Sue Blackmore on Dawkins on Darwin

[James Hannam]

Well at least someone liked Dawkins' show:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/04/religion.evolution

I blogged some thoughts. Has anybody else seen it and if so, what did they think.

Best wishes

James

[humphreyclarke]

I found it very interesting for similar reasons to you I think. The appearance from Frans de Waal was very enlightening because he seemed to be suggesting that primate behaviour cannot simply be explained by invoking kin selection and reciprocity. In fact various studies from De Waal's institute over the last couple of years have shown chimps engaging in what has been regarded as altruistic behaviour, helping others out with no prospect of reward. Dawkins seemed to admit that kin selection and reciprocity do not encompass all of human behaviour either (which flies in the face of a lot of the socio-biological revolution) so he has fallen back on a just-so story, the idea of 'a lust to be good'. At least he seems to have gone quiet on the memes.

Blackmore here seems to be using the argument from natural evil here, which we discussed at length in a previous thread.

"plants and animals produce far more (slightly varying) offspring than can possibly survive. Starvation, disease, predation, and unattractiveness mean that only a few go on to breed again. At each step the survivors pass on whatever adaptations helped them and so gradually they become better designed. You could call it "design by death"

This is a question of glass half empty glass half full I'm afraid. You could just as easily call it 'design by life'. The problem is that humans always read into nature what they want to take out. I could just as easily construct a narrative of nature called 'survival of the randiest' since its not so much about the death of organisams but which ones breed the most. Indeed I would include an account of this article about the evolution of South African Squirriels which shows the power of natural breeding, in a rather crude way.

www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2008/08/south-african-squirrels-well-endowed.html

Although such a narrative would be accurate and entertaining, I'm afraid it wouldn't be much use in promoting an atheistic world-view.

[hawkinthesnow]

I know the last post on this was nearly a month ago, but never mind. I saw the programmes too. I found them interesting and annoying in turn. Dawkins explanation of Natural Selection was I thought, clear and helpful. His attempts to show that evolution undermined religious belief was of course simplistic and annoying. Surely he has debated with enough articulate and intelligent Christians by now to have realised that this is simply a non starter!

What I found most interesting was his apparent struggle to explain goodness on the basis of naturalistic ideas. I got the sense that he himself is not entirely satisfied with an explanation purely in terms of evolutionary advantage. Sadly of course he is just not prepared to consider any other kind of explanation. There's stubborn for you - one might almost call it Dawkins faith.

[bjorn]

Dawkins has been in denials for decades.

OTOH, he is honest enough to admit that it is difficult live his life as if e.g. free will is impossible. Hopefully he will not be too proud to consider more seriously answers beyond his present paradigm.