My Youtube exchange with Richard Dawkins on Al-Jazeera is finally up on the web. You can watch my segment here and the subsequent Dawkins segment here. This is the famous "debate that never was." And that's the real pity. Dawkins insisted on appearing separately from me and being interviewed after me. This way he ensured that I could not rebut anything he said on the show. Fortunately I have an AOL blog where I can carry on the conversation.
Dawkins made some good points, noting for instance that evolution does not rely on mere "chance," but he also made some obvious blunders. When a caller pointed out that World War II was motivated in substantial part by a "survival of the fittest" ideology, Dawkins pretended to be completely baffled. He proclaimed the caller's reference "absolute nonsense." Yet Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler provides extensive documentation that the Nazis repeatedly invoked Darwinian evolution and that Nazi doctrine used "survival of the fittest" as a virtual recruiting phrase. So Dawkins is either historically ignorant or wilfully obtuse.
Here I want to address Dawkins's response to my argument that the effect that is the universe requires a causal explanation. It seems unreasonable in the extreme to say that even though nature had a beginning, somehow nature is the cause of itself. So God is the name we give to the supernatural being that is the cause of nature as a whole. Dawkins argued: "This leaves open the question of where did the creator come from?" Since the creator is this "great big complicated thing," what good does it do to invoke one complex thing to explain another? "If you postulate a designer you haven't explained anything." Basically what Dawkins is saying is that there is no point in using complex explanation A to account for complex phenomenon B if you cannot account for A.
This is a fallacy. We can see this by applying the logic to evolution itself. The logic of evolution is a "great big complicated thing" with all its elements of replication, natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and so on. Yet it is invoked to explain another complicated thing: the exquisite fit between living creatures and their surroundings. How reasonable would it be to argue: "We are invoking one complicated thing, namely evolution, to explain another, namely living things. Yet this leaves open the question of where evolution came from. We have no idea how and why evolution originally started. Since we cannot account for evolution, our explanation is useless. Simply to postulate evolution is to explain nothing." This is precisely Dawkins's argument regarding God, and here we can see how it boomerangs on evolution!
But consider the argument itself more closely. Is it really true that Complex Explanation A for Complex Phenomenon B only works if we can give a full account of A? Actually it is not true. Gravity may account for why objects fall at a certain pace, but this does not require that we give an account for where gravity comes from or why it exists in the first place. If we find various signs of intelligent life on another planet we can conclude that there are aliens on that planet without having any idea of who created them or where they came from. In summary, the best explanation for something does not require that we also provide an explanation for the explanation.
The problem I think for Dawkins is that his trademark snorts and sneers only work against televangelists who do not do much more than hurl Bible verses at their opponents. When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say. And perhaps this explains his peculiar insistence that I be given no chance whatever to respond to his statements on the Riz Khan show.
Reader Comments ( Page 82 of 83)
1216. Renzo; what reasonable person says buncombe? kidding... sort of...
I must admit I probably didn't read your comment as exactingly as I should have. There were way too many astriks, paranthesis and quotes strung together.
But that's my point. When you or Jesse says something that's unclear, you think it's our fault for not understanding it. Don't get me wrong, you make good (albeit wrong) points, you could just be more consise sometimes.
Ryan Anderson at 6:15PM on Aug 6th 2008
1217. Hey Ryan!
Renzo's thought process makes my head hurt, and you're just egging him on. Everything he says is unclear to me! lol
And I know Renzo, you don't have to say it. I'm a nincompoop.
TJ at 6:39PM on Aug 6th 2008
1218. Renzo the Magnificent says, "Here's what I wrote in response to Floyd:
Floyd: "I don't think that it would be fair of someone to deny that the scientific method works, in the end."
Renzo: "Who denies that?"
The Creationists who must be claiming that geologists, paleontologists, biologists, geneticists etc. are just wrong or lying yes?
not-pboyfloyd at 6:52PM on Aug 6th 2008
1219. "I shouldn't drink when I'm depressed and feeling nervous about my business's future." TJ
TJ,
What kind of business are we talking about? What kind of problems are occurring? And can I be of any assistance or do you have any questions?
Also, I'll be in Delaware on business in a couple weeks. Maybe I can see your business.
Botts at 6:58PM on Aug 6th 2008
1220. Thanks Botts,
Unless you want to look at a contracting business whose primary work is new residential construction and mechanical services? I don't think there is much you can do for me. We've been here over 30 years and for the most part we are solid, but until the market levels off and my builders get a foot hold we will be riding this wave on a wobbly board.
TJ at 7:05PM on Aug 6th 2008
1221. TJ,
That's your primary work. What is your secondary work? This wave might be a while, not to mention banks will all be going under very soon.
But so what. Stuff happens. We need to look elsewhere. Have you guys looked into other states or are you strictly Delaware?
Also, do you have working capital to burn? Or are you hamstrung currently on all funds.
There are solutions to get this back on track. Riding out the wave is too risky in my opinion. You have to be proactive, not reactive.
Sorry for all the questions, but this is what I do for everyday living when I'm not overseas doing the humanitarian stuff.
I've consulted for over 500 businesses in the USA alone and over 2000 worldwide and own a few myself. It doesn't matter what field the business lays in. Business is business, and you're in it to make a living and support your family.
If you're willing to go over it, email me
beyondbotts@yahoo.com
If not, I won't be upset about it, I just wanted to extend my hand and help any way I can.
Botts at 7:19PM on Aug 6th 2008
1222. Thanks Botts - I'll send you a note.
TJ at 7:26PM on Aug 6th 2008
1223. That is cool. Kinda makes the entire D'Souza blog worth it! I hope that you guys can work something out!
not-pboyfloyd at 7:50PM on Aug 6th 2008
1224. Where's my comment?
not-pboyfloyd at 7:50PM on Aug 6th 2008
1225. gone with the aol wind.
TJ at 7:56PM on Aug 6th 2008
1226. It's not a love connection like Brandon and Richelle, but hey - a mutual admiration society.
Thats what makes this blog nice.
We read, we write, we agree, we fight, we appreciate the fact that we can do those things and for the most part respect each other and our differences - especially when we don't see eye-to-eye.
TJ at 8:12PM on Aug 6th 2008
1227. TJ says, "... especially when we don't see eye-to-eye."
Would that be medically induced 'miracle' of corrective artificial lens cataract surgery 'eye', vs. an extremely myopic eye clouded by cataract, which 'miraculously' healed 'eye'?
Notice how pretervisionist downplays the surgery, neglects to notice that the surgery also corrects short-sightedness or far-sightedness, doesn't even consider how the damage/swelling to one cornea occured(the surgery) or the scar tissue(the surgery), the fact that the guy's own doctor does not call it a miracle, the fact that the guy needed more surgery(laser surgery) to remove said scar tissue.
Oh, yea, he prayed, what am I thinking?
not-pboyfloyd at 9:28PM on Aug 6th 2008
1228. ?
not-pboyfloyd at 9:30PM on Aug 6th 2008
1229. I cannot express how terrible AOL's blog software is. GEEBUS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ryan Anderson at 10:08PM on Aug 6th 2008
1230. I was saying that I had always given miracles the benefit of the doubt until I heard about this McCord case (Thanks PV!). I always figured most were faked but some were genuine, but never gave it much thought. If this is the standard they use to judge a "miracle", then I cannot imagine any of them are real.
Ryan Anderson at 10:11PM on Aug 6th 2008