Religions > Atheism > In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale"
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2004 06:10:30 PM |
| Object: |
In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The Ancestor's Tale, as a
pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he meets other pilgrims,
starting with chimpanzees, our closest living ancestors, and ending up with
primordial bacteria. He also pauses to blast U.S. President George W. Bush and
"religious groups who actively work to prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that Dawkins, a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then again, he has
been called the high priest of evolution, with Charles Darwin's The Origin of
Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Read it at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1115_041115_dawkins_darwin.html
or http://tinyurl.com/63bjv
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
15 Nov 2004 06:19:51 PM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The Ancestor's Tale,
as a
pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he meets other pilgrims,
starting with chimpanzees, our closest living ancestors, and ending up
with
primordial bacteria. He also pauses to blast U.S. President George W. Bush
and
"religious groups who actively work to prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that Dawkins, a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then again, he
has
been called the high priest of evolution, with Charles Darwin's The Origin
of
Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of lots
of books as one book lots of times...
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 09:47:58 AM |
|
|
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message news:<5Tbmd.544$HY.33@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>...
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of lots
of books as one book lots of times...
Sorry, but I think this is hogwash and it is easily proven wrong.
In his fist book, Dawkins explains what has become known as selfish
gene theory; explaining the work of W D Hamilton and others.
Concentrating on behaviour, The Selfish Gene brings up-to-date
evolutionary theory to the layman, popularising others' work.
The Extended Phenotype is Dawkins' own contribution to evolutionary
theory, which points out that the affect a gene has can go beyond the
organism which carries it.
Book three, The Blind Watchmaker, addresses the issue of adaptive
complexity
and takes the evolution of the eye as a concrete example.
River Out of Eden uses a different metaphor to emphasise aspects of
Natural Selection not usually addressed - that genes have to be 'good
companions' with the genes it is likely to meet as it is combined and
recombined over generations.
Climbing Mount Improbable is based on Dawkins' Royal Instituation
Christmas Lectures and explores the idea of as adaptive landscape.
Unweaving The Rainbow is not primarily about evolution at all, but at
how knowledge may rob a phenomenon of its mystery, but not of its
wonder.
A Devil's Chaplain is a collection of essays on various topics, some
of which aren't even scientific.
As for The Ancestor's(sic) Tale, I'm only about a quarter of the way
through, but it has already taught me several unexpected things and I
thought I had quite a sound understanding of Darwinism. As well as
being a beautifully presented book, it is Dawkins longest by far.
Although to some degree, all Dawkin's books are about Darwinism, he
never retreads the same ground; there is always fresh new material and
often a change of emphasis. Dawkins rarely, if ever, repeats himself;
which is what your comment implies.
If you mean that you could view each of his books as parts of a larger
work, this might be more tenable; though it's not a position I would
take myself.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 05:48:10 PM |
|
|
(Ian Braidwood) wrote in
news:53ad390d.0411160759.5b682087@posting.google.com:
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<5Tbmd.544$HY.33@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>...
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of
lots of books as one book lots of times...
Sorry, but I think this is hogwash and it is easily proven wrong.
In his fist book, Dawkins explains what has become known as selfish
gene theory; explaining the work of W D Hamilton and others.
Concentrating on behaviour, The Selfish Gene brings up-to-date
evolutionary theory to the layman, popularising others' work.
It somehow seems appropriate that Dawkins' *fist* book would be titled
"The Selfish Gene"
<snip>
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's like a disease.
--
Gary Bohn
http://creativeexplore.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
17 Nov 2004 08:46:52 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns95A3B72F7A53FGaryBohn@130.133.1.4>...
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) wrote in
news:53ad390d.0411160759.5b682087@posting.google.com:
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<5Tbmd.544$HY.33@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>...
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of
lots of books as one book lots of times...
Sorry, but I think this is hogwash and it is easily proven wrong.
In his fist book, Dawkins explains what has become known as selfish
gene theory; explaining the work of W D Hamilton and others.
Concentrating on behaviour, The Selfish Gene brings up-to-date
evolutionary theory to the layman, popularising others' work.
It somehow seems appropriate that Dawkins' *fist* book would be titled
"The Selfish Gene"
<snip>
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's like a disease.
:-/
You're right, it is like a disease.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 06:12:34 PM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
diri.gini@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) wrote in
news:53ad390d.0411160759.5b682087@posting.google.com:
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<5Tbmd.544$HY.33@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>...
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of
lots of books as one book lots of times...
Sorry, but I think this is hogwash and it is easily proven wrong.
In his fist book, Dawkins explains what has become known as selfish
gene theory; explaining the work of W D Hamilton and others.
Concentrating on behaviour, The Selfish Gene brings up-to-date
evolutionary theory to the layman, popularising others' work.
It somehow seems appropriate that Dawkins' *fist* book would be titled
"The Selfish Gene"
Well, he *did* make a knockdown argument in it.
<snip>
Sorry, I couldn't resist. It's like a disease.
"Like"?
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick Keighley" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 05:47:36 PM |
|
|
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message news:<5Tbmd.544$HY.33@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>...
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The Ancestor's Tale,
as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he meets other
pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living ancestors, and ?
ending up with primordial bacteria. He also pauses to blast U.S. President > > George W. Bush and "religious groups who actively work to prevent
scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that Dawkins, a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then again, he
has been called the high priest of evolution, with Charles Darwin's The
Origin of Species as his bible.
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of lots
of books as one book lots of times...
hey I thought the first Dawkins book {"Blind Watch Maker"} I read was
FANTASTIC. The second one seemed a bit samey.
Oh. That was your point wasn't it...
--
Nick Keighley
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
15 Nov 2004 07:32:37 PM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living ancestors,
and ending up with primordial bacteria. He also pauses to blast U.S.
President George W. Bush and "religious groups who actively work to
prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that Dawkins, a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then again,
he has been called the high priest of evolution, with Charles Darwin's
The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of lots
of books as one book lots of times...
Danny
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
15 Nov 2004 08:15:30 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living ancestors,
and ending up with primordial bacteria. He also pauses to blast U.S.
President George W. Bush and "religious groups who actively work to
prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that Dawkins, a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then again,
he has been called the high priest of evolution, with Charles Darwin's
The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of lots
of books as one book lots of times...
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
I know that personally, I haven't been able to read an entire
Dawkins book. And I've read a dozen or so by Gould, mostly
essays, of course. Dawkins just doesn't reach me.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
15 Nov 2004 10:46:59 PM |
|
|
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living
ancestors, and ending up with primordial bacteria. He also pauses to
blast U.S. President George W. Bush and "religious groups who
actively work to prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that Dawkins, a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then
again, he has been called the high priest of evolution, with Charles
Darwin's The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of lots
of books as one book lots of times...
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
The latter, mostly. I admire and agree with much Dawkins says, but I
think this is probably true (although Climbing Mount Improbable is a
book of a different stripe to most of the others. The worst was River
out of Eden, IMO.
I know that personally, I haven't been able to read an entire
Dawkins book. And I've read a dozen or so by Gould, mostly
essays, of course. Dawkins just doesn't reach me.
rich
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 04:33:53 AM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gncnxu.ruqbn41ocuu8qN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living
ancestors, and ending up with primordial bacteria. He also pauses
to
blast U.S. President George W. Bush and "religious groups who
actively work to prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that Dawkins,
a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then
again, he has been called the high priest of evolution, with
Charles
Darwin's The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of
lots
of books as one book lots of times...
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
The latter, mostly. I admire and agree with much Dawkins says, but I
think this is probably true (although Climbing Mount Improbable is a
book of a different stripe to most of the others. The worst was River
out of Eden, IMO.
I stopped reading Dawkins altogether after a quick browse of River. Selfish
Gene and Blind Watchmaker were all right but very short on decent scientific
arguments as opposed to metaphors. The only one of his books I've read which
really felt put his case well (and convinced me that he had a genuine point
to make) was Extended Phenotype - much more aimed at a scientifically
literate audience.
I think it's a shame that Dawkins has become such a public face of Darwinism
as he does tend to be a bit 'in your face'. Despite, like you, agreeing with
almost everything he says it's very hard not to dislike him. Although the
fact he married one of Doctor Who's assistants helps...
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 10:55:50 AM |
|
|
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message news:<zTkmd.65$iG3.64@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>...
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gncnxu.ruqbn41ocuu8qN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living
ancestors, and ending up with primordial bacteria. He also pauses
to
blast U.S. President George W. Bush and "religious groups who
actively work to prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that Dawkins,
a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then
again, he has been called the high priest of evolution, with
Charles
Darwin's The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of
lots
of books as one book lots of times...
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
The latter, mostly. I admire and agree with much Dawkins says, but I
think this is probably true (although Climbing Mount Improbable is a
book of a different stripe to most of the others. The worst was River
out of Eden, IMO.
I stopped reading Dawkins altogether after a quick browse of River. Selfish
Gene and Blind Watchmaker were all right but very short on decent scientific
arguments as opposed to metaphors. The only one of his books I've read which
really felt put his case well (and convinced me that he had a genuine point
to make) was Extended Phenotype - much more aimed at a scientifically
literate audience.
Hmmm. Methinks the proper word is skimmed, because he uses plenty of
realworld examples when I read.
I think it's a shame that Dawkins has become such a public face of Darwinism
as he does tend to be a bit 'in your face'. Despite, like you, agreeing with
almost everything he says it's very hard not to dislike him. Although the
fact he married one of Doctor Who's assistants helps...
He's an rare man who manages to convey biological ideas quite
accurately, while not making go over my head. He APOLOGIZES for his
mistakes, corrects them when pointed out, and has supporting evidence
for his conclusions.
Where are yours? Oh right, you have no theory of creationism, no real
non-biblical supporting evidence, and no real reason why your God
should exist over any other.
By the way, if you aren't a creationist, then back up your accusations
and prove where Dawkins was wrong. Or at least just tell us what you
disagree with. This is vague, and vague is generally bad.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 01:38:35 PM |
|
|
"fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1aaf5a4.0411160907.3c5df470@posting.google.com...
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<zTkmd.65$iG3.64@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>...
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gncnxu.ruqbn41ocuu8qN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The
Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he
meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living
ancestors, and ending up with primordial bacteria. He also
pauses
to
blast U.S. President George W. Bush and "religious groups who
actively work to prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that
Dawkins,
a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then
again, he has been called the high priest of evolution, with
Charles
Darwin's The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the
author of
lots
of books as one book lots of times...
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
The latter, mostly. I admire and agree with much Dawkins says, but I
think this is probably true (although Climbing Mount Improbable is a
book of a different stripe to most of the others. The worst was River
out of Eden, IMO.
I stopped reading Dawkins altogether after a quick browse of River.
Selfish
Gene and Blind Watchmaker were all right but very short on decent
scientific
arguments as opposed to metaphors. The only one of his books I've read
which
really felt put his case well (and convinced me that he had a genuine
point
to make) was Extended Phenotype - much more aimed at a scientifically
literate audience.
Hmmm. Methinks the proper word is skimmed, because he uses plenty of
realworld examples when I read.
I think it's a shame that Dawkins has become such a public face of
Darwinism
as he does tend to be a bit 'in your face'. Despite, like you, agreeing
with
almost everything he says it's very hard not to dislike him. Although
the
fact he married one of Doctor Who's assistants helps...
He's an rare man who manages to convey biological ideas quite
accurately, while not making go over my head. He APOLOGIZES for his
mistakes, corrects them when pointed out, and has supporting evidence
for his conclusions.
Where are yours? Oh right, you have no theory of creationism, no real
non-biblical supporting evidence, and no real reason why your God
should exist over any other.
By the way, if you aren't a creationist, then back up your accusations
and prove where Dawkins was wrong. Or at least just tell us what you
disagree with. This is vague, and vague is generally bad.
Fair criticisms (although I think the charge of 'skimming' could be leveled
at you too if you read my posts and thought I was a creationist - I did say
I agree with almost everything Dawkins says). Frankly, it's a long time
since I read any of Dawkins' books - more than ten years since I read
Selfish Gene, I think - so all this is based on my memory, not to mention
personal impressions based on a lecture I saw him give. And there are
several of his books I haven't bothered with, since a quick glance at the
back cover seemed to show that it was yet another rehash of the same basic
material with another longwinded metaphor attached. Based on another
poster's points, I may go back and look at one or two of these and perhaps
I'll be pleasantly surprised. Also, my original jocular post was only
half-critical: most philosophers of science I've read spend their lives
expanding and revising the same basic concepts.
So just to reiterate: I'm a staunch Darwinist, possibly even a neo-Darwinist
(with reservations), I agree with Dawkins in most respects, I just don't
much like him personally or his particular metaphor-heavy style of writing.
I mistrust metaphors generally in science writing because I think it's too
easy to mistake the metaphor for the reality. But I'd be very nervous about
expanding further on my criticisms of books I haven't read in a long while.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 06:42:09 PM |
|
|
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message news:<lSsmd.200$iG3.156@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>...
"fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1aaf5a4.0411160907.3c5df470@posting.google.com...
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<zTkmd.65$iG3.64@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>...
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gncnxu.ruqbn41ocuu8qN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The
Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he
meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living
ancestors, and ending up with primordial bacteria. He also
pauses
to
blast U.S. President George W. Bush and "religious groups who
actively work to prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that
Dawkins,
a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then
again, he has been called the high priest of evolution, with
Charles
Darwin's The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the
author of
lots
of books as one book lots of times...
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
The latter, mostly. I admire and agree with much Dawkins says, but I
think this is probably true (although Climbing Mount Improbable is a
book of a different stripe to most of the others. The worst was River
out of Eden, IMO.
I stopped reading Dawkins altogether after a quick browse of River.
Selfish
Gene and Blind Watchmaker were all right but very short on decent
scientific
arguments as opposed to metaphors. The only one of his books I've read
which
really felt put his case well (and convinced me that he had a genuine
point
to make) was Extended Phenotype - much more aimed at a scientifically
literate audience.
Hmmm. Methinks the proper word is skimmed, because he uses plenty of
realworld examples when I read.
I think it's a shame that Dawkins has become such a public face of
Darwinism
as he does tend to be a bit 'in your face'. Despite, like you, agreeing
with
almost everything he says it's very hard not to dislike him. Although
the
fact he married one of Doctor Who's assistants helps...
He's an rare man who manages to convey biological ideas quite
accurately, while not making go over my head. He APOLOGIZES for his
mistakes, corrects them when pointed out, and has supporting evidence
for his conclusions.
Where are yours? Oh right, you have no theory of creationism, no real
non-biblical supporting evidence, and no real reason why your God
should exist over any other.
By the way, if you aren't a creationist, then back up your accusations
and prove where Dawkins was wrong. Or at least just tell us what you
disagree with. This is vague, and vague is generally bad.
Fair criticisms (although I think the charge of 'skimming' could be leveled
at you too if you read my posts and thought I was a creationist - I did say
I agree with almost everything Dawkins says). Frankly, it's a long time
since I read any of Dawkins' books - more than ten years since I read
Selfish Gene, I think - so all this is based on my memory, not to mention
personal impressions based on a lecture I saw him give. And there are
several of his books I haven't bothered with, since a quick glance at the
back cover seemed to show that it was yet another rehash of the same basic
material with another longwinded metaphor attached. Based on another
poster's points, I may go back and look at one or two of these and perhaps
I'll be pleasantly surprised. Also, my original jocular post was only
half-critical: most philosophers of science I've read spend their lives
expanding and revising the same basic concepts.
So just to reiterate: I'm a staunch Darwinist, possibly even a neo-Darwinist
(with reservations), I agree with Dawkins in most respects, I just don't
much like him personally or his particular metaphor-heavy style of writing.
I mistrust metaphors generally in science writing because I think it's too
easy to mistake the metaphor for the reality. But I'd be very nervous about
expanding further on my criticisms of books I haven't read in a long while.
Danny
Oops. I thought you yourself wrote that Dawkins was a "self proclaimed
atheist" (No duh by the way). The way that's written says creationist
to me.
As for your critique of Dawkins, that is of course all valid. I
thought you had an arguement with the substance (i.e scientific
information) as opposed to his writing style. So I guess we have no
quarrel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
17 Nov 2004 04:04:24 AM |
|
|
"fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1aaf5a4.0411161654.348d7c09@posting.google.com...
Oops. I thought you yourself wrote that Dawkins was a "self proclaimed
atheist" (No duh by the way). The way that's written says creationist
to me.
Well, it says 'theist' rather than creationist to me, but yes - no offence
taken, it's easy to lose track of the number of quote embeddings!
As for your critique of Dawkins, that is of course all valid. I
thought you had an arguement with the substance (i.e scientific
information) as opposed to his writing style. So I guess we have no
quarrel.
No problem
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 03:52:39 PM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1aaf5a4.0411160907.3c5df470@posting.google.com...
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<zTkmd.65$iG3.64@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>...
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gncnxu.ruqbn41ocuu8qN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in
message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The
Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he
meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living
ancestors, and ending up with primordial bacteria. He also
pauses
to
blast U.S. President George W. Bush and "religious groups who
actively work to prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that
Dawkins,
a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then
again, he has been called the high priest of evolution, with
Charles
Darwin's The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the
author of
lots
of books as one book lots of times...
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
The latter, mostly. I admire and agree with much Dawkins says, but I
think this is probably true (although Climbing Mount Improbable is a
book of a different stripe to most of the others. The worst was River
out of Eden, IMO.
I stopped reading Dawkins altogether after a quick browse of River.
Selfish
Gene and Blind Watchmaker were all right but very short on decent
scientific
arguments as opposed to metaphors. The only one of his books I've read
which
really felt put his case well (and convinced me that he had a genuine
point
to make) was Extended Phenotype - much more aimed at a scientifically
literate audience.
Hmmm. Methinks the proper word is skimmed, because he uses plenty of
realworld examples when I read.
I think it's a shame that Dawkins has become such a public face of
Darwinism
as he does tend to be a bit 'in your face'. Despite, like you, agreeing
with
almost everything he says it's very hard not to dislike him. Although
the
fact he married one of Doctor Who's assistants helps...
He's an rare man who manages to convey biological ideas quite
accurately, while not making go over my head. He APOLOGIZES for his
mistakes, corrects them when pointed out, and has supporting evidence
for his conclusions.
Where are yours? Oh right, you have no theory of creationism, no real
non-biblical supporting evidence, and no real reason why your God
should exist over any other.
By the way, if you aren't a creationist, then back up your accusations
and prove where Dawkins was wrong. Or at least just tell us what you
disagree with. This is vague, and vague is generally bad.
Fair criticisms (although I think the charge of 'skimming' could be leveled
at you too if you read my posts and thought I was a creationist - I did say
I agree with almost everything Dawkins says). Frankly, it's a long time
since I read any of Dawkins' books - more than ten years since I read
Selfish Gene, I think - so all this is based on my memory, not to mention
personal impressions based on a lecture I saw him give. And there are
several of his books I haven't bothered with, since a quick glance at the
back cover seemed to show that it was yet another rehash of the same basic
material with another longwinded metaphor attached. Based on another
poster's points, I may go back and look at one or two of these and perhaps
I'll be pleasantly surprised. Also, my original jocular post was only
half-critical: most philosophers of science I've read spend their lives
expanding and revising the same basic concepts.
So just to reiterate: I'm a staunch Darwinist, possibly even a neo-Darwinist
(with reservations), I agree with Dawkins in most respects, I just don't
much like him personally or his particular metaphor-heavy style of writing.
I mistrust metaphors generally in science writing because I think it's too
easy to mistake the metaphor for the reality. But I'd be very nervous about
expanding further on my criticisms of books I haven't read in a long while.
Danny
I am *not* a neo-Darwinist. In fact, I'm not a Darwinist at all. I am an
evolutionist, though - I just think science should not be labelled in
terms of orthodoxies. I once was a neo-Darwinist in that sense
(Dawkinsian), but I had it knocked out of me when I realised that most
of the disputes weren't over the science at all, but over philosophical
issues. Once I realised that, I felt a *lot* more free to disagree with
orthodox views - philosophers are famous for that, in fact...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 04:46:27 PM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gne121.1e7dxbsqjoylxN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
I am *not* a neo-Darwinist. In fact, I'm not a Darwinist at all. I am an
evolutionist, though - I just think science should not be labelled in
terms of orthodoxies.
I don't think there's anything wrong with labels per se, they serve as a
simple shorthand - as long as it's understood that just because you identify
with a particular label doesn't mean you have to agree with everything in
the label as if it were a religion.
I once was a neo-Darwinist in that sense
(Dawkinsian), but I had it knocked out of me when I realised that most
of the disputes weren't over the science at all, but over philosophical
issues. Once I realised that, I felt a *lot* more free to disagree with
orthodox views - philosophers are famous for that, in fact...
Fair point - but then isn't that how most scientific progress is made? Call
it a philosophical issue or a paradigm, it's the same basic premise: we try
to find a framework in which lots of disparate data make some kind of sense.
It makes life easier for us as humans and makes it easier to frame theories.
How much 'reality' these paradigms have is a philosophical issue in itself!
Still, I agree with one thing: by creating a label such as 'neo-Darwinist',
we do give fuel to the opponents of evolution by allowing them to think
there's some kind of 'faith' involved, rather than (what usually turns out
to be) quite small disputes about interpretation of particular data.
After writing my previous post, I thought to myself 'it's crazy to call
myself a neo-Darwinist' because if I were to actually get into a discussion
with someone like Dawkins or Dennett I'd end up arguing like crazy. But then
I read a book like 'Alas Poor Darwin' and realize that no matter how much I
disagree with the neo-Darwinists, they make a hell of a lot more sense than
their opponents! (straying a long way from the discussion, but what the hell
was an argument against sociobiology on the grounds of postmodernist theory
doing in a science book?)
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 05:19:22 PM |
|
|
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gne121.1e7dxbsqjoylxN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
I am *not* a neo-Darwinist. In fact, I'm not a Darwinist at all. I am an
evolutionist, though - I just think science should not be labelled in
terms of orthodoxies.
I don't think there's anything wrong with labels per se, they serve as a
simple shorthand - as long as it's understood that just because you identify
with a particular label doesn't mean you have to agree with everything in
the label as if it were a religion.
Labels act as banners in a battlefield - they attract believers and
mercenaries alike.
I once was a neo-Darwinist in that sense
(Dawkinsian), but I had it knocked out of me when I realised that most
of the disputes weren't over the science at all, but over philosophical
issues. Once I realised that, I felt a *lot* more free to disagree with
orthodox views - philosophers are famous for that, in fact...
Fair point - but then isn't that how most scientific progress is made? Call
it a philosophical issue or a paradigm, it's the same basic premise: we try
to find a framework in which lots of disparate data make some kind of sense.
It makes life easier for us as humans and makes it easier to frame theories.
How much 'reality' these paradigms have is a philosophical issue in itself!
My feelings are this:
There's no such thing as a paradigm, in science or marketing. Never have
been. It's a myth.
Change in science is made when better theories are proposed that are
fruitful in furthering research and utility.
Philosophical discussions in a science are evidence that it has stalled
in that area.
Still, I agree with one thing: by creating a label such as 'neo-Darwinist',
we do give fuel to the opponents of evolution by allowing them to think
there's some kind of 'faith' involved, rather than (what usually turns out
to be) quite small disputes about interpretation of particular data.
Yep, and these labels are largely *political* ones within the science.
There is such a thing as academic politics, after all...
After writing my previous post, I thought to myself 'it's crazy to call
myself a neo-Darwinist' because if I were to actually get into a discussion
with someone like Dawkins or Dennett I'd end up arguing like crazy. But then
I read a book like 'Alas Poor Darwin' and realize that no matter how much I
disagree with the neo-Darwinists, they make a hell of a lot more sense than
their opponents! (straying a long way from the discussion, but what the hell
was an argument against sociobiology on the grounds of postmodernist theory
doing in a science book?)
I agree. There are a hell of a lot of better, *scientific*, arguments
against the sort of sociobiology we have previously seen, and anyway, I
happen to think there are some sociobiological scenarios that make
scientific sense. Rose is, I think, being overly influenced by political
considerations here. I wonder how he'd accept postmodern arguments
against genetics in general...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 06:31:11 PM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gne4hn.1afilo89fdj27N%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gne121.1e7dxbsqjoylxN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
I once was a neo-Darwinist in that sense
(Dawkinsian), but I had it knocked out of me when I realised that most
of the disputes weren't over the science at all, but over
philosophical
issues. Once I realised that, I felt a *lot* more free to disagree
with
orthodox views - philosophers are famous for that, in fact...
Fair point - but then isn't that how most scientific progress is made?
Call
it a philosophical issue or a paradigm, it's the same basic premise: we
try
to find a framework in which lots of disparate data make some kind of
sense.
It makes life easier for us as humans and makes it easier to frame
theories.
How much 'reality' these paradigms have is a philosophical issue in
itself!
My feelings are this:
There's no such thing as a paradigm, in science or marketing. Never have
been. It's a myth.
Change in science is made when better theories are proposed that are
fruitful in furthering research and utility.
Philosophical discussions in a science are evidence that it has stalled
in that area.
Weeeellll, I see your point but I think there's a grey area between what we
call a theory and what we call a paradigm. I mean, consider Natural
Selection itself. That's a theory, designed to explain certain evolutionary
data. But it also suggests many other areas of research in other fields,
including chemistry, computing, engineering, psychology etc. The natural
selection 'concept' opens the door to so many more areas of research that
just calling it a 'better theory' is a little weak.
Generally, philosophical discussion seems to me to be a great way to move
towards questions which might otherwise be missed by more run-of-the-mill
research - a way to notice that there's even a question to be asked. Think
about relativity: yes, there were marginally troubling bits of physical data
which suggested that there might be some errors in Newton's laws, and there
were some annoying facts about the speed of light to explain, but the real
breakthrough was philosophical: the idea that the principle of relativity
was more fundamental than the idea that rulers are the same length no matter
how fast you're moving. All the rest of special relativity follows from this
philosophical principle.
After writing my previous post, I thought to myself 'it's crazy to call
myself a neo-Darwinist' because if I were to actually get into a
discussion
with someone like Dawkins or Dennett I'd end up arguing like crazy. But
then
I read a book like 'Alas Poor Darwin' and realize that no matter how
much I
disagree with the neo-Darwinists, they make a hell of a lot more sense
than
their opponents! (straying a long way from the discussion, but what the
hell
was an argument against sociobiology on the grounds of postmodernist
theory
doing in a science book?)
I agree. There are a hell of a lot of better, *scientific*, arguments
against the sort of sociobiology we have previously seen, and anyway, I
happen to think there are some sociobiological scenarios that make
scientific sense. Rose is, I think, being overly influenced by political
considerations here. I wonder how he'd accept postmodern arguments
against genetics in general...
Completely agree with all this - and I find the whole political argument
against sociobiology baffling. Of course, it doesn't help when the
pro-sociobiology lobby also use it to make political points. This is where
your argument in general is completely validated - scientists going
completely outside their remit, usually because they don't have enough of an
actual theory.
Now I must go to bed. Uuuuurgh I'm ill.
Danny
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 05:43:59 PM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gne121.1e7dxbsqjoylxN%:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1aaf5a4.0411160907.3c5df470@posting.google.com...
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<zTkmd.65$iG3.64@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>...
"John Wilkins" < > wrote in message
news:1gncnxu.ruqbn41ocuu8qN%...
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins < >
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote
in
message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The
Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the
way he
meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest
living ancestors, and ending up with primordial
bacteria. He also
pauses
to
blast U.S. President George W. Bush and "religious
groups who actively work to prevent scientific
education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd
that
Dawkins,
a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a
pilgrim. Then again, he has been called the high priest
of evolution, with
Charles
Darwin's The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much
the
author of
lots
of books as one book lots of times...
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
The latter, mostly. I admire and agree with much Dawkins says,
but I think this is probably true (although Climbing Mount
Improbable is a book of a different stripe to most of the
others. The worst was River out of Eden, IMO.
I stopped reading Dawkins altogether after a quick browse of
River.
Selfish
Gene and Blind Watchmaker were all right but very short on decent
scientific
arguments as opposed to metaphors. The only one of his books I've
read
which
really felt put his case well (and convinced me that he had a
genuine
point
to make) was Extended Phenotype - much more aimed at a
scientifically literate audience.
Hmmm. Methinks the proper word is skimmed, because he uses plenty
of realworld examples when I read.
I think it's a shame that Dawkins has become such a public face
of
Darwinism
as he does tend to be a bit 'in your face'. Despite, like you,
agreeing
with
almost everything he says it's very hard not to dislike him.
Although
the
fact he married one of Doctor Who's assistants helps...
He's an rare man who manages to convey biological ideas quite
accurately, while not making go over my head. He APOLOGIZES for
his mistakes, corrects them when pointed out, and has supporting
evidence for his conclusions.
Where are yours? Oh right, you have no theory of creationism, no
real non-biblical supporting evidence, and no real reason why your
God should exist over any other.
By the way, if you aren't a creationist, then back up your
accusations and prove where Dawkins was wrong. Or at least just
tell us what you disagree with. This is vague, and vague is
generally bad.
Fair criticisms (although I think the charge of 'skimming' could be
leveled at you too if you read my posts and thought I was a
creationist - I did say I agree with almost everything Dawkins says).
Frankly, it's a long time since I read any of Dawkins' books - more
than ten years since I read Selfish Gene, I think - so all this is
based on my memory, not to mention personal impressions based on a
lecture I saw him give. And there are several of his books I haven't
bothered with, since a quick glance at the back cover seemed to show
that it was yet another rehash of the same basic material with
another longwinded metaphor attached. Based on another poster's
points, I may go back and look at one or two of these and perhaps
I'll be pleasantly surprised. Also, my original jocular post was only
half-critical: most philosophers of science I've read spend their
lives expanding and revising the same basic concepts.
So just to reiterate: I'm a staunch Darwinist, possibly even a
neo-Darwinist (with reservations), I agree with Dawkins in most
respects, I just don't much like him personally or his particular
metaphor-heavy style of writing. I mistrust metaphors generally in
science writing because I think it's too easy to mistake the metaphor
for the reality. But I'd be very nervous about expanding further on
my criticisms of books I haven't read in a long while.
Danny
I am *not* a neo-Darwinist. In fact, I'm not a Darwinist at all. I am
an evolutionist, though - I just think science should not be labelled
in terms of orthodoxies. I once was a neo-Darwinist in that sense
(Dawkinsian), but I had it knocked out of me when I realised that most
of the disputes weren't over the science at all, but over
philosophical issues. Once I realised that, I felt a *lot* more free
to disagree with orthodox views - philosophers are famous for that, in
fact...
Does that make the rest of us here philosophers? It seems that just
about every one of us started our long climb from the ooze of
creationism by questioning and ultimately rejecting the christian
orthodox views.
--
Gary Bohn
http://creativeexplore.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
17 Nov 2004 02:13:28 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns95A3B67E4E12CGaryBohn@130.133.1.4>...<snipped>
Does that make the rest of us here philosophers? It seems that just
about every one of us started our long climb from the ooze of
creationism by questioning and ultimately rejecting the christian
orthodox views.
I would suggest that few people on this forum started off as
creationists - I certainly didn't.
As for rejecting christian orthodox (by which I presume you mean
mainstream christianity as opposed to the Greek, Russian, Armenian
etc. orthodox churches) views, it is the creationists who have
rejected those views.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
17 Nov 2004 01:28:59 PM |
|
|
(Richard Forrest) wrote in
news:892cb437.0411170025.6e65c928@posting.google.com:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:<Xns95A3B67E4E12CGaryBohn@130.133.1.4>...<snipped>
Does that make the rest of us here philosophers? It seems that just
about every one of us started our long climb from the ooze of
creationism by questioning and ultimately rejecting the christian
orthodox views.
I would suggest that few people on this forum started off as
creationists - I certainly didn't.
As for rejecting christian orthodox (by which I presume you mean
mainstream christianity as opposed to the Greek, Russian, Armenian
etc. orthodox churches) views, it is the creationists who have
rejected those views.
RF
You have successfully sucked every last ounce of humour my runt of a
response aspired to have.
I do realize it takes a whole hell of a lot more than just telling some
creationists that they are silly to claim philosopherhood.
--
Gary Bohn
http://creativeexplore.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 06:08:23 PM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gne121.1e7dxbsqjoylxN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"fencingsax" <christocbd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1aaf5a4.0411160907.3c5df470@posting.google.com...
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<zTkmd.65$iG3.64@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>...
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gncnxu.ruqbn41ocuu8qN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote
in
message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The
Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the
way he
meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest
living ancestors, and ending up with primordial
bacteria. He also
pauses
to
blast U.S. President George W. Bush and "religious
groups who actively work to prevent scientific
education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd
that
Dawkins,
a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a
pilgrim. Then again, he has been called the high priest
of evolution, with
Charles
Darwin's The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much
the
author of
lots
of books as one book lots of times...
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
The latter, mostly. I admire and agree with much Dawkins says,
but I think this is probably true (although Climbing Mount
Improbable is a book of a different stripe to most of the
others. The worst was River out of Eden, IMO.
I stopped reading Dawkins altogether after a quick browse of
River.
Selfish
Gene and Blind Watchmaker were all right but very short on decent
scientific
arguments as opposed to metaphors. The only one of his books I've
read
which
really felt put his case well (and convinced me that he had a
genuine
point
to make) was Extended Phenotype - much more aimed at a
scientifically literate audience.
Hmmm. Methinks the proper word is skimmed, because he uses plenty
of realworld examples when I read.
I think it's a shame that Dawkins has become such a public face
of
Darwinism
as he does tend to be a bit 'in your face'. Despite, like you,
agreeing
with
almost everything he says it's very hard not to dislike him.
Although
the
fact he married one of Doctor Who's assistants helps...
He's an rare man who manages to convey biological ideas quite
accurately, while not making go over my head. He APOLOGIZES for
his mistakes, corrects them when pointed out, and has supporting
evidence for his conclusions.
Where are yours? Oh right, you have no theory of creationism, no
real non-biblical supporting evidence, and no real reason why your
God should exist over any other.
By the way, if you aren't a creationist, then back up your
accusations and prove where Dawkins was wrong. Or at least just
tell us what you disagree with. This is vague, and vague is
generally bad.
Fair criticisms (although I think the charge of 'skimming' could be
leveled at you too if you read my posts and thought I was a
creationist - I did say I agree with almost everything Dawkins says).
Frankly, it's a long time since I read any of Dawkins' books - more
than ten years since I read Selfish Gene, I think - so all this is
based on my memory, not to mention personal impressions based on a
lecture I saw him give. And there are several of his books I haven't
bothered with, since a quick glance at the back cover seemed to show
that it was yet another rehash of the same basic material with
another longwinded metaphor attached. Based on another poster's
points, I may go back and look at one or two of these and perhaps
I'll be pleasantly surprised. Also, my original jocular post was only
half-critical: most philosophers of science I've read spend their
lives expanding and revising the same basic concepts.
So just to reiterate: I'm a staunch Darwinist, possibly even a
neo-Darwinist (with reservations), I agree with Dawkins in most
respects, I just don't much like him personally or his particular
metaphor-heavy style of writing. I mistrust metaphors generally in
science writing because I think it's too easy to mistake the metaphor
for the reality. But I'd be very nervous about expanding further on
my criticisms of books I haven't read in a long while.
Danny
I am *not* a neo-Darwinist. In fact, I'm not a Darwinist at all. I am
an evolutionist, though - I just think science should not be labelled
in terms of orthodoxies. I once was a neo-Darwinist in that sense
(Dawkinsian), but I had it knocked out of me when I realised that most
of the disputes weren't over the science at all, but over
philosophical issues. Once I realised that, I felt a *lot* more free
to disagree with orthodox views - philosophers are famous for that, in
fact...
Does that make the rest of us here philosophers? It seems that just
about every one of us started our long climb from the ooze of
creationism by questioning and ultimately rejecting the christian
orthodox views.
My theology lecturer once noted in my hearing that all Christians were
theologians - it was just that some were good theologians and some were
bad theologians. Likewise, and more... ecumenically... all thinking folk
are philosophers.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 08:22:13 PM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gne7dv.thjugfgnwvviN%:
<snip>
Does that make the rest of us here philosophers? It seems that just
about every one of us started our long climb from the ooze of
creationism by questioning and ultimately rejecting the christian
orthodox views.
My theology lecturer once noted in my hearing that all Christians were
theologians - it was just that some were good theologians and some
were bad theologians. Likewise, and more... ecumenically... all
thinking folk are philosophers.
Damn, I guess that leaves me out.
--
Gary Bohn
http://creativeexplore.blogspot.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
17 Nov 2004 01:49:20 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:22:13 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gne7dv.thjugfgnwvviN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:
<snip>
Does that make the rest of us here philosophers? It seems that just
about every one of us started our long climb from the ooze of
creationism by questioning and ultimately rejecting the christian
orthodox views.
My theology lecturer once noted in my hearing that all Christians were
theologians - it was just that some were good theologians and some
were bad theologians. Likewise, and more... ecumenically... all
thinking folk are philosophers.
Damn, I guess that leaves me out.
Wot, you're *not* a folk? I'll be damned. . .
German
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 08:16:43 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:46:59 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) wrote:
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins < >
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Danny Kodicek <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:vtqdnVQmOejZ1QTcRVn-jA@rogers.com...
From the article:
-----------------------------------
Zoologist Richard Dawkins describes his latest book, The Ancestor's
Tale, as a pilgrimage back to the dawn of life. On the way he meets
other pilgrims, starting with chimpanzees, our closest living
ancestors, and ending up with primordial bacteria. He also pauses to
blast U.S. President George W. Bush and "religious groups who
actively work to prevent scientific education."
In telling the story of evolution, it might seem odd that Dawkins, a
self-proclaimed atheist, should cast himself as a pilgrim. Then
again, he has been called the high priest of evolution, with Charles
Darwin's The Origin of Species as his bible.
-----------------------------------
Much as I admire Dawkins in many ways, he's not so much the author of lots
of books as one book lots of times...
OTOH if you write the same thing several times eventually you find a
way to convey the message. Gould wrote about so many things at once
that it is often difficult to figure out what his actual point is.
*snork* *sputter* *gack* *chortlechortle*
See, I don't know enough to know whether you are expressing
professional disagreement, or general convivial shared humor
here.
The latter, mostly. I admire and agree with much Dawkins says, but I
think this is probably true (although Climbing Mount Improbable is a
book of a different stripe to most of the others. The worst was River
out of Eden, IMO.
Yep.
I know that personally, I haven't been able to read an entire
Dawkins book. And I've read a dozen or so by Gould, mostly
essays, of course. Dawkins just doesn't reach me.
The essay _Selfish Genes, Selfish Memes_ had a profound affect on how
I view both science and the world. While I think I got more out of it
than Dawkins had intended it significantly contributes to my core
tools for understanding the world.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Danny Kodicek" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 09:26:33 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:hg3kp0df67mnqkq94j7l9mgfcq6fbiu7q0@4ax.com...
The essay _Selfish Genes, Selfish Memes_ had a profound affect on how
I view both science and the world. While I think I got more out of it
than Dawkins had intended it significantly contributes to my core
tools for understanding the world.
I feel the same (I guess you, like me, read it first in The Mind's I, given
the way you quoted the title), but for me the meme concept has always
highlighted a number of problems with the selfish gene concept, because it
shows up some of the not-so-hidden prejudices in Dawkins' imagery (and that
of his supporters, like Dennett). By equating the active, directly
phenotypic and mostly independent 'memes' with the passive, indirectly
phenotypic and codependent genes, Dawkins shows why he finds the selfish
gene argument so compelling. Essentially, by equating genes with memes, he
is creating an image of genes that are like viruses or even organisms,
imbuing them with a much more active flavour than they really have. And this
is where extended metaphors can be dangerous, because I know Dawkins doesn't
actually *believe* this about genes, in fact he explicitly denies it often,
using scare-quotes and so on around metaphorical terminology. But
nevertheless he persists in the imagery, which I think is a little
misleading.
Danny
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lt. Kizhe Catson" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 03:12:40 PM |
|
|
"Danny Kodicek" <usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote in message news:<T9pmd.95$iG3.30@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>...
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:hg3kp0df67mnqkq94j7l9mgfcq6fbiu7q0@4ax.com...
The essay _Selfish Genes, Selfish Memes_ had a profound affect on how
I view both science and the world. While I think I got more out of it
than Dawkins had intended it significantly contributes to my core
tools for understanding the world.
I feel the same (I guess you, like me, read it first in The Mind's I, given
the way you quoted the title), but for me the meme concept has always
highlighted a number of problems with the selfish gene concept, because it
shows up some of the not-so-hidden prejudices in Dawkins' imagery (and that
of his supporters, like Dennett). By equating the active, directly
phenotypic and mostly independent 'memes' with the passive, indirectly
phenotypic and codependent genes, Dawkins shows why he finds the selfish
gene argument so compelling. Essentially, by equating genes with memes, he
is creating an image of genes that are like viruses or even organisms,
imbuing them with a much more active flavour than they really have. And this
is where extended metaphors can be dangerous, because I know Dawkins doesn't
actually *believe* this about genes, in fact he explicitly denies it often,
using scare-quotes and so on around metaphorical terminology. But
nevertheless he persists in the imagery, which I think is a little
misleading.
Dawkins remains on my list of People I Should Read Someday (although I
suspect I've gleaned the gist of Dawkins from Dennett). But I
recently read Mark Ridley's _The Cooperative Gene_, which also suffers
from the over-use of metaphor -- including the persistent (and IMHO
careless) discussion of genes and even whole chromosomes as if they
were agents. Perhaps I'm just too personally reductionist, but I
dislike this way of explaining selection.
While it has some fascinating ideas and factoids re the genetics of
sex and gender, on the whole it's not the greatest book.
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: In the News: Evolution's "High Priest" Returns With New "Tale" |
16 Nov 2004 10:48:10 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:26:33 +0000 (UTC), "Danny Kodicek"
<usenet@well-spring.co.uk> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:hg3kp0df67mnqkq94j7l9mgfcq6fbiu7q0@4ax.com...
The essay _Selfish Genes, Selfish Memes_ had a profound affect on how
I view both science and the world. While I think I got more out of it
than Dawkins had intended it significantly contributes to my core
tools for understanding the world.
I feel the same (I guess you, like me, read it first in The Mind's I, given
the way you quoted the title),
Yep.
but for me the meme concept has always
highlighted a number of problems with the selfish gene concept, because it
shows up some of the not-so-hidden prejudices in Dawkins' imagery (and that
of his supporters, like Dennett). By equating the active, directly
phenotypic and mostly independent 'memes' with the passive, indirectly
phenotypic and codependent genes, Dawkins shows why he finds the selfish
gene argument so compelling.
I think we can distinguish between the active and passive aspects of
the memes. The part that is replicated is, itself, not active.
Essentially, by equating genes with memes, he
is creating an image of genes that are like viruses or even organisms,
imbuing them with a much more active flavour than they really have. And this
is where extended metaphors can be dangerous, because I know Dawkins doesn't
actually *believe* this about genes, in fact he explicitly denies it often,
using scare-quotes and so on around metaphorical terminology. But
nevertheless he persists in the imagery, which I think is a little
misleading.
Interestingly enough it is not either the gene or meme supremacy that
I took from the essay, it is the importance of the replicator (or,
probably to agree with your point above, the replicated) and, more
generally, the persistent. We see that which sticks around long enough
to get noticed. Some things do this by not changing easily. Rocks
forms strong bonds, for example. Other things get noticed because they
happen repeatedly. Hurricanes and other such phenomena. Some form long
term cycles: lineages of living organisms.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
