And, he’s apparently 40 to 80 years out of date, per Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist. Calder believes that science corrects itself, but it takes multiple decades to do so. From Uncommon Descent:
According to Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, Richard Dawkins is “out of date” with his genetics. Listen to his opinion on how changes happen in science. This interview is edited from Australian ABC Science Show 11th August 2007.
By the way, I soon (maybe even today) will finally address issues in Dawkins’ The God Delusion. Stay tuned.
Thanks for the link, this is an interesting blog. I’ve subscribed to the feed as well.
I think you might enjoy this website. I have added Thomas’ blog to my google reader feeder:
He’s a Christian med student, and I think you might have fun with this post here:
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I was going to drag out a quote you had made about how Christians are expected to be more civil in the blogosphere than we atheists, but I shall withdraw.
Granted, the above video and Calder quote have absolutely no merit in arguing any point, and I would hope that this is obvious to all. This was merely meant as a humorous intro to my TGD series.
I would expect nothing less. 😉
As you prepare your riposte on TCD, consider what the meaning is behind what Calder is saying, and the reason that ID chose to use this snippet against Dawkins.
Dawkins has not engaged in direct genetic research for decades, however his contributions to genetics and natural selection have been invaluable. Calder is mindful of the advances made in genetics since Dawkins put in a lab coat, but they are advances made through the scientific method and not through the “poisoning of the well” method practiced by the gang at Uncommon Descent.
The controversies over the roles of various genetic factors of evolution have been raging among scientists for several years; and Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins sparred in public for many years until Gould’s death. Larry Moran at Sandwalk has carefully pointed out the shortcomings of relying on NS and RM as the entirety of evolution, Douglas Futuyma has criticized Dawkins on his position as well. So how does this bolster ID at all? It doesn’t, just as the crowing by Casey Luskin over the discoveries of concurrent skulls of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster illustrate a complete misunderstanding what the discoveries mean. (Evolution doesn’t work in straight lines, and hasn’t been thought to for at least an hundred years.)
If Uncommon Descent is trying to make the case that further research which will prove a case for ID may take another 30 years to be appreciated as science “corrects itself,” then they are farting in the wind. If they are interested in finding out whether Calder is accurate in his assessment of Dawkins, then they should certainly require Calder to provide a bit more detail here, or at least admit that the advances that have been made in the last “40 to 80 years” damage their case more than help it.
Calder is a science writer, and has done a bang up job on astronomy and physics; but I re-checked his bibliography and find nothing that he has written on genetics (unless I missed something.) So what authority is UD affording him here, other than the fact that they seethe for any chance to ridicule Dawkins (as you have done by including the sham video at the top of the post?)
I look forward to your review of TGD, but I will examine it critically.