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 6 of 40)
76. It is pretty incredible at that, isn't it maxwell?
Ahh, America! Land of the free to be stupid.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:13PM on Jul 18th 2008
77. Satan is just the part of God that makes us uncomfortable.
Not that I believe any of that.
Ryan Anderson at 2:55PM on Jul 18th 2008
78. Somber - Where do you get the patience to continually explain the natural world to these nincompoops?
Natural Puppy at 3:04PM on Jul 18th 2008
79. "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."
I said it was a 'more likely scenario' so yes obviously, I 'made it up' and would be aware of that. Sorry that escaped you.
"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?"
Your bias is legendary so I don’t expect you to look at this objectively at all. I seriously doubt he would so explicitly mention this event, and link to it if he didn’t think it was going to happen.
But I don't doubt that if Dawkins found out that he was going to be on with Dinesh, and that Dinesh was calling it a debate, he'd do what he can to get out of it.
But that's my last comment on it, it's speculation (yes Brian, I 'made it up').
bigTuna at 3:08PM on Jul 18th 2008
80. if there is a god, he created everything/
so
he created satan. if Dinesh is Satan, then what are we doing posting to satans blog?
CaptainCack at 3:09PM on Jul 18th 2008
81. 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."
xxxx
the eusebius protocol....
Clif Kuplen at 3:14PM on Jul 18th 2008
82. Your bias is legendary so I don’t expect you to look at this objectively at all.
-----------------------
My bias is as nothing when compared to yours.
It is only your expreme level of bias that causes you to see me as biased. To a person living a lie, the truth looks absurdly false.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:18PM on Jul 18th 2008
83. the eusebius protocol....
Clif Kuplen at 3:14PM on Jul 18th 200
-----------------------
Exactly, you eloquent son-of-a-bitch.
:-)
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:20PM on Jul 18th 2008
84. Hey, I was just wondering, has anybody seen not-pboy lately??? I miss his sense of humor.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:24PM on Jul 18th 2008
85. "bigTuna, if you had researched Dawkins, you would have read his statement on why he does not debate people similar to DoubleD"
Jef, I haven't researched him but I'm sure he has his reasons, perhaps valid. Not everyone is 'debater' material. It's too bad he can't back his smack in person though.
Maybe it's just my 'expreme' bias showing though.
bigTuna at 3:29PM on Jul 18th 2008
86. "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." - GHB
Intelligent...yes; brilliant....please; humble...don't make me laugh. I'll leave it at that.
GHB, you aren't prone to hyperbole, are you?
Monty at 3:30PM on Jul 18th 2008
87. Intelligent...yes; brilliant....please; humble...don't make me laugh. I'll leave it at that.
-------------------
She is intelligent, and so she shines. You are blinded by it and thus think it's all bluster. But alas, she understands real humility, and you do not. It's actually pretty funny to me. You're supposed to be the one! After all, you're the good christian!
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:34PM on Jul 18th 2008
88. Note that this is NOT scientific evidence when someone tries to invent how something MIGHT have occurred - Rev 3:16
>> QUESTION:
How is this any different than religious dogma? - it has been invented by MAN.
The common denominator in both evolutionary theory and religious theory is MAN.
One - we can theorize due to the pro-ponderousness of data that suggests it's validity. The other - stories and fables and something inside us that can't reason with the unknown. And as far as a wager made with something I'm not even sure I could prove without a doubt exists outside of my live body (My Supposed Soul) - well lets just say I'm not a betting person. You make a wager like that - I liken it to pushing imaginary pennies in a slot that will never pay-out.
TJ at 3:35PM on Jul 18th 2008
89. Hey, any deity can take advantage of the WAGER.
"If you die an unbeliever in Apollo, you can never know the peace and beauty of the Elesian fields, and will simply cease to exist or whatever, so best to not take any chances and believe in Apollo as the true light..."
Multiply that by at LEAST 2800 gods, and those are just the ones that we know about historically, likely the vast minority of all that have been worshiped through all time. Or if they must be extant, then by at least 600 religions currently being practiced, all the adherents of which ase just as sure that they're the right ones as the christians are. Still one hell of a long shot.
Godless Heathen Brian at 3:46PM on Jul 18th 2008
90. You make a wager like that - I liken it to pushing imaginary pennies in a slot that will never pay-out.
TJ at 3:35PM on Jul 18th 2008
===================================================
TJ
I live in Atlantic City and I think that would make a great new game for people to play. Its win-win for all. Patrons never lost their money, and the casinos never have to give any money.
I get the patent, you can have 10% plus I will put your name in code on the patent in ultra-fine print, on the back, in invisible ink.
CaptainCack at 3:48PM on Jul 18th 2008