Comments on: Darwin’s Rottweiler and Dawkins’s Dogma

By: John Mclean

John Mclean — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:04:00 +0000

I just wonder if Ferris Jabr actually knows the difference between Fact and Theory or does he have a cognitive bias when wrote this article. Richard Dawkins constantly refers to the word theorem, you must remember that when Darwin published his work there was little evidence to support it at the time, however in 150 years there is now a huge body of empirical support for evolution, so he refers to evolution as a theorem. It is blatently obvious that Ferris has not read this book and what he did digest he did not really understand. Thank rationalility that Darwin finnally does have a rotweiller since he has never been unable to defend himself since he decided to publish his work after his death. Darwin never claimed evolution to be fact, however as with all real science he left us something that could be falsified, and todays evidence would have surely made him like Dawkins also lose the use of the word theory in his language. It is also worth mentioning that the earth is not truly round or a sphere but a pretty close to it, therefore is this theory still a theory. When comparing contrasting theories for the beginnings of life one theory is still very flat whilst the other is pretty close to being round.

By: blitz442

blitz442 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:15:08 +0000

Was this article poorly edited? You correctly note the difference between the fact of evolution (nonconstancy of populations and common descent)and the theory (the mechanisms of change). Since the subject matter of TGSOE the evidence that evolution has occurred, and not so much about the mechanisms, how then is Dawkins not justified in referring to evolution as a fact in this context? If he was referring to the entire theory of evolution, including the mechanisms, as a “fact”, then you would have a case. But I don’t see Dawkins doing this at all.

And then you have this strange comment: “Despite this, Dawkins is adamant that evolution should be taught as fact and not as theory because he fears too many readers are too ignorant and weak-minded to understand how evolution could be both a theory and fact.”

Where on Earth did Dawkins ever say that he fears his readers would be “too ignorant and weak-minded”? Why would he even bother writing a book if he thought that? Is this an actual statement from Dawkins or just something you made up?

By: palaeodave

palaeodave — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:51:59 +0000

This article makes me think that you hadn’t read any further than the first chapter when you wrote it. Dawkins certainly refers to both the fact and theory of evolution and makes the distinction between them quite clear.

By: Ferris Jabr

Ferris Jabr — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:45:39 +0000

Hi Luis, thanks for commenting.
I agree that evolution is a fact. Evolution definitely happens: science has confirmed this in so many ways. I don’t personally think it’s at all reasonable to deny the fact(s) of evolution.
One of my larger points, though, is that evolution is both fact and theory, in the scientific sense. In the scientific sense, a theory is an explanation or framework – usually, as with evolution, a very well-established explanation/framework with lots and lots evidence that fits it very well.
I do not see why this concept is so difficult to grasp – it’s taught in most biology books at many high schools and colleges across the nation – and I think that Dawkins should take the time to explain it properly to his audiences, instead of assuming they are incapable of understanding.
There is definitely widespread apathy and misunderstanding, but I think certain aspects of Dawkins’s response to these problems – as discussed in the article – are not justified or helpful. Overall, however, he has immensely benefited public education on evolution as one of the most talented and respected living science writers.

By: Luis Dias

Luis Dias — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:10:13 +0000

A “Fact” is a theory as well. No “Facts” are absolutely true. All “Facts” are empirical facts, i.e., observation facts. Evolution is a fact, and this is no “white lie” or any of that idiotic crap I constantly read in newspapers (wonder why newspapers are dying?!?), it flows directly from the definitions of words.

Evolution is as “fact” as saying that the sun is up there in the sky, okay?

So, when will you retract this piece of garbage, and remake it to be a proper piece of journalism? Ah… yes, sometimes I fantasize too much.