The Selfish Gene

Discussions on creation beliefs within Christianity, and topics related to creation.
Post Reply
User avatar
Silvertusk
Board Moderator
Posts: 1952
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:38 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: United Kingdom
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 24 times

The Selfish Gene

#1

Post by Silvertusk » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:22 pm

Just been reading about Dawkins theories on the Selfish gene - anyone know a decent critique on that theory?

Silvertusk

terminatordrei
Acquainted Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:19 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#2

Post by terminatordrei » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:09 pm

I haven't looked for any academic critiques but this article might be of interest to you:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/73

User avatar
Silvertusk
Board Moderator
Posts: 1952
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:38 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: United Kingdom
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 24 times

#3

Post by Silvertusk » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:32 am

Thanks for that.

That has certainly raised some more questions.

For those of you in the UK there is a program on TV this thursday BBC2 9.00pm - Horizon - it talks about the War on Science by the intelligence design movement. It features Dawkins, Attenbourgh and Dembski. I am wondering whether to watch it or not - I am already put off by the title - "War on Science". ID is surely using science to further its arguement - so why is it a war - I think this is just going to be another platform for Dawkins to sprout is anti-religious agenda.

terminatordrei
Acquainted Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:19 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#4

Post by terminatordrei » Mon Jan 23, 2006 3:05 pm

No problem. :)

Here's another article on the same topic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/ ... 76,00.html

And a more scholarly critique:
http://www.complexsystems.org/publicati ... pgene.html
ID is surely using science to further its arguement - so why is it a war - I think this is just going to be another platform for Dawkins to sprout is anti-religious agenda.
I don't consider ID science. Could it become real science? Maybe, I sont' know. It would have to make propositions to explain the development of life. So far, all I've heard IDists say are negative objections to neo-Darwinism (e.g. Evolution can't explain such and such, etc.).

As far as I know, some forms of ID do accept natural selection but are skeptical that mutations alone could account for the diversity of species and propose the intervention of a designer. How would metaphysical naturalism (part of the scientific method) test the designer is something I've heard no IDist explain.


Other forms of ID are barely distinguishable from Creationism and reject evolution altogether.

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#5

Post by August » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:07 pm

terminatordrei wrote: I don't consider ID science.
Are you a scientist? Do you feel qualified to assess whether something is or is not properly a part of science? What are your qualifications in this regard?
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com

Jay_7
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:27 am
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#6

Post by Jay_7 » Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:45 pm

I don't consider ID science. Could it become real science? Maybe, I sont' know. It would have to make propositions to explain the development of life. So far, all I've heard IDists say are negative objections to neo-Darwinism (e.g. Evolution can't explain such and such, etc.).

Ha. :roll: Your've watched too much pokemon.

terminatordrei
Acquainted Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 4:19 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#7

Post by terminatordrei » Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:24 pm

Are you a scientist? Do you feel qualified to assess whether something is or is not properly a part of science? What are your qualifications in this regard?
No, but hopefully I'll be. I'm just a freshman in college majoring in biochemistry. I apologize if I came off as rude or arrogant. I shouldn't have said that, point taken.

Still, I ask again, what does ID have to say apart from criticizing evolution? Even if the current evolutionary theory is proven wrong that doesn't make ID right.

Jay_7, I really hope that post is not reflective of your typical character.

Jay_7
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:27 am
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#8

Post by Jay_7 » Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:00 pm

terminatordrei wrote: Jay_7, I really hope that post is not reflective of your typical character.
Not really, just my sarcastic side.

User avatar
Forge
Valued Member
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 7:39 pm
Christian: No
Location: Watching you
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#9

Post by Forge » Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:12 am

Jay_7 wrote:Ha. :roll: Your've watched too much pokemon.
There's nothing wrong with pokemon.
I DEMAND PIE, AND A BARREL OF WHIPPED CREAM

Jay_7
Established Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:27 am
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#10

Post by Jay_7 » Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:42 pm

Forge wrote:
Jay_7 wrote:Ha. :roll: Your've watched too much pokemon.
There's nothing wrong with pokemon.
Didnt say there was, it was a joke. Get it?

Iggy
Recognized Member
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:05 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Germany
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Contact:

#11

Post by Iggy » Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:28 pm

i dont think ID is science. im not a scientist... but i know enough to know that "science" is proven WRONG everyday. all science is, is a theory! a guess on maybe how something works or was made... then, 5 years after the first idea, they come out with something else. i think an example would be the atkins diet. first said to be a miricle diet. once people started on it, they said it was unhealthy. science is never really ever fact. except to say the the earth goes around the sun, or something like that. but even back then when they said the world is flat and the center of the universe and the sun revolves around IT. that was science, then they figured they were way wrong...

or look at medicle science. they have all these sicknesses. and i bet some of you are thinking that science has cures for all the cancers and STD's and diseases... but i dont think that we'd have all the diseases if it wernt for the shots and over the counter crap they make you take when your younger.

User avatar
August
Old School
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Texas
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 1 time
Contact:

#12

Post by August » Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:45 pm

Iggy wrote:i dont think ID is science. im not a scientist... but i know enough to know that "science" is proven WRONG everyday. all science is, is a theory!
You seem to be confusing the results of applying the scientific method and the philosophy of what science is.

On that basis, to say that science is "just a theory", you'll need to do some more explaining of what it is you mean, and also how you arrive from there at your conclusion that ID is not science.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."

//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com

User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2125
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 12 times

#13

Post by BGoodForGoodSake » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:15 pm

Iggy wrote:i dont think ID is science. im not a scientist... but i know enough to know that "science" is proven WRONG everyday.
To a degree yes.
Iggy wrote: all science is, is a theory! a guess on maybe how something works or was made... then, 5 years after the first idea, they come out with something else.
Usually new discoveries require reworking theories not scrapping them.
Iggy wrote: i think an example would be the atkins diet.
This is not a result of scientific inquiry, perhaps its better to call this a study.
Iggy wrote: first said to be a miricle diet. once people started on it, they said it was unhealthy. science is never really ever fact.
Yes but don't confuse studies and surveys with science, it's only a part of science. Studies are suggestive not conclusive.
The results are used to make practical decisions, however in most cases more studies need to be made before any scientific conclusion can be made.
Iggy wrote: except to say the the earth goes around the sun, or something like that. but even back then when they said the world is flat and the center of the universe and the sun revolves around IT. that was science, then they figured they were way wrong...

or look at medicle science. they have all these sicknesses. and i bet some of you are thinking that science has cures for all the cancers and STD's and diseases... but i dont think that we'd have all the diseases if it wernt for the shots and over the counter [poop] they make you take when your younger.
The overuse of antibiotics causes strains to become resistant through a powerful selection process. However the disease must first exist in order for this to occur.

So no, science did not create diseases.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Cougar
Recognized Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:59 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#14

Post by Cougar » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:18 pm

August,

Out of curiosity, what qualifications must someone have to be sufficient for judgement of something being or not being scientific? What qualifications must someone have to convince you that they know what they are talking about scientifically?

Please don't misunderstand this question as being rude or arrogant, I am honestly wondering how someone can answer the question you posed to terminatordrei.

Cougar
Recognized Member
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:59 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#15

Post by Cougar » Sun Mar 05, 2006 5:30 pm

I think it is important to remember that mutations alone are not the only mechanisms within evolution. Sexual selection (non-random mating), genetic drift, and speciation, for example, all drive change throughout time as well. Mutations alone can't explain the vast amount of change that has occured in the last 4 billion years.

Post Reply