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 4 of 40)
46. 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? - D'Souza
>>>
Only this point of view could come from Dinesh, this is exactly my point to my religious relatives.
The fact is they can not imagine there being no God - they will not for one minute imagine such a life. I've asked, and these aren't what Dinesh would consider "stong religious believers" these are just everyday people who go to church on Sundays - usually.
Dinesh has got it all wrong - as usual. He is not a very convincing christian. I wonder which side of the line he actually wants to be on. It's like he wants to play it both ways to make it seem that an atheistic belief (no-gods) would be well and good if one didn't discount the idea of a god entirely. And even goes so far as to imply that he even toys with the idea that there might not be a god.
What he fails to consider is that for most of us, at one time or another we held a belief - as tenuous at it might have been, that there was a god somewhere out there. For us, for numerous reasons that are our own and very individual to each of us, we have come to our own conclusions about the validity of a god - and the reasons we were given to believe have fallen short.
Some of us might be haters of religion - again that is personal and does not encompass all of us as Dinesh and others seem to think.
Dinesh's continual request for proof of evolution is silly in the face that there is no proof of his god and he can not give it- why ask for something from someone else then discount any proof given - if he isn't able to give for his own belief?
TJ at 12:42PM on Jul 18th 2008
47. TJ: That was perfect. Well said.
Ryan Anderson at 12:58PM on Jul 18th 2008
48. Those posters who put so much time, effort and thought into their posts refuting dimwits idiot ideas should bear in mind that his basic stance is based on the old adage 'my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts'
Geoff Barker at 1:05PM on Jul 18th 2008
49. Dinesh, all organisms that have lived on earth descended from self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Here is a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Wes at 1:11PM on Jul 18th 2008
50. Mr. D'souza seems confused. He uses the following two quotes. The first from Richard Dawkins: "Even if the evidence did not favor it, it would still be the best theory available." The second from Steven Pinker: " "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."
Dinesh seems to think that the quotes are referring to the fact of evolution rather than the theory of natural selection. Biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution than they are that evolution occurred. In other words, whether or not natural selection ( a mechanism) is correct, humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. If you read the quotes again in this light they don't seem at all dogmatic. Suppose someone had said in 1800 "Even if the evidence did not favor it, Newton's theory of gravity would still be the best theory available." Would that be a terrible, close-minded, materialistic view? Should he have said "If the evidence did not favor Newton's theory of gravity we should consider it to be equally plausible that God wills the falling apple towards the ground?"
InsaneAtheist at 1:19PM on Jul 18th 2008
51. I wouldn't give too much credit to the 50% who believe in evolution. For most of them it truly is a belief, rather than anything they have much understanding of.
Most people, regardless of what they believe, are just going with what they are told on this one.
And Dawkin's statement "The gaps, far from being anoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be exactly what we should positively expect." is absurd. Of course transitional fossils are important. Recently a fossil showing the transitional development of the flatfish was rediscovered:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/10/flatfish-evolution.html
the gap was a PROBLEM. But this finding not only alleviates that but answer questions about the type of mutations required to get both eyes on one side.
bigTuna at 1:22PM on Jul 18th 2008
52. “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.”
Science might be “coldly indifferent” but very often its advocates are not. The quotes by Dawkins, Pinker, and Lewontin are actually very insightful and revealing, probably more so than they realize. They are not coldly indifferent but filled with purpose to accept and promote materialism at all costs; in defiance of what the facts tell them. They are the new fundamentalists.
“Oneblood, I'm going to do you a favor and take you seriously.” - Somber
And Somber, if possible, is there anyway you could tone down the pretentiousness? You are not the Delphic Oracle.
Monty at 1:15PM on Jul 18th 2008
53. Monty, all organisms that have lived on earth descended from self-replicating molecules that were on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Here is a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Wes at 1:17PM on Jul 18th 2008
54. Ah believers!
If your sky fairy so much believes, as you do, that the material world is unimportant then why did he/she/it/they create it? Surely existance could have been purely spiritual if a spiritual world exists.
I'll bet that the than 50% of people who don't believe in evolution (or sicence in general except when its convenient) also believe in astrology, bad luck from broken mirrors, knocking on wood and similar superstitions. So why shouldn' they believe in the ultimate superstition of a sky fairy?
Robert Jase at 1:19PM on Jul 18th 2008
55. Dinesh, some parts of the theory of evolution, the life time work of Darwin, may be disputable, but so were those about Einsteins theory of relativity. The recent research connecting the entire of human race to the tribes in African Continent, supported with extensive DNA evidence may be rejected on religous grounds. The conflict between the theory of evolution and the religion is perpectual. We can hope this conflict will be resolved sometime in future but the fact remains that religion has not provided a convincing proof of their theory about origin of human race on this planet acceptable to a rational thinking mind.
Arvind Bagal at 1:30PM on Jul 18th 2008
56. Mr. D'Souza wrote: "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."
Evidently, this claim that he will be debating Richard Dawkins is, shall we say, not quite accurate:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1110458#p1110458
orpheus at 1:32PM on Jul 18th 2008
57. Geoff, that's the point of this particular installment. That we cling to certain scientific theories without conclusive "proof."
If you read the essay, Lewontin argues that for all of the strengths of science, the holes in theory are reasons to doubt the theory.
"With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity "in deep trouble." Two's company, but three's a crowd.
ex-christian at 1:32PM on Jul 18th 2008
58. Evolution is a matter of electron exchange between molecules. If you can't understand it on those terms you're spinning your wheels.
We know entire genomes and can trace any gene through them all. That is the pathway of evolution.
Arguments in century old terms or near may compel people with little or no scientific literacy, but as was wisely said, scientific accuracy is not determined by popular referendum.
Also if you truly want to understand a scientific principle but insist on framing it in a pedestrian sense you will fail. Superstitions are infinitely adaptable with no factual input necessary ever, but science cannot be that way and remain science.
Learn that or forget about arguing. Evolution is genotype not phenotype and has been for some time.
Metaphors aren't gong to stop chemical reactions taking place. If there is any god of the gaps in molecular genetics, it must be demonstrated with equal rigor as the discipline itself and that includes sound repeatable physics and chemistry, nothing less.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and there is no proof of any kind that 21st century molecular genetics has any structural flaw. We can demonstrate the results time and time again.
If your religion is sound it will survive 21st century science, and if not, it was fake to begin with.
Clif Kuplen at 1:36PM on Jul 18th 2008
59. It would not surprise me if DD is an non-believer. He is an obvious lair, and it would be a stretch to buy into the idea that a Christian would have no regard (what so ever) for the truth. What I am saying is he can make a lot more money, and popularity by playing to the Christians, and it is obvious he considers most if not all people suckers. I noticed in his debate with Singer he kept referring to the IDEA of God not to the reality of God. It all adds up, he has no regard for truth, other people, and he can have power, and money by playing the believer game. If he was sincere in what he claims to be he would be interested in saving atheist souls instead of goading them for his financial gain, and he would be afraid to play the game he is (Pascal's wager) if he really thought his own soul might be in jeopardy. I am not 100% sure, but being a betting man, I would lay odds he does not believe in God.
Jerry Brown at 1:36PM on Jul 18th 2008
60. DINESH D'SOUZA LIES! (What a surprise!)
He's one of those UNTRUTHFUL guys. His faith is a mask, a mere disguise! He only cares about the books we buys! There's no debate, I'm quite irate... We all should leave him to his fate. It's all a lie he thought we'd buy, he isn't going to debate the guy.
+++
See???
+++
Re: Richard Dawkins to appear on Al-Jazeera
by Richard Dawkins on Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:43 pm
As you might expect of D'Souza, he seems to have invented this "debate" out of thin air. The fact is that I am appearing on Al Jazeera this coming Monday, interviewed by Riz Khan. I have long admired Mr Khan, and indeed the whole Al Jazeera English Language Service, which has been rightly described as a class act. D'Souza was never mentioned. As soon as I read his boastful posting, reproduced on our website, I got in touch with the Al Jazeera producer Zeresnaey Abraha who told me the truth: D'Souza happens to be on Al Jazeera the same evening, at a different time. That's what D'Souza means by a "debate". It reminds me of Shmuel Boteach giving a speech in the same session of a Toronto conference as me, and claiming it was a "debate" between the two of us. These people really seem to love crowing about "debates" and in this case it seems to be pure wishful thinking that has led him to invent one.
Richard
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:06PM on Jul 18th 2008