I was disappointed at how little I disagreed with Dawkins. My first skimming thought that I’d write “rhetoric” under the first six paragraphs, but it isn’t really all that bad. I fear only that, because I agree with Dawkins on so many of his points, I don’t support the points that a non-scientist might find controversial. Basically everything I’ve left uncontested, though, is really solid. Generally, I find that the most difficult thing about talking with evolutionary biologists is that they get so defensive about being right about evolution that they just spout rhetoric and talking points. They won’t listen to a rational believer in God, and so it is very difficult to talk to them at all. And they are unyielding in insisting that their way must be accepted 100% or the opposing party be cast off. The problem is that they demand acceptance of something that resembles a bill in Congress – one core issue up for debate, and then a whole bunch of little pork projects on the side that cater to individual parties and often have little substance, usefulness, or relevance other than to the solely self-interested party. I wish it wasn’t this way, but, honestly, my experience has been that the vast majority (I would say 80% is a low estimate) of evolutionary biologists are extremely combative about this sort of thing. It is a shame, because with a little concession on their part, they could end the evolution in schools debate once and for all.
Before 1859 it would
I’m not sure evolution is the greatest show in the universe. But it’s a good one. And, I don’t know why God’s greatest work couldn’t be the creation of life, and why evolution couldn’t be the universe’s greatest work. I’m not sure that they’re mutually exclusive, although there are some boundary issues there to iron out if one wanted to make the argument black and white.
Indeed, evolution is probably
Aside from appealing to the hubris of man, this paragraph has little by way of content. Sure, most scientists believe life evolved somewhere out there, and that if it did it would probably be subject to natural selection. I fail to see the relevance to this context. Aside from saying evolution is great.
What is so special
Okay.
The laws of physics,
Evolution puts on a great show.
Never once are the
So, he actually isn’t correct. We don’t know anything certainly at all about how life was generated, and anyone who ever tries to tell you otherwise is: a) from the future; b) a shortsighted scientist who should publish the work and sit back ready for the Nobel Prize to be awarded; or c) someone who is spouting talking points and is more interested in sounding smart than in being right. Not even kidding we just don’t know how life got started, and I think it’s one reason that the evolutionary biologists (a group I consider myself a part of) that are so combative (~95% of evolutionary biologists, of which I do not consider myself a part) is because they aren’t safe on this point. Which is what gets them into trouble. We don’t know how life got started, and we would life to know.
What we are almost certain of is that once life got started, Darwinian evolution ruled the day. I am aware of no empirical evidence that is not consistent with the current theory of Darwinian evolution, which has not fundamentally changed since its inception by Darwin himself. Much more academic men have articulated some stunning insights, but fundamentally, it is just as Dawkins says, the nonrandom survival of randomly varying coded information.
A word about theories. One of the best ways to get a scientist to think you are not a clever person is to tell them, “Well, that’s just a theory. Don’t know that the word theory means you don’t know.” A short lesson in scientific inquiry: you don’t “prove” things in science. You only: a) disprove- ; or b) describe findings that are consistent with – a given hypothesis. For example, the “law of gravity” is not a standalone scientific law; it is a part of “Gravitational Theory”. One law of gravitational theory is the law of gravity. But if gravitational theory changed, the law of gravity could change along with it (or, other parts might change and that particular law would remain). The point is, theories are only things that people haven’t disproved yet. And when they do we’ll make new ones. If you have more questions about this, please contact me individually and we’ll discuss it more.
What if the greatest show
This is an interesting argument that I can’t entirely say I disagree with, aside from a few points. I am in no way aware of a definition of God that says, “must have created the universe.” Also, what if the God did create it after coming from a universe. The question of where it all began is not one that I have any idea where to begin, and I will discuss it no farther, other than to say, that for those two reasons, Dawkins does not mutually exclude his arguments from that of a possible God. Whether he’s right that it must necessarily emerge by gradual degrees from simpler beginnings. Given an infinitely large universe over an infinitely long amount of time with an infinitely large number of resources (those things might not be realistic things to give myself, but hey – I’m going for the gusto) I’m willing to say anything could have happened.
To midwife such emergence
First, yes, yes, yes. Second, if a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was to talk to Dawkins about God – a God, who we believe epitomizes among other things perfect obedience to law – he would by his definition above be obliged to acknowledge that our God is legitimate. Nice. I should build this into post #3, but I will say here that the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teach that we worship a being who is not magical, and that He never violates natural law.
Where does that leave
Actually, think about the scientist, who, in the lab, does what we believe God did: create life. Would that scientist, once he simulated the conditions to create life, and life was created, leave it at his bench, saying, “I’ve now created life. I have no reason to live anymore?” Dawkins just spent six paragraphs talking about how great a show evolution is. Maybe the creator could call His work good, and rest from his labors for a season.
Beyond that I have no idea what the divine designer is necessarily less complex than the entities he was wheeled out to explain, or how, Dawkins has shown that God was never alive in the first place. He can say it, but hasn’t given that any backing.
Now, there is a certain
That would not be me.
Well, if that's what
I don’t know how the congregation of a church or mosque would respond. It sounds pretty atheistic to me, too, I guess.
All in all, if I had to pick one of the two, I prefer Dawkins. I agree that Armstrong is probably an atheist in Christians’ clothing. And, honestly, I think that the basis for Dawkins’ arguments is fairly fundamentally sound, except for when he starts lying.
Next installment: how the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints bring the two together. Without speculating. At the beginning I’ll disclaim that this church has no official position on the evolution subject; but even without going into muddy waters along those lines, I’m pretty sure I can reconcile these two arguments into a compelling presentation of truth. Truth be told, given the way I’ve set it up, most members of my church could tell you exactly where I’m going.
No comments:
Post a Comment