Dawkins is not a great a sciensit
I'm not even saying that he hasn't done real scinece but he's not a big name for work in scinece. His work in "real scinece" is a little better than mediocre.
Before I go into that here's a little something for Hans to ponder. This is the second time I've found a Left publication attacking New Atheism. the other was in the Guardian (the one in New York). How do you figure it Hans? I see totalitarian written over New atheism and in reality the left overs of the left oppose it.
here's the "about" statement form the journal State of nature where I find the anti-Dawkins article:
"State of Nature is a quarterly online journal of the Left. Its focus is on world politics, global economics, history, philosophy, social theory and the arts. It stands opposed to the capitalist economic order and the imperialist ambitions of the world’s great powers. It remains committed to the development of protest movements and the construction of a radical alternative to the status quo."
does that mean Dawkins is status quo?
quote:
"As a whole generation of biologists has been indoctrinated to believe that selfish-gene theory is serious science, we should put the Dawkins-as-intellectual scenario to rest forever."
State of Nature
Selfish kinship altruism is a minefield for the Dawkins camp, for they are forced to come up with explanations for numerous processes that don’t fit the model. Dawkins’ rather unconvincing explanation for our kindness to strangers for example, is that this is a “Darwinian mistake”, a useless (in Darwinian terms not his) misdirected extension of our feelings of kinship. [4] This is almost painful; a classic case of making the data fit the theory. Surely we can come up with a better explanation for altruism. Let’s start by examining kin selection, which undoubtedly plays a role in evolution, but which, when presented as being driven by individualism is a fantasy based on a falsehood. The simple reality is that we co-operate with others because we are social beings. We co-operate closely with kin because, well, they’re closest to us! (This really is kindergarten stuff, isn’t it?) Kin altruism can be more simply and believably explained, from a purely biological viewpoint only, as insurance for assistance at a time of future need, which rules out gene influence entirely.
Detailed information about the origin of life is not altogether conjectural; it’s still possible to speculate as to what took place and why. It’s likely that the first spark of life was a singular event, was not repeated. [5] If that’s the case, then all living things are related, for they have a common ancestor, this being confirmed by the presence of DNA in all organisms and the astounding level of genetic material shared among seemingly disparate species. (46% of your genes are found in yeast, 99% in chimps.) This makes a nonsense of kin selection based on selfishness, for when natural selection first kicked in (when the first organism reproduced) all organisms were closely related, there was no basis for differentiation. It’s still nonsense if we look at the situation eons later. High level co-operation with close kin is not mysterious; it has no hidden agenda, no devious ulterior motives. It’s no more than a perfectly natural consequence of varying levels of kinship. Take the example of a sinking ferry. The passengers that are strong swimmers will take their nearest and dearest to safety. If they have energy in reserve they will return to help others. This is not a “Darwinian mistake” as Dawkins would have us believe, for in the final analysis the other passengers are also close kin. Closer that is, than an owl or a toad, for these are also related to humans if we go back far enough. So we don’t need flimsy, unconvincing, manufactured absurdities to explain altruistic behaviour. There’s a perfectly plausible reason for our emotional ties to strangers; we’re all related!
he's also a Meusium curator not a a research scientist. Look at the description of his job in Wiki
"and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.[2]"
that's like saying he's a PR man. "In his scientific works, Dawkins is best known for his popularization of the"
a popularize. a popularizer is not a real scientist.
once when I made this arguemnt they showed me a bunch of stuff from his honorary degrees. honorary degrees are not earned. those are not Ph.D's he does have one but most of his degrees are not Ph.D.'s most honorary doctorates are given in exchange for endowments or speaking at commencement. that is not indicative of great scientific work.
William Lane Craig is closer to being the real thing for philosophy than Dawkins is for science.
9 comments:
Richard Dawkins is a scientist. He has a doctorate in philosophy. He employs doctors and reports back there findings as fact. These facts then go through a "christian" collander and are then deemed as pro- or anti- christian.
Also, I would like to point out that the two discoverers of DNA, Rosalind Franklin and James Watson, were both atheists. So, before using all this convenient scientific analegy to prove an otherwise ridiculous point is plain typical. Typical of christians to try and back up there religious beliefs with scientific discoveries that have been in no way linked or creditted with god.
I would like to hear your views on evolution if you are willing to write a blog about it.
"Richard Dawkins is a scientist. He has a doctorate in philosophy."
No he doesn't. You didn't read the post. That's all unearned given as honoramia for speaking.
"He employs doctors and reports back there findings as fact. These facts then go through a "christian" collander and are then deemed as pro- or anti- christian."
that is not what scientists do. I see you don't much about scinece. you just think of it as a emotional support for your ideology.
facts are not "deemed" pro or anti-christian. science is not a check on Christianity it 'snot an atheist enforcement mechanism it's not an atheist propaganda tool.It's neutral. Science is more anti-religious than it is pro-religious.
"Also, I would like to point out that the two discoverers of DNA, Rosalind Franklin and James Watson, were both atheists."
So? Gravity was discovered by a Christian. The head the Genome project is a Christian.
"So, before using all this convenient scientific analegy to prove an otherwise ridiculous point is plain typical."
try learning something about scinece before you try to use it as a propaganda tool.
"Typical of christians to try and back up there religious beliefs with scientific discoveries that have been in no way linked or creditted with god."
typical of atheists to know so little about scinece that they it's some kind of anti-religious mechanism.
where exactly did I use science to back anything?
atheists try to use scinece when they read for the imaginary facts they think support heir lies.
"I would like to hear your views on evolution if you are willing to write a blog about it."
I'm a Darwinian
this is one measuring stick that I use to see when someone knows nothing about science; when they evolution is a litmus test for religion or that evolution is somehow a innate disproof of religion. Evolution has nothing to do with belief in God.
Even if Evolution exists in some form like they say(and I have my doubts about some of it. I was on an off-topic part of this NBA forum that I go on, and someone had a post about how Evolution doesn't exist, but adaptation), people still have to be created first. You have to be created before you can "evolve" or adapt, and the creator is, more than likely, God.
no you don't. you are created by the act of your parents. God created the planet and guides it's advancement but he doesn't have to fiot into existence each and thing form nothing.
In genesis it says everything was made to bear fruit after it's kind. the processes of life were put in motion and they work on their own.
I know what you mean. What I am saying, though, is that God had to make the first Homo Sapiens before they could procreate and before those people could "adapt" or "evolve" or whatever you want to call it.
no he didn't. God did not need to create a "first man." He could allow humanity to develop out of lower organisms just as Darwin thought.
why not? that's a an insistence upon reading Genesis as history rather than as mythology. The whole situation changes when we see mythology as good, not a lie, and understand what it's about and stop trying to make it historical.
You have a point about Genesis and mythology, but I am not trying to make it historical. From my understanding, however, I have heard that Homo Sapiens aren't linked to the Neanderthals and to Homo Erectus. I know that there is the man from ape thing that is out there, but it just doesn't make sense to me. That is looking at it from any perspective, Christian or not.
We have common ancestry with Neanderthal and Homo erectus. Of course the latter is not directly the ancestor of the former either. All three have common ancestors.
Post a Comment