Has anyone else read The Blind Watchmaker? I'm re-reading it for the first time in many, many years (and just finished the second chapter; the one about bats & their built-in sonar) and thought it'd make a good topic of discussion on this board.

I'll go first. Dawkins speaks of anti-evolutionists often arguing from the position of personal incredulity (he calls it the Argument of Personal Incredulity). I know that this is often the case; whenever someone claims that there must be a god because life is so complex that there must be a "watchmaker." They simply cannot fathom the nuances of evolution or the possibility (actually, enormously high probability) that natural selection does occur, so they just claim to be incredulous and then do things like attempt to force courses in "Intelligent Design" down the throats of our children.

But this got me thinking. From what other positions do anti-evolutionists argue? For some reason, I couldn't come up with anything off of the top of my head. Someone help me here.

Oh, and let's discuss this tome as well as other Dawkins' books (and anything else associated with evolution----this thread is open for discussion! ).

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

While I believe that evolution is they things roll here (I'm a genetics researcher), I wouldn't entirely say that intelligent design is impossible... however, it is not based on science and thus has no place in science classes aside from instructors teaching their students the differences between scientific theory and other theories. If the possibility of intelligent design was placed in a religion class, there shouldn't be any problem... But in scientific terms, evolution is the way to go.

I read The Selfish Gene a few months ago, but not in its entirety due to a paper due on altruism when I read it. I did enjoy the bits I did read and it did give a convincing theory on the view of a selfish gene, but I haven't read any of his newer, more controversial pieces. It seems to me like they're just bashing other people's opinions, which I don't enjoy as much as a book based on facts... if you've read any recent ones, what did you think?

Well, The Blind Watchmaker doesn't engage in much bashing. It was originally written in 1986 & has a similar tone as The Selfish Gene. It's his later works where he has gotten more, shall we say, confrontational. But, I believe that's in response to how confrontational the Religious Wrong in this country has been since W. took office. These folks have certainly been emboldened & I think Dawkins felt it necessary to fight fire with fire.

My cousin is also a geneticist & works in a university in Missouri. I have an advanced degree in archaeology and have studied biological anthropology & human osteology in some detail. How anyone could ever possibly even attempt to refute the evolutionary process is beyond me. I guess Jerry Falwell said it best when he said, "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions."

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

I only have a problem with intelligent design when it is used in place of evolution or tries to refute evolution. I have seen some people use it with evolution, essentially saying that God designed the mechanism of evolution; at that point, it's just creationism, which I don't really mind much (although I prefer chemical evolution, myself, despite being a Christian).

As for Jerry Falwell, he gave a bad name to Christians... he makes us seem radical and foolish.

Except for the fact that creationists deny evolution. That is hardly something to be glossed over.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown