Howlers in Dawkins's works?
david ford
familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
raven1
ford) wrote:
>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
>especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
>the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
Why don't you do your own homework?
Thomas H. Faller
The review of _A Devil's Chaplain_ by theoretical particle physicist Stephen
M. Barr, if that is his field, is done by the man of religion, not by the man of
science. It is not peer review, it is a critique by a person whose nerve has
been trod upon. Barr's cavils with Dawkins science touch the periphery of
Dawkins specialty, not his mastery of it.
It certainly doesn't sound like you've ever read anything by Dawkins,
and would prefer to base your judgement of him on second-hand
opinion, kind of like enjoying a symphony of Beethoven by reading
the critics account of the conductor and orchestra.
A summary of Barr's review is that he doesn't like the consequences of
Dawkins arguments, so he'll call them names. I'm sure that if you nit-
pick enough, you can find enough minor bloopers by Dawkins to convince
yourself that he's not worth listening to. Why don't you try Einstein next?
I'm sure you can show gravity doesn't exist because old Al couldn't figure
out California tax laws or something.
Tom Faller
Matt Silberstein
ford) wrote:
> I am ... glaringly-incorrect
Live by, die by.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
mel turner
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>
>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
>especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
>the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
Why this interest?
And why assume that any "outrageously-wrong statements"
must exist "in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins"?
Pehaps you should be more interested in finding out whether
there are any outrageously-wrong statements and glaringly-incorrect
claims to correct in posts by David Ford, or in works by authors
with POVs that you're much more inclined to accept than Dawkin's?
[snip]
cheers
Chris Thompson
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com:
> What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
Have you stopped torturing small animals, David?
Chris
--
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Cyde Weys
news:Xns9544D19486B95r...@199.184.165.239:
> Have you stopped torturing small animals, David?
Mu
RHertz
news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com...
There aren't any. Unless, of course, you count misquotes by creationists.
--
================================
Evolution: Making life better for over 4 billion years.
AC
Why don't you supply what you believe to be a couple of incorrect things
that Dawkins wrote? I am steadily losing interest in you, as you have this
pathetic habit of starting threads and then simply disappearing from them.
Where's your presence in the atheocracy thread you started, David? Why not
finish what you start before you jump off to another one?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
Aardpig
> david ford wrote:
>
>
>>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
>>especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
>>the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>>
>>By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
>>intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
>>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
>
> The review of _A Devil's Chaplain_ by theoretical particle physicist Stephen
> M. Barr, if that is his field, is done by the man of religion, not by the man of
> science. It is not peer review, it is a critique by a person whose nerve has
> been trod upon. Barr's cavils with Dawkins science touch the periphery of
> Dawkins specialty, not his mastery of it.
I work in the same department as Steve Barr, at the University of
Delaware; he is indeed a particle physicist, and presumably a good one
(my speciality is somewhat different than his, so I'm not familiar with
his work).
However, his expertise in the field of particle physics has little or no
relevance to his competency to review a book on non-particle physics
topics; I imagine that his review did indeed draw upon his Christian
faith (which is 'well known' in my department) rather than his
scientific expertise. In this respect, the fact that Steve is a particle
physicist neither adds nor detracts from his limited authority to review
Dawkin's book *as a layman*.
cheers,
Aardpig,
Son of the Earth
PS First post to t.o, and a.a after c. 6 years of lurking in each. Can I
get a retroactive AA number?
Raptor514
"Aardpig" <aar...@nospam.texas.net> wrote in message
news:0P6dnXEPM6c...@comcast.com...
Interesting question. I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no' since the numbers
are given out sequentially. Any 'retroactive' number would be one that has
already been given to someone else.
I suppose you could take the next number and express it as an absolute
value. . .
Raptor514-------------a.a.#1855
Alt.atheism veteran----------#16
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in
horror. 'But what shall we substitute in its place?' you say.
What? A ferocious animal has sucked the blood of my relatives. I tell you to
rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" --- Voltaire
>
Steven Carr
To answer Barr's question
'Has any Christian writer ever written anything as hateful as the
writings of the Social Darwinist, H.G.Wells'?
Here is something recently posted on talk.origins , by Martin Luther
:-
'First, to set fire to their (the Jews'] synagogues or schools and to
bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will
ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor
of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are
Christians...
second, I advise that their houses also be razed and
destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their
synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn,
like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are
not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in
exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us
before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic
writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are
taught, be taken from them.
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be
forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb...
Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished
completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the
countryside..."
Exactly why Barr was having a go at Wells, when he was supposed to be
thinking of bad names to call Dawkins, is beyond me.
Steven Carr
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
Ian Braidwood
> What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
There are no outrageously wrong comments in Dawkins' work that I know
of, thought there is an error in River Out of Eden. It is however, no
howler.
> By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
I got a fair way into this review (which of course, was the real
reason you posted) and didn't find it as intriguing as you promised.
In fact, I would say from my experience that the review is pretty much
upside down. Dawkins is a superbly lucid writer, who occasionally goes
frothy at the mouth about superstition. No one who reads River Out of
Eden could ever be confused about exactly who Mitochondrial Eve was
and what her relation to us all is; although in the press, many flawed
claims were made.
I promise you David that if you read Dawkins for yourself, you would
find yourself deeply upset, but at least you'd be in no doubt what
you'd be upset about.
(-: Ian :-)
PS: So, you've given up the arch-atheist charade?
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
I believe this would be the relevant bit:
" The first thing to note is Dawkins' carelessness with facts. (This is
especially strange in a man who so emphasizes the factuality of science,
with its "testability, evidential support, precision, [and]
quantifiability"). Here is a small sampler: speaking of neutrinos, he
says that "on average one passes through you every second." Actually
many billions of neutrinos pass through you every second, a fact well
known to science buffs. In explaining an evolutionary idea he states
that a certain quantity "grows as a power function," though any
mathematically minded person would see that it grows exponentially. He
attempts an elementary combinatoric calculation and gets it wrong. He
discusses a well-known quantum phenomenon in terms that are incorrect.
If one reads enough of Dawkins, one gets used to this sort of thing; in
a previous book he showed that he did not know the difference between a
cosmic ray and a gamma ray."
I find the ones that were adequately explained by Barr to be annoying
lapses on Dawkins' part; as Barr says, his editors could at least have
checked the facts. And I wonder about the ones that weren't explained,
like the "elementary combinatoric calculation".
But Barr's main complaint simply requires him to adopt the naturalistic
fallacy. I.e. if there is no God and natural selection rules, then the
only moral law would be to follow its dictates. And he accuses Dawkins
of intellectual shallowness? Barr never considers what the basis of
morality might be in a theistic universe, and whether the existence of
God solves that basic problem. I don't think it does, and many
philosophers, going back to Plato, would agree. As a moral philosopher,
I'm sure he makes a fine particle physicist.
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
ford):
>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
>especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
>the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
I'm not aware of any; are you? If so, please give cites and
a brief synopsis and critique. Thanks.
>By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
>intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
And a physicist's opinions about biology are more relevant
than those of any other well-read layman...why?
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
MurphyInOhio
>than those of any other well-read layman...why?
Do you disqualify John Ostrom, so glibly?
Andrew Arensburger
> Mu
Is this a reference to UMD's Holey Cow?
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Life should consist of at least fifty percent pure waste of time and the
rest in doing what you please.
Budikka
> familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
You post in an atheist news group requesting glaring errors made by
another atheist?! Surely if the claims were that
"glaringly-incorrect" or his statements that "outrageously-wrong" it
would be child's play to find a list of them, but since no such lists,
to my knowledge, exist, perhaps your excitement should be
appropriately tempered?
> By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
Barr is clearly as biased toward his faith as Dawkins is against it,
yet you seem to swallow whole everything the former says while
insisting that there must be glaring outrageous errors in the words of
the latter.
Yes, Dawkins is wrong to say that one neutrino on average passes
through our bodies when the actual number is roughly estimated to be
orders of magnitude higher, but so what? How does this topple the
edifice of evolution, which was not founded by atheists, nor by
Dawkins, but by creationists?
I notice that Barr can apparently offer only one other actual example
of these purported errors and as far as I can see, he gets that wrong.
Or at the very least he is quibbling over a supposed difference
between the term Dawkins used ("power funciton") and
Barr-the-physicists claim that somehow "exponential" is different.
What is a power function if it is not adding an exponent to a number?
Perhaps the real "glaringly-incorrect" feature here is your
interpretation? Perhaps you are "outrageously-wrong"? I hope this
helps.
Budikka
John Wilkins
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:05:47 +0000 (UTC), dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
> ford) wrote:
>
> >What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> >familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> >especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> >the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> >
> >By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> >intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> >http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> To answer Barr's question
> 'Has any Christian writer ever written anything as hateful as the
> writings of the Social Darwinist, H.G.Wells'?
Here is some of that hateful stuff of Wells:
"We must tell the truth about human origins. We cannot afford to muffle
that up in the interests of a few ignorant bigots ... Never once should
a civilised teacher talk of _our_ tribe, _our_ people, _our_ race. The
truth about that piece of doggerel is in almost every line." _Travels of
a Republican Radical in Search of Hot Water_ 1939.
"Man interbreeds with all his varieties, and yet deludes himself that
there are races of outstanding purity, the 'Nordic', the 'semitic' and
so forth. These are phantoms of the imagination. The reality is more
intricate, less dramatic, and grips less easily upon the mind: the
phantoms grip only too well and can incite terrible suppressions." 1928,
_The Open Conspiracy_.
"It is plain that _our Government has known for some time_, that such
things were going on [the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany], and yet
that up to a late hour it was willing to make peace with those
responsible for all these tortures and murders the White Paper now
substantiates. I suppose that if our Government had after made that
eleventh hour peace, then all that is in the White Paper, would have
been hushed up. We should have sat down to our Christmas dinner thanking
God for Mr. Chamberlain and ignoring the concentration camps altogether.
And this incalculable Government of ours is still quite capable of
sitting down in some sort of conference with the Nazis, White Paper
forgotten. We have no sort of assurance that it will hold firmly to
these common human rights for which alone our people are willing to
fight. And so we want our Government to declare for these rights
unequivocably." Letter to the Times, 26 September, 1939.
Quoted from Michael Foot's biography, _H.G. The history of Mr Wells_,
Black Swan 1996.
Wells was a socialist of the Fabian variety, not a social Darwinist. How
ignorant is Dr Barr to suggest otherwise!
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Ernest Major
<budi...@netscape.net> writes
>
>I notice that Barr can apparently offer only one other actual example
>of these purported errors and as far as I can see, he gets that wrong.
> Or at the very least he is quibbling over a supposed difference
>between the term Dawkins used ("power funciton") and
>Barr-the-physicists claim that somehow "exponential" is different.
>What is a power function if it is not adding an exponent to a number?
>
power function would normally be interpreted as x^a. Mathworld [1]
doesn't define power function, but its definition of truncated power
function implicitly defines a power function as x^a.
[1] http://mathworld.wolfram.com
--
alias Ernest Major
Floyd
You can't have P^4. I'm a Melville junkie, so that's mine.
Tim Tyler
> By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
This bit seems to sum things up:
``The blame for this muddle lies not with humanism, reason, or even
Darwinism. It lies with Dawkins? atheism and materialism, which prevent
any coherent viewpoint from emerging because they deny the spiritual
soul in man.''
- http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ t...@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.
Tim Tyler
> >> Have you stopped torturing small animals, David?
>
> > Mu
>
> Is this a reference to UMD's Holey Cow?
Mu is well explained by Douglas Hofstadter in GEB.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote or quoted:
>
>> By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
>> intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
>> http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
>This bit seems to sum things up:
>
>``The blame for this muddle lies not with humanism, reason, or even
> Darwinism. It lies with Dawkins? atheism and materialism, which prevent
> any coherent viewpoint from emerging because they deny the spiritual
> soul in man.''
>
> - http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
Which slur is of course utter bullshit. But it gives the religious
loonies an excuse to ignore it just as they ignore reality when it
conflicts with their beliefs.
Feel free to demonstrate the "spiritual soul in man", whatever that
gobbledygook is intended to mean.
Tim Tyler
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>
> There are no outrageously wrong comments in Dawkins' work that I know
> of, thought there is an error in River Out of Eden. It is however, no
> howler.
Name and shame?
So far this thread seems to have produced no incorrect statements by
Dawkins :-(
As I recall, there are some factual errors in:
''The Information Challenge''
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-12-04infochallange.shtml
This bit:
``Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the
reverse, for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing
the prior uncertainty.''
...is not correct. Mutation increases the information in the genome,
by increasing its suprise value.
Similarly this bit:
``natural selection is by definition a process whereby information is fed
into the gene pool of the next generation.''
...is also not correct - natural selection usually /eliminates/ variation,
and /destroys/ information.
"natural selection feeds information into gene pools" isn't really
right either.
There are some other minor slip-ups as well - e.g.:
``If there'd been no pink card but a doctor had walked out of the
operating theatre, shook the father's hand and said "Congratulations
old chap, I'm delighted to be the first to tell you that you have a
daughter", the information conveyed by the 17 word message would still
be only one bit.''
...isn't really right - but that isn't much of a howler.
John Harshman
MurphyInOhio wrote:
Again you seem to be claiming that Ostrom is a physicist instead of a
paleontologist. Why?
Matt Silberstein
wrote:
>Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote or quoted:
>> Cyde Weys <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > Chris Thompson <rockw...@TAKEOUTerols.com> wrote in
>
>> >> Have you stopped torturing small animals, David?
>>
>> > Mu
>>
>> Is this a reference to UMD's Holey Cow?
>
>Mu is well explained by Douglas Hofstadter in GEB.
In so far as it can be well explained, sure.
Bennett Standeven
especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Yahweh claims made in
Honus
"Bennett Standeven" <be...@pop.networkusa.net> wrote in message
news:24c3076b.04081...@posting.google.com...
I think that if you tried to compile a list of accurate statements, you'd
find it to be a much more manageable job and your work load would be reduced
dramatically.
In fact, I think you might even get bored.
raven1
ROTFL!
Matt Silberstein
That whooshing sound was the point going over your head.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
murphy...@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):
I'll take that as an "I don't know". Thanks for confirming.
Bennett Standeven
> especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>
Theoretical particle physicist Bradley D. Wall's
intriguing book review of Watkins's _A God's Chaplain_ appears at
http://www.lastthings.com/ltissues/lt0408/articles/wall.htm
The God's Preacher Confounded
Bradley D. Wall
Copyright (c) 2004 Last Things 145 (August/September 2004): 25-31.
A God's Chaplain is a collection of essays, book reviews, forewords,
eulogies, and assorted "tirades and reflections" selected by YHWH from
His work of the past twenty-five years. It is a miscellany that
touches on postmodernism, the jury system, New Age superstitions, the
half-forgotten ChMSh, the deaths of saints, the wonders of Africa, the
perils of quack medicine, and more. The author is known as a writer on
creationism and is perhaps its best-known exponent writing today.
[...] on the subject of religion, in particular, He is rabid. [...]
The title refers to the book of the Bible called "Ecclesiastes", which
is usually translated into "Preacher" in English.
[...]
What enables us to rebel, He says, is the fact that He, though
flawless, has accidentally endowed us with a sinful nature. [...]
[...] And yet, God the Creator insists that we must come to terms with
the "inescapable factual correctness of the God's Preacher" and his
view of life, "bleak and cold though it can seem from under the
security blanket of ignorance." Endowed with reason, we have no
alternative but to acknowledge the truth. We cannot be content with
"cheap comforts, living a warm and comfortable lie." We cannot bask in
"comforting delusions" or "suck at the pacifier of faith in
immortality." We will, however, have compensation for our putting away
of childish things. "There is deep refreshment to be had from standing
up full-face into the keen wind of understanding." There is "the joy
of knowing that you have grown up, [and] faced up to what existence
means," or, rather, to its ultimate meaninglessness.
JHWH often counsels us to face up to things. Another divine lesson
that we must face up to is that we are animals, with no special status
or unique value among the animals. To think otherwise is "flagrant
speciesism," "human chauvinism," and "human speciesist vanity." [...]
YHWH goes so far as to say that the prospect of intentional
human-and-chimp interbreeding, though an "abomination", "would
provide exactly the comeuppance that ‘human dignity' needs." Here YHWH
the Creator seems to have elbowed aside YHWH the Humanist.
[...]
Polite concealment of contempt is not a rhetorical mode that one
associates with YHWH. He is much given to invective, not all of it
against religion. [...] The God, as they say nowadays, has issues. It
appears that God and His publisher understand that He has acquired a
reputation, even among His admirers, for having a rather fiery
philosophy and a nasty literary personality. We are therefore promised
that this book will show us YHWH's "gentler, more contemplative side,
which may surprise many readers," His "warm, personal side," and His
"sympathetic side." [...]
One goal of this anthology, then, may be to humanize the
flame-throwing controversialist. The eulogies and laments for
forgotten colleagues gathered here show His capacity for deep feeling
and deep friendships (as well as his blowing-up abilities, of course).
YHWH's reviews of ChMSh's books and the final e-mail correspondence
between them display magnanimity toward a sometime theological foe.
The essays about Mount Horeb, His "personal birthplace" and "ancestral
home," reveal His poetic nature. His letter to His thirty-year-old
Son, which brings the book to a close, shows Him as fatherly and as a
God who does not talk down to children.
[...]
The first thing to note is YHWH's carelessness with facts. (This is
especially strange in a God who so emphasizes the factuality of
religion, with its "testability, evidential support, precision, [and]
predictability"). Here is a small sampler: speaking of neutrinos, he
says that "they are as the stars in the sky for multitude." Actually
there are considerably more neutrinos than stars, a fact well known to
science buffs. [...] If one reads enough of YHWH, one gets used to
this sort of thing; in a previous book He showed that He did not know
the difference between a whale and a fish.
It could be urged, in extenuation of such mistakes, that YHWH is not a
physicist or mathematician. Even so, one might have expected better of
a God whose title is Creator of the Universe. Certainly He and His
editors might check such statements with people who know these fields
better.
[...]
It is plain that this view [Creationism] is incompatible with belief
in an objective moral order, and the more clear-thinking Theists have
always understood this. One is proscribed by such a philosophy from
speaking of the "purposes" of things in any sense other God's whimsy.
A natural object can have a purpose only in the limited sense that God
wishes it to have one. And what is the biological function of an
organism? Simply and solely to "go forth and multiply". Creationism
gives nothing beyond that.
None of this yields moral obligation. It is quite meaningless to ask,
for example, whether one "should" build a dam that will cause the
snail darter to become extinct. We can only ask whether building it
would be conducive to human survival, or to snail darter survival, or
to some other end arbitrarily chosen by God. People may, of course,
find it in their best interest to do as their God wishes, but this is
not real morality, only rational behavior. As William O. Edison and
Daniel Snare put it, "human beings function better if they are
deceived by God into thinking that there is a disinterested objective
morality binding upon them, which all should obey."
Given all this, it might seem that YHWH is simply being consistent
when He condemns "speciesism." After all, given His premises, there
can be no objective basis for what He calls "absolutist valuings of
human life above all other life." Humans may be more important to
humans, but snail darters are more important to snail darters. [...]
YHWH suggests that humans may be special because they are brainier, or
perhaps because, as Bentham claimed, they can suffer more. But He does
not pause to resolve the question, and in the other essays collected
here He is unequivocal in his denunciation of prevalent human
"speciesism."
All of this may sound like unflinching logical consistency. But if we
think a little more deeply than God does, we realize that moralizing
about speciesism is utterly silly from the standpoint of a theistic
Creationist. [...] If all moral standards are defined by God, He might
as well go with the speciesist standard. [...]
[...] Are there objective moral standards existing somewhere, out
there, for our understanding to latch on to? Not on YHWH's premises.
Indeed, He explicitly admits that "Man has no methods for deciding
what is ethical."
We come down to this: our reason enables us to rebel against the
implications of Creationism. But why rebel? Where does the moral
standard come from that says we should or shouldn't? Of course, the
question is moot. For the fact of the matter is that rebellion against
nature is impossible if theistic Creationism is true. We are a part of
nature and cannot be anything but that. YHWH thinks he can prove
otherwise. He gives the example of homosexuality as "unnatural"
behavior. But that behavior is no more unnatural than is a dog chasing
a car. If Creationism is correct, organisms are designed to respond
and to act in ways that most of the time, but not invariably, favor
their chances to survive and reproduce. YHWH should really listen to
the God's Preacher again: Nature is "clumsy, wasteful, blundering."
YHWH argues against genetic determinism. Given His belief in
predestination, it is hard to see the point of this. Whether or not
genes decide anything, God decides everything. [...] It is of little
importance what influence atoms, genes, or the environment have, or
what role is played by free will, if in the final analysis everything
is just God's creation anyway, including the atoms, genes,
environment, and individuals who choose. To a theist, we are just
generations of divine Will; and must go whithersoever God commands.
YHWH wonders whether a child can "escape" the temptations of sin. It
is idle of Him to wonder. He should know that no one can "escape"
anything. There is no place for intellectual or moral freedom in a
universe that is a creation of an omnificent deity. That is why many
who share YHWH's basic views call free will an illusion.
[...]
As the great mathematician and physicist Herwinkle Werner observed,
There must be freedom in the theoretical acts of affirmation and
negation: When I reason that 2+2=4, this actual judgment is not forced
upon me through blind spiritual or divine causality (a view that would
eliminate thinking as an act for which we can be held answerable) but
something purely rational enters in.
The inescapable conclusion is that YHWH and theists of His sort do not
in fact "stand up full-face into the keen wind of understanding." They
don't face the implications of their ideas. If they did, they would
have to dismiss all talk of morality, rebellion against God, and free
will as so much sentimentality.
[...]
Even without His bigotry, we could not expect balanced judgment or
logical consistency from JHWH, because He is a God in a muddle. One
encounters in A God's Preacher at least three YHWHs: there is YHWH the
Savior, YHWH the Lawgiver, and YHWH the Creator. Each sits on a
different branch, sawing away at the branches on which the others sit.
YHWH the Savior preaches, inveighs, denounces; He bristles with moral
indignation. YHWH the Creator tells Him, however, that His humanism is
speciesist vanity, His moral standards arbitrary, and His indignation
empty. YHWH the Savior rebels, proclaiming Himself (in human affairs)
passionately anti-Creationist. YHWH the Lawgiver joins the rebellion,
declaring that our free will allows us to transcend our natural
inheritance. YHWH the Creator answers with lethal effect that our free
will "was only designed to handle the mundane details of how to
survive in the Garden of Eden."
The blame for this muddle lies not with humanism, Law, or even
Creationism. It lies with YHWH's theism, which prevent any coherent
viewpoint from emerging because they deny the power of reason in man.
That power is indeed a blessed gift. It is precisely "what is so
special about humans." It is what enables us to be people of reason
and not just angels programmed to survive in the Garden of Eden. It is
what allows us to grasp moral truth and to have the freedom to follow
it rather than the laws of God or the laws of the Devil. It is what
makes it possible for us to have that hope and love to which the
subtitle of YHWH's book refers, but which are absent from its pages,
and about which He has nothing in the end to say.
Bigdakine
>From: ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk (Steven Carr)
>Date: 8/13/04 8:55 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <411db006...@news.demon.co.uk>
Yeah, Ok, but what have they said lately... :-)
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
John Stewart
Nah. He was making a joke. The whoosh is your own! Although, to be
fair, the new joke doesn't reflect the context of the original joke.
Anyway, there has got to be at least four distinct strata of irony in
this situation, and all deposited very rapidly. Polystrate humor.
Bound to get the creationist readers into a tizzy.
david ford
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):
>
> >What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> >familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> >especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> >the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>
> I'm not aware of any; are you? If so, please give cites and
> a brief synopsis and critique. Thanks.
I plan to merely present two erroneous _Devil's Chaplain_ Dawkins
claims not mentioned by Barr in a forthcoming response to Dr Forrest's
question, What is meant by "scientific fact"?
> >By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> >intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> >http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> And a physicist's opinions about biology are more relevant
> than those of any other well-read layman...why?
I didn't say that [df]"theoretical particle physicist Stephen M.
Barr's" [BC]"opinions about biology are more relevant than those of
any other well-read layman."
For which if any of the following areas do you consider zoologist
Dawkins's opinions thereupon to be [BC]"more relevant than those of
any other well-read layman"?:
ethics.
theology.
religion.
philosophy.
Matt Silberstein
(John Stewart) wrote:
>Matt Silberstein <matts2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<efivh0tdrcsgf5ban...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:42:13 +0000 (UTC), "Honus"
>> <hon...@earthlink.net.is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bennett Standeven" <be...@pop.networkusa.net> wrote in message
>> >news:24c3076b.04081...@posting.google.com...
>> >> What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>> >> familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by God? I am
>> >> especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Yahweh claims made in
>> >> the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>> >
>> >I think that if you tried to compile a list of accurate statements, you'd
>> >find it to be a much more manageable job and your work load would be reduced
>> >dramatically.
>> >
>> >In fact, I think you might even get bored.
>>
>> That whooshing sound was the point going over your head.
>
>Nah. He was making a joke. The whoosh is your own! Although, to be
>fair, the new joke doesn't reflect the context of the original joke.
Hence my comment. I saw his joke, it depended on not realizing that
Bennett's request was an attempt to expose a fallacy.
>Anyway, there has got to be at least four distinct strata of irony in
>this situation, and all deposited very rapidly. Polystrate humor.
>Bound to get the creationist readers into a tizzy.
They should take a jagged little pill.
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>
> You post in an atheist news group requesting glaring errors made by
> another atheist?!
Yes.
> Surely if the claims were that
> "glaringly-incorrect" or his statements that "outrageously-wrong" it
> would be child's play to find a list of them, but since no such lists,
> to my knowledge, exist, perhaps your excitement should be
> appropriately tempered?
I fail to see the connection between an author's having made erroneous
statements and a list therefore having to exist detailing that
author's erroneous statements.
Andrew Brown states that E.O. Wilson "sprinkles his more ambitious
work with bum notes," and gives as an illustration an erroneous Wilson
claim about England's history. Are you aware of a list of E.O. Wilson
errors?
See Brown's _The Darwin Wars_ (1999), 59.
> > By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> Barr is clearly as biased toward his faith as Dawkins is against it,
> yet you seem to swallow whole everything the former says while
> insisting that there must be glaring outrageous errors in the words of
> the latter.
Simply making reference to an [df]"intriguing book review" by Barr
doesn't mean that I [B]"swallow whole everything" Barr has to say. In
fact, I wrote one question mark in the margin of Barr's article,
signaling possible disagreement with him.
> Yes, Dawkins is wrong to say that one neutrino on average passes
> through our bodies when the actual number is roughly estimated to be
> orders of magnitude higher, but so what?
At this point, I'm simply asking for glaringly-incorrect Dawkins
claims made in the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics. I'm
not presenting any conclusions about any erroneous Dawkins statements
at this time.
> How does this topple the
> edifice of evolution, which was not founded by atheists, nor by
> Dawkins, but by creationists?
I never said that Dawkins's error about neutrinos [B]"topple[s] the
edifice of evolution."
What is the meaning of [B]"evolution"?
> I notice that Barr can apparently offer only one other actual example
> of these purported errors and as far as I can see, he gets that wrong.
> Or at the very least he is quibbling over a supposed difference
> between the term Dawkins used ("power funciton") and
> Barr-the-physicists claim that somehow "exponential" is different.
> What is a power function if it is not adding an exponent to a number?
I don't know.
> Perhaps the real "glaringly-incorrect" feature here is your
> interpretation?
Of what?
> Perhaps you are "outrageously-wrong"?
Quite possibly. Let's see your case that I am wrong.
> I hope this helps.
Honus
"John Stewart" <apieceo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39c5072c.04081...@posting.google.com...
> Matt Silberstein <matts2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<efivh0tdrcsgf5ban...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:42:13 +0000 (UTC), "Honus"
> > <hon...@earthlink.net.is.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Bennett Standeven" <be...@pop.networkusa.net> wrote in message
> > >news:24c3076b.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > >> What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > >> familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by God? I am
> > >> especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Yahweh claims made in
> > >> the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> > >
> > >I think that if you tried to compile a list of accurate statements,
you'd
> > >find it to be a much more manageable job and your work load would be
reduced
> > >dramatically.
> > >
> > >In fact, I think you might even get bored.
> >
> > That whooshing sound was the point going over your head.
>
> Nah. He was making a joke. The whoosh is your own! Although, to be
> fair, the new joke doesn't reflect the context of the original joke.
Well, I'm glad -someone- got it. <g>
> Anyway, there has got to be at least four distinct strata of irony in
> this situation, and all deposited very rapidly. Polystrate humor.
Uh oh. I anticipate a flood of puns heading this way.
Tim Tyler
> >> By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> >> intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> >> http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
> >
> >This bit seems to sum things up:
> >
> >``The blame for this muddle lies not with humanism, reason, or even
> > Darwinism. It lies with Dawkins? atheism and materialism, which prevent
> > any coherent viewpoint from emerging because they deny the spiritual
> > soul in man.''
> >
> > - http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> Which slur is of course utter bullshit. [...]
I /hope/ you are objecting to the *content* of the review - rather
than to my attemt to summarise it by quoting a sentence from it ;-)
Chain Breaker
david ford
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>
> > By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> This bit seems to sum things up:
>
> "The blame for this muddle lies not with humanism, reason, or even
> soul in man."
>
> - http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
Compare this 1957 Julian Huxley:
Already some non-theistic belief systems have emerged to
dominate large sections of humanity. The two most
obvious are Nazism in Germany and Marxist Communism
in Russia. Nazism was inherently self-destructive because
of its claim to world domination by a small group. It was
also grotesquely incorrect and limited as an interpretation
of destiny, analogous to some of the primitive products of
the theistic type, such as deified beasts, bloodthirsty tribal
deities, or revengeful divine tyrants.
Marxist Communism is much better organised and more
competent, but its purely materialist basis has limited its
efficacy. [in the chapter, Huxley tries to distinguish
between 'pure materialism' and naturalism] It has tried to
deny the reality of spiritual values. But they exist, and the
Communists have had to accept the consequences of their
ideological error, and grudgingly throw the churches open
to the multitudes seeking the spiritual values which had
been excluded from the system.
Ref in 1957 Julian Huxley on _Religion without Revelation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407270344.53d3af56%40posting.google.com
david ford
> david ford wrote:
>
> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> >
> > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> M. Barr, if that is his field,
It is.
> is done by the man of religion, not by the man of
> science. It is not peer review, it is a critique by a person whose nerve has
> been trod upon.
[TF]"It [Barr's review] is not peer review"
Is the book reviewed, Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_, peer-reviewed?
> Barr's cavils with Dawkins science touch the periphery of
> Dawkins specialty, not his mastery of it.
>
> It certainly doesn't sound like you've ever read anything by Dawkins,
Dawkins on Blind Watchmaking
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312252139.7b1d31bf%40posting.google.com
Simpson on rapidity/ "quantum evolution"; P. Johnson (a creationist)
on Dawkins's bluster
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10001152331430.1317621-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Dawkins favors teaching of both design & evolution arguments
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
Acoustic Engineers and Bird Alarm Calls
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9912112245430.200386-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
how do blindwatchmakingists "know" that life came from non-life via
non-intelligence-directed processes?:
Haeckel; Goodrich; Wells, J. Huxley, & Wells;
Simpson; Sagan; Dawkins; Johnson (a creationist)
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990812214926.974808E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Davies, National Academy of Sciences, Dawkins, Feynman
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990511230015.1040149B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
Dobzhansky, Haeckel ("the law of the persistence of matter and force;
that law knows nothing of a beginning"), and Dawkins reject the
position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com
Simpson and Dobzhansky on the need for a mechanism, Dawkins on
mutation, Gordon Rattray Taylor and David Raup on explosive
radiations, Arthur Koestler on testing Darwinian and Lamarckian theory
by experiment
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8beptq%24hgk%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Dawkins, Catley on the coming Kuhnian revolution, Collingridge &
Earthy
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981113234219.18273B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
1982 Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn;
1940 Haldane on materialism; 1996 and 1995 Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley
on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of and
extracts from 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com
Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and J. Huxley,
Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Douglas Erwin takes a jab at Dawkins
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310251702280.20106-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
1987 Dawkins: "the whole _point_ of the theory of evolution by
natural selection was that it provided a _non_-miraculous account of
the existence of complex adaptations"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407280430.4459fca3%40posting.google.com
2003 Dawkins conundrum; 2004 Francisco J. Ayala; 1845 Marx: "a society
consisting only of atheists is possible"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406201230.66ad3150%40posting.google.com
> and would prefer to base your judgement of him on second-hand
> opinion, kind of like enjoying a symphony of Beethoven by reading
> the critics account of the conductor and orchestra.
>
> A summary of Barr's review is that he doesn't like the consequences of
> Dawkins arguments, so he'll call them names. I'm sure that if you nit-
> pick enough, you can find enough minor bloopers by Dawkins to convince
> yourself that he's not worth listening to. Why don't you try Einstein next?
> I'm sure you can show gravity doesn't exist because old Al couldn't figure
> out California tax laws or something.
Einstein has confirmatory experimentation results on the side of his
special theory of relativity and his general theory of relativity. In
sharp contrast, Dawkins's beloved theory of natural selection lacks
confirmatory experimentation results.
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com:
> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>
I never started [CT]"torturing small animals," Chris.
david ford
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com...
> | What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> | familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> | especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> | the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> |
> | intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> | http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
If you say so.
> Unless, of course, you count misquotes by creationists.
david ford
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> >
> > By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> that Dawkins wrote?
I plan to, in a response to Dr Forrest. What is stopping you from
supplying what you believe to be a couple of incorrect things that
Dawkins wrote?
> I am steadily losing interest in you, as you have this
> pathetic habit of starting threads and then simply disappearing from them.
> Where's your presence in the atheocracy thread you started, David? Why not
> finish what you start before you jump off to another one?
There are 144+ posts in that thread. What must I do to have a
[AC]"presence" in the thread that would satisfy you as 'finishing what
I started'? (Reply to 10% of the posts therein? Reply to half of
your posts therein? Reply to at least one of the responders? What?)
david ford
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>
> >What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> >familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> >especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> >the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> >
> >By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> >intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> >http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> 'Has any Christian writer ever written anything as hateful as the
> writings of the Social Darwinist, H.G.Wells'?
>
> Here is something recently posted on talk.origins , by Martin Luther
> :-
>
> 'First, to set fire to their (the Jews'] synagogues or schools and to
> bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will
> ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor
> of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are
> Christians...
Perhaps it was the case that, as my Dad alleged at a recent family
get-together, Luther wasn't a Christian.
It seems to me that none of these allegedly-Luther statements flows
from Christianity, and moreover, they vigorously go against it.
> second, I advise that their houses also be razed and
> destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their
> synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn,
> like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are
> not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in
> exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us
> before God.
>
> Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic
> writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are
> taught, be taken from them.
>
> Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be
> forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb...
>
> Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished
> completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the
> countryside..."
>
> Exactly why Barr was having a go at Wells, when he was supposed to be
> thinking of bad names to call Dawkins, is beyond me.
david ford
> Thomas H. Faller wrote:
> > david ford wrote:
> >
> >>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> >>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> >>especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> >>the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> >>
> >>By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> >>intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> >>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
> >
> > science. It is not peer review, it is a critique by a person whose nerve has
> > Dawkins specialty, not his mastery of it.
>
> Delaware; he is indeed a particle physicist, and presumably a good one
> (my speciality is somewhat different than his, so I'm not familiar with
> his work).
What is the best line of evidence from physics in support of atheism
of which you are aware?
> However, his expertise in the field of particle physics has little or no
> relevance to his competency to review a book on non-particle physics
> topics; I imagine that his review did indeed draw upon his Christian
> faith (which is 'well known' in my department) rather than his
> scientific expertise. In this respect, the fact that Steve is a particle
> physicist neither adds nor detracts from his limited authority to review
> Dawkin's book *as a layman*.
Do you think that Dawkins's expertise in the field of zoology has
little or no relevance to his competency to write about non-zoology
topics?
> cheers,
>
> Aardpig,
> Son of the Earth
>
> PS First post to t.o, and a.a after c. 6 years of lurking in each. Can I
> get a retroactive AA number?
david ford
> Steven Carr <ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> >
> > >What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > >familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > >especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > >the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> > >
> > >By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> > >intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > >http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
> >
> > 'Has any Christian writer ever written anything as hateful as the
> > writings of the Social Darwinist, H.G.Wells'?
>
>
> "We must tell the truth about human origins. We cannot afford to muffle
> that up in the interests of a few ignorant bigots ... Never once should
> a civilised teacher talk of _our_ tribe, _our_ people, _our_ race. The
> truth about that piece of doggerel is in almost every line." _Travels of
> a Republican Radical in Search of Hot Water_ 1939.
>
> "Man interbreeds with all his varieties, and yet deludes himself that
> there are races of outstanding purity, the 'Nordic', the 'semitic' and
> so forth. These are phantoms of the imagination. The reality is more
> intricate, less dramatic, and grips less easily upon the mind: the
> phantoms grip only too well and can incite terrible suppressions." 1928,
> _The Open Conspiracy_.
>
> "It is plain that _our Government has known for some time_, that such
> things were going on [the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany], and yet
> that up to a late hour it was willing to make peace with those
> responsible for all these tortures and murders the White Paper now
> substantiates. I suppose that if our Government had after made that
> eleventh hour peace, then all that is in the White Paper, would have
> been hushed up. We should have sat down to our Christmas dinner thanking
> God for Mr. Chamberlain and ignoring the concentration camps altogether.
> And this incalculable Government of ours is still quite capable of
> sitting down in some sort of conference with the Nazis, White Paper
> forgotten. We have no sort of assurance that it will hold firmly to
> these common human rights for which alone our people are willing to
> fight. And so we want our Government to declare for these rights
> unequivocably." Letter to the Times, 26 September, 1939.
>
> Quoted from Michael Foot's biography, _H.G. The history of Mr Wells_,
> Black Swan 1996.
Written shortly before the coming of World War II, H. G. Wells's entry
in the 1939 book _I Believe: The Personal Philosophies of Certain
Eminent Men and Women of Our Time_ is bizarre in that it bemoans the
practical effects of his materialism's ascendancy.
> Wells was a socialist of the Fabian variety, not a social Darwinist. How
> ignorant is Dr Barr to suggest otherwise!
It is possible to be both a socialist and a social Darwinist.
Here is some of that hateful material of H. G. Wells:
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. On 185:
Ideas about racial extermination were not
unique to Germany, but became very
influential elsewhere also. H. G. Wells
epitomized an influential Anglo-American
social Darwinist attitude when he
stated that "there is only one sane and logical
thing to be done with a really inferior race,
and that is to exterminate it."^5
5. Quoted in Diane B. Paul, _Controlling Human
Heredity_ (Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1995), 75; see also
Hannsjoachim W. Koch, _Der Sozialdarwinismus_
(Munich, 1973), ch. 9.
about Weikart's new book
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
> > Here is something recently posted on talk.origins , by Martin Luther
> > :-
> >
> > 'First, to set fire to their (the Jews'] synagogues or schools and to
> > bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will
> > ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor
> > of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are
> > Christians...
> >
david ford
ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk (Steven Carr) on 8/13/04 in Message-id:
<411db006...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> >On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 david ford:
Who is "they"? Lutherans?
david ford
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>
> of, thought there is an error in River Out of Eden. It is however, no
> howler.
What is the error in _River Out of Eden_ you noticed?
> > By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> I got a fair way into this review (which of course, was the real
> reason you posted) and didn't find it as intriguing as you promised.
I didn't promise you that you would find it intriguing. When I spoke
of [df]"Barr's intriguing book review" I was stating my personal
opinion, one that you evidently do not share.
> In fact, I would say from my experience that the review is pretty much
> upside down. Dawkins is a superbly lucid writer, who occasionally goes
> frothy at the mouth about superstition. No one who reads River Out of
> Eden could ever be confused about exactly who Mitochondrial Eve was
> and what her relation to us all is; although in the press, many flawed
> claims were made.
I have a vague memory of coming across a paper on mitochondrial Eve.
How long ago did she appear?
> I promise you David that if you read Dawkins for yourself, you would
> find yourself deeply upset, but at least you'd be in no doubt what
> you'd be upset about.
[IB]"if you read Dawkins for yourself, you would find yourself deeply
upset" I have read three books by Dawkins, and found them at turns
agreeable and hilarious.
> PS: So, you've given up the arch-atheist charade?
I'm not presently an arch-atheist.
david ford
> In talk.origins Ian Braidwood <diri...@virgin.net> wrote or quoted:
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> >
> > There are no outrageously wrong comments in Dawkins' work that I know
> > of, thought there is an error in River Out of Eden. It is however, no
> > howler.
>
>
> So far this thread seems to have produced no incorrect statements by
> Dawkins :-(
Perhaps Dawkins is like the Pope, in that he doesn't make erroneous
statements.
Dawkins, Richard. 15 April 1982. "The necessity of
Darwinism" _New Scientist_, 130-2. On 130:
Darwin's theory [of natural selection] is now supported by all
the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by
any serious modern biologist.
> As I recall, there are some factual errors in:
>
> ''The Information Challenge''
>
> http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-12-04infochallange.shtml
>
> This bit:
>
> ``Mutation is not an increase in true information content, rather the
> reverse, for mutation, in the Shannon analogy, contributes to increasing
> the prior uncertainty.''
>
> ...is not correct. Mutation increases the information in the genome,
> by increasing its suprise value.
>
> Similarly this bit:
>
> ``natural selection is by definition a process whereby information is fed
> into the gene pool of the next generation.''
>
> ...is also not correct - natural selection usually /eliminates/ variation,
> and /destroys/ information.
>
> "natural selection feeds information into gene pools" isn't really
> right either.
>
> There are some other minor slip-ups as well - e.g.:
>
> ``If there'd been no pink card but a doctor had walked out of the
> operating theatre, shook the father's hand and said "Congratulations
> old chap, I'm delighted to be the first to tell you that you have a
> daughter", the information conveyed by the 17 word message would still
> be only one bit.''
>
> ...isn't really right - but that isn't much of a howler.
Sounds good.
How did totally-blind, mindless-at-every-level processes generate the
meaning-laden sequences of nucleotides that code for all the different
biological structures and body plans and organisms in biology?
david ford
> david ford wrote:
>
> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> >
> > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
>
> " The first thing to note is Dawkins' carelessness with facts. (This is
> especially strange in a man who so emphasizes the factuality of science,
> says that "on average one passes through you every second." Actually
> many billions of neutrinos pass through you every second, a fact well
> known to science buffs. In explaining an evolutionary idea he states
> that a certain quantity "grows as a power function," though any
> mathematically minded person would see that it grows exponentially. He
> attempts an elementary combinatoric calculation and gets it wrong. He
> discusses a well-known quantum phenomenon in terms that are incorrect.
> If one reads enough of Dawkins, one gets used to this sort of thing; in
> a previous book he showed that he did not know the difference between a
> cosmic ray and a gamma ray."
>
> I find the ones that were adequately explained by Barr to be annoying
> lapses on Dawkins' part; as Barr says, his editors could at least have
> checked the facts. And I wonder about the ones that weren't explained,
> like the "elementary combinatoric calculation".
Dawkins's carelessness with certain facts wasn't [JH]"annoying" to me.
> But Barr's main complaint simply requires him to adopt the naturalistic
> fallacy. I.e. if there is no God and natural selection rules, then the
> only moral law would be to follow its dictates.
[JH]"its dictates" being Darwinian natural selection?
Are you aware of any evolutionists or social Darwinists that have
adopted this "naturalistic fallacy"?
If so, what are some of their names?
> And he accuses Dawkins
> of intellectual shallowness? Barr never considers what the basis of
> morality might be in a theistic universe, and whether the existence of
> God solves that basic problem. I don't think it does, and many
> philosophers, going back to Plato, would agree.
What is the basis of morality in a gods-less universe?
> As a moral philosopher,
> I'm sure he makes a fine particle physicist.
As a moral philosopher, do you similarly think Dawkins makes a fine
zoologist?
Cyde Weys
Your list seems to have gotten cut off in my newsreader?
Andrew Arensburger
> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote or quoted:
>> Cyde Weys <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > Mu
>> Is this a reference to UMD's Holey Cow?
> Mu is well explained by Douglas Hofstadter in GEB.
I know. It's just that the UMD ag school has a cow with a
porthole surgically inserted into its side, which allows researchers
to monitor its stomach. The animal is colloquially known as the Holey
Cow.
Since Cyde and I are both at UMD, I thought it was an amusing
rejoinder.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
BTW, FWIW, IMHO, AFAIK, yes. OTOH, AAMOF, maybe not. YMMV.
Ian Braidwood
> In talk.origins Ian Braidwood <diri...@virgin.net> wrote or quoted:
>
> > > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> >
> > of, thought there is an error in River Out of Eden. It is however, no
> > howler.
>
> Name and shame?
It's not very dramatic I'm afraid and I don't think it counts as a
howler.
It occurs at the start of Chapter 5, The Replication Bomb, Dawkins is
talking about supernovas and says:
'...were the Sun ever to "go supernova," the entire solar system would
be vapourized on the instant. Fortunately this is very unlikely.'
The sun is not massive enough for it's gravity to cause the
catastophic collapse necessary for a supernova explosion; so it isn't
unlikely, it's impossible.
> So far this thread seems to have produced no incorrect statements by
> Dawkins :-(
I think this is for the good reason that not only does Mr Dawkins like
to get things right, but he has ready access to experts who can read
his drafts and criticise them. He does work at Oxford University.
(-: Ian :-)
Ian Braidwood
> diri...@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood) wrote in message news:<53ad390d.04081...@posting.google.com>...
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> >
> > There are no outrageously wrong comments in Dawkins' work that I know
> > of, thought there is an error in River Out of Eden. It is however, no
> > howler.
>
> What is the error in _River Out of Eden_ you noticed?
I've explained it in another post, go look.
> > > By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> > > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
> >
> > I got a fair way into this review (which of course, was the real
> > reason you posted) and didn't find it as intriguing as you promised.
>
> I didn't promise you that you would find it intriguing. When I spoke
> of [df]"Barr's intriguing book review" I was stating my personal
> opinion, one that you evidently do not share.
No I do not, I found it to be dull and pettifogging.
> I have a vague memory of coming across a paper on mitochondrial Eve.
> How long ago did she appear?
Between 150,000 and 250,000 years ago, probably in Africa.
> > I promise you David that if you read Dawkins for yourself, you would
> > find yourself deeply upset, but at least you'd be in no doubt what
> > you'd be upset about.
>
> [IB]"if you read Dawkins for yourself, you would find yourself deeply
> upset" I have read three books by Dawkins, and found them at turns
> agreeable and hilarious.
You know David, you are such a source of dubious statements that I'm
not inclined to believe you.
> > PS: So, you've given up the arch-atheist charade?
>
> I'm not presently an arch-atheist.
<irony>
You surprise me.
</irony>
(-: Ian :-)
Tim Tyler
> Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:<I2HnI...@bath.ac.uk>...
> > In talk.origins Ian Braidwood <diri...@virgin.net> wrote or quoted:
> > > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > As I recall, there are some factual errors in:
I never claimed evolution was *totally* blind.
I did say natural selection *usually* "/eliminates/ variation,
and /destroys/ information".
Though natural selection completely destroys whole individuals -
complete with all their mutations, knowledge and details about
what genes where divided by sex where - eliminating huge volumes
of information in the process - it /does/ add *some* information
back - namely information about which individual would up dead.
Sexual selection might get some marks for being a more creative
force, since it adds back information about who mated with who
and how many kids came of each union - normally a rather larger
volume of information.
However, most creative of all has *got* to be random mutation -
and most organisms have a very substantial component of frozen
accidents.
Happy Dog
> > And he accuses Dawkins
> > of intellectual shallowness? Barr never considers what the basis of
> > morality might be in a theistic universe, and whether the existence of
> > God solves that basic problem. I don't think it does, and many
> > philosophers, going back to Plato, would agree.
>
> What is the basis of morality in a gods-less universe?
Guns. What's the basis in a god filled universe? Lightning bolts. Idiot
Ford, "basis of morality" is a phrase that describes someone's opinion of
virtuous conduct. Your comprehension of moral philosophy begins and ends
with "because I interpret god as saying...". You have never offered
anything remotely resembling the product of critical thinking. With god, it
isn't necessary.
moo
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by cy...@umd.edu (Cyde
Weys):
No, it looks complete to me...
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
AC
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnchr7j6.tpk....@aaronclausen.alberni.net>...
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>> > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
>> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
>> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>> >
>> > By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
>> > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
>> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>>
>> Why don't you supply what you believe to be a couple of incorrect things
>> that Dawkins wrote?
>
> I plan to, in a response to Dr Forrest. What is stopping you from
> supplying what you believe to be a couple of incorrect things that
> Dawkins wrote?
I frankly have little interest in entering new conversations with you when
you tend to bolt. I'm sure Dawkins has made errors, as anyone is prone to
do. What of it, David? Have you made no mistakes? The singular objection
of yours to Dawkins seems to be one that he doesn't buy into your argument
from incredulity. That's not a mistake, that's just recognition that your
argument is nothing more than a logical fallacy.
>
>> I am steadily losing interest in you, as you have this
>> pathetic habit of starting threads and then simply disappearing from them.
>> Where's your presence in the atheocracy thread you started, David? Why not
>> finish what you start before you jump off to another one?
>
> There are 144+ posts in that thread. What must I do to have a
> [AC]"presence" in the thread that would satisfy you as 'finishing what
> I started'? (Reply to 10% of the posts therein? Reply to half of
> your posts therein? Reply to at least one of the responders? What?)
Well, I'm looking at the Google history of the "Atheocracy at work: China
arrests 100 church leaders" thread, and unless you've posted in the last six
or eight hours to the thread, guess how many times you did post? Once,
David. Just once. One single post which was the start of the thread. This
is your classic behavior, hit and run posting. To use a crude analogy, it's
rather like farting and fleeing the room. That just about sums up what you
posted, and your behavior afterwards.
Perhaps you'd care to explain why you often start such threads, and then
have so little to do with them? Why not return to the "Atheocracy at work:
China arrests 100 church leaders" thread and give your views on what China
did and why China did it? Surely you could take a break from slandering and
quote-mining Dawkins long enough to follow up. You felt the thread
important enough to start, but what? Did you lose interest? Did you find
out something in the thread that made you decide a retreat was in order? Or
have you even read the thread, David?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson?
NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing
milkbone underwear.
Mitchell Coffey
What does he say?
> > Wells was a socialist of the Fabian variety, not a social Darwinist. How
> > ignorant is Dr Barr to suggest otherwise!
>
> It is possible to be both a socialist and a social Darwinist.
>
> Here is some of that hateful material of H. G. Wells:
>
> Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
> Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
> (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. On 185:
> Ideas about racial extermination were not
> unique to Germany, but became very
> influential elsewhere also. H. G. Wells
> epitomized an influential Anglo-American
> social Darwinist attitude when he
> stated that "there is only one sane and logical
> thing to be done with a really inferior race,
> and that is to exterminate it."^5
> 5. Quoted in Diane B. Paul, _Controlling Human
> Heredity_ (Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1995), 75; see also
> Hannsjoachim W. Koch, _Der Sozialdarwinismus_
> (Munich, 1973), ch. 9.
[snip]
It is interesting that Weikart cites two relatively obscure
publications, one of them in German, for a quote from a readily
available publication by a well-known English writer.
David, does Weikart quote any more of that passage, and does he
assert, as you imply, that Wells was advocating the extermination of
"inferior races"? The reason I ask is that Weikart holds an academic
appointment in history and, unlike you, would get into a lot of
trouble for lying about a cited quotation, which is what your quote
shows him doing, if you're accurately quoting him.
Mitchell Coffey
Eros
I would accept a scientist's logical, rational approach to any
subject, over a Creationist's ignorant opinion any day! And I'm
speaking from years of experience.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The public utterances of the top creation 壮cientists' -- together
with their published works, which appear in professedly authoritative
祖reation science' books and journals -- provide unequivocal,
documentable evidence that many of these authors are grossly
incompetent, not only in the area of science on which they expound
without proper credentials, but also in their own professed areas of
scientific and technical expertise. " -- "An Engineer Looks at the
Creationist Movement", by Prof. John W. Patterson, published in
Proceedings of the Iowa Acadamy of Science 89(2):55-58, 1982, is based
on a presentation given at the Iowa Acadamy of Science in 1981.
Budikka
> I fail to see the connection between an author's having made erroneous
> statements and a list therefore having to exist detailing that
> author's erroneous statements.
I could make a list of what you fail to see. You completely missed
the point that if Dawkins is supposedly making these glaring errors
then the creationists would definitely have a list of them somewhere,
which would be easy to find in an Internet search, but **IF THERE ARE
NO SUCH LISTS** then perhaps he isn't making myriad glaring errors in
every paragraph of prose he writes? Get it now?
> Andrew Brown states that E.O. Wilson "sprinkles his more ambitious
> work with bum notes," and gives as an illustration an erroneous Wilson
> claim about England's history. Are you aware of a list of E.O. Wilson
> errors?
> See Brown's _The Darwin Wars_ (1999), 59.
Like I care. But if you were truly interested in finding errors, then
you would actually be doing the work, and making a search instead of
pontificating about these things on Usenet.
> Simply making reference to an [df]"intriguing book review" by Barr
> doesn't mean that I [B]"swallow whole everything" Barr has to say.
Well then the error is in the way you word your Usenet messages, not
in Dawkins' works, then, isn't it? You're the one assuming a
multiplication of Dawkins' errors and using Barr as your springboard.
> fact, I wrote one question mark in the margin of Barr's article,
> signaling possible disagreement with him.
My, how big of you.
> At this point, I'm simply asking for glaringly-incorrect Dawkins
> claims made in the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics. I'm
> not presenting any conclusions about any erroneous Dawkins statements
> at this time.
Then do your homework and find them instead of wasting our time.
> I never said that Dawkins's error about neutrinos [B]"topple[s] the
> edifice of evolution."
> What is the meaning of [B]"evolution"?
If you don't know at your age, no explanation of mine will help you.
So, please, do enlighten me - why would anyone be trying to dig up
dirt on Dawkins if not to discredit him and by association, evolution,
of which is is a highly visible and outspoken proponent?
> Quite possibly. Let's see your case that I am wrong.
I'll be happy to present that when you make yours that you're right.
Please do post a **LIST** of Dawkins' glaring errors when you find
enough to do so.
Budikka
Budikka
> In article <e1e30450.04081...@posting.google.com>, Budikka
> <budi...@netscape.net> writes
> >
> >I notice that Barr can apparently offer only one other actual example
> >of these purported errors and as far as I can see, he gets that wrong.
> > Or at the very least he is quibbling over a supposed difference
> >between the term Dawkins used ("power funciton") and
> >Barr-the-physicists claim that somehow "exponential" is different.
> >What is a power function if it is not adding an exponent to a number?
> >
> An exponential function is a^x (where a constant and x variable). A
> power function would normally be interpreted as x^a. Mathworld [1]
> doesn't define power function, but its definition of truncated power
> function implicitly defines a power function as x^a.
>
> [1] http://mathworld.wolfram.com
Is that Ernest Major or Math Major?! I'm sure, as you highlight,
there is a technical difference, but from the perspective of Dawkins'
writings aimed at everyday people (including me) I don't think this is
so important as to rate it as a "glaring error" as the original seems
to think it is.
Budikka
Thomas H. Faller
--------------50BA772120A19350B4EF2D1D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
david ford wrote:
<excess groups snipped>
> "Thomas H. Faller" <fal...@sgi.com> wrote in message news:<411D544D...@sgi.com>...
> > david ford wrote:
> >
> > > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> > >
> > > By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> > > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
> >
> > The review of _A Devil's Chaplain_ by theoretical particle physicist Stephen
> > M. Barr, if that is his field,
>
> It is.
As others have confirmed. I tend not to take this kind of thing for granted,
as "credential-mongering" is rife here.
>
>
> > is done by the man of religion, not by the man of
> > science. It is not peer review, it is a critique by a person whose nerve has
> > been trod upon.
>
> [TF]"It [Barr's review] is not peer review"
> Is the book reviewed, Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_, peer-reviewed?
You asked for incorrect statements by Dawkins in the field of science
and presented a review of one of Dawkins popular works as evidence
that he makes such statements. I countered with the observation that
Dawkins science was not being reviewed by his scientific peers, which is
the proper way to tell if he habitually makes incorrect science statements, but
was being nit-picked by a scientist who had gotten his knickers in a twist
because he didn't like what Dawkins says about his religion, which is
apparently the arguing style you find sympathy with.
I'll repeat my earlier statement. Anyone can cut and paste from websites
without reading the books or understanding what is in them. It doesn't
sound like you've read anything by Dawkins if you're asking for a list
of his goofs and are unable to critically read a single volume of his popular
works or his scientific papers and post the results for yourself. Even a
casual look through the bibliography of major biological journals could
uncover letters written to journals which criticized his facts, presentation
or interpretation. That is how research is done, not by snipping from web
sites. I don't see any evidence from the posts I looked at that you typed
any of that in from a book. It looks like it is all cribbed from on-line
sources.
>
>
> > and would prefer to base your judgement of him on second-hand
> > opinion, kind of like enjoying a symphony of Beethoven by reading
> > the critics account of the conductor and orchestra.
> >
> > A summary of Barr's review is that he doesn't like the consequences of
> > Dawkins arguments, so he'll call them names. I'm sure that if you nit-
> > pick enough, you can find enough minor bloopers by Dawkins to convince
> > yourself that he's not worth listening to. Why don't you try Einstein next?
> > I'm sure you can show gravity doesn't exist because old Al couldn't figure
> > out California tax laws or something.
>
> Einstein has confirmatory experimentation results on the side of his
> special theory of relativity and his general theory of relativity. In
> sharp contrast, Dawkins's beloved theory of natural selection lacks
> confirmatory experimentation results.
Another indication that you haven't read Dawkins or any modern
evolutional research including what you clip from web sites. You simply
have no idea what you're talking about.
Tom Faller
--------------50BA772120A19350B4EF2D1D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
david ford wrote:
<p><excess groups snipped>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Thomas H. Faller" <fal...@sgi.com> wrote in message
news:<411D544D...@sgi.com>...
<br>> david ford wrote:
<br>>
<br>> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
<br>> > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins?
I am
<br>> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made
in
<br>> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
<br>> >
<br>> > By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
<br>> > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears
at
<br>> > <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm">http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm</a>
<br>>
<br>> The review of _A Devil's Chaplain_ by theoretical particle physicist
Stephen
<br>> M. Barr, if that is his field,
<p>It is.</blockquote>
As others have confirmed. I tend not to take this kind of thing for granted,
<br>as "credential-mongering" is rife here.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p>> is done by the man of religion, not by the man of
<br>> science. It is not peer review, it is a critique by a person whose
nerve has
<br>> been trod upon.
<p>[TF]"It [Barr's review] is not peer review"
<br>Is the book reviewed, Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_, peer-reviewed?</blockquote>
You asked for incorrect statements by Dawkins in the field of science
<br>and presented a review of one of Dawkins popular works as evidence
<br>that he makes such statements. I countered with the observation that
<br>Dawkins science was not being reviewed by his scientific peers, which
is
<br>the proper way to tell if he habitually makes incorrect science statements,
but
<br>was being nit-picked by a scientist who had gotten his knickers in
a twist
<br>because he didn't like what Dawkins says about his religion, which
is
<br>apparently the arguing style you find sympathy with.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p>> Barr's cavils with Dawkins science touch the periphery
of
<br>> Dawkins specialty, not his mastery of it.
<br>>
<br>> It certainly doesn't sound like you've ever read anything by Dawkins,
<p>Dawkins on Blind Watchmaking
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312252139.7b1d31bf%40posting.google.com">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312252139.7b1d31bf%40posting.google.com</a>
<p>Simpson on rapidity/ "quantum evolution"; P. Johnson (a creationist)
<br>on Dawkins's bluster
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10001152331430.1317621-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10001152331430.1317621-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu</a>
<br>Feynman on giving all the information; Dobzhansky, Mayr, Wilson,
<br>Gould, Futuyma, Dawkins, Sagan, Simpson
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970912002214.12893C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu</a>
<p>Dawkins favors teaching of both design & evolution arguments
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu</a>
<p>Acoustic Engineers and Bird Alarm Calls
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9912112245430.200386-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.9912112245430.200386-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu</a>
<p>how do blindwatchmakingists "know" that life came from non-life via
<br>non-intelligence-directed processes?:
<br>Haeckel; Goodrich; Wells, J. Huxley, & Wells;
<br>Simpson; Sagan; Dawkins; Johnson (a creationist)
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990812214926.974808E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990812214926.974808E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu</a>
<p>Davies, National Academy of Sciences, Dawkins, Feynman
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990511230015.1040149B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990511230015.1040149B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu</a>
<p>Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
<br>University Press), 352pp., 195:
<br> Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
<p>Dobzhansky, Haeckel ("the law of the persistence of matter and force;
<br>that law knows nothing of a beginning"), and Dawkins reject the
<br>position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com</a>
<p>Simpson and Dobzhansky on the need for a mechanism, Dawkins on
<br>mutation, Gordon Rattray Taylor and David Raup on explosive
<br>radiations, Arthur Koestler on testing Darwinian and Lamarckian theory
<br>by experiment
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8beptq%24hgk%241%40nnrp1.deja.com">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8beptq%24hgk%241%40nnrp1.deja.com</a>
<p>Dawkins, Catley on the coming Kuhnian revolution, Collingridge &
<br>Earthy
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981113234219.18273B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.981113234219.18273B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu</a>
<p>1982 Saunders & Ho and Gould on neo-Darwinian vagueness; 1925 Osborn;
<br>1940 Haldane on materialism; 1996 and 1995 Dawkins and 1960 J. Huxley
<br>on slow rate and gradual nature of Darwinian NS; abstract of and
<br>extracts from 1977 G&E _Paleobiology_ paper
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312182040.1e80e3b8%40posting.google.com</a>
<p>Chris N. discusses my theory of NS essay; gradualism and J. Huxley,
<br>Dawkins, Schindewolf, Mayr, Lovtrup, 1913 Bateson
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.10A.B3.10004021232370.15068389-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu</a>
<p>Douglas Erwin takes a jab at Dawkins
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310251702280.20106-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310251702280.20106-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu</a>
<p>1987 Dawkins: "the whole _point_ of the theory of evolution by
<br>natural selection was that it provided a _non_-miraculous account of
<br>the existence of complex adaptations"
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407280430.4459fca3%40posting.google.com">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407280430.4459fca3%40posting.google.com</a>
<p>2003 Dawkins conundrum; 2004 Francisco J. Ayala; 1845 Marx: "a society
<br>consisting only of atheists is possible"
<br><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406201230.66ad3150%40posting.google.com">http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406201230.66ad3150%40posting.google.com</a></blockquote>
<p>I'll repeat my earlier statement. Anyone can cut and paste from websites
<br>without reading the books or understanding what is in them. It doesn't
<br>sound like you've read anything by Dawkins if you're asking for a list
<br>of his goofs and are unable to critically read a single volume of his
popular
<br>works or his scientific papers and post the results for yourself. Even
a
<br>casual look through the bibliography of major biological journals could
<br>uncover letters written to journals which criticized his facts, presentation
<br>or interpretation. That is how research is done, not by snipping from
web
<br>sites. I don't see any evidence from the posts I looked at that you
typed
<br>any of that in from a book. It looks like it is all cribbed from on-line
<br>sources.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><a href="http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406201230.66ad3150%40posting.google.com"></a>
<p>> and would prefer to base your judgement of him on second-hand
<br>> opinion, kind of like enjoying a symphony of Beethoven by reading
<br>> the critics account of the conductor and orchestra.
<br>>
<br>> A summary of Barr's review is that he doesn't like the consequences
of
<br>> Dawkins arguments, so he'll call them names. I'm sure that if you
nit-
<br>> pick enough, you can find enough minor bloopers by Dawkins to convince
<br>> yourself that he's not worth listening to. Why don't you try Einstein
next?
<br>> I'm sure you can show gravity doesn't exist because old Al couldn't
figure
<br>> out California tax laws or something.
<p>Einstein has confirmatory experimentation results on the side of his
<br>special theory of relativity and his general theory of relativity.
In
<br>sharp contrast, Dawkins's beloved theory of natural selection lacks
<br>confirmatory experimentation results.</blockquote>
Another indication that you haven't read Dawkins or any modern
<br>evolutional research including what you clip from web sites. You simply
<br>have no idea what you're talking about.
<p>Tom Faller
<br> </html>
--------------50BA772120A19350B4EF2D1D--
Thomas H. Faller
<other groups snipped>
> Aardpig <aar...@nospam.texas.net> wrote in message news:<0P6dnXEPM6c...@comcast.com>...
> > Thomas H. Faller wrote:
> > > david ford wrote:
> > >
> > >>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > >>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > >>especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > >>the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
> > >>
> > >>By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> > >>intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > >>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
> > >
> > > The review of _A Devil's Chaplain_ by theoretical particle physicist Stephen
> > > M. Barr, if that is his field, is done by the man of religion, not by the man of
> > > science. It is not peer review, it is a critique by a person whose nerve has
> > > been trod upon. Barr's cavils with Dawkins science touch the periphery of
> > > Dawkins specialty, not his mastery of it.
> >
> > I work in the same department as Steve Barr, at the University of
> > Delaware; he is indeed a particle physicist, and presumably a good one
> > (my speciality is somewhat different than his, so I'm not familiar with
> > his work).
>
> What is the best line of evidence from physics in support of atheism
> of which you are aware?
As a physicist and astronomer in my twenties, I had found that the sheer
physical size of the universe, its lack of apparent purpose or direction, its
complete unrelatedness to man, to any of mens concepts of gods, and to
any eventual goal, as well as the complexity of matter and energy on all
scales, their physical restrictions to possible events imaginable, and the
lack of physical evidence for the supernatural was the best evidence for
atheism.
The fact that the universe could have created itself, delivered
itself in its present form, have been responsible for life and present life forms
within its physical laws and have done this without any god's intervention
was just icing on the cake.
Tom Faller
Ian Rennie
> familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>
> By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
Here's a radical idea:
read his books and articles, and find his "howlers" yourself
Ernest Major
On the one hand, "glaring" may well be too strong; on the other hand
"quibbling" may downplay an infelicitous choice of words on Dawkins'
part; on the gripping hand one can't evaluate how much of an error (if
any) it is without the context. My default position would be that if
Dawkins meant exponential, he should have written exponential.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova
<nos...@buzz.off>:
So you don't know of any either, David?
>On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:05:47 +0000 (UTC), the following
>appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david
>ford):
>
>>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
>>especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
>>the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>
>I'm not aware of any; are you? If so, please give cites and
>a brief synopsis and critique. Thanks.
>
>>By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
>>intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
>>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
>And a physicist's opinions about biology are more relevant
>than those of any other well-read layman...why?
Bigdakine
>From: diri...@virgin.net (Ian Braidwood)
>Date: 8/16/04 8:29 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <53ad390d.04081...@posting.google.com>
>
>Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:<I2HnI...@bath.ac.uk>...
>> In talk.origins Ian Braidwood <diri...@virgin.net> wrote or quoted:
>> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
>news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> > > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>> > > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
>> > > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
>> > > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>> >
>> > There are no outrageously wrong comments in Dawkins' work that I know
>> > of, thought there is an error in River Out of Eden. It is however, no
>> > howler.
>>
>> Name and shame?
>
>It's not very dramatic I'm afraid and I don't think it counts as a
>howler.
>
>It occurs at the start of Chapter 5, The Replication Bomb, Dawkins is
>talking about supernovas and says:
>
>'...were the Sun ever to "go supernova," the entire solar system would
>be vapourized on the instant. Fortunately this is very unlikely.'
>
>The sun is not massive enough for it's gravity to cause the
>catastophic collapse necessary for a supernova explosion; so it isn't
>unlikely, it's impossible.
>
Fact of the matter is, what few and minor miscues there are, Ford is simply not
knowledgeable enough to catch them on his own. I see no point in helping
directly or indirectly a kook like Ford find errors which are irrelevant to
Dawkin's thesis.
Stuart
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."
Hypatia Kosh
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<dford3-b1c67abe.0...@posting.google.com>...
> > What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
> > familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> > especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> > the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>
> another atheist?! Surely if the claims were that
> "glaringly-incorrect" or his statements that "outrageously-wrong" it
> would be child's play to find a list of them, but since no such lists,
> to my knowledge, exist, perhaps your excitement should be
> appropriately tempered?
>
> > By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
> > intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
> > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>
> yet you seem to swallow whole everything the former says while
> insisting that there must be glaring outrageous errors in the words of
> the latter.
>
> Yes, Dawkins is wrong to say that one neutrino on average passes
> through our bodies when the actual number is roughly estimated to be
> orders of magnitude higher, but so what? How does this topple the
> edifice of evolution, which was not founded by atheists, nor by
> Dawkins, but by creationists?
And at any rate, those neutrinos react so weakly with us that it
really doesn't make much difference. Perhaps Dawkins got mixed up by
some figures on how many neutrino interactions occur in a second.
> I notice that Barr can apparently offer only one other actual example
> of these purported errors and as far as I can see, he gets that wrong.
> Or at the very least he is quibbling over a supposed difference
> between the term Dawkins used ("power funciton") and
> Barr-the-physicists claim that somehow "exponential" is different.
> What is a power function if it is not adding an exponent to a number?
Took a while to find it, but here's a def:
http://www.2dcurves.com/power/powerf.html
(power function: y(x) = x^a where a is a constant)
You are apparently correct. I suspected as much. It is probably one of
those British/American differences in terminology. Leave it to a
physicist to fuck up his math. (I say that at as a proud
physicist--hey, Einstein was lousy at algebra.)
Barr also referred to some mistake in interpreting or explaining some
issue in quantum physics. He doesn't say what that was. Probably it
was somewhat weak. Quantum seems to frustrate the understanding of the
human mind, and explanations in layman's terms often prove tricky.
-Hy
Budikka
> Physics Major, except that I've forgotten most of it.
Apparently not - LoL! Did you ever read "Catch-22" by Joseph Heller?
He had a character in there called Major Major Major (first, middle,
and last names), who was drafted (in WW2) and made it to the rank of
major, but they wouldn't move him up after that!
> On the one hand, "glaring" may well be too strong; on the other hand
> "quibbling" may downplay an infelicitous choice of words on Dawkins'
> part; on the gripping hand one can't evaluate how much of an error (if
> any) it is without the context. My default position would be that if
> Dawkins meant exponential, he should have written exponential.
The oft disappointed perfectionist in me is inclined to agree, but I'm
also wondering if Dawkins perhaps doesn't make too much of an effort
knowing he's writing for a "lay audience" who are not going to nail
him to his every word either because they don't know any better or
because they're not that concerned about technical perfection?
Not that I think he wants to talk down to them but that he (perhaps
too often) writes from memory whereas if he were writing for a more
professional audience he would take the time to look things up?
I still think Ford is being vindictively anal about this. Yes,
perhaps Dawkins is sloppy on occasion, but is he sloppy when he's
talking about his own field? And do occasional memory gaffes
constitute serious errors? I don't think they do.
Anyway, thanks for the update.
B.
Budikka
> And at any rate, those neutrinos react so weakly with us that it
> really doesn't make much difference. Perhaps Dawkins got mixed up by
> some figures on how many neutrino interactions occur in a second.
LoL! Interesting perspective on the error! Who cares what neutrinos
are doing?! He appears to have had a memory lapse, but it doesn't
seem to me to be too important.
> You are apparently correct. I suspected as much. It is probably one of
> those British/American differences in terminology. Leave it to a
> physicist to fuck up his math. (I say that at as a proud
> physicist--hey, Einstein was lousy at algebra.)
I wish I were *that* lousy! I found your URL more confusing than the
one Ernest major offered, but it does seem to be more loose about the
difference.
> Barr also referred to some mistake in interpreting or explaining some
> issue in quantum physics. He doesn't say what that was. Probably it
> was somewhat weak. Quantum seems to frustrate the understanding of the
> human mind, and explanations in layman's terms often prove tricky.
That's why I love it. If someone had invented the quantum world for a
science fiction story it probably would have raised a few smiles at
the quirky idea and been forgotten. It blows my mind to know that
it's real (or is it? LoL!)
B.
allan m
I love that something so completely absurd causes barely a murmur
among laymen. Far harder to swallow than evolution - Einstein himself
felt that the world simply *can't* be like that - although it works a
treat. Good thing Genesis doesn't say "let the tiniest particles
behave exactly like billiard balls", or the True Believers in
Quantumphysicisism would have a fight on their hands, and Barr would
be doing a different job.
Ferrous Patella
<Rapt...@SPAMSUCKS.com>:
> "Aardpig" <aar...@nospam.texas.net> wrote in message
> news:0P6dnXEPM6c...@comcast.com...
>> Thomas H. Faller wrote:
>> > david ford wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>> >>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I
>> >>am especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made
>> >>in the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>> >>
>> >>By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
>> >>intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
>> >>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>> >
>> >
>> > The review of _A Devil's Chaplain_ by theoretical particle
>> > physicist
> Stephen
>> > M. Barr, if that is his field, is done by the man of religion, not
>> > by
> the man of
>> > science. It is not peer review, it is a critique by a person whose
>> > nerve
> has
>> > been trod upon. Barr's cavils with Dawkins science touch the
>> > periphery
> of
>> > Dawkins specialty, not his mastery of it.
>>
>> I work in the same department as Steve Barr, at the University of
>> Delaware; he is indeed a particle physicist, and presumably a good
>> one (my speciality is somewhat different than his, so I'm not
>> familiar with his work).
>>
>> However, his expertise in the field of particle physics has little or
>> no relevance to his competency to review a book on non-particle
>> physics topics; I imagine that his review did indeed draw upon his
>> Christian faith (which is 'well known' in my department) rather than
>> his scientific expertise. In this respect, the fact that Steve is a
>> particle physicist neither adds nor detracts from his limited
>> authority to review Dawkin's book *as a layman*.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Aardpig,
>> Son of the Earth
>>
>> PS First post to t.o, and a.a after c. 6 years of lurking in each.
>> Can I get a retroactive AA number?
>
> Interesting question. I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no' since the
> numbers are given out sequentially. Any 'retroactive' number would be
> one that has already been given to someone else.
> I suppose you could take the next number and express it as an absolute
> value. . .
>
>
> Raptor514-------------a.a.#1855
> Alt.atheism veteran----------#16
>
You could go with a decimal number i.e.,
1.618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805762862135448622705260462
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
"If the universe is so finely tuned, how come I can't sing worth a darn?"
-Cheezits
Steve O
One thing that shines out from that critique.
The author is clearly terrified of anything that Dawkins has to say.
John Wilkins
That is mean of you.
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
Robert Carroll
"Ferrous Patella" <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in message
news:Xns954A9516223F2...@199.45.49.11...
Fie, fie on you.
Bob
Michael Gray
wrote:
As he should be.
Dawkins et. al. not only upset his fantasy apple-cart, they smash it
to metaphorical peices and set it ablaze.
Raptor514
I suppose that would work. If you wanted to be real retroactive one could
use 1.00000000000000000000001 I suppose.
>
> --
> Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
Iron kneecaps??
Raptor514
Michael Gray
ford) wrote:
>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
>especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
>the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
:
I cannot find any "outrageously" wrong statements by Dawkins, I
suspect because their are none.
Ferrous Patella
<Rapt...@SPAMSUCKS.com>:
[...]
> Iron kneecaps??
>
Have you ever seen the schtick where Harpo Marx is playing charades by
manipulating his partner's mouth? Try "Iron kneecaps aloud with Harpo
covering your mouth somewhere arround the "c".
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
"If the universe is so finely tuned, how come I can't sing worth a darn?"
-Cheezits
Ferrous Patella
john...@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins):
> Ferrous Patella <mail1...@pop.net> wrote:
>
>> news:hgiTc.3448$SC1....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net by "Raptor514"
>> <Rapt...@SPAMSUCKS.com>:
>>
[...]
>> >> Can I get a retroactive AA number?
>> >
>> > Interesting question. I'm pretty sure the answer is 'no' since the
>> > numbers are given out sequentially. Any 'retroactive' number would
>> > be one that has already been given to someone else.
>> > I suppose you could take the next number and express it as an
>> > absolute value. . .
>> >
>> >
[...]
>>
>> You could go with a decimal number i.e.,
>> 1.61803398874989484820458683436563811772030917980576286213544862270526
>> 0462
>
> That is mean of you.
Just your average behavior for around here.
Eric Pepke
> familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
> especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
> the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
I've read a lot of stuff by Dawkins, and I've only found one.
It was a claim that in the Doppler shift, it didn't matter whether the
source or the observer was moving. This is wrong. It's a reasonable
approximation for slow speeds, but when it approaches the speed
of the wave in the medium, it deviates.
Other than that, Dawkins is pretty accurate.
Cyde Weys
$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu:
> Tim Tyler <t...@tt1lock.org> wrote:
>> Andrew Arensburger <arensb.no-...@umd.edu> wrote or quoted:
>>> Cyde Weys <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> > Mu
>
>>> Is this a reference to UMD's Holey Cow?
>
>> Mu is well explained by Douglas Hofstadter in GEB.
>
> I know. It's just that the UMD ag school has a cow with a
> porthole surgically inserted into its side, which allows researchers
> to monitor its stomach. The animal is colloquially known as the Holey
> Cow.
> Since Cyde and I are both at UMD, I thought it was an amusing
> rejoinder.
During that festival day or whatever thing when the school was swarmed,
they opened up the porthole and let you feel the cow's insides :-/
--
~ Cyde Weys ~
Bite my shiny metal ass.
Ian Braidwood
> Fact of the matter is, what few and minor miscues there are, Ford is simply not
> knowledgeable enough to catch them on his own. I see no point in helping
> directly or indirectly a kook like Ford find errors which are irrelevant to
> Dawkin's thesis.
Oh I agree, which is why I was reluctant to answer at first, but I
think it also important to show that we don't follow Dawkins - or
anyone else - blindly.
We are critical and by comparison, religious doctrines are poor fair
to scientific research.
Most of the criticisms made of atheism and atheists, don't take
account of this difference and it is at the heart of thier
ineffectiveness. Athists are not obdurate, Christians are weak.
(-: Ian :-)
John Harshman
david ford wrote:
> John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<411E1BF1...@pacbell.net>...
>
>>david ford wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What are some outrageously-wrong statements with which you are
>>>familiar appearing in books, articles, lectures etc. by Dawkins? I am
>>>especially interested in glaringly-incorrect Dawkins claims made in
>>>the areas of physics, biology, and mathematics.
>>>
>>>By the way, theoretical particle physicist Stephen M. Barr's
>>>intriguing book review of Dawkins's _A Devil's Chaplain_ appears at
>>>http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0408/articles/barr.htm
>>>
>>I believe this would be the relevant bit:
>>
>>" The first thing to note is Dawkins' carelessness with facts. (This is
>>especially strange in a man who so emphasizes the factuality of science,
>>with its "testability, evidential support, precision, [and]
>>quantifiability"). Here is a small sampler: speaking of neutrinos, he
>>says that "on average one passes through you every second." Actually
>>many billions of neutrinos pass through you every second, a fact well
>>known to science buffs. In explaining an evolutionary idea he states
>>that a certain quantity "grows as a power function," though any
>>mathematically minded person would see that it grows exponentially. He
>>attempts an elementary combinatoric calculation and gets it wrong. He
>>discusses a well-known quantum phenomenon in terms that are incorrect.
>>If one reads enough of Dawkins, one gets used to this sort of thing; in
>>a previous book he showed that he did not know the difference between a
>>cosmic ray and a gamma ray."
>>
>>I find the ones that were adequately explained by Barr to be annoying
>>lapses on Dawkins' part; as Barr says, his editors could at least have
>>checked the facts. And I wonder about the ones that weren't explained,
>>like the "elementary combinatoric calculation".
>>
>
> Dawkins's carelessness with certain facts wasn't [JH]"annoying" to me.
Never said it was. I said it was annoying to me.
>>But Barr's main complaint simply requires him to adopt the naturalistic
>>fallacy. I.e. if there is no God and natural selection rules, then the
>>only moral law would be to follow its dictates.
>>
>
> [JH]"its dictates" being Darwinian natural selection?
> Are you aware of any evolutionists or social Darwinists that have
> adopted this "naturalistic fallacy"?
> If so, what are some of their names?
I don't know any names. I would imagine that social Darwinists would
have taken their justification from assuming this fallacy to be true.
Evolutionary biologists are not generally so naive.
The problem is that Barr takes this fallacy to be true. Would you agree
that he's making a serious error in doing so?
>> And he accuses Dawkins
>>of intellectual shallowness? Barr never considers what the basis of
>>morality might be in a theistic universe, and whether the existence of
>>God solves that basic problem. I don't think it does, and many
>>philosophers, going back to Plato, would agree.
>
> What is the basis of morality in a gods-less universe?
The same as in a gods-filled universe, unless you adopt the notion that
something is moral purely because god says so. (A very silly and scary
notion in my opinion.) My theory is that the bottom of most morality is
the unprovable assumption of empathy, that is that other people are in
some way equivalent to you. From this, the golden rule, etc. follow.
>> As a moral philosopher,
>>I'm sure he makes a fine particle physicist.
>
> As a moral philosopher, do you similarly think Dawkins makes a fine
> zoologist?
Certainly he makes a better one than Barr. But I haven't read Dawkins'
writings on moral philosophy, merely Barr's.