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 3 of 40)
31. Notice: Mr. D'Souza asserts that he DOES believe in evolution, so we shouldn't be confused into thinking that he is arguing for literal Creationism:
"These fellows wonder: if there is reasonably good evidence for evolution--as, by the way, both Dawkins and I [D'Souza] believe there is--why do around 50 percent of Americans refuse to accept it? "
I think there is another reason many refuse to accept it: because many of us recognize that, while scientific evidence makes a convincing case that life forms have evolved through different transitions, that does not mean that all life is purely an accident. It does not mean that all life is a Godless accident -- because it is logically possible that evolution could have been a process guided by God. This, I suspect, is what many Americans mean when they say that they do not 'believe in evolution.' We mean that we accept that evolution as a scientific theory, but we do not accept that what actually occurred was purely accidental instead of designed.
I would like to conclude by posing a question that might sound surprising: if the evolution of life and humanity is assumed to be the culmination of many accidents, then what evidence is there that accidents actually exist? After all, classic Newtonian physics suggest a universe that runs like a clock. In my understanding of such a theoretical model, every physical action in nature is the result of the various factors of causation, such as the trajectory, speed, etc., of various bodies in motion. Hence, (unless some sort of intelligent actor intervenes) every outcome is pre-determined . . . leaving no room for 'accidents.' So, to the extent that Nature functions like a clock, with no room for accidents, then how could evolution involve accidents? From this perspective, it seems to me that the evolution of life must have been a result of the set-up or 'design' of Nature from the very beginning.
Name at 10:50AM on Jul 18th 2008
32. Oneblood, I'm going to do you a favor and take you seriously.
The >modern< theory of evolution is about as concrete as you can get with a theory. Yes, Darwin's theory had a few small holes in it. He did not have a mechanism for passing along this change because DNA hadn't been discovered in the 19th century. Today evolution is a very open and shut case.
2. Science does not need counterbalance. Science needs accuracy. The theory of intelligent design is not accurate because it is largely subjective. Some scientists decided that the eye is simply too complex to have formed naturally. That is their opinion. However, they are unable to present any evidence in favor of their theory. Thus, the totality of evidence in I.D. is decrying the failures and gaps in evolution and the presenting an alternative that is scientificially untestible. I.D. belongs in a philosophical argument, not in a science environment.
3) All scientific theories are incomplete. Even the theory of gravity is incomplete. And any scientist will tell you they are incomplete. As we learn more and more about the universe they become smaller and smaller. In comparison, the gaps in religious truth have become as tenuous as the artic ice cap in July. Religous dogma which asserted that the earth was the center of the universe or that life exists in divinely prescribed kinds have been utterly debunked. They are, at best, examples of the most primitive examples of aristotlean science.
4. The reason why we are here is simple. We were born with a set of genetic equipment we inhereted from our ancestors, who evolved from other species over millions of years of development. Our purpose here is to survive, hopefully to pass on our genetic material, and then to die. Any other purpose for our existance is purely optonal and at our disgression.
5. As I said before, any scientist today will happily tell you about research in their field and about how much more they could do with a bigger budget. I've worked with several, taught with others. If you see patterns in the universe, join the club. I mean that. Write to the closest college and see if you can talk to a physicist. See what they can tell you. Read scientific American or science magazine and see what we're learning and how much more we have left to learn. But don't pooh pooh existing science because you don't understand it or appriciate what it is.
6. Oneblood, you owe me an irony meter. You just used dogma and creationism in the same paragraph. Dogma are religious tenets vital to maintaining the faith. Science, for all of Dinesh's sneering, does not employ any dogma but this: 'If I only had a bigger budget...' Science looks to break previously held theories all the time. The theory of relativity was met with enormous skepticism. But eventually enough scientists wrestled with his postulations and came to the conclusion that they were more ACCURATE (not 'true') than descriptions of physics as provided by Newton.
Here is my suggestion to you, oneblood. Talk to a scientist about being a scientist. It's a lot like being a lawyer or soldier; a very specialized field that is very poorly understood.
Somber at 10:56AM on Jul 18th 2008
33. "In short, once you start believing in evolution religion turns into a cheep sweater that eventually unravels".. Somber
This is your assumption Somber, but it is a wrong assumption. I think some of the other posts more correctly discuss why Americans say they don't believe in evolution... materialism in its final form is ugly, and I think is worth rejecting.
Shannie at 11:01AM on Jul 18th 2008
34. "Science, for all of Dinesh's sneering, does not employ any dogma but this: 'If I only had a bigger budget".....
Somber, have you ever worked at a university? with scientists/researchers? If you have, you would realize how naive that statement is.
Shannie at 11:03AM on Jul 18th 2008
35. Typical dimwit babble. I guess that is all one can expect from someone who believes a book of fairy tales to be the truth.
Geoff Barker at 11:15AM on Jul 18th 2008
36. What you continue to fail to understand, Dinesh, is that science takes a materialistic stance by default because allowing any supernatural explanation leaves you with more questions than you had previously. For instance, when someone asks where the laws of physics came from, a materialist can say that such properties are inherent qualities of the universe (in other words, they just are). You clearly don't find that explanation satisfactory, and I can understand why. But the alternative explanation of saying God created them opens up questions of how God did it. One mights ask how God came to have the power and knowledge to do such things, only to be told by you and others that such properties are inherent qualities of God (in other words, he just has them). This answer is no more satisfactory than the materialist explanation and it requires that you postulate a formless, timeless, all-knowing being whose existence is completely unverified.
Just who is violating Ockham's Razor here?
Jason at 12:14PM on Jul 20th 2008
37. "In short, once you start believing in evolution religion turns into a cheep sweater that eventually unravels".. Somber
Speak for yourself on this one Somber.
I believe in Evolution. As a matter of fact, I don't consider it a belief, because Evolution is a fact.
It doesn't hurt my faith in the least. The Bible will never be a scientific book. Evolution is a beautiful thing, and it's amazing how God works.
Botts at 11:20AM on Jul 18th 2008
38. I was taught by my church if I didn't believe in god I would burn to hell. If I do believe in god I will live an eternal life and happiness. Sometimes this theroy seems like a good idea. Maybe I'll jump in front of a speeding truck on the way to work. Then I will or won't really know. Bottom line: This is a silly discussion. No matter what happens I doubt Bill will ever know.
Bill at 12:28PM on Jul 18th 2008
39. Sorry I have to clarify myself, Botts.
What I was refering to were those people who believe evolution is false out of fear that it would make their faith unravel. I fully recognize that it is possible to be a christian and believe in evolution. My statement was written from the points of view of those in fear of what believing in the science might mean or do to them.
Shannie: Yes, I have worked with scientists and for a time dated a scientist. I was also making an obviously failed attempt at humor.
Somber at 11:34AM on Jul 18th 2008
40. Once again DD misconstrues (purposefully or through ignorance) the comments of a supporter of evolution in order to make a point. DD, if this is the mechanism you must resort to in order to "prove" your thesis, your thesis is very weak indeed.
Let me put Dawkins comments back into proper context as I have read the works in which these are espoused in greater detail than DD dared to reveal. What Dawkins means by the absence of certain sections of the fossil record being further proof of evolution is that evolutionary paleontology predicts that under certain circumstances fossils are likely NOT to be preserved. Such predictions include, but are not limited to, the notion that soft-bodied invertebrates living in oxygen rich environments will rarely, if ever, be preserved as fossils. In other cases, the transitional forms between species occur so rapidly, on a geologic timescale, that they occur in a relative "blink-of-an-eye". In such cases, so few individuals (relatively speaking) ever exisited, that the odds of finding their fossil remains is very remote. The very fact that the missing sections of the fossil record comport with the paleontological predictions that they should be missing is strong support that the overall principles and methods underlying evolutionary paleontology are sound. This is what Dawkins, at least in part, is referring to.
Regarding Dawkins comments that even lacking a fossil record (which is what he says, not lacking ANY evidence as implyed by DD), evolution is the best explanation of how we got here. He backs this up by explaining that we can see the evidence of natural selection by simple inspection of the modern natural world, irrespective of the fossil record.
DD...YOUR CONTINUED TENDENCY TO MISQUOTE YOUR OPPONENTS IN ORDER TO "PROVE' THEM WRONG IS GETTING VERY TIRESOME, INDEED.
John Galt
John Galt at 11:42AM on Jul 18th 2008
41. I have to say that the theory of evolution is the best theory of mans rise in the animal kingdom. No other theory can accurately describe our ascent to dominance on this planet.
Those who put forth I.D. are using negetive reasoning. They say that because evolution doesnt seem correct(without really stating why), that God did it. Or they subvert evolution by saying that god created evolution so its all the same.
Science is hypotheses, testing, observing and recording, interpreting results and is for the most part objective. Organized religion is reactive, superstitious, non-fact based, and mainly subjective. To say that God exists because no other answer seems correct is a huge leap backward.
From the beginning of recorded history, man has found answers to the questions that plagued him. Lightning was thought to be the wrath of the gods. Tornadoes, aurora borealis, tsunamis, earthquakes, meteor showers, the moon and stars. All of these things have been misunderstood for ages. Science found answers. Why do we all of the sudden dismiss science's explanation of evolution as humbuggery when an answer will eventually come.
CaptainCack at 11:49AM on Jul 18th 2008
42. What word would better describe the advancement of information in the last 150 years than evolution?
Jerry Brown at 11:53AM on Jul 18th 2008
43. Yeah the religious fundies don't believe in evolution but the morons think the Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark stories are true. This country is sinking on a wave of mediocrity and ignorance. While all the fundies are waiting for a dead guy to come back from other space and save them the rest of the world is educating their kids in science and engineering and will eat our kids for lunch by mid century.
Larry at 12:16PM on Jul 18th 2008
44. What I find truely interesting is that most of the people that read this Blog end up debating one another after the intial dismissals of the orginal BLOG. I agree with trying to get a forum for "Somber" and DD (the maids brother). I'll ponie up some cash to go see that in person. Better yet "Somber" and OneBlood, maybe include Captin Jack too. Can three debate?
emanon at 12:32PM on Jul 18th 2008
45. I'm starting to "get" Dinesh better, after his "Ironic" posting...
I see it clearly now.
He intentionally thinks of a point that most atheists think is a real no-brainer, something incredibly easy to see is false and a product of hyopochrist wishful thinking, something that even HE probably doesn't believe, and then constructs an apologetic argument for it so that when we see it we go "No Fucking Way! I HAVE to tell this knuckle-dragging hypochrist moron where he's wrong!" and we all post and post and post and post... And he's smiling like the viper that just ate the rat.
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:42PM on Jul 18th 2008