The Selfish Gene

Silvertusk · Post by **Silvertusk** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:22 pm

Just been reading about Dawkins theories on the Selfish gene - anyone know a decent critique on that theory?

Silvertusk

terminatordrei · Post by **terminatordrei** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:09 pm

I haven't looked for any academic critiques but this article might be of interest to you:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/73

Silvertusk · Post by **Silvertusk** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:32 am

Thanks for that.

That has certainly raised some more questions.

For those of you in the UK there is a program on TV this thursday BBC2 9.00pm - Horizon - it talks about the War on Science by the intelligence design movement. It features Dawkins, Attenbourgh and Dembski. I am wondering whether to watch it or not - I am already put off by the title - "War on Science". ID is surely using science to further its arguement - so why is it a war - I think this is just going to be another platform for Dawkins to sprout is anti-religious agenda.

terminatordrei · Post by **terminatordrei** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:05 pm

No problem.

Here's another article on the same topic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/ ... 76,00.html

And a more scholarly critique:
http://www.complexsystems.org/publicati ... pgene.html

ID is surely using science to further its arguement - so why is it a war - I think this is just going to be another platform for Dawkins to sprout is anti-religious agenda.

I don't consider ID science. Could it become real science? Maybe, I sont' know. It would have to make propositions to explain the development of life. So far, all I've heard IDists say are negative objections to neo-Darwinism (e.g. Evolution can't explain such and such, etc.).

As far as I know, some forms of ID do accept natural selection but are skeptical that mutations alone could account for the diversity of species and propose the intervention of a designer. How would metaphysical naturalism (part of the scientific method) test the designer is something I've heard no IDist explain.

Other forms of ID are barely distinguishable from Creationism and reject evolution altogether.

August · Post by **August** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:07 pm

terminatordrei wrote: I don't consider ID science.

Are you a scientist? Do you feel qualified to assess whether something is or is not properly a part of science? What are your qualifications in this regard?

Jay_7 · Post by **Jay_7** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:45 pm

I don't consider ID science. Could it become real science? Maybe, I sont' know. It would have to make propositions to explain the development of life. So far, all I've heard IDists say are negative objections to neo-Darwinism (e.g. Evolution can't explain such and such, etc.).

Ha.

Your've watched too much pokemon.

terminatordrei · Post by **terminatordrei** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:24 pm

Are you a scientist? Do you feel qualified to assess whether something is or is not properly a part of science? What are your qualifications in this regard?

No, but hopefully I'll be. I'm just a freshman in college majoring in biochemistry. I apologize if I came off as rude or arrogant. I shouldn't have said that, point taken.

Still, I ask again, what does ID have to say apart from criticizing evolution? Even if the current evolutionary theory is proven wrong that doesn't make ID right.

Jay_7, I really hope that post is not reflective of your typical character.

Jay_7 · Post by **Jay_7** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:00 pm

terminatordrei wrote: Jay_7, I really hope that post is not reflective of your typical character.

Not really, just my sarcastic side.

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:12 am

Jay_7 wrote:Ha. Your've watched too much pokemon.

There's nothing wrong with pokemon.

Jay_7 · Post by **Jay_7** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:42 pm

Forge wrote:
Jay_7 wrote:Ha. Your've watched too much pokemon.
There's nothing wrong with pokemon.

Didnt say there was, it was a joke. Get it?

Iggy · Post by **Iggy** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:28 pm

i dont think ID is science. im not a scientist... but i know enough to know that "science" is proven WRONG everyday. all science is, is a theory! a guess on maybe how something works or was made... then, 5 years after the first idea, they come out with something else. i think an example would be the atkins diet. first said to be a miricle diet. once people started on it, they said it was unhealthy. science is never really ever fact. except to say the the earth goes around the sun, or something like that. but even back then when they said the world is flat and the center of the universe and the sun revolves around IT. that was science, then they figured they were way wrong...

or look at medicle science. they have all these sicknesses. and i bet some of you are thinking that science has cures for all the cancers and STD's and diseases... but i dont think that we'd have all the diseases if it wernt for the shots and over the counter crap they make you take when your younger.

August · Post by **August** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:45 pm

Iggy wrote:i dont think ID is science. im not a scientist... but i know enough to know that "science" is proven WRONG everyday. all science is, is a theory!

You seem to be confusing the results of applying the scientific method and the philosophy of what science is.

On that basis, to say that science is "just a theory", you'll need to do some more explaining of what it is you mean, and also how you arrive from there at your conclusion that ID is not science.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:15 pm

Iggy wrote:i dont think ID is science. im not a scientist... but i know enough to know that "science" is proven WRONG everyday.

To a degree yes.

Iggy wrote: all science is, is a theory! a guess on maybe how something works or was made... then, 5 years after the first idea, they come out with something else.

Usually new discoveries require reworking theories not scrapping them.

Iggy wrote: i think an example would be the atkins diet.

This is not a result of scientific inquiry, perhaps its better to call this a study.

Iggy wrote: first said to be a miricle diet. once people started on it, they said it was unhealthy. science is never really ever fact.

Yes but don't confuse studies and surveys with science, it's only a part of science. Studies are suggestive not conclusive.
The results are used to make practical decisions, however in most cases more studies need to be made before any scientific conclusion can be made.

Iggy wrote: except to say the the earth goes around the sun, or something like that. but even back then when they said the world is flat and the center of the universe and the sun revolves around IT. that was science, then they figured they were way wrong...

or look at medicle science. they have all these sicknesses. and i bet some of you are thinking that science has cures for all the cancers and STD's and diseases... but i dont think that we'd have all the diseases if it wernt for the shots and over the counter [poop] they make you take when your younger.

The overuse of antibiotics causes strains to become resistant through a powerful selection process. However the disease must first exist in order for this to occur.

So no, science did not create diseases.

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:18 pm

August,

Out of curiosity, what qualifications must someone have to be sufficient for judgement of something being or not being scientific? What qualifications must someone have to convince you that they know what they are talking about scientifically?

Please don't misunderstand this question as being rude or arrogant, I am honestly wondering how someone can answer the question you posed to terminatordrei.

Cougar · Post by **Cougar** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:30 pm

I think it is important to remember that mutations alone are not the only mechanisms within evolution. Sexual selection (non-random mating), genetic drift, and speciation, for example, all drive change throughout time as well. Mutations alone can't explain the vast amount of change that has occured in the last 4 billion years.