Considering that Richard Dawkins’ new book is entitled “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” which brings to mind Barnum and Bailey’s Circus one can only wonder if there is a correlation between P.T. Barnum’s statement “There’s a sucker born every minute” and Richard Dawkins’ modus operandi: perhaps a more apropos title would have been The Greatest Sham on Earth: The Evidence for the Evolution Delusion.
Yet, we will have to see what the book actually contains. Richard Dawkins has claimed that “it is not intended as an antireligious book” but what does “intended” mean? Is he even capable of positively affirming something that he believes without premising it on anti-theistic sentiments? These and other questions will hopefully soon be answered.
In an upcoming post we will see that Peter Williams wrote,
Dawkins makes the most compelling case against the truth of belief in God; but that’s partly because, despite being such a poor logician, he is a good rhetoritician, and partly because the other new atheists are even worse on this issue!
This reminded me that when reading those activists who wrap their particular worldviews, in this case Dawkins’ atheism, in the thin veneer of science, it is of the utmost important to constantly parse the text. In other words; one must distinguish between, in this case, mere observations of bio-organism’s that anyone could make-on the one hand-and accretions and interpretations based on worldview bias-on the other.
Richard Dawkins, the “good rhetoritician,” is as famous for weaving tales that make biology interesting (legitimate elucidations) as he is infamous for twisting biology into an anti-theistic campaign (atheist activism).
Recall that Richard Dawkins accepted the Darwinian theory of evolution because he was taught it before he ever read it-or because of the manner in which he was taught it and because he recognized the, according to him, convenient byproduct of making God unnecessary:
Jonathan Miller: “So when, at the age of 16, you became acquainted with Darwin, was it because you were taught about Darwin, or you began reading The Origin of Species?”
Richard Dawkins: “No, it was because I was taught.” …
Jonathan Miller: “How soon in the lessons did you begin to see that it did have theological consequences – that it more or less knocked the idea of design on the head?”
Richard Dawkins: “I do remember that I understood the principle of Darwinism before I really believed it was big enough to do the job. So I understood the principle of it and realised that yes, that is a candidate explanation for doing this job but I still don’t think it’s a big enough one…it was only later that I decided yes – it is big enough.”1
One can only wonder what the child Dawkins was taught as evidence for evolution (whatever “evolution” may have meant at the time or what Dawkins means by it today) considering that one generation is taught that evidence for “evolution” is “A, B and C” then the next generation is taught that (if they even admit it-think peppered moths, human gill slits, etc.) “A, B and C” has been discredited and the real evidence for “evolution” is “D, E and F” then the next generation is taught that “D, E and F” has been discredited and the real evidence for “evolution” is “G, H and I,” etc.
Indeed, just what Richard Dawkins promulgates as “evolution” will have to be seen.
Is it in reference to the mythical creature: the common ancestor?
Is it as the textbook Biology defines “evolution”,
All the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity that characterizes it today.2
With which no one would disagree.
It is a neo-preemptive-evolution elucidated by Dalhousie University cell biologist Michael Gray,
“You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.”
Or, __________________ (fill in the blank).
In any regard: do be vigilant, discerning and aware of the concoction of scientific observations and atheist activism in anything that Richard Dawkins purports to be writing as a biologist even when he claims that it is not intended as an antireligious book.
As Libby Purves noted:
Talking about evolution, he is terrific. But every few minutes he spoils it by announcing that natural selection means there is, categorically, no God. Not needed as wildlife designer – ergo, non-existent…it is not fair to use Darwin’s beautifully evolved brain to bang the drum for your private conviction that there is nothing out there. Nobody knows. Not really. Teaching children real science is one thing, making them choose God or evolution is another.3