Fan mail for Richard Dawkins from, of all places, New Scientist

I mean, really, whodathunkit? I haven't got the book Greatest Show on Earth yet - Bantam's publicist could always get in touch with me at oleary@sympatico.ca, if she wants to send me a copy.

What's interesting to me is that Randy "Flock of Dodos" Olson, referring to Dawkins's constant free insults, says

Dawkins provides a transcript of his interview with the president of Concerned Women for America which reads like a Monty Python skit as the woman, a bullheaded creationist, simply answers all of Dawkins's sophisticated argumentation by saying she's not convinced - like a cartoon character standing in front of a hail of bullets taunting, "You missed me."

It's a shame Dawkins couldn't take a few tips from his atheist colleague Jerry Coyne. Coyne's powerful and popular book [Why Evolution Is True] was, to quote Booklist, "far more presentational than disputatious". That is a desperately needed attribute these days in making the convincing - and persuasive - case for evolution.

In short, Olson is virtually admitting that, in his view, Dawkins did not make a very effective case, but he does quite the fancy dance around admitting it.

But Dawkins refuses to debate educated people who doubt his theories, like Michael Behe. People like Olson and institutions like New Scientist help him get away with this because they need to believe so badly that if they suspect he laid an egg, they could not admit it to themselves, never mind to others.

Anyway, Olson's suggestion won't work. No one believes for a moment that any of these people regard the public that pays their bills with other than the contempt born of sublime, unjustifiable arrogance. Not only does that attitude leak out all over, but - in my experience - in any situation where they get the upper hand, everyone else is expected to just shut up and believe whatever they say, even if what they say is as ridiculous as the ramblings of "evolutionary" psychology.

But things are changing. As I have written elsewhere, "evolutionary" psychology has started to take a well-deserved beating, despite the fact that evolutionary biologists have generally refused to denounce it. Their attitude reveals their reckless arrogance because, apart from a few figures like "selfish gene" Dawkins, they didn't even create that monster!

They could have just cut loose nonsense like the Big Bazooms theory of human evolution without harm to their current beliefs, in the same way that the Catholic Church, which accepts miracles in principle, can say that a local housewife's claims are "not of interest to the faithful." But the Darwinists, unlike the Catholic Church, never thought that the good sense of educated non-members or doubters would matter. We'll see.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Article in Think criticizes Dawkins, defends design

Think: Philosophy for Everyman (Spring, 2009; pages 71-81) has published a paper by Douglas Groothuis, a philosophy prof at Denver Seminary: "Who Designed the Designer? A Dialogue on Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion."

That's interesting, because Think is a secular British journal - and the article criticizes Dawkins and defends intelligent design.

My view: The question Dawkins likes to ask, "Who designed the designer?", is meant to distract people from noticing the design of life, which is far beyond the powers of the Darwinian evolution he defends. If the designer is God, as traditional theists hold, he is eternally self-existent.

What if one is not a theist? A moment's thought shows that a designer is not equivalent to a design. To use an ancient image, the potter is not on the same plane of exisstence as the pot. And it is not necessary to know how the potter came to exist to realize that the pot is designed.

Richard Dawkins would solve the problem by claiming that the pot designed itself.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

I am so far behnd in posting, but ...

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC's Casey Luskin examines Richard Dawkins' crusade against religion and what it might mean for the teaching of evolution in schools.

Why did Michael Ruse write to Dawkins and tell him that he was an "absolute disaster in the fight against intelligent design"? Listen in and find out.

I have not yet figured out how much the evil Discovery Insitute has paid Dawkins or Ruse ....

That said, Ruse is pretty much right.

Darwinism and popular culture: Richard Dawkins to write "improving" children's literature

A friend points me to this item: "Harry Potter fails to cast spell over Professor Richard Dawkins" by Martin Beckford and Urmee Khan (Telegraph, 25 Oct 2008).

Where "Harry Potter has become the latest target for Professor Richard Dawkins who is planning to find out whether tales of witchdraft and wizardy have a negative effect on children." (Re spelling, sic)

Not if you go by my kids, decades ago. They regularly heard tales of talking, reasoning, elegant cats - and yet they lived with non-talking, non-reasoning, broad-beamed cats parked fatly under the radiator, stuffing heat into their bodies.

I cannot think of a single instance where any child confused the literary cat with the heat-hogging feline of everyday life.

Actually, the celebrated atheist and Darwinian spear carrier is becoming something of a legend in his own laundry room. In fact,

The prominent atheist is stepping down from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales.

Yawn. Glad I'm not the hall monitor ...

Prof Dawkins is targeting children as the audience of his next project because he believes they are being "abused" by being taught about religion at school and labelled Christian, Jewish or Muslim from a young age.

Tell that to a kid celebrating First Communion/Bar Mitzvah/Bat Mitzvah ... .

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Richard Dawkins, the Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life ...

Here is a very interesting snippet from To the source about a startling admission by Richard Dawkins in the Expelled film he is currently trashing

Oh, you know, Lying for Jesus and all that ... wears pretty thin when you read the following:

As many of you know, Richard Dawkins has made a career out of attacking religion. He was behind the "documentary" film "Root of All Evil?". He is a frequent columnist, blogger and guest on cable news shows in which he claims religion is a "primitive superstition". He essentially attacks religion in every form of media available. His most recent assault comes in his international best seller "The God Delusion." The point is that Mr. Dawkins is very well versed in his arguments against God. But something rather shocking takes place when Mr. Stein asks Mr. Dawkins about the possibility that intelligent design might be useful in the area of genetics. Mr. Dawkins responds by laying out the "intriguing possibility" that life may have come into existence elsewhere in the universe and that this unknown intelligence seeded life on earth. Mr. Stein skillfully exposes the stunning contradiction in the foundation of Mr. Dawkins's thesis. That is, Mr. Dawkins is "intrigued" about the possibility that there could be an intelligent designer in the universe—just so long as that designer isn't God. Anyone who would suggest that there is a God designer is stupid, ignorant or evil.

Maybe it WAS the Flying Spaghetti Monster after all ... No, Pasta forbid! Too much of a mess to clean up.

Actually, this space alien view was also considered by such a famous scientist as genome mapper Francis Crick (also an atheist).

Why? Because origin of life is such a difficult problem that it argues far more against Dawkins's ideas than against intelligent design.

Also, at Overwhelming Evidence

Academic freedom and teachers' rights bills proliferate

Darwin's Brite lights protest Expelled film in song and dance (spoof)

Expelled film spotlights Baylor tenure controversy

Dawkins’ famous long moment of silence ...

I remember reading years ago violently conflicting opinions on Richard Dawkins’s famous/infamous/faked silence when a filmmaker asked him about the origin of genetic information.

Eventually the tape made its way to Barry Williams, the editor of an Australian journal called The Skeptic, who consulted with Dawkins and then published a blistering article with the title "Creationist Deception Exposed." Williams at first seemed to be accusing the filmmakers of altering the tape by substituting a question Dawkins was never asked, but that accusation was never made explicitly and in any case was dropped after the creationists produced the raw tapes. (Phillip Johnson, The Wedge of Truth, pg. 40 (InterVarsity Press, 1999).)

Anyway, here’s a video and here’s his response. You da judge.

Why atheists are doomed if they are right.

State senator sues God

How is The Spiritual Brain doing?

Your brain is a kludge - especially if you are religious

First Things editor scolds New York Times over Dawkins's review

Apparently, in the most recent edition of First Things, Fr. Richard Neuhaus defends Mike Behe, author of Edge of Evolution. It's not on line yet, but Fr. Neuhaus says, among other things,

You usually know that somebody is losing the argument when he loses his cool and resorts to bluster, abuse, caricature, and the invocation of authorities who agree with him.

He is referring, of course, to Richard Dawkins's attempt to trash Behe's book in The New York Times. He notes the curious fact that the Times should never have given the book to Dawkins to review anyway, without giving Behe the right of reply (which it would never dare to do):

It is hard to know what purpose is served by the Book Review in having Dawkins review Behe, except, possibly, to ostracize anyone who presumes to raise questions about prevailing Darwinist orthodoxies and, perhaps, to pander to the smug prejudices of the presumed readership of the Times. That does not instill confidence in the Darwinist materialism that they are so desperately defending.

This is all particularly interesting because Neuhaus is not especially one of the ID think tank Discovery Institute fans.

Rather, it sounds (especially when you read the whole thing) as though he is beginning to get the same picture as so many of the rest of us: Darwinism is the Enron of biology. The fact that he scolds the New York Times over Dawkins's review is interesting in view of the question raised by some about whether Dawkins had actually read Behe's book.

Also: Cameron Wybrow, who got an honest review of Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution published in the Philadelphia Enquirer, found himself taking to task a completely silly review in the Winnipeg Free Press. Put it this way: It is impossible for U of Winnipeg molecular biologist Janice Dodd to consider the possibility that Darwinism might not be true. So she doesn't. Read her review, then Wybrow's comment.

I was travelling on a Toronto streetcar today with a fellow journalist who was musing about the sheer gullibility of Darwinists. Learned in history, he pointed out that Darwinists had originally attacked Mendel because Mendel cited statistics for genetics - instead of the vagueness the Darwinists so love. He and I believe in a traditional religion, but the Darwinists believe in magic.

Dogs and more dogs - More on why dog breeding is not a model for evolution

Recently, I featured comments on Richard Dawkins's (possible non-) review of Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution for the New York Times - in which Dawkins tried to evade bad news for Darwin's theory by appealing to human dog breeding.

In that post, I featured comments from Dr. David DeWitt, who pointed out that dog breeders select animals for juvenile canine traits that people happen to admire.

(Most people prefer to live with a happy puppy rather than the Big Bad Wolf.)

But that has nothing to do with survival in nature and does not confer or lead to new traits in canines. So, contrary to Dawkins's claims, it cannot be used as direct evidence for Darwin's theory.

(No one doubts that all sorts of changes may be possible - in theory. But which changes play a role in the development of life forms in nature itself? The weird choices of dog breeders hardly count there.)

After I posted that item, some correspondence followed from friends in science. I am posting some of it here, with permission:

One friend, who works in a lab, writes,

... many biologists use the mouse as a model organism of choice, and we use particular inbred strains.

Like inbred dogs, they are dumber and more prone to particular types of tumors/defects, so while they are more homogeneous in behavior from mouse to mouse, they are also just less fit.

I bring them up because like the observed experiments on E. Coli [ in Edge of Evolution], we are treating these organisms as relatively static. When I order a C57Bl/6 mouse from Japan, I don't worry that reproductive isolation has produced one that is different from the one here in Maryland.

And when we introduce mutations in mice, we don't assume that they'll evolve and improve upon them. If those genetic alterations were to disappear in a generation (which is only ~3 months in mice), people would make much note of it. But mouse colonies in research institutes throughout the world are telling us that this does not occur.

Does that mean that lab mice can never change? No! He adds,

it has been reported that sometime prior to 1984, a mutation did develop in the C57Bl/6 strain:
"A naturally occurring deletion in nicotinamide nucleotide transhydrogenase (Nnt) exons 7-11 occurred in C57BL/6J sometime prior to 1984. This deletion results in the absence of the NNT protein, and is associated with impaired glucose homeostasis control and reduced insulin secretion. This mutation is not found in C57BL/6JEi, C57BL/6N, C57BL/6ByJ, C57BL/10J, C57L/J, or C58/J (Toye AA, et al, Diabetologia, 2005)."

So the mutation was a health problem for the mouse.

Another friend writes to say that the dog genome has not been affected in any signfiiant way by Darwinian changes:

Following talk about dogs by Dawkins, there has appeared an excellent article about the dog genome in American Scientist (September-October 2007): Genetics and the shape of dogs by Elaine A Ostrander (National Human Genome Institute of the NIH). This details much of the research on the dog genome by her and her team and others in the field.

It is well written with excellent illustrations. It appears that most of the variations between breeds of dog are incipient in the dog genome with little due to recent mutations. I think this was already known but this article deals with it in an authoritative way. I hope Dawkins reads it!

You hope Dawkins reads it? But wasn't the whole point of his review to discourage people from reading Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution? Just today I was talking to a science teacher who had started to read it - and was not slow to recognize the devastating attack on ultra-Darwinism that it represents.

Also, another friend writes: Following talk about dogs by Dawkins, there has appeared an excellent article about the dog genome in American Scientist (September-October 2007): Genetics and the shape of dogs by Elaine A Ostrander (National Human Genome Institute of the NIH). This details much of the research on the dog genome by her and her team and others in the field.

Dog breeding - proof that Darwin was right? Hardly, says prof

In his review of ID biochemist Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution, which caused many to wonder whether he had actually read the book he was reviewing, Richard Dawkins indulged in a long and seemingly irrelevant riff on dog breeding. He hoped to convince his readers that complex and fantastical intracellular machines come about by chance (and mind comes from mud) on account of the vast variety that humans can produce by selective breeding of dogs.

Correspondents have pointed out that Dawkins is counting on his readers' ignorance of a fundamental fact about dog breeding- that is depends on existing traits and does not introduce new ones. One writes, for example,

The problem is that the variety of dogs obtained through breeding programs is an example of the variation possible within the dog genome, but (and this is a very big 'but') there are natural limits to variation.

Darwinism predicts that there are no taxonomic limits to variation. However, every breeding experiment of the last 100 years that attempts to see how far variation can go (E. coli, drosophila, etc.) always encounters limits beyond which further change is not possible. Thus, the fundamental prediction of Darwinian theory has been consistently falsified in a century's worth of experimental testing. Dog breeding, itself, encounters these limits.
The bottom line is that dog breeding, and the observed limits to variation within dogs, falsifies the most important prediction of Darwinian theory.

What is he talking about?
Another correspondent, David A. DeWitt, author of Unraveling the Origins Controversy, enlightened me further,

Many of the traits for different dog breeds are examples of neoteny.

Neoteny refers to the maintaining of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. Mutations can prevent proper development and maturation. Even though particular traits might seem like they are novel, in such cases it is really a loss of information since the animal has stunted development in one trait.

This is why some breeds of dogs are so cute and look like puppies even though they are full grown (Jack Russel, Shitzu etc).

Well, that makes sense. The disgusting little freaky-poos that infest my neighbourhood are really just immature? Makes sense, all right.*


I wrote back to ask,

David, is there not also some distortion involved, maintained by selective breeding? I am thinking in particular of the Basset hound, the bulldog , and the dachsund. Do these distortions not shorten life in many cases?

Also, the single most important trait in domestic dogs is that the animal not be aggressive around humans. (That would be the fastest way for a dog to get himself a one-way trip to the vet's office.) But that means selecting for a trait that would NOT aid survival in nature.

The breeds that are commonly trained to BE aggressive toward humans (intentionally) are wolfhounds like German Shepherds. But they have the most characteristics in common with wild animals like wolves.

In other words, domestic breeding not only does not employ natural selection, but it selects for traits that would not be chosen in any process that favoured survivability. Is that correct?

He replied, with a long, careful answer:

Pure breed dogs often do have shorter lives than "mutts". Presumably, this is because of severe inbreeding. The result is that mutations for particular diseases/defects become concentrated.

So when people have selected for those traits that comprise the poodle breed, they have also inadvertently selected several serious genetic defects. Certain breeds are prone to the same diseases and early causes of death.

Regarding the lack of aggression in dogs...this is also considered an example of a neotenous trait (juvenile traits that persist into adulthood).

When wolves are very very young, they are not so aggressive. Many of the behaviors of our dog breeds are also neotenous. There is plenty of information about this on the internet. The less a dog is physically like a wolf, the less aggressive the dog.

The most important thing to understand about dog breeding is that there is not new genetic information (from mutation) that is being supplied. Through breeding, humans are either shuffling genes that pre-exist in the population (like different poker hands from the same deck) or preserving mutations that amount to developmental defects.

While developmental defects can look like new traits (short stubby legs or a short snout for example or a Chihuahua that looks like an embryonic dog) they are not new at all since it is simply preservation of a previous stage.

Another example of a neotenous trait would be a mutation that leads to webbing between fingers in a human. During development, the cells between the fingers are supposed to go through a process of programmed cell death (apoptosis). If the cells do not die (because of a mutation), then the remaining tissue would be webbed fingers.

Since all human babies go through such a stage, it would not be a new trait even though it looks like it. It is preservation of a previous developmental stage because of a mutation in the normal developmental pathway. This highlights another aspect to the limits of Darwinian evolution.

Often, dogs are considered an exception because they are so "plastic". In reality, it is just that we have been able to preserve a wider array of developmental defects. Dawkins pulled a real bait and switch trick when he criticized Behe's Edge of Evolution using dog breeding. Dog breeds highlight the limits of evolutionary change, but Dawkins used the diversity of dogs (from developmental defects) to rebut this fact.

However, since most people do not understand the preservation of juvenile characteristics, they can be fooled into thinking that evolution really can produce new traits.

Hmmm. We hear plenty about Darwin's natural selection, but almost nothing about neoteny. And, to the extent that Dawkins was counting on our ignorance of neoteny, why SHOULD he bother to read Edge of Evolution before discouraging others from reading it?

(*Thanks, Dr. DeWitt! I've been looking for years for a way to insult the local infestation of little canine swine without being cruel. Like, neighbours, please, if you're going to have a dog, have a dog. Otherwise, be a cat person like me.)

Science stalled because oldsters try to prevent young upstarts from coming forward?

"You've got far more scientists than ever before but the pace of discovery has not increased," notes British science journalist Nigel Calder, a former editor for New Scientist. Interesting ideas. He goes after Richard Dawkins, arguing that his account of evolution is "hopelessly out of date."

So the significance of Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution is beginning to be understood?

First Things top editor Richard John Neuhaus defends Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution, noting about Richard Dawkins' attack review in the New York Times,

You usually know that somebody is losing the argument when he loses his cool and resorts to bluster, abuse, caricature, and the invocation of authorities who agree with him. The New York Times Book Review, for reasons that surpass charitable explanation, gave Michael Behe’s most recent book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, to Richard Dawkins for review. Behe is a biochemist, author of Darwins Black Box, and a proponent of Intelligent Design. Dawkins is an atheist polemicist against religion, holds the ill-named Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, and is author of the God Delusion.

Dawkins begins by saying he feels "sorry" for Behe, whom he describes as the “poster boy of creationists everywhere.” Never mind that Behe is not a “creationist.” No less than three times in the review, Dawkins alludes to the fact that Behe’s colleagues in his university’s biology department have publicly distanced themselves from his position. The other biologists at Lehigh University disagree with Behe. It follows that he must be a nut. Further, “Behe is taking on Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J.B.S. Haldane, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Richard Lewontin, John Maynard Smith, and hundreds of their talented coworkers and intellectual descendents.” This is what is known as argument from authority.

Basically, Dawkins cannot answer Behe's findings about the inability of OBSERVED Darwinian evolution to do what he claims, so he is forced to resort to these rhetorical dodges. It should play well among older middle aged women who shock themselves with their opinions.

Master of the Games: You vs. Richard Dawkins on human evolution

Who will it be? The Dawkins delusion or you?

Malcolm Chisholm, our Master of the Games, tells me, "We are up to 2170 simulations run so far. I have had no feedback, except about spelling, That is now corrected. And HERE is the link.

He also says, "I will have another game ready in a day or so. I am going to post that on "a private list" first to see if anyone can spot bugs in it.

Darwinism and popular culture: Krauss and Dawkins on talking to evil morons (oops, religious people)

Why would Scientific American devote space to Oxford don Richard Dawkins ( The God Delusion) and physicist Lawrence Krauss talking about how to talk to religious people? They could have had philosopher of science Alister McGrath The Dawkins Delusion and paleontologist Simon Conway Morris (Life's Solution) But the latter two, as Christians, would have said something cogent, and Scientific American can't risk that, can it?

Here's a classic excerpt from Dawkins:

Dawkins: I like your clarification of what you mean by reaching out. But let me warn you of how easy it is to be misunderstood. I once wrote in a New York Times book review, “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intolerant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter. But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact.

[ ... ]

Krauss: I have to say that I agree completely with you about this. To me, ignorance is often the problem, and, happily, ignorance is most easily addressed. It is not pejorative to suggest that someone is ignorant if they misunderstand scientific issues.

Dawkins: In exchange, I am happy to agree with you that I could, and probably should, have put it more tactfully. I should have reached out more seductively. But there are limits.

You see? In the Dawkins delusion, you can say things that only a bigoted, intolerant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter would say, but if anyone suggests that it is what it sounds like, well they are the ones at fault.

David Rice writes to say,

the first thing that came to mind after reading Krauss say " it seems appropriate to ask what the primary goals of a scientist should be when talking or writing about religion" was 'why should scientists be saying ANYTHING about religion?' But even granting that, why can't religion say anything about science? Well, it can't because the movement of directive discourse is in one direction only. These guys are totally preaching to the choir and this whole piece was anything but fair-minded.

Krauss also said at the end, "I would argue that one should respect religious sensibilities no more or less than any other metaphysical inclinations, but in particular they should not be respected when they are wrong." One then wonders if Krauss' own metaphysics should continue to be respected even if it too is wrong. They've become so arrogant that they don't see the double standard in their arguments which typifies these kind of polemnical writings. Scientists should be ashamed of these guys. Scientific American is clearly endorsing an unassailable metaphysical position with this article.

It sure is. And you can be sure that the editors believe that they are entitled to have their metaphysics imposed on the school system, at taxpayer expense, too. And people wonder why there is an intelligent design controversy!

Ideas: Francis Beckwith on "the Irrationality of Dawkins"

Francis Beckwith (yes, yes, the one who had the tenure struggle at Baylor), takes issue with Darwinist atheist Richard Dawkins savaging Bryan U's creationist paleontologist Kurt Wise:

Dawkins harshly criticizes Wise for embracing a religious belief that results in Wise's not treating himself and his talents, intelligence, and abilities in a way appropriate for their full flourishing. That is, given the opportunity to hone and nurture certain gifts—for example, intellectual skill—no one, including Wise, should waste them as a result of accepting a false belief. The person who violates, or helps violate, this norm, according to Dawkins, should be condemned, and we should all bemoan this tragic moral neglect on the part of our fellow(s). But the issuing of that judgment on Wise by Dawkins makes sense only in light of Wise's particular talents and the sort of being Wise is by nature, a being who Dawkins seems to believe possesses certain intrinsic capacities and purposes that if prematurely disrupted results in an injustice.

So Dawkins knows just enough about traditional views of life, the mind, and intellectual freedom to use them to attack someone he disagrees with? (Don't) stop the presses.

Darwinism and popular culture: Darwinian atheist Richard Dawkins as pop cult figure

Dawkins is rated by Time Magazine as one of the mag's 100 most influential people (#7 as of June 19, 2007). Of course, in fairness, he only got about 51, 000 votes, whereas South Korean pop star Rain got nearly a half million. Meanwhile, here's himself on YouTube.

If you want to understand why the intelligent design controversy cannot go away, read By Design or by Chance?.

Intelligent design and popular culture: Michael Behe writes Time 100 entry for Richard Dawkins

Recently, Time Magazine asked ID biochemist Michael Behe to write write a short squib on arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins as one of the Time 100, the people who allegedly shape our world. However, they edited it to make it sound as though he was way more worried about Dawkins than he actually is, apparently. What Behe had actually written is posted here., so you can see what "bite" the Time editors took out. (For example, they saddled Behe with the phrase that Dawkins is "deeply unsettling" to people like Behe, which - as every media professional knows - is simply a way of putting Behe down.)

In the big picture, of course, what’s really significant is that they asked Mike Behe to write the thing at all. See, if the punditocracy had been right in, say, 2000, in their predictions for the future of the intelligent design community Behe would not be a well-known enough figure to be a good pick. That such a sturdy organ of materialism as Time would subtly misrepresent him is perhaps not nearly as significant. Behe, of course, has a new book coming out, addressing the failure of Darwinian materialism to falsify irreducible complexity.

If you want to understand why the intelligent design controversy cannot go away, read By Design or by Chance?.

The new "anti-God" crusade: Further evidence of materialism's failure?

O'Leary looks at the spate of anti-God books and other promotions for the new Church of Atheism, and suspects that atheism was way more fun in the days when it was just a quiet, Godless Sunday at home.

Now, the church - as we all know - is the weak point of any religion. And when all you've got is a church - and remember, these people are supposed to be "beyond" belief - well, to me, that sounds a bit like getting married and finding out that you have no spouse but two mothers-in-law ... and more too, if you want them!

Part 1: What's with the recent anti-God crusade, supposedly in the name of "science"?

Recently, spurred perhaps by the growing failures of materialism, materialist atheists have attempted to institutionalize their beliefs as a Church of Atheism. And they are full, chock full, of angst.

Part 2: Antireligious zealotry riffs off materialist science

Put simply: Materialist science is in trouble. And the trouble does not stem from traditional religions, though materialists are - as one might expect - quick to blame their troubles on traditional religions and to reassure themselves that - despite all the evidence - traditional religions are doomed. But, materialists are also smug and thus cannot imagine or respond to any source of trouble arising from their interpretation of the evidence.

They have apparently decided instead to target the Christian religion as the source of their problems.

Part 3: The Beyond Belief conference

Goodness, it's hard to think of a single reason for joining these people's sect unless you have a lot of hostility to vent! And$30 billion from Bill Gates isn't going to change that.

Actually, it's hard to tell whether some of these people hate Christians more than they hate each other. Thus I would argue against any atheist getting involved with them, on mental health grounds alone.

Part 4: The "Blasphemy Challenge"

As Jerry Adler's Newsweek article admits, most theologians do not interpret blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as simply making a statement of that type, so most of the kids are probably doing it for a lark, but their atheist elders are deadly serious. Atheists don't tend to have had many children, so they must recruit.

Part 5: Why the acclaim for atheist authors?

One thing I have learned from a lifetime in media is that most media people are unidirectional skeptics - they are very skeptical of non-materialism but not the least bit skeptical of materialism.

Two things follow: Journalists in the legacy mainstream media are regularly astonished by phenomena that better informed people might have predicted - for example the prevalence of religious belief in a high tech age.

Part 6: Profiles in militant atheists - Daniel Dennett and Breaking the Spell

In Dennett's Breaking the Spell, as in the entire recent spate of atheist books, there isn't a single new idea of any significance, as noted earlier. The two main things that the current crop of atheist books have going for them is the unperturbable certainty of their authors that they are conferring a great public benefit - a certainty that they uncritically project onto others - and the assurance of a good deal of flattering attention from the legacy media.

The flattering attention usually will usually not include references to the highly illiberal elements of the anti-God extremists' message - elements that typically come to the fore whenever Darwinism is questioned, on whatever ground.

Part 7: Profiles in militant atheists - Richard Dawkins and the God Delusion

Ever since American Microsoft billionaire Charles Simonyi paid for his chair at Oxford in the Public Understanding of Science, zoologist Richard Dawkins has promoted atheism and an extreme form of Darwinism as the best way of doing science. In recent years, however, he has become best known for using his chair to promote atheism, rather than for promoting science ideas. His actual ideas, the selfish gene and the meme (a hypothetical mental variant of the hypothetical selfish gene) have not fared well under analysis, but no matter.

Part 8: Profiles in militant atheists - Sam Harris and Letters to a Christian Nation

From what I can tell, Harris is misplaced among professional materialist atheists. As David J. Theroux notes, he has bought into a variety of New Age and Eastern beliefs such as reincarnation. That has subjected him to many materialist attacks. Remember, materialists "know" that there is no soul.

Harris's dilemma has a simple explanation: He is in neuroscience, and he knows perfectly well that neuroscience does not confirm materialism.

Part 9: Darwinism and militant atheism

Of course, some would argue, not every Darwinist is like that. Perhaps not, but it is a reliable indicator of the true state of affairs that the "moderates" tolerate the "extremists" quite well.

Indeed, the Beyond Belief conference makes the true direction quite clear: Those theistic or Eastern traditions that are willing to morph slowly into materialist atheism, treated as a religion can spare themselves many attacks by increasingly militant atheists, who have, in many cases, found public funding for their cause. Anyone who so much as wants equal time for evidence for non-materialist views faces a storm - made all the foggier by Christian clergy who wish to converge with the materialists. Perhaps such clergy hope to be eaten last?

Part 10: British atheists vs. ID-friendly Truth in Science group

Just what the beleaguered schools need. Caught between Islamic extremists, drug dealers, sclerotic administrators, antisocial unions, and irresponsible parents, they, um, need a whack of "anti-God" literature to mix into the swirl ...

Part 11: So what are the actual trends in religion?

So far as understanding the anti-God crusade is concerned, the most useful thing to know is that the longstanding mid-twentieth century prediction that religious belief would wither away has been largely falsified.

Part 12: Unmasking the authoritarian intent of the militant atheist campaign

While some clergy are content to reassure their congregations that going along with materialism (especially Darwinism) is okay, many thoughtful Christians and Muslims are getting the picture pretty fast. The threat is not an intellectual one, but a political one.

Part 13: Theistic evolutionism and the new militant atheism

The underlying problem of accommodationist theistic evolution, of course, is the felt need to embrace Darwinism - and the materialism from which it springs. As I have suggested above, the most likely explanation, based on my encounters with theistic evolution accommodationists, is that they assume that materialism is basically true and that spiritual traditions must somehow accommodate themselves to its rule.

Put another way: Once you do think that materialism is not true, Darwinism is not true either. That raises the question of why any clergy should feel the need to sell "evolution" to their congregations, as part of their ministry.

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Dawkins' existence still questioned

Further to the question of Dawkins' existence, a commenter at Uncommon Descent suggested that I rely on the consensus of a number of "real" scientists, meaning "(And, of course, by “real” scientists I mean only those who already assume in advance that Richard Dawkins exists–we will quite naturally exclude any posers doubting the existence of RD by careful manipulation of the peer review process.)"

(But why believe me anyway?: Remember, important new Brit academic Dr. Terry Tommyrot did the groundbreaking research that enabled yer humble hack to start figuring it out. (Read a transcript of his recent interview here.)

And I replied,

TerryL, … I wouldn’t try building a deck that way - everything handing off everything else. At some point I need foundations - solid evidence.
Now, here’s what I’ve got: Two competing hypotheses
1. The books wrote themselves. Under a Darwinian interpretation of life, this is inevitable.
Objection: There wasn’t enough time for the books to write themselves.
Objection easily overcome: Only a closet creationist would dare to think that time or probability has anything to do with it. But, for the record, reading “Dawkins”‘ latest, The God Delusion, gave me a sense of eternity passing by. There certainly IS enough time, if you count perceived as well as actual time.
2. My lead blogger and well known kidder, Bill Dembski, cooked up the whole thing, obviously to ensure shelf space for books on ID theory when he didn’t have a budget.
Lines of evidence:
- the ID guys have the most to gain from the existence of “Dawkins” and especially from his recent anti-God crusade, a fact that Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse has been pained to note.
- Every time “Dawkins” opens his mouth, more people come to Uncommon Descent and the Post-Darwinist and such. The Darwinists would have found a way to shut “Dawkins” down long ago, IF he realy existed. I used to wonder why they didn’t but, hang!, I think I’ve pretty much got the answer now.
- Dembski is the only person who has informed me that he has received e-mails from “Dawkins”. Well, … I used to get notes from the tooth fairy …
- In the past, the reason we weren’t seeing “Dawkins” in debate with ID folk is that “Dawkins” allegedly had a policy of not debating folk like Dembski. Hmmm, yeah I’ll just BET “Dawkins” had that policy.
- I have firm evidence that my lead blogger is a relentless kidder.
Objection: Dembski isn’t smart enough to write all those books, and besides pious little old ladies at his church would be real mad at him if they ever found out that he had actually written and marketed a bunch of Darwinist books, and now an anti-God book.
Hmmm, well, how smart would Dembski actually have to be to pull it off? Writing a lot of Darwindunits - you could actually work with a template in word processing and speed it all up some. “Dawkins” is also said to have written a word processing program,come to think of it. And Darwinists are pretty gullible; there’s no problem with whether THEY would fall for it.
And I remember Bill telling me once that the church he goes to is long on reformed tough-guys and short on dim, pious old dears. The tough guys would probably just slap him on the back and say, “Nice one, Bill!”
See, I bet the TROUBLE started when McGrath demanded to know why “Dawkins” wouldn’t debate him …
Now, if “Dawkins” wants to show up at a debate WITH Dembski (okay, I’ll take McGrath, as long as Dembski is actually present and not obviously manipulating “Dawkins”), then I’ll accept his existence. Otherwise, I am simply going to hold to my original opinion that my lead blogger is an irrepressible kidder and quite capable of cooking all this up. - Denyse, Toronto

Completely unnecessary warning: I can be a bit of a kidder myself.

O'Leary remains skeptical: Does Richard Dawkins really exist?

A commenter, at the bottom of this collection of news posts on the ID controversy, asks me whether I think that long-running atheist bore Richard Dawkins really exists. Well, I've given some thought to how to respond to such a sensitive question, because I do so dislike hurting anyone's feelings. So, here's the straight dope:

It makes me feel more intellectually fulfilled to assume that Dawkins does exist. But, unlike some people, I will not assume that a correct answer to this question will necessarily make me feel intellectually fulfilled, or you either. We must have better evidence than that.

The strongest argument for the existence of Richard Dawkins has been the books published by reputable houses under his name. But on reflection, I now see how foolish an argument that is, and am appropriately ashamed of myself. The books themselves attempt to demonstrate that mind comes from mud, in which case - if the thesis of the books has any merit at all - they could easily have written themselves.

Slightly stronger evidence is the fact that my co-blogger Bill Dembski claims to have received correspondence (and still more correspondence) from the fellow.

Oh, but, you know, Dembski is a relentless kidder, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he is just testing my gullibility level. It's quite possible that, at this very moment, Bill is chortling, "Whaddayaknow? I even got O'Leary believing that Dawkins exists! Hey, making that guy up was one of my better moves."

As if I needed confirmation of my pretty-good hunch that Dembski created Dawkins in order to put ID books on the science shelves (because if Dawkins' New Age rubbish about "memes", of all things, can be on the science shelves, it is a scandal if responsible ID books aren't!) - lo and behold, it turns out that Dawkins won't debate Alister McGrath, whose book Dawkins' God pretty much ripped the whole anti-God schtick to teeny shreds. (See also this.)

"Won't" debate indeed. I'm sure Dembski's a mean hand with sock puppets, but that's not going to, like, work on national TV.

Well, there you have it. It's all very well for Bill to create a Dawkins persona (Freud could explain) and write those silly books under its name, but I do think that this particular joke - like Bill's notorious head-in-a-vise Charlie doll and the "fartfest", may have gotten a trifle out of hand at this point.

It is time for Bill to acknowledge that Dawkins is his alter ego or, if the Dawkster really does exist somewhere, to make sure he has a clean shirt and a shave, and produce him stone cold sober for a debate with Alister McGrath.

Thinkquote of the day:

Great Darwinian biologist J.B.S. Haldane on teleology said (purpose):

Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public.

(From: Haldane, J.B.S. in Bedeau, Mark A. Norman, Packard H. Measurement of Evolutionary Activity, Teleology, and Life." Langton, C. Taylor, C. Farmer, D. Rasmussen, S. (Eds.) Artical Life II. SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Proc. Vol. X. Redwood City,
CA: Addison-Wesley, 1991.)

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God , my backgrounder about peer review issues, or the evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin and of academic ID publications.

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Genome mapper Francis Collins vs. evangelical atheist Richard Dawkins: Why is Collins in religion section but Dawkins in science?

A friend tells me that in the wacky world of book classification, genome mapper Francis Collins' book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief is classed in the "Christian inspiration" section, and Richard Dawkins' anti-theistic tract The God Delusion is shelved in the "science" section.

My friend worries that the move was an attempt to denigrate the contents of Collins' book. Well, maybe, but perhaps works that entirely lack rigorous science content may be shelved in science sections if they attack traditional religions, and works that have lots of science content may be shelved in religion sections if the scientist is a Christian. And nonetheless people wonder why there is an intelligent design controversy ...

Of course, one reason that Collins' book ended up where it did is its title and back cover endorsements: (Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Naomi Judd, Bill Phillips (a Nobelist who talks a lot about God on the back jacket), and Robert H. Schuller.)

Still, Collins' book should have been in science - autobiography. But maybe his publisher (Free Press) hoped to make more by flogging it on the "inspiration" shelf. Shame.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.