Help with a letter.

So everyone who is 'familiar with the facts' and 'understands the theory' must agree with Dawkins?

Not clearly no as in we can't extrapolate the mechanisms of micro evolution to macro evolution.

Do you agree that these two quotes are valid qualifications to be considered when reading the opening post to this thread?

Before I respond, please tell me if there are any other mechanisms you have not mentioned.

So everyone who is 'familiar with the facts' and 'understands the theory' must agree with Dawkins?

There are two reasons I believe Dawkins is dishonest. The first reason is that he denies the Truth of his Creator.

This is also known as 'reading'.

The opposite truth has been affirmed by innumerable cases of measurable evolution at this minimal scale-but, to be visible at all over so short a span, evolution must be far too rapid (and transient) to serve as the basis for major transformations in geological time. Hence, the “paradox of the visibly irrelevant”-or, if you can see it at all, it’s too fast to matter in the long run. ~ Stephen Jay Gould

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No. ~ Roger Lewin

This is the full quote of Roger Lewin.

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

According to the Chicago conference, micro evolution alone might not be complete in its description. However, it is probably still important. What also is omitted is the description of micro evolution and macro evolution in the proceedings (which is important in understanding the quote). That punctuated equilibrium is discussed as a possible answer in the rest of the text should be no surprise.

The purpose of the quote was to show a problem with evolutionary mythology. As for the remainder of the paragraph, Lewin is an evolutionist -- he must assume that there is a link -- even if a link can not be empircally demonstrated. He recognizes a lack of empirical proof, but quickly reaffirms his faith in the theory.

No, that is not true. It demonstrates a point which was debated at that conference. When they entered the conference, it was a problem. When they exited, it was solved. That is what we do, we solve problems.

How do you interpret 'clear no'?

In light of the sentences following which add a lot of nuance to 'clear no'.

Help me with the 'nuance': Would you say the interpretation is not clearly No? or not clearly No?

Not clearly no as in we can't extrapolate the mechanisms of micro evolution to macro evolution.

'Clear no' actually becomes 'the mechanisms are valid but we have to add things'.

Add what things?

Clearly no as in it is a combination of the standard mechanisms of micro evolution with other mechanisms, such as isolation.

Before I respond, please tell me if there are any other mechanisms you have not mentioned.

I'll give you a summary of the Chicago conference according to Lewin, then you can reply to that.

blah blah blah

Do you agree that this is fair summary of the article of Lewin. If not, how would you summarize it?

blah blah

Romans 1.18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). ~ Richard Dawkins

One thing I will say for Dawkins -- he is a clever writer. He insists that he is too pious to accuse his opponents of evil intentions, but he offers the suggestion as food for thought none the less.

It is his honest experience that people who have debated him know very little about evolutionary theory.

Why do you assume Dawkins is honest?

What reason do I have for not doing so? I know Dawkins to oppose creationism, I don't know him as a dishonest person and I won't judge him as such unless I have some very good reasons to do so.

Dawins holds allegiance to evoluionary mythology as the gold standard by which a person's intelligence and personal integrity should be measured. As a Christian, the Bible is my gold standard and Dawkins falls short. If you read the Dawkins essay and use allegiance to the Bible rather than evoluionary mythology as the standard of Truth, you will find that the points Dawkins made, apply to evoluionists.

Now, maybe he is wrong in this, I don't know. These are his observations, and to picture him as dishonest because he states them as such is, well, dishonest.

There are two reasons I believe Dawkins is dishonest. The first reason is that he denies the Truth of his Creator.

I also do not, does that make me dishonest too? In my opinion this is a completely baseless assumption, only based on prejudice. It is certainly not my experience that christians are more or less honest than non-christians.

In summary, you judge Dawkins on the basis of his belief, thus picturing him as a 'lesser' (or at least less honest) human being. You immediately draw the conclusion that he is dishonest on the basis of his refusal for public discussion, for which he might have other reasons. Furthermore, you tried to picture him as someone who paints his opponents as evil, while Dawkins has written a whole article in which he states that he does not think that. In short, you have no other reason for claiming Dawkins to be dishonest other than prejudice. For me, sir, you are being the one that is dishonest, not mister Dawkins.

What Dawkins is saying is that people come to him with criticisms based on a misunderstanding of evolution theory. This is an observation of him. They criticize him, but only because they don't understand what he is saying. That is what his observation is. That is the whole point of Dawkins in his essay. The criticism he encountered was due to a misunderstanding of the theory or not being familiar with the facts.

So everyone who is 'familiar with the facts' and 'understands the theory' must agree with Dawkins?

At the point of evolution occurring, I'd say yes. On theoretical points about underlying mechanisms you might disagree with him, but on the question whether it occurs or not, yes, you'd have to agree with him. Maybe I can be persuaded to another viewpoint in the future, but till now this would be my position.

The second reason is his cowardly refusal to engage in open discussion. He has given personal anecdotes with no rebuttal from the original parties. This ruse has become his exscuse for dodging any subsequent discussion with creationists.

If he is truly confident in the superiority of his reasoning, why does he refuse any public exchange with creationists?

There can be any number of reasons, none of which have to stem from dishonesty. He might not expect anything from it and have chosen to write about it in books and papers. They are public and can always be refuted if he writes things that are incorrect. Maybe he didn't like the atmosphere of debates he has been involved in. If his experience is that there are many misunderstandings among creationists, I can imagine that he chooses to write articles and books about the subject in stead of publicly debating, since this way he can explain his reasoning without time pressure or limitations on answers. He has chosen this way as the best way for him to explain his viewpoints and walks that road, and this does not have to stem from dishonesty.

Bevets, why don't you stop the quote mining for once?

This is also known as 'reading'.

Actually it's not. It's known as plagiarism if you just repeat bits wholesale without references and citations or quote mining if you deliberately take it out of context. Reading is just the act of peering at written words and mentally (or out loud in certain circumstances) absorbing the information.

Every quote I use has a name attached to it -- that is a citation. Most people are aware that I have provided full documentation on my web page. Even if someone were not aware of this, they could simply google the quote and find the full citation. In most cases they would need to visit a library to personally verify the full context.[

One thing I give Tomk80 is that he has taken the time for personal interaction -- to learn more about the accuracy and relevance of the quotes. The vast majority of people (like yourself) are content to ignore the quotes and carry on in blissful ignorance.

Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened ~ Winston Churchil

Evolution begins with mutation

The question requires a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. If there are other mechanisms, please give me a list of terms. I do not want a summary. I do not want an explanation. I do not want a link. I am looking for a direct answer with specific terms.

Evolution begins with mutation, an offspring genetically different to the parent...Repeat many times in many different situations and you have evolution.

You have used the present tense. The actual conflict is over historic evolution. Would you say that everyone who is 'familiar with the facts' and 'understands the theory' must agree with Dawkins regarding historic evolution? Should this also be extended to include his atheism?

He has isolated himself from honest debate. He is a paper tiger. He talks tough, but he never allows his views to be publicly challenged lest people get a glimpse that he is merely human and that he can not give satisfying answers to the questions he can safely ignore in his books.

He is also fond of weasel words. Here is an example:

My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of Darwinian theory ... we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories. ~ Richard Dawkins

The '...' replaces '(there is, of course)' What is the point of '(there is, of course)'? It negates the surrounding statement. What is the point of making a statement that is self negating?

No single explaination for evolution will ever suffice. Thus the theory is doomed to be falsified from the beginning, because no definition for the theory will ever stand up to scrutiny.

In the case of black and white moths, no mutation has taken place. Yet there is still a change in the frequency of alleles so that the requirements for "evolution" have taken place.

Hey John is back!

Hey John is back.

No single explaination for evolution will ever suffice. Thus the theory is doomed to be falsified from the beginning, because no definition for the theory will ever stand up to scrutiny.