Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[D.P.]

Yet you still can't name me a specific theory Dawkins has come up with. Pointing to his Wiki list of books doesn't help, whilst you shouldn't judge a book by it's titles they all seem to be about theology or explaining other people's theories.

So, please name me one theory that was authored by Dawkins. If it's created so many, it must be easy for you.

Theories are rarely created by a single scientist. A scientist can have an idea, called a hypothesis. He seeks to find evidence to disprove this hypothesis and finds none. Many other scientists realise that this idea helps explain some other part of the universe . After some time, much collaboration, a lot of work and exploration, repeatable objective evidence, rigorous theoretical proofs, further empirical evidence, the idea can become accepted as a scientific theory.

The process takes a lot of time, a lot of different input from different researchers in different fields.

Dawkins has contributed to the scientific community.
Here are some of his publications:

1960s

Dawkins, R. (1968). "The ontogeny of a pecking preference in domestic chicks". Z Tierpsychol 25 (2): 170–186. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1968.tb00011.x. PMID 5684149.
Dawkins, R. (1969). "Bees Are Easily Distracted". Science 165 (3895): 751–751. doi:10.1126/science.165.3895.751. PMID 17742255.

1970s

Dawkins, R. (1971). "Selective neurone death as a possible memory mechanism". Nature 229 (5280): 118–119. doi:10.1038/229118a0.
Dawkins, R. (1976). "Growing points in ethology". In Bateson, P.P.G. and Hinde, R.A.. Hierarchical organization: A candidate principle for ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, R.; Carlisle, T.R. (1976). "Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy". Nature 262 (5564): 131–133. doi:10.1038/262131a0.
Treisman, M.; Dawkins, R. (1976). "The "cost of meiosis": is there any?". Journal of Theoretical Biology (London: Academic Press) 63 (2): 479–484. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(76)90047-3. PMID 1011857.
Dawkins, R. (1976). "Universal Darwinism". In Bendall, D.S.. Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 403–425.
Dawkins R (1978). "Replicator selection and the extended phenotype". Z Tierpsychol 47 (1): 61–76. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1978.tb01823.x. PMID 696023.
Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1978). "Animal signals: information or manipulation". Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 282–309.
Dawkins, R. (1979). "Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection". Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 51: 184–200. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00682.x.
Dawkins, R.; Krebs, J.R. (1979). "Arms races between and within species". Proc. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 205 (1161): 489–511. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0081. PMID 42057.
Brockmann, H.J.; Dawkins, R.; Grafen A. (1979). "Joint nesting in a digger wasp as an evolutionarily stable preadaptation to social life". Behaviour (London: Academic Press) 71 (3): 203–244. doi:10.1163/156853979X00179.
Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J., Grafen, A. (1979). "Evolutionarily stable nesting strategy in a digger wasp". Journal of Theoretical Biology 77 (4): 473–496. doi:10.1016/0022-5193(79)90021-3. PMID 491692.

1980s

Dawkins, R. (1980). "Good strategy or evolutionarily stable strategy". In Barlow, G.W. and Silverberg, J.. Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture?. Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 331–337. ISBN 0-89158-960-0.
Dawkins, Richard; Brockmann, H.J. (1980). "Do digger wasps commit the concorde fallacy?". Animal Behaviour 28 (3): 892–896. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80149-7.
Dawkins, Richard (1981). "In defence of selfish genes". Philosophy 56 (218): 556–573. doi:10.1017/S0031819100050580.
Krebs, J.R.; Dawkins, R. (1984). "Animal signals: mind-reading and manipulation". In Krebs, J. R. and Davies, N.B.. Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. pp. 380–402. ISBN 0-632-02702-9.

1990s

Dawkins, R. (1990). "Parasites, desiderata lists and the paradox of the organism". Parasitology. 100 Suppl: S63–73. PMID 2235064.
Dawkins, R. (June 1991). "Evolution on the Mind". Nature 351 (6329): 686–686. doi:10.1038/351686c0.
Hurst, L.D.; Dawkins, R. (May 1992). "Evolutionary Chemistry: Life in a Test Tube". Nature 357 (6375): 198–199. doi:10.1038/357198a0. PMID 1375346.
Dawkins, R. (1994). "Evolutionary biology. The eye in a twinkling". Nature 368 (6473): 690–691. doi:10.1038/368690a0. PMID 8152479.
Dawkins, R. (September 1995). "The Evolved Imagination". Natural History 104 (9): 8.
Dawkins, R. (December 1994). "Burying The Vehicle". Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207.[dead link]
Dawkins, R.; Holliday, Robin (August 1997). "Religion and Science". BioEssays 19 (8): 743–743. doi:10.1002/bies.950190817.
Dawkins, R. (1997). "The Pope's message on evolution: Obscurantism to the rescue". The Quarterly Review of Biology 72 (4): 397–399.
Dawkins, R. (1998). "Postmodernism Disrobed". Nature 394 (6689): 141–143. doi:10.1038/28089.
Dawkins, R. (1998). "Arresting evidence". Sciences (New York) 38 (6): 20–5. PMID 11657757.

2000s

Dawkins, R. (2000). "W. D. Hamilton memorial". Nature 405 (6788): 733. doi:10.1038/35015793.
Dawkins, R. (2002). "Should doctors be Darwinian?". Transactions of the Medical Society of London 119: 15–30. PMID 17184029.
Blakemore C, Dawkins R, Noble D, Yudkin M (2003). "Is a scientific boycott ever justified?". Nature 421 (6921): 314–314. doi:10.1038/421314b. PMID 12540875.
Dawkins, R. (2003). "The evolution of evolvability". On Growth, Form and Computers. London: Academic Press.
Dawkins, R. (2004). "Viruses of the mind". In Warburton, N.. Philosophy: Basic Readings. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-33798-4.
Dawkins, R. (June 2004). "Extended phenotype - But not too extended. A reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka". Biology & Philosophy 19 (3): 377–396. doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000036180.14904.96.

 

[Redmint]

You seem to be assuming that every scientific theory has been given a short name in the same way "the theory of relativity" or "the theory of evolution" has. I haven't had time to read the entire thread so I'm not sure if anyone has given a brief explanation of the scientific method, but if you want to read:

http://chemistry.about.com/od/sciencefairprojects/a/Scientific-Method-Steps.htm

In short, once a hypothesis has been tested and data has been gathered to prove the hypothesis can be considered a 'theory' as it accurately explains something about how the world/universe works. The vast majority of theories don't have/need names, it's as simple as that. If you're really complaining that Dawkins doesn't have a "Theory of X" with a short snappy name then fair enough, but that's something which very few great scientists actually have (including Nobel prize winners).

 

[estebanrey]

i don't know why you think they come in bitsize one sentence theories. his main theories are concerned with complicated genetics and their role in evolution - go read his books and papers if you are that bothered about it - then maybe you will be at least slightly qualified to question the credentials of a scientist highly respected the world over.

I don't know why you think I think they come in "bitsize once sentences".

Again, I ask you a simple question and you just come back with "go read his books".

I'll just assume you can't then.

Theories are rarely created by a single scientist. A scientist can have an idea, called a hypothesis. He seeks to find evidence to disprove this hypothesis and finds none. Many other scientists realise that this idea helps explain some other part of the universe . After some time, much collaboration, a lot of work and exploration, repeatable objective evidence, rigorous theoretical proofs, further empirical evidence, the idea can become accepted as a scientific theory.

The process takes a lot of time, a lot of different input from different researchers in different fields.

Dawkins has contributed to the scientific community.

I fully agree and I feel some people are jumping in on this debate and not understanding my position or it's origins. I am generally "pro-Dawkins" and I use his works all the time in debates like these. I find his works fascinating and informative, and I would never claim he has made no impact on the scientific world.

But this all stemmed from me trying to explain the difference between a theory in general speech and a recognized scientific theory. All I said was that as far as I aware Dawkins had not created or co-authored any recognized scientific theories (not many scientists do given the high standards science requires to change mere hypothesis into accepted theory). From there aardvark quoted me and said "Not True, Dawkins has had lots of papers published". From that point onward I've been arguing that a peer reviewed paper does not equate to the creation of a theory, not a dig at people that do, but merely a statement of fact.

It seems to me that aardvark thinks any peer reviewed journal is automatically a 'theory', my argument is a scientific theory needs a bit more than that (which is why I agree entirely with your first sentence).

Aardvark's position is that every single paper he has produced and been accepted is thus a 'theory', I disagree and your post is closer to what I'm saying than what he is.

 

[jmc007]

Yet, they all came from the grey wolf through selective breeding by humans. A separate subspecies.



But many, many of these small changes, over a long time can produce a/many species that are separate from the initial common ancestor.

Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, over different time scales.



Again, wolves to dogs. But it doesn't happen spontaneously like you seem to think we're claiming.

So a dog, is just a tame, genetically mutated by man wolf? It's not really another species though.
Give us one example of where these many, many small changes have actually, over a long time produced a seperate species?
I find Dr Hovind very credible when he says all animals have only produced after their own kind? Seems right to me.

 

[Inquizitor]

Give us one example of where these many, many small changes have actually, over a long time produced a seperate species?

The entirety of the animal kingdom.

 

[estebanrey]

Give us one example of where these many, many small changes have actually, over a long time produced a seperate species?

Darwin's finches.

Also please don't call the imprisoned tax-avoider Kent Hovind "Dr", it's an insult to academia.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
What's interesting is that humans are probably the only creatures on Earth to be devolving as a result of the better health care we now have and the ability for people to survive to procreate and pass on their genes who would have ordinarily died in the past.
[..]

There is no such thing as devolving. A change in evolutionary pressures, such as the recent dramatic improvements in healthcare, will change what evolution occurs, but it's still evolution.

 

[Angilion]

Yes because we can look on the origins of these characters and see that they were made up by using things that already exist. For example, santa claus originated from a man who gave away presents. People then just dressed him up in a suit and gave him a sleigh and some reindeer's. It's hardly a new thing is it now.

And by the way, santa claus is a mainly western thing. Yet God is something that all cultures through human existence have believed in.

Many different gods, not just your one. There isn't anything particularly original about your god, which by your own argument means that your god is a fictional character created by humans.

Are you saying the majority of the human race is deluded?

"Deluded" isn't necessarily the right word. "Unthinking in some ways" would be more accurate. There's a very strong tendency for people to simply accept any beliefs that are normal in the society they live in, especially if those beliefs are strongly imposed on them (as religion very often is).

People have created many gods to fill in the gaps of their own ignorance (to many people, not knowing how something happens is more disturbing than the idea that a god does it), to increase their own importance (by being special to a far more powerful entity), to counter their fear of death (by many different beliefs about an afterlife), as an excuse to indulge their own wish to harm and kill other people and/or to gain power over other people (that one is sadly very obvious with many millions of examples).

I tell you what santa claus and the tooth fairy remind me of. They remind me of an atheist trying to depict evolution of humans by just giving them an extra arm or leg.

Why does that statement make any sense to you?

 

[Angilion]

What do you mean by theory? Because a "scientific theory" is considerably more robust than "an idea". As far as Evolution goes it is a robust scientific theory that has not been disproven.

Do you doubt plate tectonics, general relativity and quantam mechanics? Because evolution is a theory in the same way that they are theories.

You're understating the case.

Evolution isn't a theory. Evolution is a multitude of observations by a multitude of independent observers. In day to day language, evolution is a fact.

The theory of evolution is a theory in scientific language (in day to day language it's also a fact, but that's not my point), but evolution itself is not a theory. It's a fact.

So evolution is a theory in the same way that disease is a theory - it's a thing that exists. The explanation of how it works is the theory, not the thing itself.

 

[Angilion]

So would you atheists say it takes more faith to believe that all these building blocks come together to create life than believing in a creator?

That's not what I believe. I try not to do belief at all.

You're viewing atheism within a religious framework, as a system of belief. Since atheism is inherently outside of that framework, you will never be able to understand within that framework. You will only draw attention to your own lack of understanding.

I don't believe abiogenesis occured in any particular way, or even that it occured at all. Nor do I believe that it didn't occur or that it occured in any other way. I don't know and I am able to say "I don't know". I don't need to make up a magic super-person and attach my ignorance to them in order to avoid admitting that I don't know something.

Abiogenesis is seperate from evolution. They're not the same thing at all. Some theists try to confuse the two because they know that the theory of evolution is an extremely strong theory and they know that they can't argue against it, but they also know that the theories of abiogenesis are far weaker theories (or even just hypotheses) and they may be able to use deceit and dishonesty in propaganda to confuse the two in order to gain enough power for their denial of reality to cripple science by infecting it with religion, like a virus infecting a cell and using it to produce more of the virus.

 

[D.P.]

You're understating the case.

Evolution isn't a theory. Evolution is a multitude of observations by a multitude of independent observers. In day to day language, evolution is a fact.

The theory of evolution is a theory in scientific language (in day to day language it's also a fact, but that's not my point), but evolution itself is not a theory. It's a fact.

So evolution is a theory in the same way that disease is a theory - it's a thing that exists. The explanation of how it works is the theory, not the thing itself.

I do get annoyed at people misunderstanding the word theory in scientific theory.
As you say, the closet translation in common speech would be fact.

Therefore to the non-scientific layman we should refer to it as the "Fact of Evolution."

 

[m4rk84]

This thread again!

I won't bother putting as much effort into this one as my last religious thread however can we just all clarify the term "Scientific theory" it's extremely annoying when people don't understand the term.

"A Scientific Theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment"

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

Evolution is a Scientific theory, it is backed up by an untold amount of comprehensive, peer reviewed evidence. It is not just an idea.

Quoting myself as it seems this is still being discussed. :/

 

[jmc007]

That's the thing taking a negative view, it's infinite. What is 3+3? It is 6. You can argue 3+3=7 or 3+3=8 and go on and on. Though the simplefact remains 3+3=6.

 

[Hamish]

It's frustrating that instead of informed debate between the two sides the thread has decended into explaining basic concepts of science and even what words like 'theory' mean. This can be done in 2 minutes using a dictionary or wikipedia.

There is no debate about evolution or that every animal on earth evolved from a common answer. If you have a point which goes against this in any way, write it down, send it to a few experts who agree with you, and collect your nobel prize.

 

[D.P.]

It's frustrating that instead of informed debate between the two sides the thread has decended into explaining basic concepts of science and even what words like 'theory' mean. This can be done in 2 minutes using a dictionary or wikipedia.

There is no debate about evolution or that every animal on earth evolved from a common answer. If you have a point which goes against this in any way, write it down, send it to a few experts who agree with you, and collect your nobel prize.

The problem is that those of an indoctrinated refuse to understand and acknowledge what a theory means, what evidence exists, and what the explanations that science provides are so valuable and irrefutable.

It is really sad when even the likes of the Catholic Church has largely acknowledged large parts of science, if not all including evolution and the the post Big Bang expansion of the universe. So why some fundamentalists bury their heads in the sand I don't know.

No where has science claimed that god doesn't exist, merely that god isn't needed to explain everything we know about the universe (and things we don't know just haven't advanced enough to say either way).

Christians must try to accept the scientific facts and incorporate those prescribed processes into their belief structure. Most Christians I know have seems to be sable to come to terms with this, although I am it sure how they hypothesize god comes into the picture but they accept the science. Personally I believe for Christianity the best approach is to really set aside the belief in a God since it is unprovable and concentrate on the (mostly positive) moral values that Christianity has helped instill.


About 150 years late but the Catholic Church finally cam round to the idea of evolution.

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

 

[asim18]

Dear lolGod,

Why don't you man up and show yourself? Maybe if you did, you'd get more followers other than blind people. Or do you just like creating animate beings with feelings and emotions just to watch them kill each other because of disagreements over you?

And while your at it, why don't you make this ridiculous "test" of yours fair for everyone? Half the people on this forum alone cant even read or write. Surely you knew this would happen when you decided to send your heavenly message in the form of literature?

Best regards,

 

[m4rk84]

The real reason why these topics appear to go nowhere, and that no common ground is ever found between religious people and logical scientific people is that there is no common set of values.

If somebody doesn't value evidence what evidence could possibly be provided to convince somebody that doesn't share the value of evidence?

So putting this into context what evidence could possibly be provided to somebody like Jason2 who clearly does not value scientific evidence to convince him? The answer of course is that there is no way to convince him.

On the flip side however, it would be incredibly trivial for an all powerful god to prove his existence to somebody who does value scientific evidence. It's pretty telling in fact that thus far he has failed to give any scientific evidence of his existence.

 

[Hamish]

On the flip side however, it would be incredibly trivial for an all powerful god to prove his existence to somebody who does value scientific evidence. It's pretty telling in fact that thus far he has failed to give any scientific evidence of his existence.

Haven't you seen the evidence? Do you think Jesus' face just appears on bit of toast by coincidence? And didn't you see after he let 3000 people die at 9/11. What do you think the odds were that a cross would appear from a building built of cross sections of steel.
some people are blinded by science

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Haven't you seen the evidence? Do you think Jesus' face just appears on bit of toast by coincidence? And didn't you see after he let 3000 people die at 9/11. What do you think the odds were that a cross would appear from a building built of cross sections of steel.
some people are blinded by science

Delicious

 

[asim18]

Haven't you seen the evidence? Do you think Jesus' face just appears on bit of toast by coincidence? And didn't you see after he let 3000 people die at 9/11. What do you think the odds were that a cross would appear from a building built of cross sections of steel.
some people are blinded by science

The brilliance of that statement is that the next person couldn't tell if that was just sarcasm or actual religious gibberish.