Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)
Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: biblethumpers; cary; creation; crevolist; dawkins; evolution; excellentessay; funnyresponses; hahahahahahaha; liberalgarbage; phenryjerkalert; smegheads
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 2,661-2,678 next last
To: wideawake
[Galileo] broke a legal agreement.

What legal agreement? Here's an excellent account I just tracked down of the persecution of Galileo by the enemies of science in the Catholic Church. Perhaps you should read that before answering.

Note, btw, the shady methods of Galileo's enemies and how remarkably similar they are to modern creationist tactics....

441 posted on 05/25/2005 4:02:22 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: donh; ArGee
> The first task of ID is to define the characteristics of something that was designed vs. something that wasn't. This would provide the basis for discussion.

But, I am afraid that the specifics of my research project are not quite delineated yet. As far as I can tell, everything in the living world was, in some sense or another "designed" to serve some purpose. I'm afraid you will have to be more specific, or I will be unable to write my grant proposal.

That'd be Dembski's "explanatory filter".

johnnyb and I argued and talked right past each other in this thread.

442 posted on 05/25/2005 4:10:37 PM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Yeah, I know. A shame you have so little understanding of people of faith.

We, us luddite creationists, believe that when our bodies die we can no longer pick up arms against the "suppressors".

I am learning lots about people of faith. I was raised to think that one fought oppression best by being a good example to your children and to others.

I didn't know that Frodo was supposed to use the ring to overthrow his opprseeors.

443 posted on 05/25/2005 4:11:37 PM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv; PatrickHenry; Doctor Stochastic; Dawsonville_Doc; RadioAstronomer; Right Wing Professor; ..
"My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?"

sounds awfully familiar...

444 posted on 05/25/2005 4:23:04 PM PDT by King Prout (blast and char it among fetid buzzard guts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
We, us luddite creationists, believe that when our bodies die we can no longer pick up arms against the "suppressors"...

Might I point out a fact that should be obvious, that Galileo has done more to defeat his oppressors while dead than he could have by taking up arms while alive. If he had been a good boy and suppressed his publications, his ideas would have died with him, or at least been delayed.

445 posted on 05/25/2005 4:23:48 PM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
>Ich bin der Rechtsprofessor.

A professor of law? Aren't you teaching chemistry? :-)
446 posted on 05/25/2005 4:24:39 PM PDT by si tacuissem (.. lurker mansissem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: wideawake; donh; ArGee

BTW, one more little historical footnote. Aristotle had also envisioned the heliocentric model but came to reject it for what were actually valid scientific objections: that if the earth moved then the stars should evidence a parallax. This was the same basis upon which Ptolemy and others would then resist the ideas of Aristarchus. What the ancient Greeks didn't comprehend was how far away the stars were, and therefore how miniscule their parallax.


447 posted on 05/25/2005 4:29:37 PM PDT by AntiGuv ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: donh

There are probably a number of reasons, one is the possibility that what appears to be random might be law governed (cf. Wolfram's work on cellular automata), another is an observation made by a pro-Darwinian-mechanism-evolution FReeper in response to a query of mine ages ago: selection works at a cellular level, too. (Which opens the possibility that filtering cellularly lethal variation out of changes at the level of precursors to germ cells might produce some slight bias toward globally beneficial variation at the level of heritable changes.)

There is also the fact that the 'randomness' for all Dawkins confidence that it is randomness on the ontological level like Brownian motion or the collapse of the wave-function, was really always just epistemological randomness--we don't know a law governing pre-selection variation, and it's unpredictable to us.

It might also be a political move: admitting that it's epistemological randomness rather than "chance" takes a bit of the heat out of the debate.


448 posted on 05/25/2005 4:31:38 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (Christ is Risen! Christos Anesti! Khristos Voskrese! Al-Masih Qam! Hristos a Inviat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"Poor chose of words on my part."

Poor chose of words? Did I write that?

My goodness. I just came home and see all these posts because of my lousy "chose" of words this morning.

I'd blame it on not having my morning coffee, but I did.

Thanks for your understanding. Memo to self...

"Post in haste, repent at leisure.

449 posted on 05/25/2005 4:34:49 PM PDT by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Aristotle had also envisioned the heliocentric model but came to reject it for what were actually valid scientific objections: that if the earth moved then the stars should evidence a parallax.

There was another very powerful reason for the ancients to believe that the earth didn't move. It's so ridiculous sounding now that it's virtually never mentioned, but before Isaac Newton (a generation after Galileo's trial) it was regarded as a great problem. The argument was that if the earth moves, then why doesn't it leave the moon behind?

Think about it. If no one knew (before Newton) that gravity was the same on earth and in the heavens, then the problem was a very real concern. Galileo's telescope, which showed that Jupiter (which everyone agreed was moving) had moons, yet the moons somehow stayed with it, was the killer observation. But it wasn't until Newton that any real understanding of this was possible.

450 posted on 05/25/2005 4:37:07 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: patriot_wes

"You're side may be correct. Our side my be right. BUT If our side is correct, I sure wouldn't want to be in your place at the last roundup!"

I suspect God thinks religious people are silly and boring, but has a soft spot for scientists.


451 posted on 05/25/2005 5:01:55 PM PDT by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
It might also be a political move: admitting that it's epistemological randomness rather than "chance" takes a bit of the heat out of the debate.

The important issue is not whether variation is random, but whether it correlates with reproductive advantage. It could be the result of a very simple program, but if it doesn't anticipate need, the selection sees it as stochastic.

452 posted on 05/25/2005 5:09:24 PM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Thanks, that's interesting.


453 posted on 05/25/2005 5:11:34 PM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
That's the account of Paul.

Paul (Saul of Tarsus) never saw Jesus in the flesh or resurrected or in any tangible form. His claim to fame is having a vision of a bright light and hearing a voice just before he went into a 3 day coma while heading to Damascus (Acts 9:3-7).

About AD36, Paul had visited Peter and James in Jerusalem and learned of the legend there. Although he denied it (Gal 1:11-12), his testimony is second hand stories of whatever he heard from them.

While he was a energetic evangelical, Paul is a poor witness for Christ.

454 posted on 05/25/2005 5:25:31 PM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Marxism is not a religion. It's a political/economic philosophy.

You hitting the bottle or the pipe? Who claimed that Marxism was a religion? You line up a strawdog and shoot it from 10 meters Congrats, you're an expert marksman.

This is like saying I'm an evangelical Christian because I probably agree broadly with Jerry Falwell on economic matters.

Right. Very good. Academia has been good to you.

Really? Marx was and Dawkins is an atheist. And in saying 'his views are remarkably similar to Marx vis a vis religion', you weren't alluding to the fact they're both atheists?

No, but you're so consumed by whatever that you aren't able to recognize that. There are plenty of atheists who would not banish religion if they were King, the live and let live variety. Marx and Dawkins are two who would not. Understand the difference Professor?

Give me a break.

No more breaks for you Professor, you've crossed the rubicon and swallowed the kool aid. You're now a full fledged member of the "list". At one time you were an independent thinker on FR with conservatism on your agenda. It's been swept away by evolution.

Support Dawkins all you'd like, it's a free country.

455 posted on 05/25/2005 5:33:55 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Argumentum ad Hominem never goes out of style, but it never becomes less of a fallacy.

If you're gonna use big words Prout, perhaps it would behoove you to learn thewir meaning.

Your pal Dawkins is discussing religion in the article. I am attacking the mans views about religion, not the man. His views are relevant to the article and religion. His views on religion are marxist. Such is life.

456 posted on 05/25/2005 5:39:43 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Who said, "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs?"

Walter Duranty.

457 posted on 05/25/2005 5:42:24 PM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
I think you're wrong.

Fair enough, thats your opinion.

As I understand it, Marx considered religion to be the "opium of the people," a kind of self-medication to deal with the world's indifference toward us. Dawkins thinks that it is pre-scientific thinking that persists largely because children are naturally gullible which he perceives as an evolved behavior.

Marx and Dawkins are both from the same school of thought. Religion should have no place in a society. Dawkins and Marx agree on that, for slightly different reasons perhaps but their goal would be the same and in that way Dawkins is marxist.

458 posted on 05/25/2005 5:43:14 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

You think some of these people care what Dawkins says about President Bush? It doesn't even make a dent.


459 posted on 05/25/2005 5:44:25 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I am learning lots about people of faith. I was raised to think that one fought oppression best by being a good example to your children and to others.

Right, marching onto the trains and into the ovens was a good example for the children.

I didn't know that Frodo was supposed to use the ring to overthrow his opprseeors.

Uh, you've slipped into fantasy land again js.

460 posted on 05/25/2005 5:46:22 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 2,661-2,678 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson