This is the continuation of a pissing match between Scott Youngren, of godevidence.com, and I over his blatant quote-mining of Richard Dawkins. Part I is here.
Oct. 30 Non:
QUOTE-MINING RICHARD DAWKINS – DIRECTED PANSPERMIA (DP)Oct. 30 Non:
(I know this is long. If it’s any consolation, it used to be twice this length.)
After being called out on your quote-mine of Dawkins you say “I never suggested that he endorsed it as anything other than a wild hypothetical possibility.”(Let’s keep those words in mind.) This is easily demonstrated to be false. In fact, it appears the only time you offer the tiniest acknowledgment that this was a hypothetical is when you are directly called out for quote-mining. Since you have smeared this misrepresentation all over your site, it doesn’t take long for people to see how you’re really portraying the situation. Below are just a few examples.
In your “Special Pleading” essay, you say Dawkins (and others) endorse DP because they “VERY CLEARLY DO `UNDERSTAND that life emerged from non-living matter as the result of intelligence.” (emphasis yours.) That is far from acknowledging that his statements were a “wild hypothetical possibility.” How dishonest to take a statement in which he assumed an intelligence for the sake of argument, and use it to claim that he ‘understands’ that intelligence was necessary.
In your “Evidence” article you go so far as to say DP is an example of an “effective and prestigious neurotic defense mechanism.” How can a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question be a defense mechanism? Clearly you’re not acknowledging the “wildly hypothetical” nature of the question Dawkins was answering. Later, in the comments, you say Dawkins endorses DP as “a way for atheists to avoid the question of how life emerged from non-living chemicals….” So which is it, do you admit that Dawkins was only answering a hypothetical in which he assumed certain things for the sake of argument, or is he saying it to avoid a question? Besides, he doesn’t avoid that question. In the clip you reference, he says the alien race would develop by some natural means (surely you comprehend that he can’t be more specific than that unless he starts positing specific characteristics of the alien race, like their physical characteristics, planetary environment, etc.).
In the same article you say Dawkins’ endorsing of DP has “done more than embarrass [himself],” he has “laid bare for all to see the perceptual filter steering [his] atheistic beliefs, which is religious in nature.” The truth is the “filter” he was applying was the hypothetical filter put upon him by the interviewer. As he understood it, he was not asked to answer the question through any filter he might have. He was assuming the interviewer’s filter, and then positing how life on earth could have been designed. This was a prime opportunity for you to tell the truth, but you chose not to.
In the comments of that article you say, “Regarding the Dawkins video: I have always used the term “hypothesis” with regards to his endorsement of the aliens-brought-life-to-earth suggestion. It should not be understood to mean that he has firmly concluded that it is the case. But it certainly does mean that he (and other prominent atheists such as Francis Crick) really do take the idea seriously.” It is trivial to see that you have not always used or even implied the term “hypothesis.” This is something you’ve retreated to a couple of times, then you blink and go right back to your very direct statements about Dawkins’ motivations for his statement, which paints it in a completely different light.
In a comment on Sep 3, 2011 you ask, “Would you agree with prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins… that we don’t need a higher intelligence such as God to explain the origin of life because aliens from outer space brought life here?” You present this as a very specific and strident position on Dawkins’ part, not a hypothetical, or a vague endorsement.
You also say, “[DP] is the best that the atheist cream-of-the-crop (such as Richard Dawkins and Francis Crick) can come up with to explain the origin of life.” Once again, you present a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question as “the best” explanation Dawkins can come up with. That is dishonest.
In the comments to your “Luck” article you say: “So there you go…Richard Dawkins has endorsed the plausibility of the hypothesis that aliens created life in their laboratory and brought it to earth (“seeded” it) in some sort of spaceship. Open-and-shut. End of story. Period. This is also very strong evidence that he realizes “higher intelligence” must have been involved in the creation of life …he just thinks this “higher intelligence” might be space aliens.” (Emphasis mine) Heassumes for the sake of discussion that intelligence must have been involved in the creation of life on earth, and offers aliens as a possible explanation, then immediately says those aliens would have a natural explanation. What honest person could hear his words and conclude that he ‘realizes the necessity’ of higher intelligence when he specifically says the ultimate cause would not need to be a higher intelligence? When he assumes a higher intelligence, and you twist that to say he realizes a higher intelligence, this is quote mining and it is highly dishonest.
I found these just by searching your essays for “panspermia.” You manage to squeeze this dishonest quotation into four different essays, and into probably a dozen replies to comments. Had I searched for “brought to earth by aliens” I would have found many more.
Finally, you say that even if life on earth had an ET explanation, the aliens themselves now need an explanation. Dawkins knew this and addressed it in the interview. He said it would be some naturalistic means, similar to the Darwinian evolution that we’re already familiar with, or “some equivalent crane.” When he says, “some equivalent crane” he is obviously saying there could be some means other than what we’re familiar with on earth, and he is clearly denying there needs to be an intelligence behind it.
But in case it’s not obvious to you, I linked to his blog (http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/2394-lying-for-jesus) where he discusses this interview. There he recounts Stein’s dishonest interview with Michael Ruse (where Stein plays the same abiogenesis game) and says quite clearly, “… the origin of life (nothing to do with the Darwinian theory itself but the necessary precursor of Darwinian evolution) is an interesting and unsolved mystery, one that scientists are actively working on.” (Emphasis mine) But you blithely ignore this and press on, claiming, “This is part of the absurdity that I am trying to call [Dawkins] out on!! He is citing a mechanism that only applies to things which are already alive to explain how the space aliens… evolved from non-living matter!”
The context of the video makes clear that he is answering a question where he was hypothetically assuming design, and in the follow-up he says very clearly that it was “highly unlikely,” and “a science fiction scenario.” Yet when someone says they’re proposing a highly unlikely science fiction scenario, you claim they’re endorsing it, even after being shown your error. That’s quote-mining.
Nov. 1 Scott: By trying to start a heated debate about my citation of Dawkins, you are VERY TRANSPARENTLY trying to create a distraction from your inability to respond to the question of what mind is responsible for the origin of language in DNA (a “red herring” argument).
Nov. 2 Non: “THE COUNTER IS NOW ON FIVE (5) for the number of times that I have asked you the question of what mind was responsible for DNA and the origin of life from non-living matter. SPIT IT OUT!!!” (Emphasis and overwrought histrionics yours)
I gave you a partial list of the topics I was going to address. Among them was your question. You said, “Take your time,” but then when I started to address this list of topics, you threw another one of your tantrums.
By my count, I’ve made five additional posts to you since you set your silly little counter to four, and none answered your oh-so-important question, so bump it up to nine. Then again, I also responded to “John,” so make it ten. Oh, and I’m not answering it with this post, so let’s call it 11. Your histrionics aren’t going to move things along any quicker, but I understand if you just can’t help yourself.
Nov. 1 Scott: By trying to start a heated debate about my citation of Dawkins, you are VERY TRANSPARENTLY trying to create a distraction from your inability to respond to the question of what mind is responsible for the origin of language in DNA (a “red herring” argument).
Whether Dawkins “endorses” DP or merely cites it as a “wildly hypothetical” possibility is an irrelevant semantic issue.
READERS, PLEASE AGAIN TAKE NOTE SINCE THIS IS INSTRUCTIVE!! ATHEISTS MUST USE EVERY TOOL IN THEIR ARSENAL TO AVOID THE QUESTION OF WHAT MIND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE FROM NON-LIVING MATTER!! Information science (not to mention everyday common sense) tells us that symbolic representation is BY NECESSITY the product of a conscious and intelligent mind. DNA uses symbols know as “codons” (in the language of biology) to provide a set of codified instructions. Therefore, we know that life was BY NECESSITY produced by a conscious and intelligent mind.
Non Credenti, THE COUNTER IS NOW ON FIVE (5) for the number of times that I have asked you the question of what mind was responsible for DNA and the origin of life from non-living matter.
SPIT IT OUT!!!
You are CORNERED! Your atheist worldview leaves you with the following options for explaining the very extremely sophisticated symbolic representation present in DNA:
1) Engage in speculation about a mind other than God creating life (such as the space aliens cited by numerous ultra-elite atheist scientists). Please note that such speculations do not explain the origin of life because they leave us with the question of how alien life emerged from non-living matter.
2) You can try to deny that symbolic representation requires a conscious and intelligent mind. This option is even worse for you because information science and everyday common sense both tell us that symbolic representation is necessarily the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.
3) You can try to desperately distract attention from your inability to coherently answer this question by trying to start a heated debate about my citation of Dawkins. This is known as a “red herring” and is basically a quibbling about semantic issues (“endorsed” vs. “wildly hypothetical”). This is the option that you have currently selected.
Dawkins cited space aliens as a potential cause for the origin of life from non-living matter. Whether he “endorses” this view or merely cites it as a “wild hypothetical” possibility is a semantic issue.
Dawkins said: “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
He devotes entire books trying to debunk the designer hypothesis, and then cites space aliens as the possible DESIGNER of life. And then he admits in one of his books (The Blind Watchmaker) that the impression of design is “overwhelming.”
These facts lead us to the inexorable conclusion that Dawkins’ opposition to the designer hypothesis is ideological/psychological rather than logical. HE IS ONLY OPPOSED TO ONE SPECIFIC DESIGNER: GOD. He VERY CLEARLY DOES understand that life is the product of a conscious and intelligent mind.
Non Credenti, you write: “In the clip you reference, he says the alien race would develop by some natural means (surely you comprehend that he can’t be more specific than that unless he starts positing specific characteristics of the alien race, like their physical characteristics, planetary environment, etc.).”
PLEASE CITE FOR ME WHAT THE NATURAL MEANS THAT CREATED THE SPACE ALIENS WOULD BE!!
Nancy Pearcey explains in her book Total Truth why law-like natural processes (which atheism relies on as an alternative to God) cannot be cited as an explanation for the origin of life from non-living matter:
“…in principle, laws of nature do not give rise to information. Why not? Because laws describe events that are regular, repeatable, and predictable. If you drop a pencil, it will fall. If you put paper into a flame, it will burn. If you mix salt in water, it will dissolve. That’s why the scientific method insists that experiments must be repeatable: Whenever you reproduce the same conditions, you should get the same results, or something is wrong with your experiment. The goal of science is to reduce those regular patterns to mathematical formulas. By contrast, the sequence of letters in a message is irregular and non repeating, which means it cannot be the result of any law-like process.”
“To illustrate the point, let’s invoke our imaginary Scrabble game… but this time when you organize the letters, you decide to follow a certain formula or rule (an analogy to laws of nature). For example, the formula might require that every time you have a D, it is followed by an E. And every time you have an E, it’s followed by a S, then an I, then a G, and an N. The result would be that every time you started with D, you would get DESIGN, DESIGN, DESIGN, over and over again. Obviously, if the letters in a real alphabet followed rules like that, you would be limited to spelling only a few words—and you could not convey very much information. The reason a real alphabet works so well is precisely that the letters do not follow rules or formulas or laws. If you know that a word begins with a T, you cannot predict what the next letter will be. With some minor exceptions (in English, q is always fol-lowed by u), the letters can be combined and recombined in a vast number of different arrangements to form words and sentences.” (Both of these long quotes were bolded in full. I removed the formatting.)
So who or what is the author of the codified information contained in DNA? It is not merely the case that science has failed so far to answer this question. Rather it is that materialistic science can never, even in principle, answer this question.
I gave you a partial list of the topics I was going to address. Among them was your question. You said, “Take your time,” but then when I started to address this list of topics, you threw another one of your tantrums.
By my count, I’ve made five additional posts to you since you set your silly little counter to four, and none answered your oh-so-important question, so bump it up to nine. Then again, I also responded to “John,” so make it ten. Oh, and I’m not answering it with this post, so let’s call it 11. Your histrionics aren’t going to move things along any quicker, but I understand if you just can’t help yourself.
Nov. 2 Scott: I really don’t like having to use “the counter” with atheists. Rather, I strongly prefer to use polite language when possible.
However, I have found it necessary to use the counter in order to call atheists out on repeatedly ignoring questions which cannot be coherently answered from within the framework of their belief system.
And the reason that atheists cannot coherently answer these questions is that atheism is WRONG. Period.
When I said “take your time,” I meant it. But this should not be interpreted as a license to go off on a diversionary quibbling about irrelevant semantic issues such as weather Richard Dawkins “endorses” directed panspermia or merely mentions it as a “wild hypothetical” possibility.
Again, my point in calling attention to Dawkins’ mentioning of the space aliens as a potential source for the origin of life was to show that this is the most coherent explanation that the atheist belief system can come up with. You have also REPEATEDLY ignored the fact that several other ultra-elite atheist scientists endorse (there’s that word again) directed panspermia. Francis Crick was a Nobel Prize-winning biologist who is famous as the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix. Crick endorses DP in his book titled Life Itself.
The Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician Fred Hoyle says:
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (Excessive bolding of the entire quote removed by me)
However, the “superintellect” that Hoyle is referring to is not God, since he is an atheist. Rather, it is an alien mind! How an “alien mind” manipulates chemistry and physics (and nature itself), I am not sure.
The astronomer Chandra Wickramsinghe and the British chemist Leslie Orgel are two other elite atheist scientists who endorse DP.
