Comment
Comment
re: #643 Hhar
It’s true in biological science circles. Can you bring yourself to admit that?
He’s respected as a publicist and writer, not as a scientist, aside from ssome early work. I know biologists who cringe at his ideas and approach. So no, I don’t think that it IS necessarily true.
Yet you claimed that Dawkins was no better than Behe. In some circles of course - intelligent design circles - that would be a respectable opinion. But it would leave the vast majority of scientists scratching their heads and looking at you all funny.
Really? How do you know that? You have taken a poll? Hyperbole aside, you may be right, but it is irrelevant: in my opinion, they are both intellectually dishonest cranks. I suggest David Stove: Darwinian Fairy Tales for an attack on Dawkins. Stove is (was: he’s dead now) neither an IDer nor creationist, but a lifelong, clear spoken agnostic: look it up. His biology is sometimes weak, but his criticisms of Dawkins are trenchant.
At any rate, I do not think Darwin was a liar, and if he was ever a hypocrit, that is just about irrelevant. But if we are going to pillory Behe for intellectual mendacity, and on that basis assert that he must therefore be a pathological liar about his personal beleifs (that’s one of the things I have been hearing) then we must hold science writers to the same standard. Dawkin’s idea of a meme is slipshod pseudoscience, in my opinion. The most ardent defender of memetics in this thread won’t even dare to classify it as science, and I agree with that much of what he says. By these standards, plus the fact that he’s a howling antitheist bigot (did you read his post Sept 11 column?) he’s a pathological liar too.
Now, if he is widely respected, then either a) it is unfair to characterise all those biologists as respecting a pathiological liar or b) it is unfair to dawkins to classify him as a pathological liar simply because he’s an intellectually dishonest bigot. I favor B. But then apply those criterioa to Behe. Behe is sloppy, intellectually dishonest, hypocritical blah blah blah, all that stuff, no argument from me. That doesn’t make him a pathological liar: it makes him wrong.
I find it funny that because I am saying this, a number of people seem to have gotten the impression that I’m an ID supporter. I am definitely going to have to keep this up.
First, David Stove accepted evolutionary theory; he just didn’t think that natural selection applied to humans any more, due to human social support networks (memes overriding genes, although he didn’t express it that way). Memetic evolution is indeed much faster; we weren’t able to progress from knapping spear points to nuclear fusion, moon travel and computers in 40,000 years merely because of some genetically based instinctual exigency. We were able to do it because, with the advent of communication, we were able to accumulate and aggegate knowledge through generations, rather than have it die with its discoverers.
As to Dawkins’ supposedly anti-theist post 9-11 column, it is here:
Other notable folks, such as the anthropologist Lionel Tiger, published essays at the same time and in the same newspaperlargely agreeing with him:
