Print
Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda
by Richard Dawkins
On 18th April, the day Ben Stein's infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew (referencing a past article that Shermer had written debunking the Holocaust deniers) whose identity I shall conceal as "David J".
Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:
It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.
Richard
Dear Mr J
Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.
1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?
4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.
5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).
6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.
7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.
With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!
Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:
Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit.
It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.
Richard
Dear Mr J
Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.
1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.
2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.
3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?
4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.
5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).
6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.
7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.
With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, April 20, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1201 - 1250 of 1954 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers1202. Comment #168228 by Quine on April 24, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I just got back from a bike ride through my town with a few friends. One of these happens to be an active Christian (does church work in the community) named Joe who has been talking with me during and after these rides for the last few weeks. So, today, at the end of the ride he tells me he has just seen this movie called "Expelled" and proceeds to give me the outline. He told me he was especially concerned because the teachings of Darwin were used by Hitler to base his philosophy and actions to create a super race by following Darwin's advice to breed for better humans and get rid of the defectives.I stood there, leaning over my bike, and had one of those "how can reality be doing this to me right now?" moments. Those following this thread will know that I had just been reviewing the Darwin=Hitler blogs this morning. Joe is a middle aged man of reasonable education; the truly disturbing part is that he just took the thing as fact. He did not ask me (known to him as not a person of faith) if I knew any link between Hitler and Darwin, he just bought it.
Now, I can talk to Joe about this (he wants to cover the ethical necessity of a "higher power" on the next ride), and send him email links to expose Expelled, but what about all the other "Joes" out there?
Other Comments by Quine
1203. Comment #168244 by Ty_Webb on April 24, 2008 at 7:35 pm
If evolution theory is so proven, why are there so many highly respected educated scientists who claim otherwise. Why the big debate? I don't see much conflict in gravity or other sciences. If your answer is, there are only a few and they are not highly regarded, I must admit you would be avoiding the question.
TTID. What you have to say here is actually of some mild import. You came here, I believe, as a result of having seen the movie Expelled. As I understand it, the theme of Expelled is that science is brushing this whole debate under the carpet and that scientists who dare to suggest that ID is correct are being persecuted.
It strikes me as unlikely that "highly respected" and "persecuted" are compatible with one another. So, no doubt you think Expelled is utter BS on the grounds that there are lots of highly respected scientists who support ID and that there is in fact "big debate", rather than the stifled debate that Stein and co whinge about.
Which is it?
Other Comments by Ty_Webb
1204. Comment #168248 by Ty_Webb on April 24, 2008 at 7:44 pm
And for the record, gravity is one of the least understood things going. No one knows what it is. The two major theories of the physical world (being quantum theory and relativity) are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right. Yet, when each one deals with its own particular specialism (the very small for quantum theory and the not very small for relativity) both come up with predictions that are mind-bogglingly accurate. One analogy I heard for QM is that its accuracy is like predicting the distance from LA to New York to within the width of a human hair.Evolution is better supported than either of these two.
Other Comments by Ty_Webb
1205. Comment #168251 by MaxD on April 24, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Hopeful,
I must have messed up the URL somehow. Lucky I didn't accidentally send TruthID off to look at a porn video!
that might have been the best thing in the world for him.
Other Comments by MaxD
1206. Comment #168269 by Brad on April 24, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Very well said indeed. It amazes me that some people actually buy the bullshit Stein is pushing, when it is so blatantly and obviously full of deceit and flat out lies. Other Comments by Brad
1207. Comment #168271 by moderndaythomas on April 24, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Comment#168097 TruthID "Your world is soon going to be crushing down on you. You better open your eyes and be ready."
Give me some hints on what that would be brother?
I want you to tell everyone here what the plan is.
Or am I too late again. I always miss the interesting ones.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
1208. Comment #168273 by moderndaythomas on April 24, 2008 at 9:21 pm
TruthID clearly has some post secondary bi under his belt, but it's been skewed. I recommend little engagement with him in the future, though I hate to have him think a victory of it.
I'm always a little late on the page.
I'd like to have him talk about judgment day. The religious never sound more foolish than when they open their mouths about religion. Believe me, I know!
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
1209. Comment #168276 by Quine on April 24, 2008 at 10:11 pm
The conservative press provides cover and Expelled provides a stage for Darwin twisting author in this piece of, well, you know. Other Comments by Quine
1210. Comment #168277 by TheTruthID on April 24, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Wow. I've been gone for hours and when I come back you still are talking about me. Boy, what an impact I've made. Some of you starting to second guess your beliefs?Other Comments by TheTruthID
1211. Comment #168278 by TheTruthID on April 24, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Quine,Just because this guy is your friend he has to believe that you have the truth? You are the expert on the Hitler and evolution link?
Other Comments by TheTruthID
1212. Comment #168279 by TheTruthID on April 24, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Quine,If everybody had a friend like you, we would all know the truth. By the way, what did you come up with since I pointed out your blunder in regards to the paper you directed me to. You know, having chromosones make decisions.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
1213. Comment #168293 by AllanW on April 25, 2008 at 12:03 am
Re; comment #168277 The TruthID
'Wow. I've been gone for hours and when I come back you still are talking about me. Boy, what an impact I've made. Some of you starting to second guess your beliefs?'
Don't flatter yourself; most people have been staying off this thread so as not to feed your trollish behaviour. The impact you have made is to reveal yourself as a monstrous ignoramus.
We are, however, rueful; not because anything you have dribbled has led us to question our viewpoints but to reflect upon the fact that there are still so many wilfully ignorant people such as yourself in the world and we have so much work left to do to change that situation.
Other Comments by AllanW
1214. Comment #168297 by Quine on April 25, 2008 at 12:34 am
Here is a moving piece by Paul Abrams that, contrary to Expelled, salutes the memory of teachers in Norway who stood up against the Nazis to teach truth to their students. It fits right in with Prof. Dawkins' open letter.And yes, AllanW the guy, TTID, is beyond help. This "decision" he goes on about was PZ Myers simplifying a description of random selection down to "more or less decide by eeny-meeny-miny-moe." Apparently, eeny-meeny-miny-moe went whoosh over his head, so I don't know what more there is to be done.
Other Comments by Quine
1215. Comment #168304 by alan baylis on April 25, 2008 at 1:27 am
1205. Comment #168228 by QuineQuine,
On reading this comment a chill ran down my spine. It occurred to me that what you are describing is exactly the same process that was used to propagate anti-Semitism down the ages.
In the excellent article that you linked, Paul Abrams reiterates that the standard of science teaching in the USA is falling. In this increasingly competitive world this cannot be good.
If I can borrow from Jon Stewart in addressing Stein, TTID, remnant, et al;
Guys, stop hurting America.
Regards,
Alan.
Other Comments by alan baylis
1216. Comment #168311 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 2:12 am
Comment #168248 by Ty_Webb If I may say so, an excellent and useful point. Creationist seem to trust theories we know are wrong about things that we don't know how they work.
Evolution is right, and we DO know how it works....
Other Comments by Steve Zara
1217. Comment #168316 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 2:18 am
Some of you starting to second guess your beliefs?
What possible basis could we have for doing so? You have shown profound ignorance of biology, evolution and genetics. You have asked questions and refused to accept the answers even though you could have found, and checked the answers yourself. You Pick a few scientists who back what you say as against the hundreds of thousands of scientists who don't, which means you have not the slightest idea of science, or how it works. You don't understand what mutations are. You don't understand how selection works. You don't understand how information can be added to the genome.
People here may be persuadable by evidence and reasoned arguments, but if you think that we will be persuaded by ignorance and misunderstanding (especially when that has been pointed out to you, and you have not managed to refute is), you must have a very strange view of people.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
1218. Comment #168406 by Titania on April 25, 2008 at 5:56 am
TheTruthID:
If you will pm me your address, I will mail you some books to read: Climbing Mount Improbable, The Blind Watchmaker, The Demon Haunted World and an actual Evolution textbook. I might even throw in The Panda's Thumb and Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes. I promise I will not give your name or address to anyone on this site. I can pm private details about me so you can be assured I will keep your private information confidential. Most of us here have read the Bible, so I am asking that you do some actual reading about evolution and science that may help you in your debate on this site. I am willing to contribute in this small way to your education.
Other Comments by Titania
1219. Comment #168422 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 6:18 am
Comment #168297 by QuineHere is a moving piece by Paul Abrams that, contrary to Expelled, salutes the memory of teachers in Norway who stood up against the Nazis to teach truth to their students.
Good article. I just had one problem with this concept;
Would he want our high school students, already 29th in the world in high school science proficiency, to suffer further economic disadvantage by learning non-science propaganda, and thus not even understanding the difference between science and theology?
All four of my children were presented both evolutionary theory and ID theory as part of their overall science curriculum. Three of them score average to slightly above average in science but my 16 yr. old daughter has garnered the attention of the science department at her high-school. They tell me she is gifted beyond any student they have had in many years.
Antidotal, yes, but personally I know better than to ignore the dozens of factors pointing to low science scores and zero in on one just because it fits my personal bias. I'm not saying my kids score better as a result of being taught ID, but it did not seem to put them at a disadvantage.
What about electives and sports? Should we cancel these programs so our children can get more time in the sciences? The bigger question in my mind is what are the limits of science and how can we prevent our version from becoming a potential catalyst for the degradation of humankind.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1220. Comment #168432 by Titania on April 25, 2008 at 6:26 am
TheTruthID: Oh heck, I will also throw in The Origin of Species and The Selfish Gene. All you have to do is promise to read them all. I would start with Climbing Mount Improbable since it probably best addresses your comments and questions. Other Comments by Titania
1221. Comment #168507 by Ty_Webb on April 25, 2008 at 7:16 am
I find myself feeling somewhat sorry for TTID here. He's clearly so far out of his depth, he doesn't know what to do. Consequently, I'm going to have a go at answering the questions for him.Q1. What does ID postulate?
Hypothesis - That the universe and everything in it was created by some kind of intelligent being. Probably what Christians call God, since if it's anything else, then we probably should be calling it God. That's all c. one hundred thousand billion billion stars and presumably a not dissimilar number of planets. This designer must be VERY intelligent, seeing as how it's managed to create lifeforms, and a universe, both of which are way beyond anything that we are currently capable of, so, pretty much by definition, it must be more intelligent than me.
Q2. What predictions does ID make?
Well, here we need to use our imagination for a moment. If ID were true, what might we expect to see? Well, for a start, if I were doing this (and capable of it) I wouldn't waste any of the information structure that I chose to use. Which would imply that there should be no junk DNA whatsoever. Otherwise, it would be like writing an operating system for a computer that is 500 gigabytes in size, but only actually uses maybe 1 gigabyte of those for anything useful. What a waste of effort and indeed disc space. I would also predict that the bodies of the lifeforms created should be efficient. For example, I would expect the optic nerve to come out of the eye in a manner that doesn't create a blindspot. I would also not expect to see vestigial organs. Further, if we also make the assumption that this designer is beneficent, then we should expect not to see viruses or dangerous bacteria. And, there wouldn't be any wasps (vicious creatures that so far as I can see serve no apparent purpose other than irritation). Is that five predictions? I think so.
Q3. Can you come up with any peer-reviewed papers in support?
Well, no I can't. Cos there aren't any. What I can do is look at the predictions and see whether they are correct or not.
1. Junk DNA - exists, therefore prediction incorrect
2. The eye - we have a blind spot, therefore prediction incorrect
3. vestigial organs? - Check. Therefore prediction incorrect
4. viruses and dangerous bacteria? - Ebola, lassa, E. coli, influenza, etc. Therefore prediction incorrect
5. Wasps - definitely exist, therefore prediction incorrect
Searching back to my GCSE science stuff, when a hypothesis makes predictions and they turn out to be false, the hypothesis is false. I'll leave everyone else to their own opinions on this one though.
Other Comments by Ty_Webb
1222. Comment #168515 by moderndaythomas on April 25, 2008 at 7:18 am
Comment#168422 seeker_of_truth.
Human origins and evolution are, for the time being, open for topic in Canadian schools. Ideas that come from those like TruthID will be strongly discouraged, I asure you. Keep it down there!
Though, saddy, even Canadian highschool students must wait until the college or university levels to be introduced officialy to Mendel's genetics, or the Hardy-Weinberg Law.
UK students get this important information up front. At least by grade twelve.
Can you tell me the game plan now, TruthID?Love to hear it.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
1223. Comment #168524 by 5keptical on April 25, 2008 at 7:23 am
This thread should be preserved to illustrate the tactics of the IDiots and how not to deal with them.All TruthID and his ilk are doing are throwing stones at evolution (and religions are very experienced and comfortable with stoning things challenge their insular beliefs)
The only necessary response is point out that disproving evolution (1 + 1=2.0000001) does not provide any evidence for ID (1 + 1=999). Stop there
Get their notion of what they believe in and treat that to scientific scrutiny and rational thought. Stop being on the defensive all the time.
Note that TruthID never, ever responded to requests for his definitions and actually shut up for a while until folk started feeding him again.
TruthID:
- In your own words, what does ID postulate? (i.e. do you understand what you cut and paste from ID sites)
- Present one testable, falsifiable hypothesis arising directly from ID. (i.e. you understand something about how science works)
- Present evidence supporting that hypothesis (i.e. some science has been done)
Still waiting.
Other Comments by 5keptical
1224. Comment #168539 by moderndaythomas on April 25, 2008 at 7:36 am
I'm sure TruthID knows and understands the scientific method as do theologens. The difference between science and religion is that science excercises this method and the religious fear it.
I ask for nothing short of a little spontaneous macro generation. Is this too taxing on your designer?
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
1225. Comment #168558 by raghu_mani on April 25, 2008 at 7:50 am
1222. Comment #168422 by seeker_of_truth
All four of my children were presented both evolutionary theory and ID theory as part of their overall science curriculum. Three of them score average to slightly above average in science but my 16 yr. old daughter has garnered the attention of the science department at her high-school. They tell me she is gifted beyond any student they have had in many years.
Antidotal, yes, but personally I know better than to ignore the dozens of factors pointing to low science scores and zero in on one just because it fits my personal bias. I'm not saying my kids score better as a result of being taught ID, but it did not seem to put them at a disadvantage.
Let me try and spell this out for you. Science has certain ground rules. People on this board have gone over them in some detail multiple times over. All that ID consists of is trying to poke holes in evolution and assuming that if they can successfully do that, ID becomes true. Sorry but science does not work that way. A theory has to be naturalistic, have predictive power and should be falsifiable - ID satisfies none of these requirements (BTW, none of the 'predictions' you listed count as predictions in the scientific sense of the word).
So you spend half the time teaching evolution and the other half trying to poke holes in it - and most of these 'holes' are either the sort of gaps that can be found in any science or outright lies. How is the average student going to benefit from that? As it is, there is precious little time being spent on biology in school. Of this time only a small fraction is spent on evolution. You propose halving this fraction and spending the remaining half on non-science. This not only dilutes the curriculum but confuses stiudents on what science is and how it works. Exceptionally bright students will get through but the average student's science education will be damaged.
I have a challenge for you - please name me one book on the science of ID that does not mention evolution or mentions it only in passing. I doubt if you will be able to find one - because if they don't take up space mentioning the 'shortcomings' of evolution, ID is reduced to three words - 'God did it'.
- RM
Other Comments by raghu_mani
1226. Comment #168562 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 7:53 am
All four of my children were presented both evolutionary theory and ID theory as part of their overall science curriculum.
I know of no ID theory. Perhaps you could describe it.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
1227. Comment #168568 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 7:57 am
Comment #168524 by 5kepticalThis thread should be preserved to illustrate the tactics of the IDiots and how not to deal with them.As should your post.
If you have a glance at the "Lying for Jesus" thread there is still an element of quarrel dialogue, but it is much calmer. The major reason as far as I can see is that we are tackling Remnant on his own turf, rather than letting him trample on ours.
He has been shown to be incapable of defending his own position (creationism of some kind) and is now at the stage of stamping his foot, issuing ad hominems and threatening people with eternal damnation.
But people are not responding, nor have they responded when he tried evasions, shifting the burden of proof or making dialogue shifts. When he does try to switch subjects people are bringing him back in line.
I am not sure what seeker_of_truth is doing here, but the debate FAQ that he pointed us to is an extremely good resource.
Other Comments by epeeist
1228. Comment #168574 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 8:05 am
1. Junk DNA - exists, therefore prediction incorrect
2. The eye - we have a blind spot, therefore prediction incorrect
3. vestigial organs? - Check. Therefore prediction incorrect
4. viruses and dangerous bacteria? - Ebola, lassa, E. coli, influenza, etc. Therefore prediction incorrect
5. Wasps - definitely exist, therefore prediction incorrect
Here is what my research of ID might respond with.
1. Junk DNA represents the remnants of less preferred adaptive character traits rendered ineffective through generational dominant-recessive dynamics as allowed within the limits of original design flexibility (e.g. micro-evolution).
2. Technically, the human eye has a blind spot. This only affects human function if using one eye only. Otherwise, the combination of two eyes eliminates any impairment to this 'effect.' ID might argue that the human leg also has an imbalance. Two legs compensate and design function appears to be two, not one, in both cases.
3. Vestigial 'organs,' more appropriately called structures, could have arrived at their degenerate/atrophied/rudimentary state through the mechanisms of micro-evolution and most likely do not represent the original state, just design.
4. Theological in nature?
5. From Wiki - Wasps are critically important in natural biocontrol. Almost every pest insect species has a wasp species that is a predator or parasite upon it. Parasitic wasps are also increasingly used in agricultural pest control as they have little impact on crops. Wasps also constitute an important part of the food chain.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1229. Comment #168577 by moderndaythomas on April 25, 2008 at 8:06 am
please name me one book on the science of ID that does not mention evolution or mentions it only in passing. I doubt if you will be able to find one - because if they don't take up space mentioning the 'shortcomings' of evolution, ID is reduced to three words - 'God did it'.
Well said, now how do I get out of this blockqoute?
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
1230. Comment #168581 by Quetzalcoatl on April 25, 2008 at 8:10 am
seeker_of_truth-
it's interesting that the subject of the eye has come up. Did you know that your eyes do not actually remain still, but "jiggle" very slightly from side to side. These are called "saccades", and they can sometimes have strange effects on our perception. Here is an excellent example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_suppression_of_image_displacement
The brain has to edit saccades out of our perception, so that we're not even aware that they are happening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccadic_masking
Point being, why would an Intelligent Designer create eyes with this problem?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
1231. Comment #168586 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 8:14 am
Seeker - how much do you know about the philosophy of science?To expand on Steve Zara's point. ID is not a theory because there is no evidence for it. At best it is a conjecture.
It is a pity that MPhil isn't here, since he does this better than me (the pitiful excuse of having to go to a wedding).
According to Kuhn theories have to be accurate, both internally consistent and with other related theories, broad in scope, simple and fruitful in its potential for other research programmes.
Popper would add testability and falsifiability to this.
Other Comments by epeeist
1232. Comment #168591 by 5keptical on April 25, 2008 at 8:18 am
Comment #168524 by 5keptical
This thread should be preserved to illustrate the tactics of the IDiots and how not to deal with them.
As should your post.
Just to clarify, are you agreeing with with my post, or are you saying it is another example of how not to deal with the IDiots? If the latter, why so?
Other Comments by 5keptical
1233. Comment #168598 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 8:24 am
Comment #168591 by 5kepticalJust to clarify, are you agreeing with with my post, or are you saying it is another example of how not to deal with the IDiots? If the latter, why so?If you look back (assuming you can bear it) you will find that I was essentially posing the same questions with the same result. So, not surprisingly I think your pushing the onus on to him is the right thing to do.
What seemed to happen here was that TTID managed to push some buttons and people began reacting. As a result he got all he wanted.
Tactically he played a blinder.
Other Comments by epeeist
1234. Comment #168603 by SpikeW on April 25, 2008 at 8:26 am
No intelligent designer could have designed Ben Stein.Other Comments by SpikeW
1235. Comment #168607 by al-rawandi on April 25, 2008 at 8:28 am
epeeist,
He deserved the comparison to a still born Chimpanzee.
We all know that.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
1236. Comment #168622 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 8:38 am
The micro/macro-evolution distinction violates the principle of parsimony.
If one concedes changes in gene frequency and phenotypic expression from one generation to the next...
And if one concedes that an accumulation of changes will occur with each new generation...
One must concede that at some point, a later generation will be sufficiently different from an earlier generation, such that it might not interbreed with it.
If someone denies that final conclusion, they must explain the mechanism that stops the accumulation of small changes from adding up to a large change.
If they can't explain that mechanism, they are positing an unknown without justification.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
1237. Comment #168628 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 8:41 am
Let me try and spell this out for you. Science has certain ground rules. People on this board have gone over them in some detail multiple times over. All that ID consists of is trying to poke holes in evolution and assuming that if they can successfully do that, ID becomes true. Sorry but science does not work that way.
From Wiki, Scientific method;
"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent."
Would you then limit this scrutiny/opposite consequence search to those who hold and support the same theory alone?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1238. Comment #168631 by Quetzalcoatl on April 25, 2008 at 8:44 am
Seeker-
what about my question in 1233?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
1239. Comment #168659 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 9:12 am
what about my question in 1233?
Patience, my friend. I'm working and was on break for 10 min. Nice day in So. California today, too.
it's interesting that the subject of the eye has come up. Did you know that your eyes do not actually remain still, but "jiggle" very slightly from side to side. These are called "saccades", and they can sometimes have strange effects on our perception. Here is an excellent example:
There are limits to ID's representation of original design flexibility. Even if the human race were universally blind at this point in history, it might not represent the original state at the point of design. Say an unstoppable plague took away our eyesight tomorrow; does this make our eyes of poor design today?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1240. Comment #168678 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 9:28 am
Comment #168628 by seeker_of_truthWould you then limit this scrutiny/opposite consequence search to those who hold and support the same theory alone?Let me try and give you an example. One of the things that is current in physics is string theory (I would personally question whether theory is the correct word to use here, but that is another matter). It has been the subject of criticism by, amongst other people Lee Smolin.
Are these criticisms worth paying attention to? My answer would be yes.
If I, as a former physicist working in quantum mechanics at the molecular level, made criticisms of string theory would my opinions be worth listening to. Almost certainly not.
So no, I certainly wouldn't limit the search for critical experiments on a theory to those working in the field. But I wouldn't put a lot of weight on the opinions of those who didn't have a good grounding in the subject.
Have a look at the list of Nobel prize winners (on the science side). Try a comparison of the numbers who got a prize for working in the then current paradigm and those who generated whole new paradigms.
Other Comments by epeeist
1241. Comment #168681 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 9:31 am
And if one concedes that an accumulation of changes will occur with each new generation...
One must concede that at some point, a later generation will be sufficiently different from an earlier generation, such that it might not interbreed with it.
If someone denies that final conclusion, they must explain the mechanism that stops the accumulation of small changes from adding up to a large change.
The best analogy I have heard is language. For instance, English has 26 letters and [for our purpose here we will limit each word to] 15 letters. If we multiply the combinations available without any other rules, we come up with a very large amount of available 'words.' If we consider functionality (i.e. logical expression within the combinations) our word pool is then cut to a fraction of its previous size. Almost all known mutations within genes are not functional in the sense of 'improved fitness' - what ID might compare to functionality within language. From my research the vast amount of mutations lead to disease, deformity, and reduced capacity to both survive and/or breed.
So ID concedes change but with defined limits.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1242. Comment #168687 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 9:36 am
seeker_of_truth: Would you then limit this scrutiny/opposite consequence search to those who hold and support the same theory alone?The words "hold and support the same theory alone" confuse me. Are you saying one must support contradictory theories at the same time? My brain has a problem with that.
All accepted scientific understanding is contingent upon future discoveries. If one day we discover fossils with the words, "MADE BY YAHWEH" inscribed upon them, we may favor some version of the intelligent design hypothesis.
At this point in time, ID is not science.
1. ID proponents have not demonstrated any evidence for their theory that has stood up to independent corroboration and peer review.
2. ID proponents have not formulated any hypotheses in a manner that might allow falsification.
3. ID proponents often posit something "supernatural," which violates logic.
4. Evolution is a more parsimonious explanation for the story of life on earth than ID. ID is like "evolution n'stuff" whereas evolution is just evolution.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
1243. Comment #168688 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 9:37 am
Comment #167939 by seeker_of_truthWould this be something like the liger or mule?
It is not just a hybrid (even though hybridisation is a perfectly good way of generating new species). It also has an increased chromosome number. The hybrid species was Spartina x townsendii.
If you want to classify new species combined with increased information combined with significant structural differences as macromutation, then this is a perfect example.
This is change beyond the limits specified by ID.
The problem with ID is it cannot be a theory, as irreducibility can never be demonstrated.
Today's "irreducible" is tommorrow's "Oh look, so THAT is how it arose".
The lesson of the past century in science is that human intuition is a very poor guide to reality. Irreducibility in biology is a human concept, so should be rejected out-of-hand.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
1244. Comment #168690 by moderndaythomas on April 25, 2008 at 9:41 am
Dr Benway.
This isn't how it works at all. The daughter generation will always be able to turn around and breed with the mother generation.
But the leading daughter generation will one day not be able to mix genes with the much earlier parent.
This is over many thousands of generations of course.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
1245. Comment #168694 by jac12358 on April 25, 2008 at 9:45 am
And for the record, gravity is one of the least understood things going. No one knows what it is. The two major theories of the physical world (being quantum theory and relativity) are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right. Yet, when each one deals with its own particular specialism (the very small for quantum theory and the not very small for relativity) both come up with predictions that are mind-bogglingly accurate. One analogy I heard for QM is that its accuracy is like predicting the distance from LA to New York to within the width of a human hair.
Gravity is far better understood today than by Newton. True, it is very elusive, but so is everything ehrn reduced to fundamental forces. Even electromagnetism is a bear, what with its photons "always" travelling the speed of light regardless of the viewer, and being both particles and waves.
Or, do we understand the what/how/where/when/why of the universe? In other words, is the universe easier to explain than gravity, and if not, does it not follow that anything within that universe, being part of it, is equally unknown? We know things only locally and in mundane practical terms. Describing a bouncing ball does not help explain the universe, but it is silly to conclude that the description of the bouncing ball is "incompatible" or "mutually exclusive" with describing the universe.
Likewise, quantum mechanics and relativity also describe the "local" phenomena they are observed to describe and predict. That a single theory is desired does not mean it is "out there" as anyone who has said the mantra "reality owes nothing to our hopes and assumptions." Sure, it would be nice, but would a carpenter bemoan the use of both a hammer and screwdriver imagining a more "perfect" tool that can do both jobs without being mutually exclusive?
Other Comments by jac12358
1246. Comment #168698 by Dr Benway on April 25, 2008 at 9:47 am
seeker_of_truth: The best analogy I have heard is language.Interesting. Languages have evolved into separate species over time.
QED.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
1247. Comment #168699 by moderndaythomas on April 25, 2008 at 9:49 am
One must concede that at some point, a later generation will be sufficiently different from an earlier generation, such that it might not interbreed with it.
Ah, I now see that what you were getting at was the same as I. My mistake.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
1248. Comment #168702 by Geodesic17 on April 25, 2008 at 9:49 am
Anyone that has the patience to do so, please study this debate:http://www.iun.edu/~anthronc/darwin2006.shtml
The only saving grace is that it happened off the beaten path in Gary, Indiana.
Note the constant appeals to pre-existing cultural beliefs such as a morality rooted in a Zoroastrian Cosmic Battle between Good and Evil. And the "There is no love with evolution" style of arguments.
Other Comments by Geodesic17
1249. Comment #168703 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 9:49 am
Comment #168690 by moderndaythomasThe daughter generation will always be able to turn around and breed with the mother generation.
Not always. As I have frequently posted here, new species can arise by mechanisms such as polyploidy in a single generation.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
1250. Comment #168705 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 9:52 am
Seeker - how much do you know about the philosophy of science?
I prefer to begin with these three;
1. Scientific discoveries are often considered in their adulthood when in fact, at later dates of additional discovery, it is revealed that those same earlier discoveries were in their infancy.
2. All theories begin with a predisposition as to the final results/proofs and the default position of man is to substantiate his ideas, not to refute them.
3. When it comes to the predispositions of this debate, religious ideology is a strong influence, therefore making bias a substantial obstacle.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
More Comments: First | Previous | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 | Next | Last
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Delos B. McKown
Other Recommended Reading
Genome
Matt Ridley
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1201. Comment #168196 by hopeful on April 24, 2008 at 5:45 pm
In case anyone was interested in that link I tried to post, here it is again:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
It's the blind watchmaker clip which everyone has probably seen anyway. Also this one is good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s
I must have messed up the URL somehow. Lucky I didn't accidentally send TruthID off to look at a porn video!
More importantly, great letter from Richard Dawkins. I hope this gets well publicised.
Other Comments by hopeful