Doug Shaver

As I recall, The Blind Watchmaker was a discussion of certain implications of the theory of evolution. It was in effect a response to certain claims that evolution cannot account for certain phenomena. Dawkins was arguing "Yes, it can, and here is how it accounts for them." To make that argument, it was not necessary to demonstrate that evolution was true in fact.

Perhaps some symbolism will make it clearer. Let's assume that an explanation is a kind of implication. Then the theistic argument is that A does not imply B, or ~(A -> B). The conclusion of Dawkins's argument was ~~(A -> B), or just A -> B. The actual truth of A is not relevant to any argument for either A -> B or ~(A -> B), because the truth of any implication is not dependent on the truth of its antecedent. Thus, for the purpose for which Dawkins wrote The Blind Watchmaker, a defense of the theory of evolution itself would have been an unnecessary digression.

Also, within the scientific community and among scientifically literate laypeople, evolution is about as questionable as heliocentrism.

Roger Pearse

That complaint is not one that any atheist can make.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

Why not?


spin

NFLP

Hi, Roger. Is your statement based on the "moral relativists have no bases for judgment" argument?