From: Susan Brassfield Cogan <susanb@telepath.com>
>I generally don't try to evaluate the intelligence of my opponents. Even a
>"peabrain" can be right. I think Dawkins is an idiot because he thinks
>evolution has something to say about the existence of gods. He should know
>better.
The theory of evolution does have "something to say" about the existence of
gods, in the sense that the existence of a naturalistic explanation for the
complexity of living organisms negates a particular argument for the
existence of gods (namely the argument from design). I concur with Dawkins'
statement that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled
atheist. (And, yes, this is a philosophical statement, not a scientific
one.)
The theory of evolution does not rule out the existence of gods, but Dawkins
doesn't claim that it does.
If you wish to maintain your position that Dawkins is an idiot, please tell
us more specifically what Dawkins has said that you object to. Otherwise, a
retraction would be appreciated. ;-)
By the way, while I'm generally in agreement with Dawkins and have
considerable respect for him, I do occasionally disagree with him. I don't
agree, for example, with his statement that those who reject evolution are
all ignorant, stupid, crazy or dishonest (or words to that effect--I don't
have the quote to hand). While many creationists *are* ignorant of the
facts, many others are not, and very few are stupid, crazy or dishonest. I
think he has omitted two other possibilities:
- A person may be blinded to rational argument by an unquestioning
attachment to their position. (I think most creationists/IDers fall into
this category.)
- I think a person could reasonably say: "Yes, I understand the scientific
evidence for evolution, but science cannot prove anything with absolute
certainty and, given that there's an element of uncertainty, however small,
I put my faith ahead of an uncertain scientific fact."
If you wish to call Dawkins an idiot for making the statement I just
referred to, then I won't argue with that. I would certainly not
describe him as an idiot myself, but I suppose this is a matter of opinion.
The term idiot is after all a pretty nebulous one, unless used in its
literal sense of someone with a mental impairment, which is clearly not the
sense you mean. According to my dictionary, the word can mean "foolish", and
I would agree that the statement above was a foolish one. But Dawkins is
clearly no fool in general.
>But what if someone is saying something that is patently, obviously and
>blindingly wrong? Something that can be easily verified. Then you find out
>the person knows what they are saying is wrong. Then you have to ask
>yourself *why* they would say such a thing even if they knew it was wrong.
>I think that's all worth discussion.
I agree that it's useful and interesting (to me anyway) to ask why people
say the things they do. I doubt, though, whether creationists/IDers "know"
that they're wrong, except perhaps in rare cases. The question IMO is not
"why do they say something when they know it's wrong?", but "why do they
think something is right when it's so obviously wrong, and has frequently
been demonstrated to be wrong?"
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
-- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up his
claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 06:53:47 EDT