How Do You Know?

A blog for those who know it all and those who don't.

Michelle Motoyoshi

Michelle Motoyoshi
Location
California,
Birthday
March 22
Bio
I don't know anything about this blogger business. I'm just a concerned nobody with something to say and access to the internet -- What? That's what a blogger is? Oh...

Michelle Motoyoshi's Links

New list
NOVEMBER 23, 2009 2:35PM

Dawkins and the Pause Heard Round the Creationists' World

Rate: 2 Flag

Recently I received a link to a YouTube video of famed atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins being allegedly stumped by a question by an interviewer.  It went something like this:

 

Interviewer: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

 

Dawkins: …………

 

[Here’s a link to the YouTube video that is making the rounds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXzF9zDy_k]

 

Those who have been circulating the video trumpet the incident as a triumph for creationism. It proves, they claim, that Dawkins can’t answer a fundamental criticism of evolution and thus the theory is as flimsy and pointless as a pair of Lady Gaga’s underwear.

 

Most everyone has made up his or her mind regarding evolution vs. creation, so I’m not going to offer up my humble opinion on that combustible issue.  That would be like whizzing on a forest fire – it’s not going to accomplish anything except maybe pissing a few folks off (pardon my pun).  However, what is worthwhile is examining whether or not the video is a point well made or a well-made deceit.  To make that determination, we’re going to have to ask a few questions.

 

  • How do you know Dawkins was actually ‘stumped’? Is it possible that there are other explanations for his pause other than lack of an answer?

 

  • How do you know the moment in question wasn’t taken out of context or that the video wasn’t manipulated in some way? 

 

  • How do you know you’ve seen enough of the video to make a fair judgment of Dawkins’ response?

 

  • How do you know his answer did or didn’t address the question posed?  How much do you actually understand about the theory of evolution and how it works?  What sources have you read?

 

And perhaps the most important question of all:

 

  • Have you bothered to hear Dawkins’ side of the story?  There are always two sides to a story.  One or both may be lies; there may be no way to determine for sure.  But there are always two sides.  Is it right to think you understand a situation before you’ve heard both? 

For example, what if your jealous coworker (you know the one) accused you of stealing office supplies, and he showed everyone a picture of you holding a stapler and a pack of Post-It notes?  The picture alone doesn’t really prove anything, right? But what if everyone just believed your jealous coworker and didn’t bother to ask you about it?  Not terribly fair of them, is it? And they won’t get the whole truth (or even part of it) without hearing what you have to say, will they?

 

Until you have addressed these questions, the Dawkins video constitutes a Swiss cheese argument, one that’s smelly and full of holes.  It contains only those pieces of the story that make the creationists’ case and is conveniently missing those that weaken or even contradict it.  It’s a little tactic called leaving out inconvenient truths and cherry picking your facts. While it is an effective way to sound convincing without having to deal with all those pesky facts and rational arguments, it’s no way to get at the truth. 

 

To get at truth, you’ve got to find and confront all the facts, not just the ones you like. Worse, you have to have the man-spheres to question and test your own assumptions and biases and see if the facts support what you believe. In short, you have to be fair, open-minded and thorough. I admit, it’s not a fun or easy process (it gives me hives), but if truth is what you’re after, then it’s what you must do (rash or no rash). 

 

So the next time some enticing video floats your way, especially if it’s something that you already agree with, ask yourself a few questions before you accept its claim as valid and sound. Ask

Where did it come from?

Who is circulating it?

Is it complete or a chunk taken out of context?

Does it present both sides?

Do you fully understand the issue at hand?

 

This’ll get you started on the path to truth.

 

“Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it.”

            - Samuel Johnson

 

p.s.

Here’s a link to Dawkins’ side of the story.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Since when is pausing before answering = being stumped? Smart people pause before they answer...sometimes they say "I'll get back to you on that." That's ok - good even. Since when did being right become a contest in which the winner doesn't pause or blink, but simply fires off a verbose reply?

Only Creationists claim to have all the answers. Any scientist worth his/her salt does not claim that all the answers are found. Which is not the same thing as being unable to distinguish a wrong answer from all the possibilities.
Please excuse me for not welcoming you to OS! I was in such a hurry to hide my ill-gotten office supplies, I lost my manners.
Mimi, this is right up my alley. I actually posted this video a few months ago, and I think it was the unedited version. The unedited version, also on Youtube, is actually more embarrasing for Dawkins; longer pause of silence, etc. I have also seen the whole video. It's a very good scientific critique of Darwinism. Unfortunately, teachers in our public schol systems are not even allowed to raise scientific problems to the theory of evolution. I have also heard/read Dawkins' response to this embarrasing footage. The fact remains, he was stumped for the exact same reasons that other evolutionists are stumped. There isn't a single example "of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." Information always requires an intelligent source. The atheistic evolutionist cannot account for the presense of information in living things. All Dawkins and all other atheistic evolutionists have are what is called "just-so" stories.

And yes, I have read over one hundred books and articles, and heard or seen many audios and video, etc, on the issue of creation and evolution. This includes books and articles by Dawkins. So I am very well informed on the issues.
Unfortunately evolution is the new "sacred cow." Try pointing out to Dawkins and his ilk a scientific problem to Darwinism and you are more than likely to be called names (being called a "closet creationist" seems to be the favorite pejorative term) than given a sober reponse.

Mimi, I have written on this issue before. If you would like to see what I wrote, pleaese ask. I recommend you emailing me or requesting on Facebook, just in case I don't visit your blog page in awhile.

Your friend, Keith
Almost forgot, Dawkins' very wordy "side of the story" still does not answer the question posed to him. Not only does he not understand information theory (for example, he says, "The 'information challenge' turns out to be none other than our old friend: 'How could something as complex as an eye evolve?'" This is demonstrably false. See my links below), he offers up a self-serving definition of information: "information is what enables the narrowing down from prior uncertainty (the initial range of possibilities) to later certainty (the “successful” choice among the prior probabilities). According to this analogy, natural selection is by definition a process whereby information is fed into the gene pool of the next generation." I am assuming that you believe that your blog post contains information, information that you are passing on to others. Does Dawkins' definition of information fit the information content of your blog? If one of your students asks you, "How do you...?", or, "what is...?" and then after answering your question, do you think your student will repond, "Thank you for the enabling of narrowing down from prior uncertainty (the initial range of possibilities) to later certainty?" Huh?
Anyway, you can decide whether or not Dawkins really answered the question or not.

Here is a link to a book on information http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Was-Information-Werner-Gitt/dp/3893972552

And here is a link to a lecture series on information that I am sure you have all the time in the world to watch http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=158273
evolution is indeed a complex truth. it is not really all spelled out, a good scientist will admit taht. there are holes in the theory. but its the best science has. its still "evolving".