Schmo, don't take your frustrations out on me. I know it must really burn you up to know you publicly wedded yourself to this idiot, and now you're stuck with him. I think I'll start calling you Hansel.
Given how you've talked about "Darwinian fundamentalists" in the past, which really is just borrowing from a pejorative term from the creationist/anti-evolutionist movement that refers to supporting the basic tenants of evolutionary theory, Gould qualifies just the same as Dawkins.
I never borrowed anything from a "creationist/anti-evolutionist movement." You're well-poisoning, yet again. Fundamentalism has its own meaning to define extremists in any given context, but it usually carries a similar meaning. Clearly Gould is not using it in a complimentary sense. I agree with Gould completely, and again, it goes along well with what I have said on this forum. That seems to really annoy you to the point that you've decided to recreate the situation by telling me and the world that I don't mean what I mean because I don't understand what I understand, therefore we're suppose to conclude that I really don't agree with what I agree with. We've seen this before from you. You're still trying to make me disagree with evolution just so you can claim the scientific high ground. Does it piss you off as much as it does the Dude, when evolution doesn't turn out to be such the religion-killer you had hoped?
Of course, I think we both know you have no idea what you're talking about, and that this is just a charade to detract away from the fact that one of the world's leading evolutionists thought a forum favorite was out of his gourd on the subject. I'm happy to let his own words speak for themselves, and let the audience conclude from them what they will. There is no way you can spin this as a positive for the New Atheists.
What you are talking about is a relatively minor disagreement over the science that is a matter of interpretation of the available evidence.
It isn't minor when it is at the core of the New Atheists' arguments. In fact, the atheists here preaching "science," pull chapters from Dawkins and regurgitate them. "Its science" we keep hearing. For example, the reason a woman risks her life to save her own child, and not the child of another, has to do with, not sincere love as a deluded religious person would believe in ignorance, but rather a desire to see her genes passed on to the next generation! Yes, it has to be! Well show me the scientific evidence to support this. Dawkns can't. You can't. Nobody here can. I asked them to, and they balked. Why? Because they are bluffing.
It is, essentially, and ironically, a religious dogma that's gradually accepted as science because a prestigious figure in academia says so. It is being forced fed by this high priest of atheism. The overwhelming irony on this forum is that so many atheists preach stuff they really know nothing about. Now some, most or even all of what they believe might very well be true, but my point here is that they only believe it because they have blind faith in certain scientists who write books about it. I mean let's get real, how many people here have actually performed a scientific experiment with an electron microscope and viewed genes? How many have performed an experiment that would confirm Dawkins argument that they manipulate us for their own selfish purposes? Nobody, not even Dawkins. So why am I hearing people like Ajax and Moniker spout this nonsense as scientific fact? Because they believe Dawkins is a scientist who would only write about science. But as in theistic religion, eventually you get an authority who abuses his position to peddle pondscum. People here believe it because they have an invested interest in seeing religion undermined.
So selfish genes manipulate a loving mother's actions, there is no way to change that, all we can do is fight against them! That's "science" I tell ya! Well, no it isn't. Science can observe how humans act, but there is no rational basis to insist evolutionary biology explains why we act altruistically. For Dawkins, it has to be explained in biological terms, because that would so conveniently render another mysterious/religious notion superfluous. It doesn't take a genius to see the trend here.
It isn't science that says our genes are selfish and dictate our personalities. It isn't science that evolution explains every aspect of human reality, down to consciousness, religious beliefs, even our desire to procreate. That is Dawkinism at best. Dawkins' problem is his blind acceptance of Universal Darwinism. I've pointed this out in the past and Gould's criticism is similar to that of McGrath's. The problem is, Dawkins doesn't present his arguments as theoreticals. He presents them as scientific facts because as a bigot atheist, he needs them to be "science" in order keep fueling this imagined, nonsensical "war" between religion and science. And of course, he wouldn't sell millions of books that argue strictly along theoretical lines. It is important for him that these things be true, and it is equally important for some people on this forum.
Yes, I will bring up Gould when necessary because with respect to the science vs. religion scenario, Gould is clearly more reasonable. Dawkins cannot even respond to Gould without saying, "I can't believe Gould really meant much of what he said in his book"!
It isn't some metaphysical issue that goes beyond the scope of science. Dawkins happens to think more traits out there in nature are a byproduct of selective pressure than Gould does.
That's an understatement, and you're not addressing the problem that he presents his ideas as scientific fact, when in reality they are just his way of trying to replace religion by making humans meaningless, chance driven animals who operate according to the commands of our genes.
It's important to remember that not everything necessarily has to be an adaptation to have evolved. Some things are just part of random drift, quirks of how evolutionary paths built upon themselves, functionally poor traits that piggyback on good traits, and so on. Gould thought there's more of that out there than Dawkins' does.
How does this address anything I've said?
While we're talking about degree here, I think it is safe to say that plenty of the scientific community is more on Dawkins' side of the spectrum than Gould
If true, then this speaks poorly of the scientific community as a whole because it leans away from science and more into philosophy. Which would be fine if they were philosophers. But I doubt this is true anyway. Dawkins and his ilk are pretty much fringe when it comes to these kinds of arguments embraced by atheists.
I don't know why you'd preference Gould just because he takes a potshot at Dennett .
That isn't why. Gould isn't leaping to illicit conclusions while dogmatically asserting them as science. Dawkins does this on principle, and Dennett merely regurgitates whatever Dawkins says.
You are stretching the quote way beyond what it is referring to, probably because you don't really understand the dispute if your previous commentary on evolution is any indication.
Oh give us a break will ya. You're the one who said it was "fair" to say humans evolved from apes, and then immediately started backpeddling when it became apparent that was precisely the idea your atheist cohorts were trying to mock. So don't give me any of this crap from old discussions where you think you've nailed down my understanding of evolution. People who matter to me, already know and understand method of arguing. It is by design, and proves very productive for me. I did the same thing at MAD, ZLMB, etc. It is the best way to get as much information in a short amount of time. If I asked a sincere question about the Book of Abraham, I'd get sloppy testimonies from amateurs. Yet if I take the devil' advocate position and attack it, then I attract those who really know the subject within hours, and the result is an information-packed exchange. The same was true for evolution many months ago.
In any event, you clearly don't understand the reason I mentioned Gould's comment, even after I fully explained it. So just stop trying to pull these silly maneuvers by minimizing important statements from scientists who undermine your presuppositions, while at the same time providing a poor psychoanalysis of why you think I provided it. You're way off as usual.
One of the first criticisms I made of Dawkins was his method of trying to explain historical, sociological and psychological features in evolutionary terms. Gould criticizes these fundamentalists for taking the conclusions where the evidence won't follow. Dawkins wants his field of expertise to be able to explain everything about everything because that makes him the authority on everything. That might be attractive for scientists who see themselves as potential authorities on everything, but it isn't science, and people should stop pretending that it is.
Well, well, look who's feeling a little peckish tonight (and every night, in fact).
Every night? I have one night a week to post anything that requires serious thought, if I'm lucky. It will usually be Wed or Thurs. I'm always playing catch-up, and being constantly outnumbered doesn't help.
Why would anyone feel compelled to defend Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or some other well known atheist? They are not anyone's Savior. Atheism isn't a religion.
Apparently they do, apparently they are and apparently it is.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein