When I saw this I yelled out loud, "holy sh**!" twice! Man oh man, he truly is the luckiest train track inspector, here.
From: Virgo Supercluster, 40º N 75º W | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, so is this article . Scroll down to the 14th through 16th paragraphs for the specific application to the laughable video referenced above. I'd have linked/copied only those grafs, but reading the entire article for the big picture is worth it.
From: Meridian ID | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the link, Bomby. The article verifies my impression. For example, Dawkins writes:
quote: The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such ‘Directed Panspermia’ was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would themsleves have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent ‘crane’ (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ultimate explanation for organized complexity.
Dawkins seems to miss the point. Maybe I am handicapped because I have only seen this clip and not the whole film, but the point I took away from the clip was to observe Dawkins’ precommitment to rejecting design as an explanation. The quote from Dawkins, made in rebuttal to the film, demonstrates exactly the precommitment that I was struck by upon watching the clip. I never had the impression that Dawkins believed in aliens or even intelligent design (the clip is badly mislabeled on YouTube), but I did have a clear sense that Dawkins was adhering to evolution as a presupposition rather than just as a scientific conclusion.
Don’t get me wrong. Dawkins has plenty of reason to believe in Darwinian evolution on Earth. But he has no scientific or empirical reason to suppose that if there are intelligent aliens on some other planet, then they “have to have” evolved. He hasn’t observed the fossil record on these alien planets. He hasn’t observed anything about the natural history of this hypothetical planet, but he asserts that it must have been thus and so. He has no scientific basis for his belief, just a philosophical and religious precommitment.
Dawkins is by all accounts a brilliant man within his own narrow domain of the natural sciences. He is even regarded as an excellent science writer. However, he is an incompetent philosopher and theologian. More to the point, anyone who believes that his hostility to religion is based on science needs to take a closer, more critical, more skeptical, more rigorous look. He obviously has other motives.
BTW:Tigranes, this thread isn’t the place to discuss the issue in depth. You can ask me elsewhere if you like, but if you remember that saying about advice from Elves, you may find the proverb a warning.
From: The central lake-lands of the Great Peninsula. | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |