Dawkins/Brown interview
Howard Duck
mentalist Derren Brown. Brown is very forward in stating that his
area of expertise involves showmanship, illusion, hypnotism,
suggestion, psychology, etc.; he does not claim or believe in
so-called psychic phenomena.
Dawkins possesses the zeal of a religious fanatic to disprove any and
all claims for the existence of psychic or would-be supernatural
phenomena. Dawkins expresses the thought that some "psychics" or
"mediums" may come to believe that they actually possess these
abilities, at least to a degree. Brown tentatively agrees, but I
would say, with reservations. Dawkins relates examples of having
spoken with certain well-known people who claim to be psychics, and
that their attempts to perceive things about him have been extremely
unsuccessful. Of course, his attitude completely defeats the nature
of spiritual phenomena, which is very subtle and requires a
sensitivity beyond his understanding. Spiritual things tend to cut
both ways - they confirm true belief and also confirm skepticism.
That Dawkins finds confirmation of his belief (or unbelief) does not
surprise me. He is quoted as having written: "biology is the study of
complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed
for a purpose" (The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution
Reveals a Universe without Design). The late Francis Crick also
wrote: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was
not designed, but rather evolved" (What Mad Pursuit).
--
Howard Duck
Francis A. Miniter
Hi Howard,
I was unaware of Crick's book, *What Mad Pursuit* , so I
took a look at it on Google Books. Thank you for bringing
it to my attention. It seems much better written than
Dawkins's, which, as you say, tends to be so enthusiastic as
to undermine his reasoning. Crick, on the other hand, as an
experienced writer of science, is more temperate in tone.
When reading Dawkins's *The Blind Watchmaker* , I was
surprised to see what short shrift he gave to Hume's
arguments in *Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion* , which
through logic question the concept of design in nature.
Dawkins remarks that Paley's argument (analogy?) finds a
loophole in the position taken by Hume. But he does not
explain. He then claims that that loophole needs to be
addressed, and hence his book is justified. I suppose
Dawkins might really be saying that the logical arguments of
Hume need to be ratified by findings "on the ground", so to
speak.
What seems to be missing in much of this discussion are
examples of mutations which make survival almost impossible.
Take the nationwide mutation of frogs which has been going
on for some years now. These are malformations which we are
currently observing, not something from the long ago past.
Are we to accept that mutations that do not work are random,
while mutations that do work are the result of design? That
makes no sense. So either both are designed or both are
random. If malformed mutations are designed, then to what
purpose? Just Google "frog mutations" and on the first
results page you will see images so disheartening that no
one could conclude that design was involved.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Lynn Allen
<fami...@comcast.net> said:
> Take the nationwide mutation of frogs which has been going on for some
> years now. These are malformations which we are currently observing,
> not something from the long ago past.
As it turns out, those malformations do not arise from mutations.
Missing limbs seem to come from predation on the tadpoles,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8116000/8116692.stm
Extras (which are by far the least common deformation) come from a
parasitic worm infestation,
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA08/frog11.php
http://www.aquaticcommunity.com/news/lib/374
That last talks about the millions of $ of grant money poured into the
problem when things like pollution or ozone-layer thinning was thought
to be the cause. Interesting how research goes where the money is.
So there may be mutations which are anti-survival, most of those die in
the egg or in utero. The others don't make it to reproductive age,
unless like humans, the mutations are cared for and supported. But
you'll have to find another example than frogs.
--
--
Lymaree