Darwin, Dawkins (And All That)...
If you've been reading my blog for awhile now (and may I cynically add: which you most likely have not), you'd notice a lack of posts of evolution.
I have a tendency to rush into subjects I've just known for five minutes. Hopefully that doesn't occur nowadays.
Well, anyway, I've been really, really cautious about commenting on evolution, because I'm just really not that keen to comment on this area. Obviously because some parts of it are over my head, but mainly because I see this as the domain of expert scientists and philosophers, and I am neither.
But of course, some commentary must come out from me, now and then. Well, here's some.
I've recently read Dawkins Blind Watchmaker and...was I convinced? Nope, but he made a very, very good argument. But may I say it's nothing but sophistry? I suppose maybe it's just me not being convinced, whereas others are. But it would take a naive layman to think Dawkins has made a factual case. I think that people will be more taken up with the stories Dawkins tells (they are good, they are coherent) than the facts about his stories, as they are. Maybe you might be convinced as he tells us about the evolution of the eye, but then again, the structure of the eye is something that takes a molecular biologist to fully understand. And most of us certainly aren't one.
Again, I suppose it's nothing but brick headedness on my part. But do excuse me if I don't jump for joy everytime I see Dawkins jumping into another "explanation" and say "Right on!", because it certainly is much deeper than a Darwinian story.
But that's just one book, by one author. But then again, Michael Ruse said that if you're not convinced after reading this book, you'll never be. I suppose I'll never be, or maybe I might be after I've done enough reading.
In fact I've read very few stuff from the other side. The creationist and ID sides, that is. No books (maybe one, but that's more on the philosophy of naturalism), and some articles only.
It will be a long time, as I've only started. Maybe after reading all those evo-devo books I can get my hands on, and comparing them with the critiques, then maybe I can draw a conclusion and a solid position.
But until then...
Maybe until then.
Did that make sense?
P.S.- I actually have read more stuff on sociobiology than evo biology. I find the former way more interesting.
=)
I have a tendency to rush into subjects I've just known for five minutes. Hopefully that doesn't occur nowadays.
Well, anyway, I've been really, really cautious about commenting on evolution, because I'm just really not that keen to comment on this area. Obviously because some parts of it are over my head, but mainly because I see this as the domain of expert scientists and philosophers, and I am neither.
But of course, some commentary must come out from me, now and then. Well, here's some.
I've recently read Dawkins Blind Watchmaker and...was I convinced? Nope, but he made a very, very good argument. But may I say it's nothing but sophistry? I suppose maybe it's just me not being convinced, whereas others are. But it would take a naive layman to think Dawkins has made a factual case. I think that people will be more taken up with the stories Dawkins tells (they are good, they are coherent) than the facts about his stories, as they are. Maybe you might be convinced as he tells us about the evolution of the eye, but then again, the structure of the eye is something that takes a molecular biologist to fully understand. And most of us certainly aren't one.
Again, I suppose it's nothing but brick headedness on my part. But do excuse me if I don't jump for joy everytime I see Dawkins jumping into another "explanation" and say "Right on!", because it certainly is much deeper than a Darwinian story.
But that's just one book, by one author. But then again, Michael Ruse said that if you're not convinced after reading this book, you'll never be. I suppose I'll never be, or maybe I might be after I've done enough reading.
In fact I've read very few stuff from the other side. The creationist and ID sides, that is. No books (maybe one, but that's more on the philosophy of naturalism), and some articles only.
It will be a long time, as I've only started. Maybe after reading all those evo-devo books I can get my hands on, and comparing them with the critiques, then maybe I can draw a conclusion and a solid position.
But until then...
Maybe until then.
Did that make sense?
P.S.- I actually have read more stuff on sociobiology than evo biology. I find the former way more interesting.
=)
This entry was posted
on Friday, September 22, 2006 at 12:30 PM.
|
