Have you ever read Dawkins?

CDfm · 29-09-2008 11:32pm

PDN wrote: »

It's a good movie, providing it's entertainment rather than historical accuracy you're after.

I know Scopes was really innocent but anyway he got convicted.

The moral of the story -invariably the scientist is the baddie that gets left of on a technicality.

Am I right.

CDfm · 29-09-2008 11:42pm

Climate Expert wrote: »

Again have you actually read the book. He shows the fallacy of this argument, 'prove he doesn't exist' in a very logical manner.

of course HE exists.

but Dawkins gets into abstractions on Einsteinian (pantheism) etc and loves giving religion a hard time. And Dawkins sets out to disprove that all and any God(s) exist(s).

What he does is not logical and he doesnt offer any "proof".

He starts from a biased perspective so much so that he coined the phrase "faith delusional" in earlier writings.

So he launches into his subject in a very biased way.

How objective is that?

PDN · 29-09-2008 11:45pm

CDfm wrote: »

I know Scopes was really innocent but anyway he got convicted.

The moral of the story -invariably the scientist is the baddie that gets left of on a technicality.

Am I right.

No, the science teacher is the goodie who got convicted on a technicality. The prosecuting attorney was a fundamentalist who believed in a literal 6 day creation (not so in real life), who was reduced to an emotional wreck in the courtroom listing books of the Bible (not so in real life), who was horrified by Scopes getting a light fine (not so in real life) and who dropped dead in the courtroom (not so in real life). However it was historically accurate in that it portrayed the baddie lawyer as bald - so maybe we should be grateful for small mercies.

marco_polo · 30-09-2008 12:02am

CDfm wrote: »

of course HE exists.

but Dawkins gets into abstractions on Einsteinian (pantheism) etc and loves giving religion a hard time. And Dawkins sets out to disprove that all and any God(s) exist(s).

What he does is not logical and he doesnt offer any "proof".

He starts from a biased perspective so much so that he coined the phrase "faith delusional" in earlier writings.

So he launches into his subject in a very biased way.

How objective is that?

This book you are describing doesn't sound very objective at all. What was the title again?

What exactly were your expectations when you read the cover?

CDfm · 30-09-2008 12:15am

marco_polo wrote: »

This book you are describing doesn't sound very objective at all. What was the title again?

What exactly were your expectations when you read the cover?

Its all fine for you - Im off to bed but must first check that the teapots where I left it.

marco_polo · 30-09-2008 12:19am

CDfm wrote: »

Its all fine for you - Im off to bed but must first check that the teapots where I left it.

Just saying, usually if I read a book I don't like I don't become obsessed with the author.

CDfm · 30-09-2008 12:53am

marco_polo wrote: »

Just saying, usually if I read a book I don't like I don't become obsessed with the author.

Im very interested in religion,philosophy and all that. So lots of stuff posted is great. I dont like my religious beliefs misrepresented.

So its not Dawkins its the message I dont like!!!!

CDfm · 30-09-2008 2:44pm

Played the audiobook backwards in the car.

IT was Barney the Dinosaur singing Im a little Teapot

Sinister:eek:

ironingbored · 02-10-2008 11:20pm

studiorat wrote: »

A good video to check out btw is the poorly titled "the Four Horsemen". A discussion involving, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and some other trout.

That trout is Sam Harris, best-selling author and philosopher and currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience,using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.

ironingbored · 02-10-2008 11:31pm

CDfm wrote: »

On his serious work in genetics and biology- I dont know if he is outstanding or world class in his field or not.

According to his peers he work on gene-centric evolution has been ground-breaking,

CDfm wrote: »

So he is an Atheist Scientist who thinks God is unlikely-known for a spat with some Creationist Scientists over Darwin. Thats not much of a legacy.

It leaves me wondering whether outside this he actually rates as a real scientist among academics?.

Your disdain and vitriol for Dawkins seems to allude to a fear you might have that he may be right!

CDfm · 02-10-2008 11:41pm

ironingbored wrote: »

According to his peers he work on gene-centric evolution has been ground-breaking

it must be you cant do evolution without digging things up:D

i couldnt care less about Dawkins - it doesnt bother me if he writes a 100 more books

robindch · 03-10-2008 12:17am

CDfm wrote: »

i couldnt care less about Dawkins - it doesnt bother me if he writes a 100 more books

Given that Dawkins has showed up in around half of your postings, I would respectfully submit that you care a very great deal about him

CDfm · 03-10-2008 12:30am

robindch wrote: »

Given that Dawkins has showed up in around half of your postings, I would respectfully submit that you care a very great deal about him

I was wrong about him he is a great scientist and a truly inspirational.

Like Darwin he retains a deep affection for Anglicans and has many Anglican friends like the Bishop of Oxford.

He has a puppy which is a Beagle and a small to boat called the Beagle that he plays with in the bath. I admire such his devotion.

Mal-Adjusted · 03-10-2008 12:36am

CDfm wrote: »

I was wrong about him he is a great scientist and a truly inspirational.

Like Darwin he retains a deep affection for Anglicans and has many Anglican friends like the Bishop of Oxford.

He has a puppy which is a Beagle and a small to boat called the Beagle that he plays with in the bath. I admire such his devotion.

i know that's meant as sarcasm...but WTF?

CDfm · 03-10-2008 1:08am

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

i know that's meant as sarcasm...but WTF?

His work in gene-centric evolution is much undervalued and he is too modest to mention it.

His standing is such that- to the best of my knowledge - neither the Catholic Church or Church of England criticize this work.

studiorat · 03-10-2008 11:02am

Sarcasm? on the internet?

Must have been filtered out in the wireless...

CDfm · 03-10-2008 12:56pm

studiorat wrote: »

Sarcasm? on the internet?

Must have been filtered out in the wireless...

Really I dont need sarcasm to discuss Dawkins and the Neo-Darwinists. I havent seen his work criticised by the Catholic Church or The Anglicans.

I have seen criticisms by Professor Lewonthin of Harvard saying his explanations in his gene evolution theory are not a satisfactory explanation for higher order evolution.

Other critics are the british evolutionist and prominent humanist Professor Steven Rose. The philosopher Mary Midgely says his work overly reductive-it cant explain altruism for instance.

His US rival Professor Stephen Gould led the other faction in what is dubbed the Darwin Wars.He makes lots of friends.:rolleyes:

Are they all saying that his models are overly simplistic -I dont know.

So really sarcasm is not nesscessary and as far as I know none of the above has religious affiliations or is a creationist.

There just seems to be an awful lot of dissent on his theories thats all.So why should I care.

Mal-Adjusted · 03-10-2008 1:08pm

CDfm wrote: »

Really I dont need sarcasm to discuss Dawkins and the Neo-Darwinists.

could someone please explain to me what a Neo-Darwinist is?
Thanks:D

CDfm · 03-10-2008 1:24pm

that would need its own thread:D

Fanny Cradock · 03-10-2008 1:29pm

From my understanding, the application of the term neo-Darwinism has changed over the years and is still somewhat nebulous in it's exact definition.

I believe (and I stand to be corrected) that it is now understood by some to mean that evolution takes place in response to a slowly, but ever-changing environment. Species able to adapt to these changes will pass down characteristics to to their progeny.

But that is probably more accurately answered over in the B C & P thread.

*Hint. Hint*

CDfm · 03-10-2008 3:03pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

*Hint. Hint*

Thats place sounds scary:eek:

marco_polo · 04-10-2008 9:54pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

From my understanding, the application of the term neo-Darwinism has changed over the years and is still somewhat nebulous in it's exact definition.

I believe (and I stand to be corrected) that it is now understood by some to mean that evolution takes place in response to a slowly, but ever-changing environment. Species able to adapt to these changes will pass down characteristics to to their progeny.

But that is probably more accurately answered over in the B C & P thread.

*Hint. Hint*

I think the most common usage of the term would be evolutionary science since the advent of the genetic era. Modern evolutionary science if you will. As with most things in science this would be a disputed usage of the term, and is probably not technically correct. So you are pretty well spot on when you say that it is nebulous in it's exact definition.

robindch · 05-10-2008 12:31am

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

could someone please explain to me what a Neo-Darwinist is?

As marco_polo says, in broad terms, Neo-Darwinism is Darwin's original theory brought up to date, by bringing it together with what we know about genetics.

No doubt, there are a few different definitions around, but I wouldn't worry too much about that since scientists as a group try not to define themselves by variably-useful and variably-defined human-derived labels, but by what they know and understand of the reality they describe.

marco_polo · 05-10-2008 1:57am

robindch wrote: »

As marco_polo says, in broad terms, Neo-Darwinism is Darwin's original theory brought up to date, by bringing it together with what we know about genetics.

No doubt, there are a few different definitions around, but I wouldn't worry too much about that since scientists as a group try not to define themselves by variably-useful and variably-defined human-derived labels, but by what they know and understand of the reality they describe.

It is often thrown around in a disparaging way to try and in some way insunate that someone is an 'evolutionary extremist' (Whatever that is). No doubt in an attempt to evoke a negative image similar to that associated with neo conservatism. I find such naieve usage of the term rather amusing TBH.

marco_polo · 05-10-2008 2:34am

CDfm wrote: »

Really I dont need sarcasm to discuss Dawkins and the Neo-Darwinists. I havent seen his work criticised by the Catholic Church or The Anglicans.

I have seen criticisms by Professor Lewonthin of Harvard saying his explanations in his gene evolution theory are not a satisfactory explanation for higher order evolution.

Other critics are the british evolutionist and prominent humanist Professor Steven Rose. The philosopher Mary Midgely says his work overly reductive-it cant explain altruism for instance.

His US rival Professor Stephen Gould led the other faction in what is dubbed the Darwin Wars.He makes lots of friends.:rolleyes:

Are they all saying that his models are overly simplistic -I dont know.

So really sarcasm is not nesscessary and as far as I know none of the above has religious affiliations or is a creationist.

There just seems to be an awful lot of dissent on his theories thats all.So why should I care.

If you are hoping to prove that he is not an internationally renowned evolutionary biologist? Textbook example of the scary use of the term Neo Darwinist :eek: too btw

I think you will find that top scientists disagree with each other all the time, it is the nature of the beast and a vital aspect of Science. Even Einstein go it wrong on occasion and was not above peer critism.

I think you will find that Dawkins and Gould would have had a healthy respect for one anothers work, but they did have some major disagreements about subjects such as Puncuated Equiliberium (Coming from a palentology background Gould believed in sudden busts of Evolution followed by stable periods, whereas Dawkins takes more of a gradualist view on the topic), also Dawkins would have a much more Gene centered view on evolution than Rose or Gould for example. The are not saying his models are too 'simplistic' rather they would believe their models are more correct than his.

I am not qualified enough to say who is the most 'right' of Dawkins or Gould, but it is a very healthy thing indeed to have such debate and it should not be percieved as in any way unusual.

Also there is an good article on the Darwin Wars here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3830845,00.html

As for Mary Midgely she seems to have an even bigger beef with Dawkins than you if that is possible, here is a commprehensive reply to Midgley by dawkins:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2341,In-Defence-of-Selfish-Genes,Richard-Dawkins

And just in case you are still sceptical a thorough shredding of her arguments by a third party can be found here
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=1

CDfm · 05-10-2008 8:12am

thanks but no thanks- Ive heard and read enough

marco_polo · 05-10-2008 1:56pm

CDfm wrote: »

thanks but no thanks- Ive heard and read enough

I would repectfully suggest the opposite is the case.

CDfm · 05-10-2008 2:05pm

the atheist thread stuff is not for me

AtomicHorror · 05-10-2008 11:14pm

So, amazingly "On Topic", I'm reading The Selfish Gene for the first time and really enjoying it. Extremely well-written and very clear. Rather shameful for a biologist to have left it so long to read this one...

MrPudding · 06-10-2008 1:06pm

Have you read any of the other? The Blind Watch Maker is excellent.

MrP

Have you ever read Dawkins?

Comments