Darwinism: Science or Philosophy
UC Santa Barbara 1993
(4.5)Summary: Observing that much of the current debate over Darwinism focuses more on its philosophical implications rather than its scientific basis, Johnson examines Darwinism's move from scientific theory to philosophical worldview. Discussing both Richard Dawkins' "Blind Watchmaker" hypothesis and the tenets of Scientific Naturalism, Johnson urges people to be skeptical of a system that examines only "the evolution of animals without asking about how there came to be animals at all." Finally, Johnson warns of the totalitarian line of thought that seeks to educate all to think in terms of naturalism and argues that critiquing aspects of science will not undermine the whole enterprise.
Topics: Evolution, Naturalism, Origins, Natural Sciences & Math
Richard Dawkins in “Blind Watchmaker� only glances the subject of reproduction saying crystals 'reproduces' by as it grows and rejects a non-like crystal. He doesn't explain how complex organisms could have its reproduction organs by series of steps of mutations. It's because he can't do it. Dawkins' other book "Climbing Mount Improbable" which says, one can climb such a mountain by many small steps at a time. We know how complex the reproductive organs are. So the question to Dawkins is “How can many mutations that evolve into reproductive organs without having reproductive organs?� Dawkins is violating his own logic of series of small steps to get to the top of the mountain since having reproductive organs in the first place is a HUGE JUMP.
paula.smith, Oct 29, 2007 | 11:20 am