If you are in the latter group of people, may I recommend you read a science book?
.
Like this:
2 bloggers like this post.
Evolution: universally accepted
10 Thursday Nov 2011
10 Thursday Nov 2011
That statement by Dawkins is priceless. Let me see if I understand is logic.
“Evolution is ALMOST universally accepted among those who understand it.” So it is not accepted by some who do understand it. This is the fact he refuses to admit, yet he does it here. Awesome, about time.
Besides, arguing a fact based on majority acceptance is a common logical fallacy committed by Darwinists.
No, you don’t understand his logic. He is pointing out a fact. That is not evidence for (or against) evolution; it’s a statement about acceptance or non-acceptance of evolution. While argumentum ad populum is indeed a common logical fallacy, Dawkins is not committing it, as he simply is not claiming that “evolution is true, because most educated people accept it as true,” any more than he would claim that “the organization of the periodic table is true, because most educated people accept it as true.”
The reason, of course, why most educated people accept evolution as true is the evidence in its favor. Dawkins himself is in that group; witness his book “The Greatest Show on Earth.” (If you’re a knee-jerk Dawkinsophobe, substitute Jerry Coyne’s book “Why Evolution is True”).
As for his use of the word “almost,” that is completely unsurprising coming from a scientist. That’s the nature of induction, and the way scientists talk. They know to leave room for uncertainty, unlike certain religious groups I could mention. Read Gould, Dawkins, Prothero et. al. The “almosts” are sprinkled around liberally. They are conspicuously absent in fundamentalist writings.
Finally, your crack “Awesome, about time” is silly. No one seriously claimed that 100% of educated people accept evolution–it’s probably true that not 100% of educated people accept the organization of the periodic table. Why not? As Michael Shermer stated in his book “Why People Believe Weird Things,” “Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.” Which is to say that they, like the rest of us, are human, and therefore not always logical or rational.
“No, you don’t understand his logic”, actually I understand it perfectly. He tried to insult critics of evolution, but to make it a true statement he had to acknowledge that there is intelligent arguments against evolution has he tries to explain it.
I find it entertaining that strict Darwinist continually try to twist words in order to hide the fact that not every scientists has bought in to their theory. As long as evolution without an intelligent creator has not been proven there will be intelligent arguments for intelligent design, wither Mr Dawkins likes it or not.
It is now clear that not only did you not understand the logic of Dawkins’ statement, but also that you don’t particularly wish to interact with the import of it (yes, there are a few people that reject evolution, but there are a few that reject the theory of an earth in the shape of an oblate spheroid–that *does not* mean that there are good arguments for a flat earth; it means that some people hold to wrong and/or irrational beliefs in the face of the evidence), or with the explanations that I gave. Which, somehow is not surprising.
You seem to think that the fact that a very few educated people do not adhere to the theory of evolution is somehow more impressive than the fact that the vast majority do. To each his or her own; you are entitled to think that way. But, just for my own personal education, please enlighten us “strict Darwinists” with some of the “intelligent arguments for intelligent design” that you so confidently assert exist. Specifically, I’d be interested in who or what the designer is, and how he/she/it/they designed, say, the Milky Way, the human body, or the life cycle of the malaria parasite. Also of great interest to me is the question, “Who designed the designer?” Any clarification of these questions will be greatly appreciated.
Mark, I have a gut feeling you are not open to an honest discussion of intelligent design theory so I will only waste the few words I have used here to respond, and not anymore then that.
Translation: I have nothing to say, but was hoping nobody would call my bluff. Rats. I’m going to declare victory and pull out.
And those who reject it don’t seek to understand it. They instead jump to the conclusion that there was a creator, and then justify the conclusion by citing their own existence. Guess what. That’s garbage thinking. And lazy.
I agree rsm, but even Darwkins recognizes that some that understand it reject it. Are you calling Lord Richard lazy?
Pingback: Teach the controversy. Wait! What controversy? « Monicks: Unleashed