The Weaknesses of Richard Dawkins

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

For years textbooks have been teaching information about Evolution that has been proven false, such as the Piltdown Man. The big-brained, ape-jawed Piltdown Man was hailed as a major missing link in human evolution when he was discovered in a gravel pit outside a small U.K. village in 1912. The find set the pace for evolutionary research for decades and established the United Kingdom as an important site in human evolution. The only problem? Piltdown Man turned out to be one of the most famous frauds in scientific history

According to Evolution, the continents are 2.5 billion years old,

According to the Bible, humanity has walked the earth for about 6000 years.

Both these mindsets cannot be correct.

We have to prove one right and until then neither Evolution nor the Bible should be taught in schools.

22

The problem with Dawkins is that, as you say, he is out of his depth, and as the video in the OP shows, he has a significant blind spot. On the other hand, his criticism of fundamentalism is understandable, especially when fundamentalists try to relativise the descriptions of the deity in the Bible.

Evaluating mythical deities by human moral standards is problematic. Myths and religious texts often reflect the values, norms, and circumstances of the cultures that produced them. This is true of deities from any mythology, including the biblical God. Myths and religious stories arise within specific historical and cultural contexts. The values and norms of those times often differ significantly from contemporary ones. In ancient texts, actions or traits attributed to deities may have been seen as just, heroic, or necessary in their original contexts but can seem objectionable by today’s standards.

Symbolism and allegory are key elements in many mythological stories. They are not mere historical accounts but vehicles for conveying deeper truths and lessons. The behaviours of deities often serve as illustrations of moral lessons, cultural values, or natural phenomena. Human projection onto deities is a common theme in mythology. Deities often embody human traits, both positive and negative, reflecting the full spectrum of human experience. This concept helps us understand the deities’ qualities and behaviours in a more relatable context.

Human morality evolves over time. Actions and attributes of deities that were acceptable or even laudable in ancient times might be condemned today. Our ethical frameworks have developed, often moving toward greater inclusivity and empathy.

Myths serve various purposes, such as explaining the unknown, providing a sense of order, offering moral guidance, and reinforcing social structures. Deities within these myths often play essential roles in the narrative and the functions these myths serve. Therefore, when assessing mythical deities, it’s helpful to do several things:

  • Understand the historical and cultural context of the myths.
  • Recognise the symbolic nature of many mythological stories.
  • Consider the ways in which human traits and societal norms are projected onto deities.
  • Acknowledge the evolution of moral standards over time.

Applying modern moral standards to ancient myths can provide insight into how human values have changed, but it should be done with an awareness of the historical and cultural distances involved. This approach helps us appreciate the myths within their own contexts and understand the human experiences and cultural conditions that shaped them.

23

Do you have any evidence this is being taught?

24

Do you have any evidence this is being taught?

It wasn’t.

I used that example to show that Piltdown Man was an audacious fake and a sophisticated scientific fraud. Who is to say it stops there?

But what do the textbooks teach about the continents?

According to evolution, the continents are 2.5 billion years old.

But, several geologists have highlighted a problem: North America should have been leveled in 10 million years if the erosion had continued at the current average rate.

I am fairly certain that is not taught in schools.

25

Do you see that the natural interpretation of your words here is that textbooks are teaching stuff about the Piltdown Man? If you know that textbooks are in fact not teaching about the Piltdown Man, and you intend for your points to be well understood by your readers, you should change the way you phrase this in the future.

26

I learned that the Piltdown Man was a hoax in grade school along with a overwhelming preponderance of biological evidence that supports evolution. In addition to whatever scientific model is prevailing at the moment schools should teach how to think critically.

Scientific truth is based on probability. Absolute truth is not found in the phenomenal world.

Meanwhile, evolution based biology advances. What are the young earth creationists contributing to it?

The only people I know of who are pushing a 6000 year old universe are people who teach that if you don’t believe the Bible is word for word inerrant you are in danger of going to hell for eternity. Primarily, such belief is motivated by fear. If you’ve got more than that, I’d like to see it. Who are these geologists you refer to? Let’s look at your sources.

27

Yes and Plato was already doing that with Greek mythology. He objected to the immorality of the gods like tales of Zeus’s philandering for instance and proposed purging such stories from the texts as they were corrupting the youth.

Interestingly, the New Testament can be read as doing that with the Hebrew Bible. For example, Jesus “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” The nation of Israel goes through a moral transformation in Hebrew Bible. The universalization of Israel on a spiritual/ethical basis is ratified in the New Testament.

But, some, like Marcion, wanted to jettison the Hebrew Bible as scripture altogether. The God of the Hebrew Bible (see the Richard Dawkins quote above) could not be the same as that of Jesus. One could argue that the perennial tendency of religionists to revert to tribalism and violence in the name of God supports that interpretation.

28

…which means the teachers will not be teaching all of the content, or at least not without the “this is not supported by good reasons or evidence” disclaimer (if that means they teach the teachers how to teach how to think critically).

It also means teachers WILL teach omitted content, like the unsolved questions.

Here’s one: What selection pressures led to the evolution and maintenance of sexual reproduction?

Not something I remember coming up when I was in school as a youngn.

29

Not every evolved trait needs to be because of a selection pressure, not every evolved trait needs to confer an advantage. There might be some selection pressure for sexual reproduction (for example some kind of genetic protection or variation), but it’s not a given that every trait MUST confer an advantage.

30

One speculative benefit of sexual reproduction, if we want to go there, is the ability to share evolved traits across the species.

If we are an asexual species, then if I happen to have an advantageous trait that you don’t have, all of my ancestors stand to benefit from my mutation and none of your ancestors stand to benefit from it. In a sexual species, however, your ancestors can, eventually, benefit from my positive mutation if our descendants eventually mate.

So the evolutionary advantage of sexual selection is… evolution itself, the ability for different members of a species to have descendents that all benefit from evolved traits in the rest of the species.

31

This idea that it’s a meta-evolutionary trait wouldn’t be unique to sexual reproduction either, there’s other possible meta evolutions that may have happened - for example, we know that not every place on a genome is as likely to mutate as every other place. Some places mutate more, some less - this may be evolved, somehow, because of the fact that some pieces of the genome are really important to conserve and other parts are more viable candidates for positive mutations

32

It also goes the other way: in asexual species, disadvantageous traits can continue in a lineage that has an advantageous mutation. In sexual selection, some descendants get all the bad traits and die out, and some descendants get all the good traits and go on to dominate the population.

Here’s an image that shows the dynamic in action (from this post explaining why sexual reproduction is almost universally dimorphic):

8ab0a2c2-3270-470b-9d6e-b1371d471005_1031x536
8ab0a2c2-3270-470b-9d6e-b1371d471005_1031x5361031×536 81.9 KB

The chart shows the frequency of different mutations in two populations of yeast, one that reproduces asexually and the other that reproduces sexually. The orange lines are positive mutations, and the blue ones are negative mutations. In the sexually reproducing yeast, the disadvantageous mutations fall out of the population pretty quickly.

So sexually reproducing species should rack up good mutations and drop bad mutations faster than asexually reproducing species.

1 Like
33

Super interesting.

So, there’s your selection pressure I guess. A meta evolutionary selection pressure

34

Ok so. :stuck_out_tongue: Next question.

Please compare my notes, my quiz answer, feedback from the grader, and this article I just now ran across:

https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/articles/2013/48-46/

image
image3024×4032 3.09 MB

image
image3024×3473 2.15 MB

That done,

Follow up question:

Instead of preservation of function, we got gain of function… how? :wink:

35

Too much stuff, if you make a single clear
unambiguous request, someone might do it

36

you mean usable?

37

I meant to delete that and write just unambiguous. Apparently that didn’t work. Fat fingers on a mobile.

Ironic slightly.

38

If that is too much stuff, just read the article at the link, and then answer the question at the bottom of the post.

39

What do you mean by your question?

40

It doesn’t seem like an explanation needs to assume that the gain of function occurred as a result of the loss of a chromosome. The last section of the article you link suggests the loss of a chromosome was most likely neutral for the individuals with that mutation, and that their continued survival was due to a separate mutation or to external forces.

1 Like