1. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178573 by DNAproduct on May 11, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Dodger's original question was:

The obvious question is this: if we get everything from natural selection, and natural selection "selects" for individual and group survival, where do we get the idea that we must transcend this natural impulse? If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature? This is a question which, try as he might and mince it as he will, Dawkins has abjectly failed to address.

And I'm glad people have given more thoughtful and in-depth answers than "Just listen to the very post that we are discussing."
But, as seems to happen SO often, someone is asking a question of Dawkins that he's already directly addressed:

How can I on the one hand say that we are the product of Darwinian selection,
which is incorrigibly short-sighted and selfish, but at the same time say that salvation lies in
humanity's capacity for looking far ahead? And the answer lies in the fact that brains,
although they are themselves the natural product of natural selection, follow their own rules,
which can rise above the rules of natural selection. This is obvious in the case of the example
of contraception. Contraception is clearly anti-Darwinian. It would be hard to imagine
anything more anti-Darwinian than deliberately limiting your own reproductive success yet we
do it. The brain is big enough to override the imperative of the selfish genes. The brain exists
originally as a device to aid gene survival; the ultimate rationale for the brain's existence and
very large size in our own species is, like everything else in the living world, gene survival,
which tends to imply short-term selfishness. But as part of this the human brain has been
equipped by the natural selection of genes with the power to make its own decisions, which
can override the ultimate goals which were originally used to programme it.

Seriously, what percentage of the time do Dawkins' critics actually read or listen to what he says? Sure there's confirmational bias acting on my part, but it seems very much like 95% of the time I've already seen his answer to their questions.
Even if it's really only 50% of the time, he must get very tired of repeating anwers he just gave.


Thanks, Barry Pearson, for the link to the PDF.

2. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83895 by DNAproduct on October 31, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Wardsie:

Excellent point, and one that I personally haven't heard before, at least not in one concise sentence.
If the beliefs of what I call the "Wal-Mart Christians", those who really have no idea what they're worshipping, can't be counted as beliefs of the church, then shouldn't the church refuse their money and support? That would be the honest thing to do.

3. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #82104 by DNAproduct on October 25, 2007 at 5:12 pm

If evolution is not counter-intuitive, why did it take such a long time before Darwin came up with it? Enough of the relevant information was already available, provoking one of the leading scientists of the day (Huxley, I think) to remark how stupid he felt for not having come up with the idea himself.

Jaytee_555, this is a good question and I think it's related to one reason why there are so many contradictory opinions stated here. A slight communication problem, maybe.

I've wished for a long time that Darwin had used a term to mean specifically "Evolution by Natural Selection" because "Evolution" already has a different, more broad, meaning.

It actually did NOT take that long for Darwin or others before him to see the (I say intuitive) idea of Evolution. The simple ideas that living things are related, some are more closely related than others, and some may have originated from others seems to me to be the intuitive part. These things seemed obvious to me as early as I can remember thinking about them.

What I think is less intuitive is the explanation, which DID have to wait for Darwin (and Wallace). Even though people often refer to "Evolution by Natural Selection" as just "Evolution", the former is a separate, more complex, and less intuitive idea.

I often wish Darwin had given EBNS a more specific scientific name, rather than just referring to it as "Evolution".

"Darwin's Theory" and "Darwinism" would almost work, but they specifically refer to the theory, where I think we need a word just for the process--something shorter than "Evolution by Natural Selection".

DIACANU-Welcome! I enjoyed reading your posts. I was never pushed much toward religion, but did that "deism-dabbling" you referred to at some points, mainly because I didn't like the idea of my friends thinking I was somehow morally lacking. If I had a vague enough idea of god, I would be able to truly say I believed in it.
Despite the fact that I was always minimally religious, I think I understand the feelings some people declare about this site being a haven or oasis. I love the rational inquiries, discussions, and personalities here that so far I haven't found consistently anywhere else.

4. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #69665 by DNAproduct on September 12, 2007 at 5:19 am

Goatboy 2012:

I love the idea of nominating Dawkins for a Templeton prize. If only it depended on signatures or something, so that we could contribute to him actually winning it.
I was just reading in another thread about how this site lacks any sense of humor. The next post I read was yours, and I cracked up at that idea.

Marie-Louise:

Nice to hear from you. I've been daydreaming about moving to Sweden since I recently read that up to 85% of people there are atheist/agnostics. Good for you that you're not one of the ones turning to horoscopes and tarot cards!

5. There is no God and Dawkins is his Prophet

Comment #68086 by DNAproduct on September 6, 2007 at 5:11 am

Misha Vargas asked:

I don't remember that bit about bribery, can anyone find what Father Ulf is referring to? Maybe the translation was bad?

I'm sorry I don't have time to find the exact quotes at the moment (really sorry, because I'd enjoy any excuse to skim through TGD again), but I'm sure Father Ulf is referring to a prize given by somebody like the Discovery Institute.
As I remember, Dawkins mentioned at least a couple of times that certain, ahem, "scientists" had received this large monetary prize. I seem to recall at least one sentence questioning the integrity of scientists who accept this money.

Well, I should be on a bike ride, but you made me curious so I found one example, at least. It wasn't the Discovery Institute, though of course they do basically the same thing.

Paul Davies's The Mind of God seems to hover somewhere between Einsteinian pantheism and an obscure form of deism - for which he was rewarded with the Templeton Prize (a very large sum of money given annually by the Templeton Foundation, usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion).

TGD page 19

6. Could these books be part of the problem?

Comment #62572 by DNAproduct on August 10, 2007 at 6:51 am

I absolutely do have a sense of humor, and find many articles and postings on this site hilarious, including most of "The Onion" articles which some people clearly don't find funny at all.
I see the humor in this article, and it got a smile out of me, but when I read Russel Blackford's post (#12), I realized I fully agreed with him. This particular cheap shot feels a bit too much like some of the smug self-congratulatory things I hear and read from some religious people.

On the other hand, I'm glad it was presented here just so that it could lead to Steven Mading's comment (#25). A quick, day-brightening piece of comedic genius, in my opinion.

7. Evolution: God as Genetic Engineer

Comment #50950 by DNAproduct on June 20, 2007 at 4:02 pm

The first time I heard of Sean Carroll I was browsing channels and came across a lecture on genetics and evolution. It was on The Research Channel, which I don't think many people get, but if I remember correctly they have a website with streaming video of most of their shows.
The lecture was relatively basic, with the audience consisting of (probably advanced) high-school kids, but still informative and interesting. He has some of the contagious enthusiasm for the subject that Dawkins has.
I would say his book, "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" is a little less fun to read, but a little more informative about details, than, say, "Climbing Mount Improbable". If Carroll dedicated himself to being a science popularizer I think he would be excellent. But I wouldn't want him to give up his "day job", because his research is pretty exciting.
Okay, enough about him--one more comment--I thought Dawkins trashed Behe's flagellum argument VERY well a few years before TGD, in "The Ancestor's Tale".

8. Study shows primitive fish had genetic wiring for limbs

Comment #46047 by DNAproduct on May 30, 2007 at 4:27 am

I agree completely, Schuermannator. When reading Sagan, Gould, or especially Dawkins on evolution, I often have moments when I have to close the book and just think, "That's unbelievable!"
Then I have to remind myself that the word should be "Amazing" instead.
Specifically, I remember having those moments in "Ancestor's Tale" when Dawkins discussed HOX genes, and again when he described the clearly reducible complexity of a flagellum.
A more in-depth but not overly technical book about the HOX genes and their role in evolution is "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll. Not quite as enjoyable to me as a Dawkins book, but then very few books are.

9. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33754 by DNAproduct on April 21, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Does anyone who criticises Dawkins actually read his work? As we've seen so many tiresome times before, D'Souza is using Dawkins as a symbol of callous indifference to beauty and morality...a description that every book and essay from "The Selfish Gene" through "The God Delusion" shows to be completely false.

"Human beings are simply agglomerations of molecules"?!!! If he can show me where Dawkins said that, I'll show him a dozen or more quotes about the beauty, complexity, and potential of ALL life. Just off the top of my head, how about when Dawkins told Michael Shermer (regarding astronomical observations and knowledge) he was so proud of our species he was nearly moved to tears?

There's nothing anyone can say that will make a bereaved family forget their pain, but I am sure (based on thousands of pages of evidence) that Dawkins could write a speech every bit as comforting as any religious figure, with the added merit that it contains no fantasies or lies.

10. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #31977 by DNAproduct on April 15, 2007 at 5:14 am

Because this is my first post, please allow one off-topic sentence just to say that I very much appreciate the intelligent, insightful, sometimes funny, and usually very civil discussion provided by the great majority of posts here.

As for the current topic, I just have two quick comments:
1) I don't see anywhere in the article that Professor Dawkins claims there is no value to any postmodernist ideas. He gives several examples where specific passages have no value, but never makes the generalization that all postmodern ideas are worthless. It seems clear to me that most accusations of Dawkins being arrogant come from similar exaggerations of his stated viewpoints. (For example, he never says that all religious people are stupid or evil, but plenty of his critics somehow THINK he's said that).

2) If anyone is interested in another entertaining, interesting discussion about postmodernism by a science writer in Dawkins' league, Steven Pinker discusses it a bit in "How The Mind Works", and more in "The Blank Slate".