Dumbest question ever asked

[BucketheadRules]

I'm a big fan of his work. Alongside Christopher Hichens he has probably done more to promote athiesim and show the manifest ridiculousness of of religious types and their beliefs. And he has certianly done a hell of a lot to remove any stigma from publicly declaring to be an atheist. As a public figure he is far more important than the cassocked beardies who mysteriously sit in the Lords and as an advert for British acedemia he is right up there with Hawkings and Greyling. He really should be knighted.

Pretty much this.

He gets a lot of stick, but I think he's great.

[hungrymark]

Dawkins' science stuff is great but I don't think he does himself or his cause a lot of good by engaging in debates about religion. I largely agree with the points he makes but his manner is often abrasive and unhelpful because of his tendency to pick on easy targets for the purposes of ridicule rather than education.

[thereformant]

It's not a stupid question at all.

The point he was making is that some capability requires significant development of supporting apparatus that can not be explained as natural selection because without all the deviations required to deliver the capability there is no competitive advantage. His example is probably specious though and I doubt there are any traits that can't be adequately explained by a process of simulating annealing moving towards a local maxima.

FWIW I still come down on the evolution side, but the question is actually rather more subtle that the youtube video made ou.

[BlindLemonAde]

...He really should be knighted.

Is there a religious element to a knighthood? "Faithfulness to Saviour and Sovereign" or some such? Belonging to an Order involving some Saint or another?

...only I think this might disqualify him, on logical grounds, if nothing else.

[hungrymark]

It's not a stupid question at all.

The point he was making is that some capability requires significant development of supporting apparatus that can not be explained as natural selection because without all the deviations required to deliver the capability there is no competitive advantage. His example is probably specious though and I doubt there are any traits that can't be adequately explained by a process of simulating annealing moving towards a local maxima.

FWIW I still come down on the evolution side, but the question is actually rather more subtle that the youtube video made ou.

It's the same old question that creationists trot out all the time: what use is half an eye, half an ear etc. An organism doesn't necessarily don't need a fully-evolved urethra or bladder in order to excrete. Bacteria excrete, yeast excrete, jellyfish excrete and so on up the evolutionary ladder. Organs evolve with (necessarily) with the organism. It's not the case that first an eye comes along, then the brain, then the hair or whatever.

[thereformant]

It's the same old question that creationists trot out all the time: what use is half an eye, half an ear etc. An organism doesn't necessarily don't need a fully-evolved urethra or bladder in order to excrete. Bacteria excrete, yeast excrete, jellyfish excrete and so on up the evolutionary ladder. Organs evolve with (necessarily) with the organism. It's not the case that first an eye comes along, then the brain, then the hair or whatever.

Yes I know but it demonstrates and understanding of the theory of evolution and identifies a weak point in the theory that absolutely should be addressed by evolutionists. If you could find a trait that can not be explained by a process of gradual change then you would have a pretty strong counter example to the theory. Personally, I doubt there are any though.

[Viz]

I don't see why evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. And I don't think Dawkins claims that either. I know his argument is that within his construct a creator is unnecessary, and that it's less and less a foregone conclusion every day, the more that science uncovers facts, and I also think it doesn't help when you bring religious doctrine in because that confines and limits the possibilities of what such a creator might consist of, but within a scenario that the whole shooting match is kicked off and/or overseen by a god, how would the presence of such a creator be inconsistent with random mutation and natural selection - and why would it be? Ultimately you can't prove there's a god, and you can't prove there isn't, which is why there's no one agreed answer. Yet. At the end of the day, belief in a god is about faith not proof. And belief in no god is about faith not proof too. There should be no battle but a team effort working towards the truth. That would be great :-)

[hungrymark]

Yes I know but it demonstrates and understanding of the theory of evolution and identifies a weak point in the theory that absolutely should be addressed by evolutionists. If you could find a trait that can not be explained by a process of gradual change then you would have a pretty strong counter example to the theory. Personally, I doubt there are any though.

I don't think excretion is a weak point and I'd guess that it has been addressed in the scientific literature at some point. As I said, every organism at every level of complexity above viruses demonstrates the ability to get rid of waste.

Edit: just had a butcher's and evolution has indeed been addressed in some depth.

[stephenxxx]

I'm a big fan of his work. Alongside Christopher Hichens he has probably done more to promote athiesim and show the manifest ridiculousness of of religious types and their beliefs. And he has certianly done a hell of a lot to remove any stigma from publicly declaring to be an atheist. As a public figure he is far more important than the cassocked beardies who mysteriously sit in the Lords and as an advert for British acedemia he is right up there with Hawkings and Greyling.

+1

He really should be knighted.

Fortunately, that will never happen. He's an anti-monarchist.

[deano_l]

One of the Queen's (and all Sovereigns since Henry VIII) formal titles is "Defender of the Faith and Supreme Govenor of the Church of England".

So she's hardly going to give a knighthood to an unpleasant, lower-class oik like Dawkins.