, and, indeed, its cousins. You cannot accept microevolution and deny macroevolution, because they are the same thing. You tell me that I am making an argument from assertion, but isn't "information cannot be created by unconscious processes" the mother of all assertions? You have not provided an example of irreducible complexity which cannot be explained, nor have you described a prediction that ID makes.aramael
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
n8rphelps, You are making an inappropriate assumption about what science should look like for ID. A lot of science examines natural laws as they are mitigated by chance and other contingencies and makes predictions based on these ongoing circumstances. But this will not work when the natural laws are mitigated by intelligence which by its nature could be a one time event. Some intelligent actions are ongoing and may fall under the rubric used to analyze ongoing phenomena such as people planting crops or making dams or walls etc.. But agency or intelligence involves a suspension of natural laws and as such does not lend itself to the same type of analysis. Here is a set of three long comments on this which I wrote to address this argument. Read them if you wish: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lenny-susskind-on-the-evolution-of-physicists/#comment-326046 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lenny-susskind-on-the-evolution-of-physicists/#comment-326047 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/lenny-susskind-on-the-evolution-of-physicists/#comment-326048 If you want to challenge ID as science, you cannot use what is frequently used in the natural sciences as the standard because they are investigating completely different phenomena.jerry
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
"you probably want to stop with the micro/macro distinction. It’s like observing that children can always understand the language of their parents, therefore Italian cannot evolve from Latin." This is argument from assertion. The Latin/Italian is not even a close analogy. If you think it is, then they you should learn more about the controversy. It involves the creation of information for new complex capabilities. So language changes are nowhere close to appropriate. There is no new super language that has developed over time with new complex capabilities and if they did they would have been intelligently designed since humans would have come up with them and approved them. "Also, I’ve never seen an example of “irreducible complexity” that has stood up to examination." And I have never seen one that has been explained. You might try defending your statement by showing how the examples have been refuted. You are just making assertions which is common here because no one has ever provided substance. So be the first to do it and we will appreciate your efforts.jerry
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
jerry: you probably want to stop with the micro/macro distinction. It's like observing that children can always understand the language of their parents, therefore Italian cannot evolve from Latin. Also, I've never seen an example of "irreducible complexity" that has stood up to examination. At what point do you give up? Darwin's theory of Evolution matches perfectly with DNA, a substance he knew nothing about. To me, this is compelling. What does ID predict?aramael
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
"n8rphelps falls back on some tired arguments against ID..." Please don't insult the arguments. As far as I can see, they are valid. If not, explain to me why they aren't without the "tired" rhetoric. And for the record, declaring them invalid is not an explanation. Heck, the theory of Gravity is tired too...it's still a pretty good theory. "An end in a perfect cause is more intellectually satisfying..." If ever a statement showed the human tendency toward prejudice, this is it. Belief in something that we can't prove is never more intellectually satisfying for me. And your casual dismissal of stepping stones as a valid counter to the "theory" of IC says nothing about the validity of the argument. It appears to me that Behe's argument HAS been bridged. "...at the end of the day all inductive arguments must begin in belief..." Okay, that's an interesting point. But it seems to me that the scientific method tests the belief and is willing to discard or alter it when empirical evidence requires. I don't see that willingness here.n8rphelps
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Andrew, Are you going to address my question about falsifying common ancestry of primates? If I'm reading you correctly, you appear to believe that no one expects to find rabbits in the Precambrian, 100 million year old humans, etc, and therefore my suggestion for a test of common descent is not valid. I'm genuinely curious how this view aligns with YEC beliefs, which I gather you hold. Why don't you expect to find such anachronisms in the fossil record which would contradict the mainstream old earth model?yakky d
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
n8rphelps falls back on some tired arguments against ID. As already mentioned, Behe's IC is a testable, falsifiable claim, and one that has not been bridged despite claims for stepping stones, not least for the reason that scientists are uncovering greater levels of complexity. Who designed the designer? All causal claims must end somewhere or end in an infintite regress. An end in a perfect cause is more intellectually satisfying than an uncaused cause, or an endless line of causes, or self-causation. At the end of the day all inductive arguments must begin in belief, whether it is old or new riddles of induction, which is why the American strict division of science and faith in education policy is a fallacy.Andrew Sibley
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
I actually found this link on the Richard Dawkin's site. I've read it and several other posts on the site along with scores of responses. My impressions: This site (and I assume others) makes a profound distinction between their definition of ID and that mainstream ID argument that is a reinvention of Creationism. Profound emphasis is placed on the "you can't disprove ID, therefore it must be considered" argument. In all that I've read here, I can't find anything that could be called a testable "theory of ID". It is as though this branch of ID exists exclusively to criticize the theory of evolution. Not that the theory shouldn't be open to criticism, but I would think that at some point it would be productive for ID to say "we don't accept the evolutionary theory for macro evolution, but rather propose the following theory. The closest I've come to finding someone addressing an ID theory is CannuckianYankee when he makes this argument: "Also, you state that ID is vague, yet demand that “the designer’s methods” need to be tested. Just what do you mean by methods? That sounds rather vague to me as well. Methods are irrelevant if the end product is irreducible complexity that has proven to be (under all known circumstances) only ever generated from a conscious mind." Three concerns arise immediately. First, there is a very real, very legitimate body of thought out there that demonstrates irreducible complexity can be generated outside a conscious mind. It seems disingenuous to make such a discussion ending assertion. Second, this response seems to side step the notion of producing a competing theory simply by returning to the time tested, quasi-magic realm of "who are we to question ID (god), we are incapable of understanding his ways". This feels way too much like a cop out and leaves me forced to embrace evolution in the absence of any real challenge to it. Third, no one here even pretends to address the damning problem of, If there's an ID'er, who designed him? In the final analysis, I've read some very interesting thoughts and ideas here. Enough to remind me that a lifetime of reading and studying will never get me close to finding all the answers. But in the end, if your argument is there is too much "proof" that there is an ID'er out there, you must reduce all this "evidence" to a workable, demonstrable, hypothesis or you will forever be talking past all those who embrace the scientific method of discovery, and you will forever be relegated to the role of a small dog nipping at the heals of his master.n8rphelps
September 6, 2009
September
09
Sep
6
06
2009
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
"What about Lenski’s experiments with E. coli showing that in one instance it gained the ability to digest citrate? If that ability was already present in it’s genome has someone pointed this out by finding the pertinent gene?" This is probably simple micro evolution and nothing eventful. They think it was a simple mutation. "I do wonder how a designer would implement their design. How exactly was the design made flesh as it were. There must be some thoughts about that." There is a whole field of synthetic biology. They hope to create a basic cell in the next 20 years. So this is a possible template for creating life. But I am sure there are more than one way to do it.jerry
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
"Out of interest, how old do you think the earth is?" I believe the best estimate is about 4.5 billion years based on radiometric dating and the sun is about the same age. I am in the process of viewing a Teaching Company course on Cosmology and the estimate for the age of the Milky Way is 11 billion years. So our sun originated much later and we are off the spiral arm about 60% of the way from the core to the edge of the outermost spiral arm. I am not sure how many new suns are being created in the Milky Way but from what I understand a lot more will be created when Andromeda and the Milky Way collide in a few billion years.jerry
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT
What about Lenski's experiments with E. coli showing that in one instance it gained the ability to digest citrate? If that ability was already present in it's genome has someone pointed this out by finding the pertinent gene? I do wonder how a designer would implement their design. How exactly was the design made flesh as it were. There must be some thoughts about that.ellazimm
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
NormO, "A mechanism needs to be proposed and then tested. And if the designer’s methods are beyond our ability to test, than the whole ID enterprise is meaningless in my opinion." The mechanism fo ID is information generated from a mind. This mechanism is being tested on a daily basis from our own experience. If you can show how irreducibly complex and functional biological features can develop without the prior necessary complex specified information generated by a mind, then you falsify ID. It's that simple. Also, you state that ID is vague, yet demand that "the designer's methods" need to be tested. Just what do you mean by methods? That sounds rather vague to me as well. Methods are irrelevant if the end product is irreducible complexity that has proven to be (under all known circumstances) only ever generated from a conscious mind.CannuckianYankee
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
NormO, Your problem with ID should be the same problem you have with Darwinian Evolution, because the Darwin proponents have not shown the vast evidence you require either, despite the vast amount of research that has been done in those areas. The evidence that they do rely on can be adequately interpreted quite differently, and some new evidence, such as the nano-technology present in the cell, counter what Darwinists have stated in the past. This fact ought to make you suspect that perhaps RM + NS is insufficeint and/or lacking in explanatory power in light of new and compelling evidences. ID does offer a well reasoned alternative that is more than simply "evolution could not have done this." ID is not anti-evolution in the least. It is anti-natural selection. Specifically, ID posits that complex specified information is required for irreducibly complex structures to exist at all, and that the strongest inference from this fact is that complex biological structures that have specified function were purposely designed for that function. My argument, however, is just the surface. If you want to know more in-depth, I suggest you read some of the more rigorous ID literature, such as Dr. Meyer's new 600 page book Signature in the Cell, and/or Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, an/or Dr. Dembski's The Design Inference.CannuckianYankee
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee: "I think then that we ought to stick to the larger issue – that of the efficacy of RM + NS to account for gradual development into more complex biological forms." OK, but I don't think it's good enough to say "Evolution could not of happened such-and-such a way", without offering an alternative. If Behe or others want to argue that certain biological structures could not have arisen via the standard evolutionary explanations, then just exactly how did they arise? One has to provide some meaningful mechanism that also makes sense in the larger context of all available evidence, and is testable in some way. All I've heard in that respect is complete vagueness; front-loading, occasional intercession, etc. Because it's not so much a question of "who is the designer" but "how is this designing business happening?" A mechanism needs to be proposed and then tested. And if the designer's methods are beyond our ability to test, than the whole ID enterprise is meaningless in my opinion. An explanation that doesn't include a viable mechanism (i.e. understandable to us mere humans) is useless.NormO
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
NormO, "As for the micro/macro issue: If we can demonstrate natural selection occurring in the field (and I think the Grant’s work with Galapagos finches was really compelling in that regard). Then why wouldn’t we conclude that, given enough time, such selection pressures would result in new species? And given a mind bogglingly huge amount of time (i.e. the age of the earth), why not completely new genera, classes, even kingdoms? I just don’t have a problem with that conclusion. To me it seems pretty straight forward and consistent with the facts. But perhaps I simply don’t understand the debate, as you suggest." I think Dr. Behe might agree with you here. Some ID proponents have a problem with common descent and macro-evolution, while some don't. I think then that we ought to stick to the larger issue - that of the efficacy of RM + NS to account for gradual development into more complex biological forms. Even if dog breeding is a good example of "evolution" at a micro-level, and even if it might be a possible indication of macro-evolution, it is simply not a strong example of how RM + NS can account for the gradual development of more complex forms. ID offers an alternative that is compatible with the issue of breeding. ID shows that complex forms require the information prior to the development, rather than in conjunction with it. This is what IC essentially points out. In dog breeding, the information is already there. If we look back at the origin of life from a Darwinian perspective, the necessary complex information is not already there, but shows up gradually in conjunction with more complex development. Darwinians cannot account for how this occurs. While it is true that ID proponents cannot account for how the information first occurs, we have current evidence that complex information is always generated from a conscious mind, and is never the byproduct of random and undirected processes. The only argument that a Darwinist can counter to this is the question-begging notion that RM + NS is evidence that it does occur.CannuckianYankee
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
Jerry, Out of interest, how old do you think the earth is?Blue Lotus
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Cannuckian Yankee (35), "3)the questions as to who the designer is are best left to other disciplines, such as philosophy and theology, just as Dr. Dawkins has left the field of science in his anti-god manifesto “The God Delusion.”" I stronlgy disagree. If ID was a gebuine science then its advocates would be using their evidence to find out more about the designer - e.g. when did it do its designing, where did it do it, do its designs say anything about the nature of the designer itself, were there more than one designer etc. etc.Gaz
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
jerry, That was a helpful reference, thanks. I do consider selective breeding persuasive because it clearly demonstrates the power of selection in shaping organisms. Note that I didn't state it was proof of evolution in itself. You have to take it in conjunction with several other lines of evidence (I listed a few above). As for the micro/macro issue: If we can demonstrate natural selection occurring in the field (and I think the Grant's work with Galapagos finches was really compelling in that regard). Then why wouldn't we conclude that, given enough time, such selection pressures would result in new species? And given a mind bogglingly huge amount of time (i.e. the age of the earth), why not completely new genera, classes, even kingdoms? I just don't have a problem with that conclusion. To me it seems pretty straight forward and consistent with the facts. But perhaps I simply don't understand the debate, as you suggest.NormO
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
NormO, ID folks are a diverse lot. I believe it would be safe to say that many of them started out as Old Earth Creationsits with a scientific background of some sort, though that is certainly not true of all. Given the diversity - Christians, non-Christians, OECs and YECs, scientists and philosophers, teachers and students theists, agnostics, and even some atheists among them (though few), I would have to say that their beliefs are irrelevant to the over-all theory. The one significant factor that is common to all ID folks is a rejection of the notion that chance and necessity alone can account for the diversity and complexity of biological life, combined with a realization that a stronger inference (than Darwinism) based on evidence of complex and purposeful structures, is that the appearance of design in nature is best taken as purposeful design (whether front-loaded via the necessary primary information, or created as kinds), rather than as the accumulation of successive random processes with no blueprint or specified and purposeful direction. (I think that's the longest senence I've ever written :) ) I think one keen observation from ID detractors stemming from the implications of ID is that the designer ought to be named. After all, it seems quite relevant that if there is a designer, that he/she/it, be a god of some sort. Theere are some important problems with this: 1)it is a way to force ID into the corner of non-scientific Creationism, when there are vast differences between the two, 2)the evidence does not contain any obvious signature that the designer is a god (even if a god is the best inference), 3)the questions as to who the designer is are best left to other disciplines, such as philosophy and theology, just as Dr. Dawkins has left the field of science in his anti-god manifesto "The God Delusion."CannuckianYankee
September 5, 2009
September
09
Sep
5
05
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply