COLUMBINE

[cybercoma]

Well, a lot of the scientific claims made by Dawkins are disputed by other scientists, and even Dawkins admits he's not 100% certain that he's right, so that just proves that science is just bs anyway and any accomplishments he has in that field are worthless.

On the other hand, science has proven that many things referred to in the bible have or do actually occur. For instance the sun really does rise in the east and set in the west, there really was and is a land called Egypt and there have been calamitous floods all over the world in the past. So science proves that the bible is a factual document, so there.

Wait.... this is sarcasm, right?

[GostHacked]

Well, a lot of the scientific claims made by Dawkins are disputed by other scientists, and even Dawkins admits he's not 100% certain that he's right, so that just proves that science is just bs anyway and any accomplishments he has in that field are worthless.

Please explain more.

On the other hand, science has proven that many things referred to in the bible have or do actually occur. For instance the sun really does rise in the east and set in the west, there really was and is a land called Egypt and there have been calamitous floods all over the world in the past. So science proves that the bible is a factual document, so there.

The sun rose and set before the bible was written. Egypt and the pyramids are thousands of years old. Floods also happened before and after the bible was written. The bible is BS.

[g_bambino]

Please explain more.

He's mocking betsy.

[GostHacked]

He's mocking betsy.

Oh good I hope so. I think two Betsys were enough (Betsy and Manny)

[g_bambino]

Betsy and Manny

Mantsy?

[betsy]

Yes. Dawkins' scientific accomplishments place him among the pinnacle of living scientists.

At the end of each chapter in the textbook "Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach" by Alcock, he lists the most important journal articles for each topic. I never tallied them, but the number by Dawkins appeared to easily eclipse any other scientist (with the possible exception of W.D. Hamilton). People don't realize both the quality and quantity of Dawkins scientific work (which is really not surprising, as for instance, I would not be surprised if no one here has even heard of Hamilton).

His 1976 book "The Selfish Gene" will probably always be considered a landmark in biology. In fact a book (Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think) has been written about the impact of "The Selfish Gene" and his academic work (mentioned above). The book is a collection of essays written by some of the world's most renowned scientists. There is also the book "Dawkins vs. Gould" which talks about the scientific disputes between Dawkins and Gould (although in reality it was a dispute in between Dawkins, Williams, Wilson, Hamilton, Trivers and Smith etc on the one side and Gould, Rose, Lewontin and Kamin etc on the other side).

The book "Defenders of the Truth" is in my opinion the best book on that topic (as it thoroughly looks at all the major contributors, and not just Dawkins and Gould), but it is hard to find a copy. (My personal view of the dispute: In short, Dawkins' side has come out on top because they were led by the science and evidence, whereas the other side was influenced by political and ideological desires. On an emotional level I have always wanted to side with Gould et al, but when I look at the evidence I simply can't).

I'm asking about his scientific accomplishments. I know he's a very prolific author - of POPULAR SCIENCE - but being able to publish a book is not the kind of accomplishment I'm talking about. I'm sure there are lots of praises about him, after all he wouldn't have gained the popularity he now enjoy if he hasn't any large following. However, there are also lots of criticisms about him. Since you mentioned The Selfish Gene, here are some of the criticisms about that book.

In 1976, Arthur Cain, one of Dawkins's tutors at Oxford in the 1960s, called it a "young man’s book" (which Dawkins points out was a deliberate quote of a commentator on A.J. Ayer’s Language, Truth, and Logic); Dawkins later noted he had been "flattered by the comparison, [but] knew that Ayer had recanted much of his first book and [he] could hardly miss Cain’s pointed implication that [he] should, in the fullness of time, do the same."^[1]

^{Most modern evolutionary biologists accept that the idea is consistent with many processes in evolution. However, the view that selection on other levels, such as organisms and populations, seldom opposes selection on genes is more controversial.}

^{In "The Social Conquest of Earth," E. O. Wilson contends that kin selection as described in "The Selfish Gene" is a largely ineffective model of social evolution.}

^{Some biologists have criticised the idea for describing the gene as the unit of selection, but suggest describing the gene as the unit of evolution, on the grounds that selection is a "here and now" event of reproduction and survival, while evolution is the long-term trend of shifting allele frequencies.[12]}

^{Stephen Jay Gould also took issue with the gene as the unit of selection, arguing that genes are not directly 'visible' to natural selection}

^{http://en.wikipedia....he_Selfish_Gene}

Another criticism of the book, made by the philosopher Mary Midgley in her book Evolution as a Religion, is that it discusses philosophical and moral questions that go beyond the biological arguments that Dawkins makes. For instance, humanity finally gaining power over the "selfish replicators" is a major theme at the end of the book. This view is criticized by primatologist Frans de Waal, who refers to it as the "veneer theory". Dawkins has pointed out that he is only describing how things are under evolution, not endorsing them as morally good.^[16][17]

And speaking of the book, Dawkins: How a scientist changed the way we think - do we have to count that???

According to Wiki, that book is called a, festchrift.

In academia, a Festschrift or (Festschrifts), is a book honoring a respected person, especially an academic, and presented during his or her lifetime. A Festschrift contains original contributions by the honored academic's close colleagues, often including his or her former doctoral students. It is typically published on the occasion of the honoree's retirement, sixtieth or sixty-fifth birthday, or other notable career anniversary.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Festschrift

It was published in 2006, to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the publication of The Selfish Gene. A wide range of topics are covered from many fields including evolutionary biology, philosophy, and psychology. Space is also given to writers who are not in full agreement with Dawkins.

http://en.wikipedia....he_Way_We_Think

So this book is a collection of essays, one of the contributors was his ex-wife, Marian Stamp Dawkins. Apparently this is common in academia.

His accomplishment is in bookwriting, it seems. He churns out books like a dairymaid churns out butter!

The original book ends with the lovely conclusion: "We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on Earth can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."

The scholarly notes of the third edition, in which Dawkins deals with his critics and incorporates new evidence, are huge fun. One of the two additional chapters urges us all to stop reading any further and go out and buy his later book, The Extended Phenotype.

http://www.guardian....-dawkins-review

Any stellar scientific accomplishments?

Edited February 15, 2013 by betsy

[cybercoma]

You're told of his scientific accomplishments and then you ask the same question again, despite posting more of his accolades in your response. If that's not trolling, then nothing is.

[Bonam]

You're told of his scientific accomplishments and then you ask the same question again, despite posting more of his accolades in your response. If that's not trolling, then nothing is.

Religion is one big trolling of the human race. What else do you expect?

[The_Squid]

Here you go Betsy.... Books, papers, reports.... Dawkins has been a leader in his field for 40 years or so....

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Richard+Dawkins&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

[Canuckistani]

Yeah, but some evolutionists disagree with Dawkins, so what kind of acheivement is that? I mean if there's not total unanimity and all points, unlike in Christianity, then obviously they're all wrong. Except when they discover something that's mentioned in the bible.

[Wayward Son]

I'm asking about his scientific accomplishments. I know he's a very prolific author - of POPULAR SCIENCE - but being able to publish a book is not the kind of accomplishment I'm talking about. I'm sure there are lots of praises about him, after all he wouldn't have gained the popularity he now enjoy if he hasn't any large following.

In the first paragraph of my response I stated that the textbook "Animal Behavior" lists the most important journal articles for each topic in the book. Dawkins' appeared to have published more of those most important journal articles than any other scientist. Dawkins' is first and foremost an ethologist (the study of animal behavior), and he revolutionized that field.

However, there are also lots of criticisms about him. Since you mentioned The Selfish Gene, here are some of the criticisms about that book.

So what? Any scientist who changes a field is going to face criticism from the minority who either don't like the changes, or our jealous of the notoriety that someone like Dawkins' has earned.

You can always find criticism, but such criticism only has value if you can evaluate the claims. That would require someone to also know and understand the topics being criticized. You clearly don't.

The problem with what you consistently do, is that you completely close your mind before you "ask" questions. There is really no point in anyone answering your "questions" because you don't actually care about the content of any given answer, or evidence or reality, but only in supporting whatever you have concluded is most in line with your ideology.

E. O. Wilson is certainly one of the most admired living scientists, but his 2010 paper (which he bases the group selection/kin selection argument on for the Social Conquest book) received 140 responses from scientists. Almost all extremely negative. Wilson may now condemn some parts of the Selfish Gene, but he doesn't appear to have more than a tiny minority on his side.

I love the writing of both Wilson and Gould, and Gould was a towering figure in his field. However, when it comes to the battle of ideas, the scientific community has awarded the victory to Dawkins.

As for Midgley, I don't think anyone beyond her few fellow extreme ideologues, has ever gave a damn what she thinks on this issue. She is not a scientist, and was trying to talk about topics that were far over her head.

And speaking of the book, Dawkins: How a scientist changed the way we think - do we have to count that??? According to Wiki, that book is called a, festchrift.

So what? It is a book that has been written because of the impact Dawkins' ideas have had on several scientific fields over 4 or 5 decades. It was not written because of Dawkins' atheism or his popularizing of science to the general public.

So this book is a collection of essays, one of the contributors was his ex-wife, Marian Stamp Dawkins. Apparently this is common in academia.

You say that as if his ex-wife is some regular joe, and not the distinguished professor of animal behavior at Oxford...

His accomplishment is in bookwriting, it seems. He churns out books like a dairymaid churns out butter!

Dawkins' changed his field of study before he wrote his first book. His first book led to his ideas having influence on several other fields. After his first book he published another 3 in the next 19 years. Dawkins' first accomplishment was revolutionizing his field of study. His second accomplishment was strongly influencing several other fields. His third accomplishment was increasing public understanding of evolution, science, pseudo-science, skepticism and critical thinking. After that he focused more vocally on atheism. Just because the fundamentalists ignored him until he became widely known as an outspoken atheist, doesn't mean that it was he had not already accomplished a great deal.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Wayward Son

[cybercoma]

Yeah, but some evolutionists disagree with Dawkins, so what kind of acheivement is that? I mean if there's not total unanimity and all points, unlike in Christianity, then obviously they're all wrong. Except when they discover something that's mentioned in the bible.

The sarcasm schtick has been cracking me up lately.

[cybercoma]

In the first paragraph of my response I stated that the textbook "Animal Behavior" lists the most important journal articles for each topic in the book. Dawkins' appeared to have published more of those most important journal articles than any other scientist. Dawkins' is first and foremost an ethologist (the study of animal behavior), and he revolutionized that field.

So what? Any scientist who changes a field is going to face criticism from the minority who either don't like the changes, or our jealous of the notoriety that someone like Dawkins' has earned.

You can always find criticism, but such criticism only has value if you can evaluate the claims. That would require someone to also know and understand the topics being criticized. You clearly don't.

The problem with what you consistently do, is that you completely close your mind before you "ask" questions. There is really no point in anyone answering your "questions" because you don't actually care about the content of any given answer, or evidence or reality, but only in supporting whatever you have concluded is most in line with your ideology.

E. O. Wilson is certainly one of the most admired living scientists, but his 2010 paper (which he bases the group selection/kin selection argument on for the Social Conquest book) received 140 responses from scientists. Almost all extremely negative. Wilson may now condemn some parts of the Selfish Gene, but he doesn't appear to have more than a tiny minority on his side.

I love the writing of both Wilson and Gould, and Gould was a towering figure in his field. However, when it comes to the battle of ideas, the scientific community has awarded the victory to Dawkins.

As for Midgley, I don't think anyone beyond her few fellow extreme ideologues, has ever gave a damn what she thinks on this issue. She is not a scientist, and was trying to talk about topics that were far over her head.

So what? It is a book that has been written because of the impact Dawkins' ideas have had on several scientific fields over 4 or 5 decades. It was not written because of Dawkins' atheism or his popularizing of science to the general public.

You say that as if his ex-wife is some regular joe, and not the distinguished professor of animal behavior at Oxford...

Dawkins' changed his field of study before he wrote his first book. His first book led to his ideas having influence on several other fields. After his first book he published another 3 in the next 19 years. Dawkins' first accomplishment was revolutionizing his field of study. His second accomplishment was strongly influencing several other fields. His third accomplishment was increasing public understanding of evolution, science, pseudo-science, skepticism and critical thinking. After that he focused more vocally on atheism. Just because the fundamentalists ignored him until he became widely known as an outspoken atheist, doesn't mean that it was he had not already accomplished a great deal.

An admirable effort, but this whole "maybe today will be the day" thing has really run its course. Today won't be the day, nor will tomorrow, nor the next, nor the next. The day will never come.

[GostHacked]

I'm asking about his scientific accomplishments. I know he's a very prolific author - of POPULAR SCIENCE - but being able to publish a book is not the kind of accomplishment I'm talking about.

Is it wrong for people to publish things that they have discovered?

[betsy]

Here you go Betsy.... Books, papers, reports.... Dawkins has been a leader in his field for 40 years or so....

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Richard+Dawkins&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Scientifically leader of what, exactly? Wiki doesn't even give him that distinction. He's been accused of catering to popular science, making unsubstantiated scientific claims....

Excerpts from an article, Billions and Billions of Demons by Richard Lewontin,

Carl Sagan's list of the "best contemporary science-popularizers" includes E.O. Wilson, Lewis Thomas, and Richard Dawkins, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.

Dawkins's vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing non-selective forces in evolution. . .

It is certainly true that within each narrowly defined scientific field there is a constant challenge to new technical claims and to old wisdom. In what my wife calls the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral Syndrome, young scientists on the make will challenge a graybeard, and this adversarial atmosphere for the most part serves the truth. But when scientists transgress the bounds of their own specialty they have no choice but to accept the claims of authority, even though they do not know how solid the grounds of those claims may be. Who am I to believe about quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution.

http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.ca/2007/02/richard-lewontin-what-worries-me-is.html

All he's leading and prominent is his views on religion....and his zealotry as a New Atheist, which he co-founded. So that must make him a "leader" to some awed, star-struck atheists.

On the other hand, Lewontin is described by Wiki as a, "leader."

Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

[betsy]

In the first paragraph of my response I stated that the textbook "Animal Behavior" lists the most important journal articles for each topic in the book. Dawkins' appeared to have published more of those most important journal articles than any other scientist. Dawkins' is first and foremost an ethologist (the study of animal behavior), and he revolutionized that field.

So what? Any scientist who changes a field is going to face criticism from the minority who either don't like the changes, or our jealous of the notoriety that someone like Dawkins' has earned.

You can always find criticism, but such criticism only has value if you can evaluate the claims. That would require someone to also know and understand the topics being criticized. You clearly don't.

The problem with what you consistently do, is that you completely close your mind before you "ask" questions. There is really no point in anyone answering your "questions" because you don't actually care about the content of any given answer, or evidence or reality, but only in supporting whatever you have concluded is most in line with your ideology.

E. O. Wilson is certainly one of the most admired living scientists, but his 2010 paper (which he bases the group selection/kin selection argument on for the Social Conquest book) received 140 responses from scientists. Almost all extremely negative. Wilson may now condemn some parts of the Selfish Gene, but he doesn't appear to have more than a tiny minority on his side.

I love the writing of both Wilson and Gould, and Gould was a towering figure in his field. However, when it comes to the battle of ideas, the scientific community has awarded the victory to Dawkins.

As for Midgley, I don't think anyone beyond her few fellow extreme ideologues, has ever gave a damn what she thinks on this issue. She is not a scientist, and was trying to talk about topics that were far over her head.

So what? It is a book that has been written because of the impact Dawkins' ideas have had on several scientific fields over 4 or 5 decades. It was not written because of Dawkins' atheism or his popularizing of science to the general public.

You say that as if his ex-wife is some regular joe, and not the distinguished professor of animal behavior at Oxford...

Dawkins' changed his field of study before he wrote his first book. His first book led to his ideas having influence on several other fields. After his first book he published another 3 in the next 19 years. Dawkins' first accomplishment was revolutionizing his field of study. His second accomplishment was strongly influencing several other fields. His third accomplishment was increasing public understanding of evolution, science, pseudo-science, skepticism and critical thinking. After that he focused more vocally on atheism. Just because the fundamentalists ignored him until he became widely known as an outspoken atheist, doesn't mean that it was he had not already accomplished a great deal.

Dawkins had become pseudo-science. Read Lewontin's article above.

Anyway I don't accept your opinion as facts, not without any sources to back up what seems like your fanciful claims about dah man. You're entitled to them though. But as for my opinion of him, I think Dawkins' comments and un-scientific views from interviews speak for themselves.

[cybercoma]

Scientifically leader of what, exactly? Wiki doesn't even give him that distinction.

Wow. I didn't know Wikipedia gave out scientific distinctions. Here I thought it was just an encyclopedia that anyone on the internet could tinker with and edit, making it almost entirely unreliable without corroborating references.

More to the point, here you go asking what his scientific distinctions are after being presented with a list of them twice and also posting some of them yourself. You need to seriously stop trolling.

Edited February 23, 2013 by cybercoma

[betsy]

Wow. I didn't know Wikipedia gave out scientific distinctions. Here I thought it was just an encyclopedia that anyone on the internet could tinker with and edit, making it almost entirely unreliable without corroborating references.

More to the point, here you go asking what his scientific distinctions are after being presented with a list of them twice and also posting some of them yourself. You need to seriously stop trolling.

I agree. Tongue in cheek since a lot of us use Wiki.

So why doesn't anyone tinker and edit what's described of Dawkins? A list of what? Opinions don't matter.

Oh, here comes the drama of being hard done by. If you think I'm trolling, well for goodness sake, have the self-control to resist replying, and learn to ignore a troll like most sensible adults would.

Like the way I ignore you at will - unless I decide otherwise.

Edited February 23, 2013 by betsy

[WIP]

Scientifically leader of what, exactly? Wiki doesn't even give him that distinction. He's been accused of catering to popular science, making unsubstantiated scientific claims....

Excerpts from an article, Billions and Billions of Demons by Richard Lewontin,

http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.ca/2007/02/richard-lewontin-what-worries-me-is.html

All he's leading and prominent is his views on religion....and his zealotry as a New Atheist, which he co-founded. So that must make him a "leader" to some awed, star-struck atheists.

On the other hand, Lewontin is described by Wiki as a, "leader."

Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist, academic and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin

Regardless of his credentials, it is a chicken move to call himself an "agnostic" on macro-evolution...which should be noted is not a term recognized by other biologists in his field.

The separation of evolutionary theory into macro and micro was a creationist fallback position taken by the more intelligent and scientifically literate creationists to accommodate observed evolutionary changes that were easily observable, while attempting to rule out the impact of changes over longer periods of time. In other words, according every serious commentator on evolution that I've heard says that "macro" evolution is just the series of "micro" evolutionary steps that have taken place over time. There is no categorical difference.

I would consider the attempt to make this separation similar to conservative social theorists including the evolutionary psychologists like Stephen Pinker, who created something they call "equity feminists" as opposed to "gender feminists," totally different topic, but another example of how motivated ideologues create fictitious divisions to support their theories.

That blog entry cited is a waste of time because it presents a false impression that Dawkins and E.O. Wilson (who had diverging theories on the forces behind evolution) were claiming they had conclusive evidence for their divergent approaches -- that for Dawkins, is the evolutionary process is a matter of competition between selfish replicators (genes) trying to produce as many copies as possible, or Wilson's theory that genecentric evolutionary theory could not explain evolutionary changes adequately that benefit species and especially entire groups of species such as colony insects, which act for the benefit of the colony, not individual goals of any kind. So, he and later David Sloan Wilson (no relation) developed a competing theory to Dawkins referred to as group level or multilevel selection theory. Not only are there differences unmentioned in that post, but neither is the fact that these biologists see their role as attempting to explain how evolution works, not claiming that they have proof how. If anything, Dawkins gets the most criticism by his peers as being one who uses his standing and reputation in the community of biology to aggressively try to knock down competing theories to his selfish gene theory of evolution. I would have taken a critique that mentioned the differences a little more seriously than one who pretends they are all part of some anti-God conspiracy! And it's even further off topic in an already totally off topic theme here, but even regarding their thinking and attitudes on religion and secularism, the Wilsons and Dawkins are poles apart from each other. But, the author of that piece might not even be aware of this fact.

edit note: just wanted to mention in case you noticed, that this new stupid system here won't let me post now if there are any images in the post, including quoted posts; so I had to delete the emoticon that was in your post, if that matters or changes context.

Edited February 23, 2013 by WIP

[Wayward Son]

Dawkins had become pseudo-science. Read Lewontin's article above.

Anyway I don't accept your opinion as facts, not without any sources to back up what seems like your fanciful claims about dah man. You're entitled to them though. But as for my opinion of him, I think Dawkins' comments and un-scientific views from interviews speak for themselves.

Lewontin is a scientist who has done some great work, and I highly respect the role he has played in certain scientific fields. However, Lewontin is also a scientist who's scientific career has been driven by his socialist political ideology. His criticisms of people like Dawkins are in areas where he has little, if any, scientific output and his views in these areas are not accepted by the majority of scientists. Essentially, you just non-stop commit the Argument from Authority logical fallacy.

I don't really care what you accept as opinion or fact, as I fully understand that you never apply even a modicum of critical thinking, and simply accept or reject anything you see, hear or read based entirely on how it fits with your worldview. Therefore, you simply search out anyone who says something you agree with and pass them off as an absolute authority. So when you find that someone you had never heard of like Lewontin says

something you agree with, he is not only correct, but becomes the authority on that subject. As for the majority of Lewontin's other views that you

would vehemently disagree with, well he is is wrong, and has no authority on those subjects.

[Wayward Son]

I would consider the attempt to make this separation similar to conservative social theorists including the evolutionary psychologists like Stephen Pinker, who created something they call "equity feminists" as opposed to "gender feminists," totally different topic, but another example of how motivated ideologues create fictitious divisions to support their theories.

No he did not. The terms were created by Christina Hoff Summers a decade before they were mentioned by Pinker. By that time the terms were already in wide use by some, and rejected by others. Your constant attacks on Pinker are both vehement and completely uninformed. Not the best combination.

[Wayward Son]

That blog entry cited is a waste of time because it presents a false impression that Dawkins and E.O. Wilson (who had diverging theories on the forces behind evolution) were claiming they had conclusive evidence for their divergent approaches -- that for Dawkins, is the evolutionary process is a matter of competition between selfish replicators (genes) trying to produce as many copies as possible, or Wilson's theory that genecentric evolutionary theory could not explain evolutionary changes adequately that benefit species and especially entire groups of species such as colony insects, which act for the benefit of the colony, not individual goals of any kind. So, he and later David Sloan Wilson (no relation) developed a competing theory to Dawkins referred to as group level or multilevel selection theory. Not only are there differences unmentioned in that post, but neither is the fact that these biologists see their role as attempting to explain how evolution works, not claiming that they have proof how. If anything, Dawkins gets the most criticism by his peers as being one who uses his standing and reputation in the community of biology to aggressively try to knock down competing theories to his selfish gene theory of evolution. I would have taken a critique that mentioned the differences a little more seriously than one who pretends they are all part of some anti-God conspiracy! And it's even further off topic in an already totally off topic theme here, but even regarding their thinking and attitudes on religion and secularism, the Wilsons and Dawkins are poles apart from each other. But, the author of that piece might not even be aware of this fact.

I have read this over a couple times, and while I have not read E. O. Wilson's latest book, I feel that you may be missing the central argument between the two Wilson's vs Dawkins et al. They all agree that genes are the replicator. Where they disagree is the vehicle that the replicators act on. For Dawkins et al that vehicle is kin selection, whereas for Wilson, Wilson and a small number of others that vehicle is (at least at times) group selection.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Wayward Son

[WIP]

No he did not. The terms were created by Christina Hoff Summers a decade before they were mentioned by Pinker. By that time the terms were already in wide use by some, and rejected by others. Your constant attacks on Pinker are both vehement and completely uninformed. Not the best combination.

Christina Hoff Summers is a hack in the first place. No one would have heard of her if she wasn't promoted by the right wing think tank - American Enterprise Institute....same with Pinker for that matter. The fact that Pinker quotes from her still....as I recently heard in an interview of him on the Point Of Inquiry podcast shows that he is still skating along that fine line of being anti-feminist...and likely for much the same reasons as Hoff-Summers, since they are both right wing idealogues who start getting the shakes whenever the concept of group identity and group rights is considered! That is the core reason why Hoff-Summers came up with this nonsense in the first place and why Pinker likes it so much: because they can pretend to stand apart from old patriarchal standards and be supporters of the feminist movement, while denying any sort of redress that threatens their concept of individual rights. It's no different than those libertarians who claim to be against racism, but are also opposed to steps to repair past wrongs like affirmative action programs. The only difference is that the libertarian humanist is doing it with the ideological baggage of promoting individual rights....where everyone lives in a darwinian survival of the fittest social environment presumably!

[betsy]

Regardless of his credentials, it is a chicken move to call himself an "agnostic" on macro-evolution...which should be noted is not a term recognized by other biologists in his field.

The separation of evolutionary theory into macro and micro was a creationist fallback position taken by the more intelligent and scientifically literate creationists to accommodate observed evolutionary changes that were easily observable, while attempting to rule out the impact of changes over longer periods of time. In other words, according every serious commentator on evolution that I've heard says that "macro" evolution is just the series of "micro" evolutionary steps that have taken place over time. There is no categorical difference.

I would consider the attempt to make this separation similar to conservative social theorists including the evolutionary psychologists like Stephen Pinker, who created something they call "equity feminists" as opposed to "gender feminists," totally different topic, but another example of how motivated ideologues create fictitious divisions to support their theories.

That blog entry cited is a waste of time because it presents a false impression that Dawkins and E.O. Wilson (who had diverging theories on the forces behind evolution) were claiming they had conclusive evidence for their divergent approaches -- that for Dawkins, is the evolutionary process is a matter of competition between selfish replicators (genes) trying to produce as many copies as possible, or Wilson's theory that genecentric evolutionary theory could not explain evolutionary changes adequately that benefit species and especially entire groups of species such as colony insects, which act for the benefit of the colony, not individual goals of any kind. So, he and later David Sloan Wilson (no relation) developed a competing theory to Dawkins referred to as group level or multilevel selection theory. Not only are there differences unmentioned in that post, but neither is the fact that these biologists see their role as attempting to explain how evolution works, not claiming that they have proof how. If anything, Dawkins gets the most criticism by his peers as being one who uses his standing and reputation in the community of biology to aggressively try to knock down competing theories to his selfish gene theory of evolution. I would have taken a critique that mentioned the differences a little more seriously than one who pretends they are all part of some anti-God conspiracy! And it's even further off topic in an already totally off topic theme here, but even regarding their thinking and attitudes on religion and secularism, the Wilsons and Dawkins are poles apart from each other. But, the author of that piece might not even be aware of this fact.

edit note: just wanted to mention in case you noticed, that this new stupid system here won't let me post now if there are any images in the post, including quoted posts; so I had to delete the emoticon that was in your post, if that matters or changes context.

Oooops. My apologies....the article I was referring to is:

The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism by Phillip E. Johnson, from which those quotes by Lewontin were taken.

http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9711/articles/johnson.html

I have not read the blog above....but it was handy since it gave specific quotes by Richard Lewontin. It's the statements of Lewontin that I'm pointing out.

[WIP]

I have read this over a couple times, and while I have not read E. O. Wilson's latest book, I feel that you may be missing the central argument between the two Wilson's vs Dawkins et al. They all agree that genes are the replicator. Where they disagree is the vehicle that the replicators act on. For Dawkins et al that vehicle is kin selection, whereas for Wilson, Wilson and a small number of others that vehicle is (at least at times) group selection.

Dawkins's gene-centered view doesn't do a good job of explaining how kin altruism develops. A lot of the holes they poke in the concept of group selection seem to focus on the gaps in understanding of how colony insect societies function. How thousands and even millions of creatures with tiny brains are able to organize and coordinate together with complex strategies without any sort of leadership or apparent hierarchies.