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 2 of 40)
16. 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
17.
Since Dinesh didn't post a link to the essay by Richard Lewontin, here it is.
http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm
In conclusion, Lewontin states; Conscientious and wholly admirable popularizers of science like Carl Sagan use both rhetoric and expertise to form the mind of masses because they believe, like the Evangelist John, that the truth shall make you free. But they are wrong. It is not the truth that makes you free. It is your possession of the power to discover the truth. Our dilemma is that we do not know how to provide that power.
The fact that we all, theist and atheist alike, believe things isn't in question. What is questionable, is the manner of the belief.
That there are holes in many of the sciences also isn't in question. If the hole is big enough, it's discarded. Our understanding of the universe around us has led to a great many advances, one being our mode of communication here. The computer you blog on is possible because of our understanding of molecular law, the outlet it's plugged into is the result of electromagnetism, and the internet is the result of molecular laws, electromagnetism, orbital mechanics, and more.
A great many scientific theories have fallen because of the nature of science. If testing fails to support it, it doesn't stand long. Phrenology is a good example.
Yet theism has no tests. Can I ignite a bush, and get it to not be consumed by the flames, and speak? That's one of the basis' of religious moral law. How about walking on water? Without some nifty inflatable shoes, it just isn't possible. Unless you can raise the surface tension of water to a level much higher than mercury, forget it.
ex-christian at 9:15AM on Jul 18th 2008
18. REV3:16 Which commonly known truth through ou the world are you refering to? Judaeism, christianity, islam, buddism, etc, etc.. all are a FORM of monotheism but all PROCLAIM to be the truth.....
emanon at 9:23AM on Jul 18th 2008
19. Why should evolution not BE God's plan. Created in 6 days, why not? WHO CAN SAY HOW LONG ONE OF GOD's DAYs IS? 10 million years? 100 million years? Why can't evolution be a part of the poaln...evolution, inteeligent thinking, and spirituality do not have to be at odds with one another!
Kit at 9:26AM on Jul 18th 2008
20. mad african christian; when you say you believe in creation, do you believe in a literal reading of Genesis (plants living on earth before the sun was created, etc...) or do you simply mean that the universe was created?
Ryan Anderson at 9:34AM on Jul 18th 2008
21. Ryan,
Your point is well taken. I thought about whether I had a preconcieved notion that I was trying to conform the biological and geological evidence to. I knew it wasn't the bible even though that is my default base. Then I realized why your point was sticking with me.
I and others, theist and atheist, believe in a very vague universal theory of everything. It could be just a room that I'm willing to put my "I don't know" answers into (to be blunt).
Dinesh was right about the propoganda that goes along with the dogmatic assertion that evolution is provable. Not only did the dogma tick me off but so did the minions of Darwin who had no idea that evolution was incomplete. The word is used like the word love, for anything and everything resembling the appearance of the original definition.
So, I was stuck with some things:
1. Evolution was cohesive but not provable to the extent that one should expect from the propoganda.
2. Intelligent design and Creationism are not scientific theories. However, their scientists were/are exposing holes in the grandiose definition of evolution that has been adopted by pop-culture and promoted like it was a soft-drink. In other words a counterbalance. We shouldn't have to have it as a counterbalance but it is what it is.
3. I realized slowly but surely that when it came down to fact, everybody was asserting things and that was it. No one was following logic to the extent that there would ever be a mea culpa to their theories' incompleteness.
4. What does follow from this is that no one really has an idea why we're here or how we got here (to the extent that they say they do). Which is utterly infuriating when they're puffing up their chest and cuckolding you. I know you can relate to this because I'm sure you've tried to have discussions like this with theists.
5. I started seeing patterns in human behavior; and seemingly deeply rooted correlations between concepts in physics. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have been those places before and thought about those things more deeply than me I'm sure; but they helped me to realize the incompleteness of our collective knowledge base.
6. These things, coupled with evolution's wide gaps, and creationism's claiming those gaps as proof for God, all point to theories of existence (or one theory) that are untouched by dogma and simply are.
How is it that mankind becomes so arrogant when it comes to science and religion? Whatever happened to wonder?
oneblood at 9:35AM on Jul 18th 2008
22. Once again, Dinesh tries to anticipate his expected "whupping" of a "leading" atheist, not on the grounds of either proving or disproving the existance of a deity, but because he hopes to show that evolution is still a "theory" and not yet a "proven" law.
1) Scientific theories remain theories, rather than laws, until they are either disproven or until sufficient positive evidence is accumulated to support thier accuracy and completeness. i.e. the LAW of gravitation was originally Newton's theory to explain observed phenomena. We now have sufficient understanding of it that it qualifies as a LAW.
2) Understanding and recognizing evolution does not equate with disproving God. One can perfectly well be a theist and still recognize the mounting evidence, such as mapping of genomes that universally support (but not yet totally prove) the theory of evolution, although this understanding may certainly strain a Christian's belief in the literal reading of the Bible.
3) Winning or losing a debate does not alter the truth (whatever it happens to be). It only signifies that a majority of those voting agreed that the winner presented better arguments for the side he was chosen to represent.
4) Atheists are not an organized group who have appointed or elected "leaders" upon whose opinions or teachings they depend for their lack of belief in a deity. In this regard, they are diametrically opposed to Christianity (in particular) and to most other recognized "religions". Thus, whether or not DD "succeeds" (as he anticipates) in winning in his upcoming discussions on Al Jazeera with Dawkins or not, it will have no bearing on the truth or lack thereof of a)evolutionary theory, b)the existance or non existance of a deity or c) Dinesh's exalted opinion of himself.
Harvey at 10:04AM on Jul 18th 2008
23. oneblood.... great points. When something isn't defined, it is hard to sit back and wonder... To wonder is a gift given to children, and often lost on the way to adulthood.
Man doesn't understand everything in this natural world, and maybe he never will...
Shannie at 10:10AM on Jul 18th 2008
24. Darwinism was not adopted for its scientific merits but for its philosphical ones. Their little worldview of meaninglessness has gone to their heads and affects their actions.
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/#Racist_atheists
ISAAC ASIMOV at 1:23PM on Jul 20th 2008
25. Ex-christian:
You are just using the wrong tools and asking the wrong questions.
ISAAC ASIMOV at 10:31AM on Jul 18th 2008
26. I suspect that many people do not reject the science of evolution itself, but the materialistic inferences that are made from the science concerning meaning and purpose.
Many people sense that life, not just human life but all life, indeed the planet itself is special. It is imbued with meaning and purpose that is beyond the descriptive catagories of science to fully understand or appreciate.
Many of these discussions are indicative of a clash between two forms of fundamentalism. On the one hand is the religious fundamentalism that would deny any explanation of science that does not comport with a literal reading of the sacred text. On the other hand is the materialistic fundamentalism that would dogmatically assert that there is no meaning or purpose apart from the materialistic suppositions of science. Both in my opinion are quite narrow minded and arrogant.
randy at 10:34AM on Jul 18th 2008
27. I don't believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive. I believe in what I call
religion with reason. My belief system is based on faith in a higher power but also accept
strong scientific evidence. This may sound strange but it really is not. If you read genesis carefully you will find it is one of the most bizarre books you could ever read. Within the first twenty pages you will find: fratricide, polygamy, incest, god promoting slavery, god promoting sexism, theft, homosexuality, god causing genicide, and one little talked about phenomenon, the nephilim. Please go read genesis closely and you will see all of these things. I put my faith in the New Testament and the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The old Testament is silly and bizarre to me. And by the way, where did Cains wife come from?
rick at 10:39AM on Jul 18th 2008
28. It is impossible to believe you are paid to produce this drivel.
maxwellstone49@yahoo.com at 2:52PM on Jul 18th 2008
29. Sigh!
As per usual, Dinesh D'Stoopid is shot down by post #3- Once again, brilliant, Somber!
As per the title of yet another lame blog- I was hoping for something along the lines of a litany of reasons the modern shopping mall is tied to the demise of God. But then I remembered the valiant warriors of Objective ministries fighting to save us from the evils of SHOPPING!
P.S. Somber, I still think you should volunteer to debate this moron. I think all here would agree to help fund this quest...
Aloha!
Robert at 10:39AM on Jul 18th 2008
30. New Topic Idea: "THE ARROGANCE OF MANKIND" (thanks- oneblood!)
Any takers?
Robert at 10:42AM on Jul 18th 2008