Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

[quote mine] Richard Dawkins : ” the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis”

Salvador Cordova
September 26, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science….the God Hypothesis is a proper scientific hypothesis

Richard Dawkins

Whoa!

Well, sort of. Dawkins’ essay from which this quote originated was quickly withdrawn after Mike Gene posed the question, Dawkins on the DI Payroll?

Will Richard maintain that position now that he was caught saying it? This will be a juicy quote for months to come!

I have said argued several times I think science can legitimately hypothesize God being a causal agent of nature. See Peer Reviewed Stealth ID Classic: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987) for a discussion of the God hypothesis based purely on physics with no appeal to philosophy or theology whatsoever.

Questions of God being the Intelligent Designer of all life are outside ID proper, but the question can still be posed, albeit outside of ID proper. His existence and action in the creation of the known universe is a compelling scientific hypothesis, and if He exists, it makes the case for a ID more plausible because we are guaranteed there will always exist a Designer with a sufficient skill set.

Comments
Evolution DID occur but no longer does. The only issue has always been the MECHANISM, a mechanism no longer in operation. I, with the help of my many sources, have provided that potential mechanism in the form of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It remains in accord with everything we REALLY know from both the fossil record and the experimental laboratory, none of which can ever be reconciled with the Darwinian pipe dream. It is hard to believe isn't it? I love it so! "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
John Singleton stated: "For children who study hard and keep an open mind, it seems to me utterly inconceivable that they could conclude anything other than that evolution is true." I'll agree with your blanket statement, only to the extent that they study 'hard' that which is presented to them in the classroom. If they study hard the world around them, however, they may form a different opinion. Academia that is diverse succeeds. Academia that is restricted to one philosophy, albeit the prevailing one, fails. It fails, that is, to encourage original thinking and exploration, even though it may succeed in bringing one into the fold of the established dogma. I notice that more scientists are leaning toward a more open pursuit of the study of origins. Not that they will admit to embracing the concept of design, but more for the reason that they see the stifling of alternate viewpoints as casting doubt on evolutionary thought, by painting it as being threatened by the concept of Intelligent Design. Presenting the idea that life, and the universe for that matter, may be designed, poses no threat whatsoever to evolution, if naturalistic macroevolution is all there is. Desperate attempts to legitimize it by postulating infinite universes, punctuated equilibrium, co-opted functions from chance mutations, (ad nauseum), will have to stand up to the scrutiny of our upcoming scientists, and like it or not, barring the hammering of evolution into them, they will see what you and certain others cannot see; that of a purposeful and harmonious world.leebowman
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
Tally ho! Thanks to Analyysi at Telic Thoughts for finding the text of Dawkins' admission that the God hypotheis is a proper scientific hypothesis. It was captured at a site known as id-idea. blogspot.com See: Richard Dawkins Explains His Latestscordova
September 27, 2006
September
09
Sep
27
27
2006
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
Richard Dawkins Interview (seems very recent): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHYJGuy
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT
jonabbey, You wrote, "Dawkins has said on numerous occasions that he considers the assertion that there is a God to be a factual assertion ... That doesn’t mean that reliable evidence in support of the assertion has been provided, or indeed that most people define God in such a way that such evidence could ever be provided." We all know Dawkins' motive for admitting that the God hypothesis was valid was not to say he believes there is evidence for God. That is totally irrelevant. The fact is that Dawkins' statement is an admission by a party opponent which is highly dispositive on the issue of whether challenges to naturalistic materialism can be scientific. Why do you think he had the essay yanked so quick?Jehu
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
11:57 PM
11
11
57
PM
PDT
Just speculating, but wouldn't it be funny if Dawkins was the second Flew? I know it's almost as likely as life arising by itself but then that doesn't mean it can't happen. Yea ID!!!rpf_ID
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT
Dawkins has said on numerous occasions that he considers the assertion that there is a God to be a factual assertion, and one whose truth value makes a good deal of difference in how Life, The Universe, and Everything must be considered. That doesn't mean that reliable evidence in support of the assertion has been provided, or indeed that most people define God in such a way that such evidence could ever be provided. He takes the same approach to the question of proving the non-existence of God. As Godel proved in formal systems, not all well-formed assertions are provable or disprovable in domains of sufficient representative power. That doesn't mean that the assertions are true or not true, just that they cannot be shown to be so. If you want evidence of Dawkins' opinion that the existence or non-existence of God is a fact claim, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5372458.stm Impressive improvements to the site, by the way. Compliments to the chefs.jonabbey
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
Here's a fuller context of what Scordova quoted above. Seeing it like this it has quite a different ring to it: "Well, at last we have found something we can agree with. This seems to me to be an admirable sentiment. I really have less trouble than some of my colleagues with so-called creation science being taught in the public schools as long as evolution is taught as well. By all means let creation science be taught in the schools. It should take all of about 10 minutes to teach it and then children can be allowed to make up their own minds in the face of evidence. For children who study hard and keep an open mind, it seems to me utterly inconceivable that they could conclude anything other than that evolution is true."John Singleton
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
I don't get it. If you don't know what the original context is, what's the point of offering a partial quote? Also, the new preview format is way mass boss.HodorH
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
Why should we accept the assertion that science cannot formulate current tests for the existance of an Intelligent Designer? If we posit reproducible capabilities for current transcendent intervention, why cannot they be tested? e.g., See Mark Herringshaw. “Effects of long distance intercessory prayer and anti-tobacco communication on teenager intention to smoke cigarettes.” May 2001 PhD Thesis Regent University, Virginia Beach. He formulated a double blind (actually triple blind) test of the effects of remote intercessory prayer on the testable intentions of students to stop smoking. He found statistically significant correlations.DLH
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
The copy is gone. There is speculation his comments played into IDers hands, and that's why it was withdrawn. However, even if so, news reporters from now on can still ask him about those comments. Also, there is a chance it is in his book since his essay was a summary of that book. We will see. See the Link I provided to Telic Thoughts to see the trail of discussion as well as: Found the Dawkins Essay. I think some damage control might be in the works because this quote let the cat out of the bag.....scordova
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
Is there a copy of Dawkins' full comments archived anywhere? What site had the original post?David vun Kannon
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Can we ask Richard Dawkins to appear as an expert witness on behalf of Creationism in the next court battle? :-) Richard also said some time ago THE "ALABAMA INSERT": A STUDY IN IGNORANCE AND DISHONESTY:
I really have less trouble than some of my colleagues with so-called creation science being taught in the public schools as long as evolution is taught as well. By all means let creation science be taught in the schools.
scordova
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Dawkins very cleverly uses the present tense with respect to God, knowing full well that such a presence cannot be established experimentally. My position, as scordova well knows, is simply that the existence of one or more Gods cannot be denied in the distant past. I regard that as very definitely a scientific hypothesis for which an enormous body of evidence exists. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
From TABT crowd Review of Kansas Science Standards:
The National Academy of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers, to name just two of many such organizations, have clearly defined science as a process which can only consider natural explanations for natural phenomena.
Dawkins just spanked TABT, KCFS, NAS, NABT. Go Richard go!scordova
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Peer reviewed articles and books can now explore the God hypothesis since Dawkins has now given his blessing. The God hypotheis is about science, not just religion. :-) Barrow and Tipler's book were among the first. Actually recently, K Svozil explored the God hypothesis in a physics peer-reviewed article:
Suspicions that the world might be some sort of a machine or algorithm existing “in the mind” of some symbolic number cruncher have lingered from antiquity. Although popular at times, the most radical forms of this idea never reached mainstream. Modern developments in physics and computer science have lent support to the thesis, but empirical evidence is needed before it can begin to replace our contemporary world view.
Svozil K. Computational universes, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 2005, 25(4): 845-859.scordova
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Yes, I’d surely agree. I think sometimes we get over enthusiastic and assert that God is forever beyond “science” when in fact that is something we cannot know. What is the case is that detecting design—which is what ID is all about—is a separate issue from further questions in regard to the designer. Is there a designer? OK, we’ve settled that. Then what …what might the creation say about the Creator? That’s a valid question too, though various of us will go our separate ways at this point. But the question of God will marshal all our disciplines—that is, after this deadening epistemological materialism is discredited—physics, the mind sciences, history, biblical studies, philosophy, theology, whatever—God is the biggest and most important question of all—that is, if He really is out there. Yes, I keep saying it, I’d rather have an enemy any day like Dawkins than the post-modernist who does not know what language is for or the slippery, mugwump “theistic evolutionist” who just wants to be appreciated by all sides. How can you argue with someone who cannot tell you clearly and succinctly what he thinks?Rude
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
I believe Dawkins does believe that the question of God's existence as a legitimate scientific question. Not only does the quote above describe that, but he also appeared on a Canadian TV show 'the Big Picture', on CBC. They played 'The Root of All Evil' to an audience and Richard Dawkins had a live video feed to be asked questions by various sorts of different people. And he said that he does believe the question is a legitimately scientific question and that his new book tries to answer that question. More info see http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/evil.html You can actually watch the debate after the showing of 'The Root of all Evil', on one of the links at the side.Apoptosis
September 26, 2006
September
09
Sep
26
26
2006
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply