“Historydeniers!”; “40percenters!” [1]; those are the Ad Hominem Abusives of the new Dawkins battlefront: history as Richard Dawkins decrees it is not to be denied. To deny evolution is unconscionable: evolution is fact and is the backbone of biology which is the foundation of science and all truth in the universe. Maybe all the universes. Maybe it’s even more true than that. It certainly is in Dawkins’ universe.
Comparing the “fact” of evolution to the fact of the size of the moon being smaller than the earth, Dawkins clearly goes out of his way to obscure the difference between measurable facts vs. non-measured inferences, experimental data vs. conjecture. Or perhaps he truly doesn’t know the difference, being a life-long evolutionary proponent who has never been forced to be subject to actual experimental proofs of his proclaimed scientific “facts”. He does admit that all the evidence for evolution is inferential, and he makes the standard claim that mountains of such conjecture make it fact.
But that is not true. It fails the basic tests of logic. Let’s run some tests:
First, Dawkins seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact. First Principle #1 (identity or tautology) states that “If it is true, then it is true” . This is not the same as “If I declare it true, then it is true” . False tautology: Logic failure #1.
Next let’s try First Principle #2, which states that “a proposition cannot be both true and false”. Now, without experimental verification can we know if a principle is true or false, fact or fallacy? The Atheist / Materialist / Empiricist viewpoint is that evidence of a material nature is required in order to believe a thing. The evidence offered for evolution is inference: conjecture. This is not physical, material evidence, it is non-physical, non-material; moreover it smacks of being religious, a belief without empirical, experimental, substantive, material evidence. Dinosaurs? DNA? Do inferred relationships prove descent? Or are they conjecture? Clearly the latter.
The inference / speculation issue is one that Dawkins cannot dodge and cannot win, straight on. It violates the concept that science is the search for “what is” by inserting extrapolative speculation as a substitute for experimental data. It contradicts the concept of science itself. It fails the Non-Contradiction Principle hands down. Logic failure #2.
The third First Principle states that a “thing cannot be partly true and partly false”. Dawkins violates this by stating that evolution is true, when evolution is hardly even defined properly at this late date. We don’t need to understand mechanisms to know that it happened – is his response (elsewhere). Thus evolution is commonly compared to gravity, which we know exists without knowing the mechanism. But this is a false comparison; we can experimentally measure gravity but we cannot produce any experiments that even produce evolution much less measure it. So evolution falls back again onto “mountains of inference”, ie. conjecture, as its source of truth. Is evolution completely true? No one really knows other than accepting the religious stance that sufficient conjecture proves the case. So the third First Principle is an unknown and possibly unknowable source of validation or invalidation for evolution.
The only case made by Dawkins is the assertion of the sufficiency of inference and conjecture. He ignores the probabilistic issues surrounding evolution, especially the issues of first life: an existence philosophy limited to material causes requires a material cause for first life, an occurrence attributed to magical, fortuitous, undefined replicators in Dawkins’ earlier works. Also ignored is the problem of too-rapid evolution in the Cambrian period, a problem requiring special convolutions in speculatory inferences.
Dawkins’ real case is contained in his adjectives. He claims straight out that evolution is believed by “reputable” scientists, and “unbiased” readers of his book. If you disagree, you are designated a dreaded “historydenier” status, or the new pejorative, “40Percenter”. These Ad Hominem Abusives, hurled from an agenda-driven position of logical weakness, are a specialty of the Atheist Left, of which Dawkins is a prime example. If you cannot convince with logic, then first ridicule and second go for legal restrictions on non-congruent thought, such as removing children from homes of “historydeniers”, who Dawkins has previously declared are child abusers.
Dawkins does not use logic to seal his argument. He uses the religious credentials of "sufficient inference" coupled with ridicule and defamation of dissent and dissentors. He is a religious zealot selling a religious program which claims exclusive, absolute truth.
Dawkins has not yet slipped the reigns of rationality to the point of professing eugenic solutions for “historydeniers”. However, we should watch for that in the future, because his grip on logic and rational thought is virtually non-extant. Or maybe that idea is toward the back of his new book.
Richard Writes A Book:
Logic, principles of rational thought, discernment, critical thinking, the First Principles – all these are not taught or mentioned on Dawkins’ website, at least the last time I searched his “oasis of clear thinking”. They are presumed present due to the Materialism espoused there. But a perusal of Dawkins’ writings reveals not a familiarity with logic, but a rabid defense of a cherished agenda along with associated rationalizations in support of it.
The excerpt from Dawkins’ new book, "The Greatest Show On Earth" seems to indicate yet another step in the same direction. After inflating his own intellectual image with references to ancient Greeks, Romans and the Latin language, Dawkins gets to the meat of his pique: there are deniers out there: that’s just wrong! And the flow continues in that direction. Dawkins doesn’t pretend to use logic; he uses pejoratives, and that reveals the incredible rational weakness of his position. Despite this flaw he undoubtedly will sell a boatload of books, and the ridicule contained within will no doubt be satisfactory to convince a few others of his keen grip on ontology.
What is truly a shame about modern schools is not whether they do or do not teach that evolution is truth. What is a shame is that they do not teach the principles of rational discernment. And you can’t get that from Dawkins, either.
[1] Dawkins cites 40% of the U.S. population as being “creationist”. These he calls "40percenters" and labels them "historydeniers".
9 comments:
I saw something about similar to this over at Vox Popoli. Dawkins, foot wedged firmly in mouth, overstates his case. To paraphrase Richard Fenyman (I think), in science when you come up with an explanation/hypothesis for an observed phenomenon, you come up with an experiment to try and prove it wrong. If the hypothesis survives the experiment, you can't say it's true only that it hasn't been falsified. Dawkins talks about evolution as if it's as obvious as gravity. He's never sounded more zealous.
Yes, that sounds like Feynman's Cargo Cult speech. Feynman was an actual scientist, actually brilliant, and agreed with Popper's falsification criteria for separating science from metaphysics... another failure for evolution which falls under metaphysics.
Hi Stan,
Hope you don't mind me chasing you over to this post. By the way, thanks for all the information about your experiences. I asked because I had this idea that most people who were Christian, then atheist, then Christian again were just Christian all along, but it seems you don't fit that description. In regards to your comments about abortion representing eugenics towards black people, I'm sure you're at least comforted by the fact that these efforts appear to be in vein, as the US black population is growing.
As for this post, let me start by agreeing with you that Dawkins is totally nasty guy. He uses name calling and has a lot of cheap shots at religious people. Also remember that he's the Ann Coulter of a different audience. Dawkins writes for people who want to know only enough about evolution to feel superior to those who don't believe in it. From what you've written to me recently, you might recognize this audience.
Let me finish by suggesting that you're confusing the ideas of evidence, truth, and proof. You claim, if I understand you correctly, that evolution is not true because there is no evidence for evolution because fossil evidence is material and evolution is a process rather than a material thing. You also seem to imply that this is some kind of proof, or at least makes logical sense. This makes no sense. It's like saying that a baseball is not evidence that there exists a game called baseball. Don't misunderstand my argument, I'm not claiming that the existence of a baseball proves the existence of the game, but it is evidence for it. With enough evidence, I can call something true, even though I have to keep in mind that new evidence might arise and modify it. This seems more reasonable than demanding some kind of logical proof, as if evolution were trigonometry, then disqualifying the evidence by using a cheap rhetorical, rather than logical, trick.
Brian, thanks for coming back.
Let's take the baseball example to its logical conclusion.
250,000 years from now, an archaeological dig turns up an entire baseball field including the diamond, the stands, and the balls and bats. The entire scenario is turned over to anthropologists to interpret. What would they see?
If it were today’s anthropologists they would see a huge fertility rite worship arena (it’s always sex with those folks):
First, the balls and bats have obvious phallic symbology; probably carried by priests.
Second, the diamond represents a huge symbolic vagina;
Third, the mound in the middle represents fertility, the central purpose of the vagina, raised above rest and possibly a “home” for the fertility goddess herself.
Fourth, the stands indicate that this was a public rite, so possibly women went out to the central mound to be blessed or maybe inseminated. Or maybe it was a sacrificial central altar.
Finally, so many of these fertility centers have been found, that it is no longer possible to question the inferred conclusion.
The point is that without direct experience and apprehension of the function of the items that are found, speculation is just speculation. Worse, speculation can be decreed to be Truth, and worldviews become based on that false foundation.
Dawkins would have the public believe that evolution is Truth and that he is the prophet.
BTW, I have posted extensively on truth vs. fact. Short version: truth is incorrigible; fact is modifiable from moment to moment as new observations warrant. Inference is neither.
“Truth” exists independently of mass/energy – space/time and is the basis for logic and rational thought. “Fact” describes mass/energy – space/time within the limits of our technology capabilities, and is the product / outcome of the human pursuit called science. Inference speculates the existence of unobserved relationships.
These have been presented here as tautologies, but they are arguable, and have been argued against by philosophers such as Nietzsche, who arrived at his anti-rationalism through such arguments.
Discerning and differentiating between truth, fact and inference is far from a cheap trick; if these are not understood in their entirety, then fallacy encroaches unhindered.
Too few people have endeavored to understand the basics of rationality and logic. But they feel just fine about declaring what is rational/logical despite their ignorance of what those entail.
Brian,
After re-reading your comment, I see that I did not address your concern of my confusing evidence, truth and proof. If I am allowed to equate proof to fact, I addressed only part of the issue, truth vs. fact. The remaining issue is evidence. (You might guess that I have also written about the theory of evidence).
Evidence is an interesting and large subject, so I will address just part of it here.
Evidence, from an experimental perspective, is created, replicable, and material.
From a forensic perspective evidence is found, single instance (possibly not replicable), and material.
Inference is not evidence and does not produce evidence except by providing input to hypothesis formation for experimental or forensic validation.
What archaeology provides is numerous forensic “single instance” material examples. What evolutionists demand is that these be connected together by an unobserved, inferred process, and that the PROCESS be declared Truth.
The reality of the situation is that there are forensic facts, and these are not likely to be challenged; however, the inferred process of evolution is neither a forensic nor experimental fact, it is a speculation, and is challengeable.
A secondary inference of “Truth” of an inference, is warranted only probabilistically (so it cannot be incorrigible Truth). Now, if the probability is sufficiently high, it’s validity is more acceptable to some than others, indicating a bias input at that level too.
But how is a probability of an inference calculated? A probability is an inference itself, inferring likelihood, so the probability of an inference is a second order inference, twice removed from reality at best. (By contrast, probability of the outcome of a coin toss can be tested whereas the probabilty outcome of an inference cannot be tested.)
And even more problematic is the materialist’s refusal to accept that first life must have been material (abiogenesis), and to accept the probability calculations against it. This is an agenda interference.
So the overall probability calculations are a second or even third order inference, coupled with agenda interferences. In other words, even the calculations are too suspect to be accepted as reasonable inputs to the discussion.
Here we are left without any firm input to our category of “evidence”, with regard to inference of unobserved processes surrounding forensic or “found” evidence.
In terms of confusing evidence with inference, it is readily apparent to me that confusion is on the part of the evolutionists with the agenda.
Hi Stan,
It's good of you to answer my criticism in such detail, and thanks for taking the time to do so. It seems that you might be overthinking the baseball analogy though. Here's my point: you seem to claim that physical items (fossils, etc) cannot be used as evidence for evolution, because physical items can only be used as evidence for physical things. I disagree, because, as I wrote, a baseball (or glove, or bat) can be evidence for the existence of a game called baseball. Imagine you meet someone who has never heard of the game of baseball. You describe the game, the rules, and all the details you know. Perhaps your friend will believe what you say, or perhaps they think you're pulling their leg. If you then produce a baseball, bat, and glove, they'd be more likely to believe you, right? And so these physical things are evidence for a process called baseball. This seems like a no-brainer to me. It's not like you're claiming that because you produce these items that the game of baseball, as you've described it, must be true, and no other reality can exist. You're just offering evidence in support of your claim. Lastly, the baseball example that you've described seems a bit outrageous, but lets pretend its true for a minute. Don't you think that as more evidence came in, that people's understanding of baseball would get closer to how it actually was? Even starting from fertility monuments and the other things you describe, if more physical evidence was found (outfits, shoes, action figures, you name it) it seems like eventually some brainy know-it-all would eventually figure it out that it was a game played and watched for entertainment.
Also, it seems like you're being a bit uncharitable in assigning ulterior motives to people who study evolution. I don't think they're demanding anything from you, and I don't think they're claiming evolution to be capital-T Truth (Dawkins excepted, I'm inclined to agree with you that he considers himself a prophet, or at least for profit). It seems like an honest scientist would say that they believe evolution is true because there's lots of good evidence for it. If new evidence and better ideas came along later, then they would modify their beliefs about the history of life. This would be true in any of the sciences. I'd give the examples of alchemy leading to chemistry and astrology leading to astronomy.
Have a great weekend!
Hi Brian, and welcome again...
I can't agree that your analogy of baseball as you've expanded it relates coherently to the discovery of fossils. Your first example hinges on a person having first hand knowledge and passing that on as an eyewitness. In other words, your analogy includes providing an intelligent description of the process. Nothing of that kind exists for evolution, not even close.
Your second example hinges on finding more artifacts up to what have you, and being able to discern the game of baseball from that. I think that is much too generous, unless you include video documentation of the process or a rulebook or some other form of intelligent instruction on the manner of procedures and process on the field. Again, the baseball analogy requires something not remotely available to archaeologists with regard to the process of evolution: an intelligent description of the process. There is no way to discern 9 innings, 3 outs, 3 strikes, or any of the other functions of the game, just from observing the artifacts; an intelligent source is required for that information... even moreso than for evolution, because baseball is not logically imperative, it is not logically required to have the process that it has.
A point of reality regarding evolution(ism?) is that the dogmatists claim a logical imperative for evolution, yet cannot even validate either its existence or its process except inferentially. That is a logical tripping point, obviously. And if it cannot be demonstrated, then it cannot be falsified, which places it into Popper's category of the necessarily metaphysical.
I use the term "evolutionists" because I don't want to tar all biology scientists with the onus of being dogmatically attached to an unproven hypothesis.
Biology as a science does just fine without having to depend on evolution as an axiom. In fact, modern findings in biology are retrofit into the still malleable hypothetical pattern of evolution, not the other way around.
I posted on this issue concerning the aura of worship afforded Darwin, vs. the lack of recognition for the major scientists who provided actual breakthroughs, especially in medical fields, none of which were predicated on evolution. We can discuss that further if you wish.
I agree that a normal, objective scientist would, indeed, remain ready to modify his understanding of the "history of life" as you put it, based on new inputs. Objective science does not hold any theory sacrosanct.
My quarrel is not with biology or reputable biologists or reputable archaeologists who maintain a demeanor that is open and objective. My quarrel is with the dogmatic Atheist theft and corruption of a science hypothesis for evangelizing a worldview that claims rationality but is not in the least rational - demonstrably so. This is an issue bigger than Dawkins and the New Atheists, although they are the poster boys for the syndrome.
I am pro-science, and I admire Feynman and Popper and others who are the antithesis of Dawkins et al., who are worldview dogmatists, not rational scientists.
And a good weekend to you as well! Keep the comments coming...
Stan
Hi Stan,
You’ll have to call me a little slow on the uptake, but I think I finally see the problem here. In order for an atheist to have a fully naturalistic world view, then evolution by natural selection must be true. This is different than stating whether or not you believe evolution to be true based upon the evidence. In my view evolution is true, because there’s a rather generous amount of evidence to support it. It is irrelevant whether or not you, Dawkins, or anyone else accepts or rejects the naturalistic world view based upon that. I’m using naturalistic interchangeably with materialistic here.
At the risk of waxing philosophical, I think that churches have missed an opportunity to do what they do best: to affirm human dignity and worth in the face of challenges to it. It is an affront to the dignity of some to imagine that they have non-human ancestors, just as it is an affront to human dignity to see acts of evil perpetrated by the worst amongst us. Churches do not shy away from affirming human value in the cases of genocide, war, torture, and the like. However, the challenge of evolution has been met with denial and the promotion of ignorance in the form of creationism and intelligent design. How difficult is it for clergy to say that there is a difference between you and an animal? That our laws, ethics, science and culture set us apart? I don’t think even the most materialistic atheist would claim that there is no difference between ourselves and the apes (again, Dawkins excluded). It’s incontestably true that we are different, and the fact that we share a common ancestor does not remove that difference. I also think that if churches want to make their members convert to atheism, then they should tell them a lie. Tell them that, in spite of (literally) mountains of evidence to the contrary, evolution didn’t happen. Or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that diseases are caused by evil spirits.
You get my drift here I’m sure, so I'll close this rant now.
Brian,
I was with you right up to the last two sentences. First off I agree completely that both I.D. and Y.E.C. (which I assume you mean by "creationist) are logically untenable and are not useful arguments.
And yes, you may freely presume that evolution is valid if you wish, based on whatever evidence base is satisfactory to you.
I cannot agree that it is lying to point out the softness of the existing evidence base: its lack of experimental validation, its purely inferential nature, and the logical problems of declaring the desired output of the inference to be Truth.
By accepting inference as validation, one opens up the idea that inferring a deity based on appearances of design via rational physical laws controlling the universe is also validation (inferred theodicies as Truth). And many other inferences can also be validated based on "constant conjunction" (a la Hume), using the same rationale. The slippery slope has been entered.
So I do not accept inference or speculation as engines for Truth, and I cannot understand why anyone would, short of a cherished agenda that biases them otherwise.
Post a Comment