Anti-Dawkins bollocks from Premier Christian Radio

[SteveH]

This bloke needs to look up "consequentialist fallacy", "emergent properties" and "Lamarckian evolution (why it's wrong)", amongst many other things. I'm sure others can find dozens of other misleading and downright wrong statements.
https://youtu.be/wba5sgcpLek

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Further critique of Dawkin's science is to be found in the book, The Selfish Genius by Fern Elsdon Baker.

[Nearly Sane]

This bloke needs to look up "consequentialist fallacy", "emergent properties" and "Lamarckian evolution (why it's wrong)", amongst many other things. I'm sure others can find dozens of other misleading and downright wrong statements.
https://youtu.be/wba5sgcpLek

What's the point? Given the source I'm going to assume this is in some way about justifying a belief in a god? Given you've listened to it, can you confirm if that's correct? If it is, then it's not about science and will probably be moved.

 I'm not an atheist because of Dawkins, and if his particular views on evolution were wrong, it's not a smidgen of an argument for a god. I'm not an atheist because of the theory of evolution, and were it shown to be wrong tomorrow there still would be no smidgen of an argument for a god.

[Nearly Sane]

Further critique of Dawkin's science is to be found in the book, The Selfish Genius by Fern Elsdon Baker.

There are lots of scientists who disagree with Dawkins on parts of his scientific work. Is there a specific point you want to discuss?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are lots of scientists who disagree with Dawkins on parts of his scientific work. Is there a specific point you want to discuss?

While others indeed critique aspects of Dawkin's scientific work. Elsdon Baker makes in my opinion an important critique of Dawkin's scientific advocacy.This of course is evident in "The God Delusion" where he advocates for Smolin's theory of multiverses".

[Nearly Sane]

While others indeed critique aspects of Dawkin's scientific work. Elsdon Baker makes in my opinion an important critique of Dawkin's scientific advocacy.This of course is evident in "The God Delusion" where he advocates for Smolin's theory of multiverses".

Do you want to lay out the case then?

[Gordon]

Seems to me that this is primarily about theism and is not about a debate on naturalism and science, irrespective of whether the topic is the TofE or anything else, since I'd imagine that the target audience of Premier Christian Radio are theists who accept that supernatural agency may be at work in the Universe.

I doubt that they get all that many listeners who are who aren't already committed theists - to me they are occupying the same apologist territory as the likes of 'Answers in Genesis'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems to me that this is primarily about theism and is not about a debate on naturalism and science, irrespective of whether the topic is the TofE or anything else, since I'd imagine that the target audience of Premier Christian Radio are theists who accept that supernatural agency may be at work in the Universe.

I doubt that they get all that many listeners who are who aren't already committed theists - to me they are occupying the same apologist territory as the likes of 'Answers in Genesis'.

The person  criticising Dawkins seems to be a science academic and Steve H has criticised his science. That prompted me to a wider criticism made by Fern Elsdon Baker of Dawkin's use of advocacy in science.
It seems that this could be a debate which doesn't need to cover  theism at all.

I take criticism of Dawkin's use of advocacy in science to be criticism of Dawkin's ways of extending darwinianism into other areas of science by promoting(advocating)darwinian solutions to issues in say, physics to suit an ultradarwinian agenda.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you want to lay out the case then?

Only in the context of a formal debate.

[Nearly Sane]

Only in the context of a formal debate.

Then given your statement has insufficient clarity to engage with in a discussion, I'll just ignore it.

[jeremyp]

The person  criticising Dawkins seems to be a science academic and Steve H has criticised his science. That prompted me to a wider criticism made by Fern Elsdon Baker of Dawkin's use of advocacy in science.
It seems that this could be a debate which doesn't need to cover  theism at all.

I take criticism of Dawkin's use of advocacy in science to be criticism of Dawkin's ways of extending darwinianism into other areas of science by promoting(advocating)darwinian solutions to issues in say, physics to suit an ultradarwinian agenda.

Can you give an example of Dawkins proposing the use of evolution by natural selection as a solution to a physics problem?

No. thought not. You're talking bollocks again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you give an example of Dawkins proposing the use of evolution by natural selection as a solution to a physics problem?

No. thought not. You're talking bollocks again.

I already did...namely Dawkin’s advocacy of Smolin’s multiverse theory in the God Delusion.

[jeremyp]

I already did...namely Dawkin’s advocacy of Smolin’s multiverse theory in the God Delusion.

No you didn't. The multiverse isn't an example of Darwinian evolution. 

Where's the inheritance with variation? Where's the natural selection?

Do you even know what Darwinian evolution is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No you didn't. The multiverse isn't an example of Darwinian evolution. 

Where's the inheritance with variation? Where's the natural selection?

Do you even know what Darwinian evolution is?

That’s great. Now Jeremy thinks I’m advocating natural selection of new universes formed from black holes rather than Smolin’s suggesting it and Dawkins advocating it.

You need to reread the relevant section of The God Delusion and maybe Sabine Hossenfelder’s response to Dawkins advocacy of Smolin’s theory. See also the entry on cosmological natural selection in Wikipedia.

[jeremyp]

That’s great. Now Jeremy thinks I’m advocating natural selection of new universes formed from black holes rather than Smolin’s suggesting it and Dawkins advocating it.

That's a lie.

I'm not saying you are advocating anything only that your assertion that Dawkins advocates evolutionary answers to physics problems is false.

You need to reread the relevant section of The God Delusion and maybe Sabine Hossenfelder’s response to Dawkins advocacy of Smolin’s theory. See also the entry on cosmological natural selection in Wikipedia.

No I don't. The claim you made was that Dawkins advocated Smolin's hypothesis which may be true and that Smolin's hypothesis is an example of Darwinian evolution. I believe you are lying about the second part and I'm asking you to show that you are not lying. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a lie.

I'm not saying you are advocating anything only that your assertion that Dawkins advocates evolutionary answers to physics problems is false.
No I don't. The claim you made was that Dawkins advocated Smolin's hypothesis which may be true and that Smolin's hypothesis is an example of Darwinian evolution. I believe you are lying about the second part and I'm asking you to show that you are not lying.

It is the opinion of other scientists and any sensible reading of the God delusion that Dawkins considers Smolin's
theory to be one of Cosmological Natural selection.

It is not so much whether Dawkins supports the cosmology though but more his preference for advocating it instead of being impartial about it.

In my opinion he likes the theory not for it's cosmology but because he likes Natural selection and likes it very much as a would be fundamental principle in physics (see saline Hossenfelders comments on the matter.

The question is then Does Dawkins construe Smolin's theory as Darwinian?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism

[SteveH]

... not for it's cosmology ...

You might get your pretentious pseudo-intellectuality taken a bit more seriously if you learned to distinguish between "its", meaning "belonging to it", and "it's", short for "it is" or "it has". It's been pointed out to you often enough.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You might get your pretentious pseudo-intellectuality taken a bit more seriously if you learned to distinguish between "its", meaning "belonging to it", and "it's", short for "it is" or "it has". It's been pointed out to you often enough.

Pretentious? Moi?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Watched the first couple of minutes but gave up when the various non sequiturs he attempted got too much.

As NS notes though, even if the interviewee did have a legit critique of the Selfish Gene that would take him not one jot of a smidgin of an iota toward a justification for his faith belief "god". "Because I think explanation A is wrong, explanation B must be correct" remains a crap argument.   

[jeremyp]

It is the opinion of other scientists and any sensible reading of the God delusion that Dawkins considers Smolin's
theory to be one of Cosmological Natural selection.

Oh yes? Which other scientists? Any of them evolutionary biologists?

It is not so much whether Dawkins supports the cosmology though but more his preference for advocating it instead of being impartial about it.

In my opinion he likes the theory not for it's cosmology but because he likes Natural selection and likes it very much as a would be fundamental principle in physics (see saline Hossenfelders comments on the matter.

The question is then Does Dawkins construe Smolin's theory as Darwinian?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Darwinism

But it's bullshit. He doesn't claim the multiverse hypothesis is an example of evolution by natural selection. You're just being silly.