This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Fleabytes

_J_'s Avatar Jump to comment 5145 by _J_

whatthe..?!, 5469,

the alleged mechanism ie Natural Selection Random Mutation Time has no creative power.

Howja figure that one out, poppet?

Reading your post, I'm not sure which edition of The Blind Watchmaker you've got on your shelf, but it's decidedly different from mine. In mine, Dawkins' various sentences all form part of a robust demonstration of evolution. Yours seems to be the Argument-Free Quote-Miner's version. I recommend looking up the original.

The universe and life show overwhelming evidence that they were intelligently designed.

Personally, I don't see it. Convince me.

If I design something, I've got a purpose in mind. Life is for...what? To hang around a bit and then die? Sure, you can say a frog's legs were 'designed' for jumping and an owl's satellite-dish face was 'designed' for picking out prey. Evolution also covers these details perfectly well. But what is life, as a whole, for? Evolution gives a rock-solid answer: life as a self-perpetuating process. God, the invisible cause, leaves us grasping for an equally invisible purpose: 'Life is for the glorification of its creator', or some such circular tosh. As far as I can see.

Whilst we're on purposes: what are your various little concluding appeals to authority about? Some well-known intellectuals didn't or don't understand evolution? Not exactly front page news. So Fred Hoyle couldn't process the micro/macro evolution - fine, he's not alone (and I gather this is hardly the only time he got something substantially wrong, either). Niles Eldredge has problems with the fossil record? As far as I know, paleontology as a whole would disagree with him.

If I now run off a list of soundbytes from evolutionists (a few minutes rummaging through the pile of New Scientists by my bed should turn up plenty), are you going to be pursuaded by weight of authority? No. So drop the name-dropping, eh?

You know, people ought to expect these mistakes, unknowns and revisions. It's the theory that looks consistent from the start and always remains so, with never a serious barrier to worry about, that should worry us. If you're trying to find out what's true about the world, you're going to crash into a few difficult problems, and occasionally have to admit you got something wrong and revise your ideas. But it's extremely easy to achieve smooth consistency if you just make the whole thing up. You want the sort of difficulty-free 'reality' that'd satisfy your Hoyles and Eldredges? Try Middle Earth.

Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:24:00 UTC | #136836