Dawkins on Evolution

[JSt0rm]

You guys should check that link. 0 is the number

 

[shira]

If you were to ask a cosmologist what happened before the big bang they'd probably ask you what religion you believe in as the answer to that question is unknown to scientists beyond a certain point. That was a nice dodge to a probing question.

It was a meaningless question, since the it pre-supposed the existence of a state "before" the big bang.

It's postulated that the big bang created space and time. Therefore, no big bang => no time and no "before."

 

[Lizardman]

You guys who are arguing about Collins and what Dawkins thinks of him should check out this video. Its Dawkins on the Bill Mahr show last year.

He talks about it about the 3 min mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRp...AC4C68CB1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

 

[fskimospy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eskimospy
He actually answers that question in his books, at least as well as it can be answered. Fundamentally he says that while the state of the universe before the big bang is currently unknowable (and may never be knowable), you can still make probability judgments as to how things came to be. You really only have two choices: the eternity of matter as we know it, or some sort of creator. Since a living, thinking sky beardo is hugely more complex than a ball of matter, that god is much less likely to be the cause.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

It sounds reasonable to you because it just reaffirms what you already believe. To believe that science and how we interpret the world/universe shall forever remain static is beyond foolhardy just as much as putting your faith on the interpretation of the work of current scientists and that somehow they won't be revised or proven wrong.

Uhmm.... no.

No one anywhere made the claim that science and how we interpret the universe would remain static. That would indeed be foolhardy, which is probably why nobody ever said it. In fact if anyone believes that our interpretation of the universe will remain static, it is those who are religious, as I can't say I've ever seen an asterisk anywhere in the bible that reserves the right to change your mind to god not creating the universe.

If you can think of a third option besides the eternity of matter or the eternity of god, I would love to hear it. Until that point I'll go with the best available knowledge I have. I'm sorry if this makes you feel uncomfortable about your faith, but from a probability standpoint god is far less likely than god-not.

Regardless of if you agree with Dawkins on the issue or not, his argument (as I stated) is certainly reasonable. It doesn't rely on any unreasonable assumptions nor does it jump to any unreasonable conclusions. If you have identified some that you consider such, please let me know what they are.

 

[BeauJangles]

or not...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

A universe from nothing. Amazing.

Thank you for the video, it's fascinating when some of these brilliant men can explain what they've discovered in layman's terms.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You guys who are arguing about Collins and what Dawkins thinks of him should check out this video. Its Dawkins on the Bill Mahr show last year.

He talks about it about the 3 min mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRp...AC4C68CB1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=9

Nothing surprising there.

 

[Sclamoz]

Nothing surprising there.

Seriously....because if Maher is right and Collins believes in a literal interpretation of genesis then he is a fool and Dawkins has every right to look down at him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gHVQdlNaBo&feature=related#t=1m45s

Wow.

 

[JSt0rm]

Thank you for the video, it's fascinating when some of these brilliant men can explain what they've discovered in layman's terms.

Thanks. amazing none of the "believers" that are debating this topic have either watched this video or commented on it. It like people don't want to see.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Nothing surprising there.

I'm sorry but Dawkins is correct yet again, the more you look into what Collins actually says, the more you realise that this man is NOT a man of ANY science.

He believes that there are evidence that need not be proven because they cannot be proven.

That's not how science works and anyone who believes that is per definition a kook, not a scientist.

 

[BeauJangles]

Thanks. amazing none of the "believers" that are debating this topic have either watched this video or commented on it. It like people don't want to see.

Yes. In the video, I particularly enjoyed the end when he speculated on cosmologists in the future and how, despite being likely to discover evolution, physical laws, etc that are the same as our own, they will reach drastically different conclusions about the universe simply because all traces of the Big Bang will have disappeared.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sorry but Dawkins is correct yet again, the more you look into what Collins actually says, the more you realise that this man is NOT a man of ANY science.

He believes that there are evidence that need not be proven because they cannot be proven.

That's not how science works and anyone who believes that is per definition a kook, not a scientist.

Per your definition. If you knew your Godel you'd know there are truths you cannot prove. Regardless of your opinion you won't find anyone in his field who says he can't do science.

He is doing his job quite well by all accounts.

All you need do is refute the body of his work. Refute the science he's done.

You always go back to things unrelated with his work simply because you can't fault him for what he's done.

Whatever. The science community knows that worth is judged by performance. They really don't care about Dawkins. Sucks for him.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It was a meaningless question, since the it pre-supposed the existence of a state "before" the big bang.

It's postulated that the big bang created space and time. Therefore, no big bang => no time and no "before."

It may be sensible to talk about things existing "before" the big bang, even if "before" is not the best preposition to describe it's "position" relative to the big bang singularity. In other words, our language may lack a suitably accurate prepositional sense, but that doesn't mean that something isn't there to talk about. It is even conceivable that there was a "proto-time" that described changes "before" the BB singularity.

In contrast, however, it *IS* nonsensical to talk about things "before the universe." My favorite analogy is that of terrestrial latitude: "before the universe" is like "north of 90 degrees N latitude."

 

[jonks]

The science community knows that worth is judged by performance. They really don't care about Dawkins. Sucks for him.

?

He was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, and the University of Antwerp, and honorary doctorates from the Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the University of Valencia.[122][123] He holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society. In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode entitled The Blind Watchmaker. Asteroid 8331 Dawkins is named after Dawkins. His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009). In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006 and the Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year Award for 2007.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Per your definition. If you knew your Godel you'd know there are truths you cannot prove.

I do not know to which evidences John is referring, but I don't really see how Godel's Incompleteness theorem can come to bear against John's claim. Godel Incompleteness pretains to formal systems, and particularly those sufficiently complex to model basic arithmetic. I took John's claim to mean that Collins claims certain empirical hypotheses are to be regarded as true despite their lack of verifiability or falsifiability, which has nothing whatsoever to do with formal systems.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding John's representation of Collins' position, and as I said before, I'm totally ignorant of exactly which propositions John is describing Collins to have endorsed as true but "unprovable."

As an aside, I strongly dislike when the word "proof" and it's permutations get tossed about in describing scientific facts and hypotheses. It may even be responsible for this very misunderstanding.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I do not know to which evidences John is referring, but I don't really see how Godel's Incompleteness theorem can come to bear against John's claim. Godel Incompleteness pretains to formal systems, and particularly those sufficiently complex to model basic arithmetic. I took John's claim to mean that Collins claims certain empirical hypotheses are to be regarded as true despite their lack of verifiability or falsifiability, which has nothing whatsoever to do with formal systems.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding John's representation of Collins' position, and as I said before, I'm totally ignorant of exactly which propositions John is describing Collins to have endorsed as true but "unprovable."

As an aside, I strongly dislike when the word "proof" and it's permutations get tossed about in describing scientific facts and hypotheses. It may even be responsible for this very misunderstanding.

Evidently he has a litmus test as to who can be a scientist. Collins research, his job if you will, is science (although as head of the NIH he no doubt does more administrative work). When his work is critiqued there's never been a concern that its been contaminated by his book if that's how one wishes to view things.

At this point he might as well accuse the Curies as frauds.

The work done is either science or its not and you know full well he can't fault him on that. That leaves running around beating ones chest because its so unfair.

You aren't so emotionally involved as some others. Through the ages people have done good work and had faiths or beliefs which are in principle. I'm waiting for someone to round up the villgers to burn them as heretics. Ironic.

 

[Sclamoz]

Evidently he has a litmus test as to who can be a scientist. Collins research, his job if you will, is science (although as head of the NIH he no doubt does more administrative work). When his work is critiqued there's never been a concern that its been contaminated by his book if that's how one wishes to view things.

At this point he might as well accuse the Curies as frauds.

The work done is either science or its not and you know full well he can't fault him on that. That leaves running around beating ones chest because its so unfair.

You aren't so emotionally involved as some others. Through the ages people have done good work and had faiths or beliefs which are in principle. I'm waiting for someone to round up the villgers to burn them as heretics. Ironic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSmtao57MDw&feature=related

The reason people are concerned about Collins is because his personal views run contrary to his professional work.

For instance stating that if science conflicts w/ the bible then science has made a mistake.

Or stating he doesn't see how science can disprove the resurrection because he finds the stories of it so compelling.

If you had actually bothered to watch the videos I linked to you would seen Dawkins and friends discuss this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-NTHebMzw&feature=related#t=44s

Oh yes, the big meanie Dawkins calls Collins a "very sophisticated biologist and a brilliant expositor of evolution." What a pompus ass!

 

[Atheus]

Fun fact: Some 10 million people have died at the hands of professing Christians over the last 2000 years.
Over the last 100 years, over 100 million have died at the hands of professing Atheists.
Now who is burning who here?

I just wanted to congratulate you on one of the most ridiculous statistics I have ever heard. Not just becasue its so easily shown to be completely wrong but the very idea that an estimation covering 2000 years can be considered a 'fact' is hilarious in itself.

I mean if you count all the people dying of AIDS in Africa every year due to the church's campaign against condoms, you'll get to 10 million without even going back a decade, not to mention George Bush and Tony Blair in the same decade.

 

[Atheus]

I do not know to which evidences John is referring, but I don't really see how Godel's Incompleteness theorem can come to bear against John's claim. Godel Incompleteness pretains to formal systems, and particularly those sufficiently complex to model basic arithmetic. I took John's claim to mean that Collins claims certain empirical hypotheses are to be regarded as true despite their lack of verifiability or falsifiability, which has nothing whatsoever to do with formal systems.

math-pwned

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSmtao57MDw&feature=related

The reason people are concerned about Collins is because his personal views run contrary to his professional work.

For instance stating that if science conflicts w/ the bible then science has made a mistake.

Or stating he doesn't see how science can disprove the resurrection because he finds the stories of it so compelling.

If you had actually bothered to watch the videos I linked to you would seen Dawkins and friends discuss this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3-NTHebMzw&feature=related#t=44s

Oh yes, the big meanie Dawkins calls Collins a "very sophisticated biologist and a brilliant expositor of evolution." What a pompus ass!

Watching 2 hours of Dawkins requires more fortitude than I have at the moment.

I don't happen to agree with Collin's views regarding religion. I'm more concerned that he does what he's supposed to do. If you can cite an instance where he's not done that in his work, please correct me. I certainly don't know anyone in the field that has concerns that Dawkins does.

I had a few minutes to listen to Collins who oddly enough hasn't been guilty of picking the Bible over demonstrated science. The question about the Resurrection was a hypothetical. I can ask the opposite question. What if there was undeniable evidence that Christ arose from the dead after three days? Would you automatically accept that? I bet you'd be examining every scrap of data before changing your mind.

Now suppose that he believes in the Resurrection and you don't. The question becomes: What has that done to discredit his work? Nada. James Clerk Maxwell was a Christian. There goes his credibility.

Now as far as Godel goes, there was something known as the Principia Mathematica, which was an attempt to "complete" mathematics. Godel threw a big wrench to that, and those who insisted that we can derive all truths (and if you want to limit it to mathematics that's fine). Whitehead had a fit.

The point is that what we can know is finite. We cannot and never will know everything. You aren't going to understand everything about humans, because we'd have to be more than human to do so. That assumes of course that a Turing machine can in theory duplicate the human mind. If you are Penrose, you don't buy it. If you fall into the camp of many AI scientists, you might say it is. Kleene demonstrated a proof of Godels theorems using computation theory.

In other words, a finite computational machine cannot be complete in itself. We aren't all that.

 

[Sclamoz]

Watching 2 hours of Dawkins requires more fortitude than I have at the moment.

I don't happen to agree with Collin's views regarding religion. I'm more concerned that he does what he's supposed to do. If you can cite an instance where he's not done that in his work, please correct me. I certainly don't know anyone in the field that has concerns that Dawkins does.

The concern Dawkins has as far as I know is that his personal views contradict his scientific work. Cognitive dissonance in other words. Normally, like you I wouldn't really care and I would think it would be none of his business BUT he has written books on his faith, gone on TV and even debated Dawkins in the past. That pretty much opens the floodgates to criticism as far I am concerned. You certainly haven't kept your personal feelings for Dawkins to yourself.

I had a few minutes to listen to Collins who oddly enough hasn't been guilty of picking the Bible over demonstrated science. The question about the Resurrection was a hypothetical. I can ask the opposite question. What if there was undeniable evidence that Christ arose from the dead after three days? Would you automatically accept that? I bet you'd be examining every scrap of data before changing your mind.

No, he hasn't done it yet (as far as I know) but he said outright if science conflicted w/ his religion then he would assume that there was something wrong. I don't think compare outcome to religious belief is a step of the scientific method.

But yes I would examine the available data to come to a decision. Like I did when I decided agnosticism was the correct choice for me.

Now suppose that he believes in the Resurrection and you don't. The question becomes: What has that done to discredit his work? Nada. James Clerk Maxwell was a Christian. There goes his credibility.

I agree, his work hasn't been discredited. I pretty much stated that previously. I also quoted Dawkins for your benefit where he spoke well of Collins as a scientist.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Uh, haven't met any of those Christians. Consistent Christians (ie consistent with the views Jesus taught) are some of the most loving, caring people I've met. To claim all Christians want to burn people at the stake, because you have seen several that did, is just a little biased. But this is Moonbeam, of course.

Fun fact: Some 10 million people have died at the hands of professing Christians over the last 2000 years.
Over the last 100 years, over 100 million have died at the hands of professing Atheists.
Now who is burning who here?

If you want to talk about brutality, a Muslim who converts to another religion is subject to death. I would be far more afraid of them than any Christians. But that's just me.

huh? Hitler was not an atheist, by all accounts, he was a devout Christian, although not a Catholic nor a Protestant. He frequently expoused a belief in a higher Creator, one that has ordained him to do his work. This belief was not just echoed in speeches but also in his personal writings, meant to viewed by only his closest confidants. I don't know how Hitler = atheist meme got started, but it flies in the face of historical fact.

Now Stalin was a devout atheist, so you can count that towards the ticker if you want.

On the whole, religion in general has been responsible for more human suffering than
atheism. Likewise, religion, in general, has been responsible for more good than atheism. So take that as you will.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The point is that what we can know is finite. We cannot and never will know everything.

Sorry to be so nitpicky, but "will never know everything" is not equivalent to "the potential for human knowledge is finite." The potential for human knowledge is conceivably (and likely, IMHO) infinite, with the totality of potential knowledge being more largely infinite.

You aren't going to understand everything about humans, because we'd have to be more than human to do so. That assumes of course that a Turing machine can in theory duplicate the human mind. If you are Penrose, you don't buy it. If you fall into the camp of many AI scientists, you might say it is. Kleene demonstrated a proof of Godels theorems using computation theory.

In other words, a finite computational machine cannot be complete in itself. We aren't all that.

I would say that there is demonstrably no simultaneously complete and consistent formal system which underlies human understanding.

 

[Hacp]

?

He was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University, the University of Hull, and the University of Antwerp, and honorary doctorates from the Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the University of Valencia.[122][123] He holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001. He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society. In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year, for the BBC Horizon episode entitled The Blind Watchmaker. Asteroid 8331 Dawkins is named after Dawkins. His other awards have included the Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009). In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him its Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge". He won the Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science for 2006 and the Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year Award for 2007.

I think he means scientific research achievements.

 

[Zorkorist]

huh? Hitler was not an atheist, by all accounts, he was a devout Christian, although not a Catholic nor a Protestant. He frequently expoused a belief in a higher Creator, one that has ordained him to do his work. This belief was not just echoed in speeches but also in his personal writings, meant to viewed by only his closest confidants. I don't know how Hitler = atheist meme got started, but it flies in the face of historical fact.

Now Stalin was a devout atheist, so you can count that towards the ticker if you want.

On the whole, religion in general has been responsible for more human suffering than
atheism. Likewise, religion, in general, has been responsible for more good than atheism. So take that as you will.

Good post.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The concern Dawkins has as far as I know is that his personal views contradict his scientific work. Cognitive dissonance in other words. Normally, like you I wouldn't really care and I would think it would be none of his business BUT he has written books on his faith, gone on TV and even debated Dawkins in the past. That pretty much opens the floodgates to criticism as far I am concerned. You certainly haven't kept your personal feelings for Dawkins to yourself.




No, he hasn't done it yet (as far as I know) but he said outright if science conflicted w/ his religion then he would assume that there was something wrong. I don't think compare outcome to religious belief is a step of the scientific method.

But yes I would examine the available data to come to a decision. Like I did when I decided agnosticism was the correct choice for me.



I agree, his work hasn't been discredited. I pretty much stated that previously. I also quoted Dawkins for your benefit where he spoke well of Collins as a scientist.

If Dawkins expressed his concerns and left it at that, then I wouldn't have a problem. Perhaps my distaste for him is that Dawkins has more or less set himself up as an arbiter of who is qualified and built a career as preaching to the choir.

Well, it's a living I suppose.

Anyway, back to sleep for me. This thread has been done to death.