Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

[SFG75]

LOL-the "clearer" version is a scream, glad to hear such a good piece.

As for the "real" version, Haggard proves he knows nothing.

Let's examine the arguments shall we?

(1)Age of the earth
He(Haggard) begins by disputing the age of the earth. Dawkins interrupted him politely and asked him a question, upon which, Haggard stated that Dawkins, in believing the earth is 4.5 billion years old, only believes what "some"(indirectly implying that not every major scientist believes likewise, a patent falsehood)

he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.

A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

2.)The "eye" formed by itself-evolutionists said so.-Haggard statement

Dawkins then said Haggard knows nothing-Haggard provided no evidence, but then whined about arrogance.

Haggard's argument is the "argument of incredulity" and is easily refuted.
This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

Sorry Whats, in answering in such a ridiculous fashion, Haggard invited such a response by giving such an absurd and flat out wrong point of attack.

 

[whats a book?]

i never said evolution was factually inaccurate. this is not under debate. thanks for posting that long response, though. how does haggard's argument about evolution warrant comparisons to the nuremberg rallies?

 

[SFG75]

i never said evolution was factually inaccurate. this is not under debate. thanks for posting that long response, though. how does haggard's argument about evolution warrant comparisons to the nuremberg rallies?

The large crowd, a fawning audience, glowing lights, it seems like an apt comparison really.

The Nuremburg comment wasn't as insulting as Haggard trying to tell Dawkins about what "some" scientists think. It would be like you or I trying to tell a brain surgeon about surgery.

 

[SFG75]

*sighs*

O.K., look-Dawkins was straght forward with Haggard, but do you not admit that the man was talking absolute nonsense? Serously, to state that "some" scientists think the earth is 4.5 billion years old, implies that the majority of scientists don't believe that. Now I'll grant you that you can give or take a few years(even a few thousand or million, that's still a moot point really) however, it is patently false and absurd for Haggard that he's going to tell a scientist about science. I suppose that every opinion, no matter how absurd, is required to be heard out in respectful silence? Dawkins is combative, but I hardly doubt that in this instance, he was out of line.

 

[beer good]

it's possible to be right without condescendingly talking about religiousity as deception.

True, true. But when Haggard (or any other creationist) claims that "some evolutionists" say evolution just "happens by accident" or implies that the earth's age is up for debate, meanwhile claiming that he or she "fully embrace(s) the scientific method", he IS being deceptive. Possibly out of ignorance rather than malice, let's give him the benefit of a doubt, but still, it's just as deceptive as if I were to state that the world's aerospace engineers are deeply divided on the issue of whether aeroplanes can really fly on their own. They're simply not. Dawkins is perfectly right to call him on not knowing what he's talking about here.

 

[whats a book?]

ok, i'll concede that point. i'm not supporting haggard, btw. i think he's a douche of the highest order. however, dawkins is part of the reason why we've got a smug atheist stereotype, which remains in large part a fairly true stereotype. i don't think it's an effective way of getting people on your side.

 

[beer good]

ok, i'll concede that point. i'm not supporting haggard, btw. i think he's a douche of the highest order. however, dawkins is part of the reason why we've got a smug atheist stereotype, which remains in large part a fairly true stereotype. i don't think it's an effective way of getting people on your side.

I think we can agree there. Dawkins makes good points, but he seems to have forgotten about the old saying about honey catching more flies than vinegar, and it would appear to me that some of his more polarizing arguments add to the conflict rather than solving it. (Though I'll keep the "seems" and "appear" in that sentence until I've actually read one of Dawkins' books and not just watched him on TV.)

 

[SFG75]

What are the chances? I logged on and found E.J. Dionne Jr.'s editorial Answers to Atheists which features our good humble friend Dawkins.

To me, Dawkins and Sam Harris are correct about "moderates" serving as a convenient decoy in allowing the radicals and nutjobs a free pass. In having to *accept* and *silently nod* about every belief uncritically, those who bomb airplanes, drive them into buildings, let alone stone unbelievers, are allowed to walk. On top of that, when in any dealing in public life, have you been expected to just accept something? You wouldn't do that with credit card or mortgage offers. You don't do that with candidates or with political parties. But somehow, silent reverence for others is supposed to be the norm, lest you be rude.

 

[whats a book?]

having to *accept* and *silently nod* about every belief uncritically[...] lest you be rude.

i reject that dichotomy

 

[SFG75]

i reject that dichotomy

Very well, now what do you think of the book?

 

[whats a book?]

i'm not finished yet, but so far the science is pretty tight

 

[SFG75]

Visited the Huffington Post and found a recent interview of Dawkins and a Bishop Harries.

Dawkins-Bishop Harries discussion.

 

[ylris611203]

The God Delusion is just out in paperback so I've bought a copy to see what all the fuss is about, much like the 'Da Vinci Code'.

The question I would like answered is 'why would an atheist want to write a book disproving the existence of something that he knows does not exist anyway'.

 

[SFG75]

The God Delusion is just out in paperback so I've bought a copy to see what all the fuss is about, much like the 'Da Vinci Code'.

The question I would like answered is 'why would an atheist want to write a book disproving the existence of something that he knows does not exist anyway'.

Well, be sure to grab that paperback and join in on the June book of the month discussion, which is The God Delusion!. I already have it dusted off and will do some re-reading again later tonight for preparation.


To answer your question, I think that Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others care passionately about science. They see what is in their eyes, a sham interpretation with no evidence being taken at face value when in fact, it should be inspected scientifically. I would imagine that when they view the opening of a creation science museum in Kentucky, that such an event is an affront to honesty and true scientific research in academia. Just a thought.

 

[libris]

The God Delusion is just out in paperback so I've bought a copy to see what all the fuss is about, much like the 'Da Vinci Code'.

The question I would like answered is 'why would an atheist want to write a book disproving the existence of something that he knows does not exist anyway'.

While I cannot speak to his motivation, I know that many scientists feel assaulted by the growing faith in "pseudoscience" and growing evangelism among Americans. As an evolutionary biologist myself, I find these statistics very worrisome: cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

I am deeply happy that science is not built on public opinion. It is painful to see such a beautiful and useful principle such as evolution be rejected out of hand by the masses simply because it does not comply with a mythological history set down a book thousands of years ago. The bible contradicts and departs from conventional and accepted science itself in many places. No one argues that the solar system is geocentric, so why should evolution be so challenged?

 

[text_maniac]

No one argues that the solar system is geocentric

It took the vatican 400 years to admit that Gallileo was right, so I don't suppose there's much point in expecting them to concede to Darwin any time soon.

 

[beer good]

It took the vatican 400 years to admit that Gallileo was right, so I don't suppose there's much point in expecting them to concede to Darwin any time soon.

Actually, Rome has mostly stayed out of the evolution debate, and John Paul II went on record accepting it, so the Vatican isn't really the issue. (Link.) Today, it seems to me this whole kerfuffle is mostly (though in no way completely) an American affair.

(And to be completely fair to the Vatican, it didn't take them 400 years to acquit Galileo of heresy. Only 360.)

 

[SFG75]

I agree beer, the whole creation science thing is stronger in America than it is over on your side of the pond. Though there is a cancer growing in your education world as a creationist world view religious school with rave reviews has set up shop. Poor kids, talk about an agenda.

I've had kids argue about the age of the earth and even plate tectonics. How the latter is some Darwinian plot, I don't know. I utilize the Talk origins site a lot, a few have even come to see the error of their ways as a result.

 

[beer good]

I agree beer, the whole creation science thing is stronger in America than it is over on your side of the pond. Though there is a cancer growing in your education world as a creationist world view religious school with rave reviews has set up shop. Poor kids, talk about an agenda.

I've had kids argue about the age of the earth and even plate tectonics. How the latter is some Darwinian plot, I don't know. I utilize the Talk origins site a lot, a few have even come to see the error of their ways as a result.

That's not quite my education world, though I believe we have one or two private schools like that here too. Usually they get smacked down by the ministry for education after a semester or so.

It's interesting how many who argue the subject seem VERY unclear of just what Darwin wrote about, isn't it? Tectonic plates, Big Bang, quantum physics... pretty much everything that's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible can be blamed on the poor biologist, apparently.

I still say this is one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time.

 

[ylris611203]

Judging from the posts I've read, The God Delusion seems to be an argument against religion rather than against God. Since it is not possible to prove God's existence either way, isn’t 'The God Delusion' just another 'Da Vinci Code'?