Re: Privileged Planet was Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and the Precautio...

PvM wrote:

> I was hoping for some actual quotes that would
> allow us to determine what Dawkins really has said. I too had read a
> lot of Dawkins, and I also believed that Dawkins went across the line,
> so to speak. And yet, in discussions I have come to realize that
> Dawkins' claims are far less controversial than they may at first
> appear, and that certainly he is not arguing that God can be
> proven/disproven by science. Which is what ID claims to be showing.
>

Sorry, the last post was sent a bit premature.

I have read through the Selfish Gene completely, and
half heartedly on the blind watchmaker. (I only mentioned
the Blind watchmaker title because of the way you worded
your sentence, not because of its content.) These early
works do seem to contrast with the later and apparently more
strident works which others on this list have commented
on: particularly Dawkins theologizing and more recently
comments made even by atheists about him.

In Selfish Gene, His bit on memes
is short, and a little silly on celibacy
and trivializing toward Christ dying on the cross, but
I've heard far less charitable things on both matters.
Where I agree with him most there is "If there is a human
moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children
altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their
biological nature."

In blind watchmaker, he does make a rational assessment about
our "privileged planet" in the chapter in Origins and Miracles.
He does at least agree that the universe is not teaming with
life, and maybe favors one form of intelligent life appearing
per galaxy, or something of the sort. That at least pushes
it out where it is probably beyond our capacity to measure.

So he is not directly proving God does not exist.

Furthermore, what he says about "you cannot prove God does
not exist" is in fact (from other sources) there are many
things you cannot prove, but you don't believe them.
He comes across largely as a positivist in that sense.

However, whereas the Blind Watchmaker and the Selfish Gene
are popular books that more or less stay close to science,
I might add that Dembski also published the Design Inference
which is basically just a straight book. However, I recall on
the skeptic list I was on at the time, that there was immediate
outcry from some individuals about it, whereupon I took the
time to actually read it. It was not all that helpful, as it only
explains what to do if you have a reliable probability function,
but all the noise was just that.

Where is this going? Well, we all know the direction Dembski
went, and it was easy enough to see it even then. Likewise
Dawkins Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker all have a direction,
and if even atheists are now saying they object, I am hardly
surprised. I read enough to realize that much.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 29 18:51:08 2007