My Las Vegas debate with Christopher Hitchens continues to attract attention and comment. If you'd like to read an account of the debate, you can do so here.
Also on Monday July 21, at 4.30 pm Eastern time, I'll be debating Richard Dawkins (yes, Richard Dawkins!) on Al-Jazeera (yes, that Al-Jazeera). This is a noteworthy development because Dawkins has so far refused to debate me. But now we're appearing together on the Riz Khan television show, which I understand has some 25 million viewers worldwide. If you want to watch Monday's debate live you can watch it here. The segment will also be posed on the web and I will link to it on this blog.
I also hope that, upon seeing for himself that I am not a Hitlerite kind of speaker, Dawkins will summon up the courage to step into the public arena with me. Like one of the atheist commenters recently said on Dawkins's own website: all the best spokesmen for unbelief have gotten a whipping from this D'Souza guy and it's now up to Dawkins to try and redeem the reputation of atheism.
Given that my thoughts are currently focused on how to deal with Dawkins, I'm going to post here on a question that seems to mystify him and many other scientific atheists. These fellows wonder: if there is reasonably good evidence for evolution--as, by the way, both Dawkins and I believe there is--why do around 50 percent of Americans refuse to accept it? The conventional wisdom among Dawkins and others is that Americans oppose evolution because they are religiously committed to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis.
But there is a much better explanation of why Americans reject evolution: the idiotic claims of leading champions of evolution who are promoting an atheist agenda. Consider Dawkins himself, rebutting the claim that there are significant "gaps" in the fossil record. Dawkins concedes that there are such gaps, but then writes this: "The gaps, far from being anoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect."
In other words, the absence of evidence for evolution is itself proof that the theory is correct! This is so bizarre that it makes one wonder what the presence of evidence might do to this theory. Would a complete fossil record without gaps be evidence against Darwinian evolution, as we hear that Dawkins and his fellow biologists "exactly" and "positively" expect that such evidence should not be present?
Dawkins finally puts his cards on the table by saying of evolution: "Even if the evidence did not favor it, it would still be the best theory available." And if Dawkins is dismissed as a crank, here is Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker making the same point. "Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."
We have here the weird spectacle of so-called scientists who are so wedded to a theory that they cannot even imagine it not to be true. This is a level of dogmatism that would embarrass any theist. Even the strongest religious believer can imagine the possibility that there is no God. So how can these self-styled champions of reason adopt so closed-minded an approach?
The short answer is given by Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin, who in a 1997 essay in the New York Review of Books makes a revealing admission: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant proises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment--a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori commitment to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
And you thought I was making this stuff up! No wonder Americans are skeptical of these apostles of skepticism. They are peddling their own metaphysical dogmas in the name of science, even though few are as honest as Lewontin in admitting it.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 40)
1. In other words, the absence of evidence for evolution is itself proof that the theory is correct! This is so bizarre that it makes one wonder what the presence of evidence might do to this theory.
--------------------
Dinesh, my thoughts exactly!
What your religion be if one could find evidence, any evidence at all ?
mac at 1:51AM on Jul 18th 2008
2. Another joke column, right?
tmo at 2:19AM on Jul 18th 2008
3. Dinesh, I hate to break it to you but science is not a popularity contest. The theory of gravity does not care how many people believe in it. The theory of thermodynamics does not care how many people understand it. The theory of evolution does not magically become untrue simply because some one says 'nay'. Science and the universe at large has always been coldly indifferent to how we grasp at trying to understand it; whether we feel that it is leeches rebalancing four essential fluidic humours or the sequencing of DNA, our grasp of understanding does not change the underlying reality of the universe. It was here before us, following its physical mechanisms, and it will be here long after us.
You ask why do fifty percent of Americans believe in evolution? Well, I could be snarky and ask in return why Americans on average have a fourth grade scientific knowledge, but that would be rude. Instead, I'm going to assume theists are intellectually equal to atheists and so chock up their disbelief in evolution to trust, fear, and pride.
The trust part is simple. We have to trust people. We trust our cops to protect us (or not, but that's another topic.) and we trust our doctors to know what they are doing. We trust our mechanics to know how to fix our car and the computer guy to fix our internet. We have to trust because it is impossible and impractical to do a background check of everyone you interact with. People who disbelieve due to trust simply accept the words of some one they know over a stranger. All things being equal, people would rather accept an argument from some one they consider a trustworthy source.
As for fear, this is a pretty common one. It comes from denial. If you believe in evolution, are you on the slippery slope? Will you start questioning the immaculate birth? What about Jesus' divinity? In short, once you start believing in evolution religion turns into a cheep sweater that eventually unravels. This is the imputus behind banning evolution in the class room, incidently, as theists are terrified it will become a gateway drug for atheism. Of course to a degree they're right. For some evolution is an excellent argument against any kind of a divine plan. Others fall back on the transperent argument of creative design as a way to try and grasp at straws.
The last group are the Pride group. These are the people who believe that they are special. That humans are special. That Americans are special. They're an elitist brand of humanity that has placed itself on a pedistal. To them, the idea that humanity wasn't hand crafted by God is demeaning. These are the same people who think that if gays can get married then their marriage is some how diminished. And for these poor sods, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose to accepting evolution. They're own biological purity as the universe's greatest creation will be reveiled to be merely the result of lucky happenstance.
Now, I won't say which group I think Dinesh falls into, because that would be rude, but I do have to take him to task for a crack about insufficient evidence. Modern biology would be impossible without evolution. Our taxonomical system is rooted in it. The fossil record reflects it. The ever changing field of virology is a perpetual example of it. Evolution is an inescapable reality of the natural world.
And evolution doesn't care if you put your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la god made us la la la' over and over again. The universe does not care. Evolution was here before humans. It is here now. And it will be at work long after we have gone the way of the neanderthals.
Somber at 2:59AM on Jul 18th 2008
4. In the debate Dinesh said:
"If religion must take the blame for the crimes committed in the name of religion, let's be consistent and blame atheism for the crimes inflicted in the name of creating the atheist utopia and the secular paradise liberated from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality"
There is a difference between atheism and anti-theism. The actions of such regimes were antitheistic. Atheism and antitheism are not a package deal, it is possible to be one without the other. Crimes that are done specifically against theists are antitheistic in nature.
Moreover, the West's most secular states today (I refer to Scandinavia and the like) seem to be doing just fine in terms of health and happiness with less crime than that of say the uber-religious US.
The "Atheists are great murderers" argument is old already.
Anonymous at 3:02AM on Jul 18th 2008
5. In other words, the absence of evidence for evolution is itself proof that the theory is correct! This is so bizarre that it makes one wonder what the presence of evidence might do to this theory. Would a complete fossil record without gaps be evidence against Darwinian evolution, as we hear that Dawkins and his fellow biologists "exactly" and "positively" expect that such evidence should not be present?
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
...And here is a christian site that "debunks" it.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/study-fossilrecord.html
****NOTE****
What does the chrisian site proclaim to be the "big fossilizer?"
Not at all. It is extremely rare. However, the conditions during the Flood of Noah's day were absolutely perfect for fossilization on a massive scale -- lots of mineral-rich water, rapid burial in mud, slow drying period, ideal temperatures, etc.
Noah's Flood is the only event which can adequately explain the widespread death and fossilization we see in our planet's sediments.
ex-christian at 3:23AM on Jul 18th 2008
6. Again(this point has been made before)
Assuming all evolution is complete and total nonsense what does that prove other than evolution is complete and total nonsense?
Scientology?
Science doesn't prove every thing so we should all bow to Tom Cruise?(he was pretty good in Risky Business)
tmo at 3:34AM on Jul 18th 2008
7. "If religion must take the blame for the crimes committed in the name of religion, let's be consistent and blame atheism for the crimes inflicted in the name of creating the atheist utopia and the secular paradise liberated from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality"
Okay, fine. Name one. Keep in mind the phrase "secular paradise liberated from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality"
Does anyone think that this was the goal of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot?
tmo at 3:52AM on Jul 18th 2008
8. Anonymous and tmo -
That "atheistic mass murderer" shtick is quite useless, and busted. If you ever need to argue this point, here's quite a few good points...
http://www.secularsites.freeuk.com/HitlerStalin.htm
ex-christian at 6:42AM on Jul 18th 2008
9. I became an atheist as a child, despite growing up in a very religious household where questioning the existance of God was forbidden. DD talks about proof and gaps? My childhood super simple questions could not be answered. Of course I had to keep quiet and live with the nonsense at the time. Noah built the ark, saved his family and the animals. It covered the whole world and wiped out EVERYTHING except what was on the ark. OK...how long did it take Noah's family to repopulate the world? How did we end up with blacks in Africa, yellow in Asia, red in America's, brown in Mexico, blond in Nordic countries, etc? Could it be that the story is NOT true? That not everyone was wiped out? That different people were already all over the world and the flood was just a fable? And, it was in the desert...how did Noah get the polar bears, penquins, panda's, etc. on the Ark? Did they have wolves and buffalo on the Ark too? If you believe Noah's story to be true, you must believe that over time new species evolved and people evolved. If you say the story is not literal because it doesn't make sense, you cannot then defend other parts of the Bible as literal and true because how would you KNOW? If God says the Bible is HIS word, and you insist it's true, you cannot then make excuses for it's unanswered questions and gaps. The discussions of faith and the existance of God have continued into adulthood, but those childhood inconsistancies set the stage, and nothing has changed. They still haven't been answered.
Jude at 6:54AM on Jul 18th 2008
10. Huge difference between "gaps" and "absence of evidence".
Also, most of the few people that I know that object to evolution do so on biblical grounds. One even thinks all the fossils were planted.
Ryan Anderson at 7:01AM on Jul 18th 2008
11. Well put Somber!
Dennis at 8:03AM on Jul 18th 2008
12. DD; "In other words, the absence of evidence for evolution is itself proof that the theory is correct!"
This seems kind of like when theists say that if their prayers are answered god is listening but if he doesn't that he works in mysterious ways. As if god not responding is further proof of his existence.
a born atheist at 8:14AM on Jul 18th 2008
13. I think the evidence is very weak for proving the Theory of Evolution, and it is ONLY because of the religious ramifications that non-believers cling so desperately to it. As Dawkins says, the Theory of Evolution makes atheism seem intellectual.
When atheism seems intellectual, (though dishonestly so), this becomes the main argument for rejecting Pascal's Wager which shows that it is a more productive, less risky, gamble to live as though actually does God exist, than to live as if God does not exist.
Those who promote Darwinism are usually not very objective, they have already decided that they must prove that God does not exist. DNA evidence that is too complex to "evolve" is ignored. A lack of evidence in the fossil records is ignored, or spun to seem reasonable.
What now passes as "science" concerning the creation of life on Earth is nothing more than these self-proclaimed experts trying to brainstorm how life could have started. Note that this is NOT scientific evidence when someone tries to invent how something MIGHT have occurred, yet it is regularly, eagerly, and desperately hailed as "science," just because Richard Dawkins said it, or whoever the expert of the day might be.
They claim very UNscientific things to have occurred, yet they claim this is science?! Maybe mud on a crystal started life? Maybe lightning hit a mud puddle? String theory? Alternate dimensions? Maybe UFOs planted life here? Maybe we are part of a computer program? These are all UNPROVEN theories that get respect and acceptance from these Darwinists, rather than the one alternative that is FORBIDDEN: maybe God created life!
The elitist atheists would rather believe a known lie than believe in God, the commonly known Truth throughout the entire world.
Rev 3:16 at 8:32AM on Jul 18th 2008
14. These fellows wonder: if there is reasonably good evidence for evolution--as, by the way, both Dawkins and I believe there is--why do around 50 percent of Americans refuse to accept it?
===================================================
What was the sampling data on this study? Methodology?
Who did you poll? 100 people, half saying they didnt believe it? I never trust statistics because you can make them say whatever you want to.
CaptainCack at 8:47AM on Jul 18th 2008
15. As a believer in creation,with an interest in evolutionary theory,I disagree with Dawkins' premise that gaps do not disprove evolution.Rather,the gaps should act as a stimulus for more research.Evolution in my opinion is an incomplete picture,awaiting the science needed to complete it.Let us be careful,also not to accept evolution as a final truth.It still needs challenghing and questioning.Who knows.Maybe at the end we will find that evolution is fact,or fiction,or that creation is fact or fiction.No matter how long the journey is,let us still keep going.
mad african christian at 8:55AM on Jul 18th 2008