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 5 of 40)
61. 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
----------------------------------
That's what they're afraid of. That it will turn out to be fake. That's why against all reason they insist on declaring science itsef to be fake.
It's the programmed response that their religion programmed into them in response to existential threats to itself. The kneejerk disbelief and then the fear and hatred and demonization and lying. It's the part of the programming that keeps them dumb and in line. Aftre all, it's a SIN to disbelieve! (And it's also a sin to even question, and thus it's a sin to learn and to think)
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:11PM on Jul 18th 2008
62. The only value in this blog is the conversation among those who respond to the DD outrageous nonsense. No rational, informed being could possibly regard his out-of-context quotes and illogical argument as anything but specious blather.
Natural Puppy at 2:17PM on Jul 18th 2008
63. 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
---------------------------------
No, but she is brilliant and balanced and a grown-up and humble and a decent, loving person who cares about others and the planet, and you aren't.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:14PM on Jul 18th 2008
64. Put up or....
Other than the fact that the exact sequence of evolution was not archived in controlled engineering documents, please, Mr D'Souza, give us one solitary piece of hard data that refutes the theory. Just one is all that is required to shake the foundations of a scientific theory (unlike religion). Sorry, but it has to be an actual fact with legitimate peer-reviewed references. Negative data is extremely powerful in science (again a huge difference). No more of your obfuscation and debating double talk. Just one...
As one of the posters has already said - science isn't (shouldn't at least) a popularity contest. Why is it that people cannot see the hypocrisy of insisting on adherence to religious dogma while holding science to a higher standard of proof.
Steve at 2:15PM on Jul 18th 2008
65. "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." - Dawkins
I've never seen D'Souza say he was going to link to a debate and then not do it. I think a more likely scenario is Dawkins saw the post and thought 'Oh crap!' (clearly he was unaware D'Souza would be on at all), got ahold of this Abraha fellow and made him promise to put Dinesh on at a different time. I don't think D'Souza was going to invent one, but he might have been planning on making one happen, and Dawkins doesn't want any of that.
bigTuna at 2:17PM on Jul 18th 2008
66. I just wanted to post this in case DD edits it in the body of his main post in light of Richard Dawkins comments.
"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."
Ryan Anderson at 2:17PM on Jul 18th 2008
67. After all, if you really believe that you're on the only good side and all others are evil and damned, then when you "battle" with them you do not hesitate to use any means necessary; if they back you into a corner you feel no guilt in lying your way out, since after all, your lie is insignificant compared to all the others 'sins' so God would no doubt approve of it since you're fighting the "good fight." And that's why many christians succumb to evil in their desire to do good. Evil is like that. If you hate anything, christians, atheists, liberals, conservatives, even hatred itself, and you hate it enough, the evil of the hatred will seep into you and corrupt you. It will use your desire to be good and make you into an evil person that is convinced that they are the opposite.
Hey, I'm just working this out for myself here. I'm guilty too, although I'm not lying about my side because I don't have to... Still if I let myself hate, even when I'm just hating the ignorance or the brainwashing, it still poisons me and not them.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:36PM on Jul 18th 2008
68. "clearly he was unaware D'Souza would be on at all"
That's assuming Dawkins is being honest.
bigTuna at 2:30PM on Jul 18th 2008
69. I think a more likely scenario is Dawkins saw the post and thought 'Oh crap!' (clearly he was unaware D'Souza would be on at all), got ahold of this Abraha fellow and made him promise to put Dinesh on at a different time. I don't think D'Souza was going to invent one, but he might have been planning on making one happen, and Dawkins doesn't want any of that.
bigTuna at 2:17PM on Jul 18th 2008
-------------------------------------
BT, in my opinion you're way too used to just making shit up. I think you've gotten to the point where you're not even aware that you're doing it anymore.
The likely scenario is as Dawkins described. You're reaching.
Boy, I have to tell you, you really looked like a bit of a sycopohant there, sorry. Guess you just can't accept the fact that Dinesh isn't a very good person, and that he lies a lot, huh?
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:36PM on Jul 18th 2008
70. Monty-
RE: Somber as "The Delphic Oracle".
How do you know she's NOT?
On that note, maybe BOTTS is JC revisited.
And if THAT is true- Bottsy, keep your head down, GHB is probably right, they WOULD kill you again.
Show of hands- how many think Dinesh is SATAN?
Robert at 2:40PM on Jul 18th 2008
71. bigTuna; you are assuming DD is being honest. Although I'm not sure if he has out and out lied here, he's certainly used dishonest arguments daily on this blog. Even on this particular post (see my earlier comment about "gaps" vs. "absence of evidence").
Ryan Anderson at 2:40PM on Jul 18th 2008
72. Don't let it bother you so much BT. Don't feel so betrayed by him. He never really gave a crap about the faith, you know. Finding that out is painful, I'm sure, but it's the kind of pain that you can grow from. If you let it happen, that is.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:42PM on Jul 18th 2008
73. Show of hands- how many think Dinesh is SATAN?
Robert at 2:40PM on Jul 18th 2008
------------------------------------
Nope. Not me. He's not that smart.
I don't believe in satan. But if there was a satan, he's not Dinesh.
But if there is a satan, he definitely loves Dinesh dearly as a favorite son and fellow spreader of the great lie.
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:45PM on Jul 18th 2008
74.
bigTuna, if you had researched Dawkins, you would have read his statement on why he does not debate people similar to DoubleD. Once again, what are DoubleD's qualifications for debate?
JefFlyingV at 2:48PM on Jul 18th 2008
75. Oh Bott-sie, Bott-sie, won't you smile for me, sanna ho sanna hey superstar?
Godless Heathen Brian at 2:49PM on Jul 18th 2008