Richard Dawkins- The Devil’s Chaplain
Presented by Carl Bajema, PhD, Retired Professor of Biological Sciences, Grand Valley State University
About the Speaker
Recently retired from Grand Valley State University, Dr. Bajema taught evolutionary biology for more than 40 years. He has conducted scientific research involving the measurement of the direction and intensity of selection in human populations. Professor Bajema also has been very active as a science educator helping students, teachers and others gain a better scientific understanding of the natural processes involved in evolution.
About the Event
Announcements
The Freethought Movie Night has been started up again. The next one is on August 31. The ones following will be on September 14, and then on Sept. 28, all starting at 7PM. FAoWM member Jason Pittman hosts. For more information contact Jason at 616-634-2471 or via e-mail at: .
Our next scheduled Board Meeting will be held prior to our regular meeting on Sept. 10. The Board Mtg. starts at 5:30PM and is open to any interested members. We are discussing items related to long term planning for our organization.
The regular meeting for September 10 will be at 7PM, as always. Our scheduled guest speaker will not be able to make it but in lieu of her presentation, FAoWM member John Joldersma, will present “The History of Language Science.” We thank him for pinch hitting on short notice.
The next meeting on September 24 will be presented by Dr. Gregory Forbes, Biology Prof. at GRCC and FAoWM member. The topic will be: “Nature or Nurture; How do Genes, Environment & Free Will Affect Human Behavior?”
Our Winter Solstice celebration this year will be at the Siam Lady restaurant (Thai) in Jenison. The address is 674 Baldwin and the restaurant is located on the south side of Baldwin in a strip mall of businesses. That will be on Dec. 10, starting at 6:30PM.
For further information on these or other items of interest regarding our group, check out our website: http://www.cfimichigan.org
Those who wish to gather for socializing following the meetings are encouraged to join us at Vitale’s Italian Restaurant at the corner of Leonard and Emerald heading west on Leonard (the same street that the Yankee Clipper Library is on).
We had our first Freethought Book Sale before and after this meeting. There were plenty of book donations on a wide range of topics to choose from and all were comfortably- priced. The end tally showed this to be a successful endeavor for our group with many bibliophiles in it. We plan on having future book sales and these will be announced in advance.
One of our founding members, Don Hansen, has been facing health problems. You might wish to send a card, e-mail or give him a call to let him know you are thinking of (even if not praying for) him at this time. We can provide contact information if you do not have this.
Presentation
Our topic for this meeting was “Richard Dawkins- The Devil’s Chaplain.” The title was derived from that of the latest book by Professor Dawkins and our presenter, Professor Carl Bajema, was to have presented his review of it to us this evening. Although the book had been ordered in a timely fashion, there were mailing delays, so the Evolutionary Biology professor at GVSU had yet to receive it. Nonetheless, he pulled together a modified version of his planned talk, dealing with Richard Dawkins, his work, worldview, writings and also his championing of the Darwinian selection theory of evolution.
Professor Bajema and long time educator and FAoWM member, has worked with Dr. Forbes in improving the quality of the teaching of evolution theory in science classes, the foundation of biology that is perennially under attack by creationists and is weathering heavy blows currently in Michigan as particularly threatening anti-evolution/ pro-Intelligent Design (“God did it”) House Bills are under review.
The subject of Dr. Bajema’s presentation, Richard Dawkins, is the first holder of Oxford University’s Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science. Some of his previous books include The Blind Watchmaker, which is a countering book length argument to the Paleyesque one supposing a Designer for life’s pageantry in the same way that we understand a watch to have been made by a purposeful creator. Unfortunately, the latest species of Creationism—Intelligent Design Theory—that has evolved employs these same tired, refuted and unfruitful concepts that Rev. Paley employed over a century ago. In the book, Climbing Mount Improbable, Dawkins demonstrates the power of Darwinian natural selection to make the improbable mountain of species diversity, a gradual ramp of plausibility. Unweaving the rainbow is his book on the beauty of Darwinian natural selection theory and the sciences in general. It is a positive affirmation of the wonders and joys of the scientific journey and what it uncovers to rival the best poetry and art produced by non-scientists. The title comes from Newton’s experiment of breaking white light into the spectrum of visible colored lights via a prism; a scientific process, creating a whole new avenue to explore regarding light and matter, but also creating something that can be generally perceived as beautiful—a manufactured “rainbow.” The Selfish Gene is a book where Dawkins first lays out for the layperson, the gene’s eye view of life and evolution. The organism becomes the device through which genes, employing a basic “copy-me” program, are extended into the next generation. Genes form bodies, which are more or less successful in the environment of a given organism. The more successful phenotypes out reproduce the less successful ones, thus selecting for or against those genes. Darwinian theory focuses in on the genotype in this book. The Extended Phenotype carries more of Dawkins’ ideas into a very readable format and his River Out of Eden, furthers still his firm position on the power of Darwinian principles for sculpting life.
Dawkins’ strong message of natural and sexual selection processes as the driving engines of evolution, both mechanisms formulated by Charles Darwin, have caused Dawkin to be called “Darwin’s Rottweiller” as a nod to T.H. Huxley being referred to as “Darwin’s Bulldog” in the 19th Century. Dr. Bajema pointed out that Dawkins’ strict Darwinian perspective was not just under attack by Fundamentalist Christian Creationists but also by fellow evolutionists, who do not deny Darwinian principles but also do not see them as acting alone with sufficient power to drive biological evolution in its entirety. The most outspoken opponent of the neo-Darwinist approach was the late Stephen Jay Gould who was a gifted writer and eclectic thinker. Dawkins would deride Gould’s influence as being a hypnotic promotion of an Americanized version of Darwin, while he, an Englishman, kept the tradition of Darwin intact. Gould saw the strict adaptationist views of Dawkins, et al, as the formulation of Panglossian “just so” stories while promulgating his own metaphors of spandrels, punctuated equilibrium and what are considered Marxist influenced concepts to explain certain aspects of speciation.
Indeed, alternatives—especially theological ones—to the Darwinist mechanisms as the sole necessary requirements for the explanation of evolution are rife in the schools in Grand Rapids, as seen close up by Bajema and Forbes. Dr. Bajema quipped that his work in re-educating biological science educators in basic evolutionary theory is akin to “doing missionary work among the Dutch.” He harbors some pessimism over the fate of solid science education here unless some major changes are made.
He spoke of the “evolution of evolvability” that is created via sexual selection and how the overproduction of offspring brings in competition and a much larger gene pool for recombination and the expression of new traits in offspring via this coming together of different linages. Mate choice causes certain characters to predominate while others fade away. Adaptations are selected for out of same species competition (males against males and males attracting females, for instance) as well as between species when enhance the fitness of the organism in survival against predation or in being more successful predators. This has been termed an evolutionary arms race, with both predator and prey ratcheting up the process in each other. The changing environment producing isolated areas for rapid speciation to occur, or causing the sudden appearance of niches that are no longer occupied by organisms whose characteristics are better adapted to that environment. Then evolution can ensure greater fitness within those newly vacated niches by selecting for those that are adapted the best in each generation.
As the title of the soon to be generally available book, Richard Dawkins- The Devil’s Chaplain would suggest, Professor Dawkins is known for his outspoken advocacy of atheism. He does not mince words in his opposition of not just the creationist leg of some religious groups but also the “virus of the mind” that he considers religion itself to be. He had strong words to say about the religious impetus for the attacks of September 11, ’01 and is forceful in his general writings and speaking engagements as well as Op Ed pieces (see Free Inquiry magazine as just one outlet for his cogent arguments) for decrying the anti-scientific, anti-rationalist views of religious doctrines and dogma. Where Gould tried to find a peaceful coexistence between religion and science—as in his NOMA (non-overlapping magesteria) concept, Dawkins is unrelenting in his attacks on what he sees as the negative contributions to society that religious belief creates. In a debate with the Archbishop of York regarding science and religion, the result was summarized as “Lions: ten, Christians: nil.” Professor Bajema read some selected parts of Dawkins’ writings on subjects dealing with religious belief and practices. While Freethinkers are more familiar in general than the larger public with forceful criticism regarding the clergy and religious issues by those from times past (Ingersoll, Paine, M. Twain, etc.) it is a bit startling to see such a potent proponent of naturalism, science and atheism combined in one person and speaking out so stringently and openly in these politically correct times where religion and the horrors it has produced is somehow seen as exempt from critical scrutiny. Using the sacred writings of mainstream religions to buttress his arguments he demonstrates the incongruence between religion’s vaunted role as purveyor of moral values and decency with the reality of what the writings actually mandate for the adherent. He has no patience for the pick and choose religionist, seeking only the “nice” passages or bowdlerized versions of others. He does not suffer gladly the prattle of those telling of supernatural occurrences and miracle stories. Bajema said that Dawkins prefers the true Fundamentalist rantings to the obscurantist deceptions of those who need to hide their true agenda to capture more adherents. Dawkins is also good at pointing out the elephant in the room that no one mentions when it comes to a gathering of experts on ethical discussions of scientific issues. These will generally include religious leaders and he simply points out that these individuals have nothing to add or say about matters dealing with the natural world and scientific methodology. In dealing with life, he asserts, one can go back through evolution and self replicating organic entities, chemical reactions, the elements forged in the nuclear furnaces of suns—and never have any need for talk of gods and angels and covenants. If we discuss space travel, the human genome, DNA, bacterial infection, etc. what, he asks, has theology to add to this conversation of any merit? As a thought experiment, Dawkins has asked people to imagine the world if science was wiped out. Essentially a Dark Ages scenario emerges. But if religion were to suddenly disappear, he posits that there would be no essential change. He derives great power from flat and direct, simple and declarative statements. He asks which we would prefer to get on board…a plane built out of the scientific principles of engineering and aerodynamics, or one built by those eschewing science…perhaps counting on gods or angels to hold the plane aloft.
Dr. Bajema maintained that science places constraints on the formulation of theories, which leads to fruitful outcomes, having explanatory value and fitting together other aspects of the natural world and laws. It zeroes in on knowing what questions to ask and how to test findings. Theologically based concepts do not operate under any such constraints, have bloodily resisted examination and refutation, experiment and testing, do not link natural world information together and are slow to adapt as a result of new, better information. Because of this, it is inherently wrong to speak of creationist arguments as constituting alternative “theories” or of the organizing principle of evolution as being “just another theory.” As to knowing which questions to ask, Dr. Bajema said “I don’t ask Lamarckian questions,” when studying descent with modification. “I ask Darwinian ones.” Scientists ask questions that yield results dealing with findings that have been independently replicated and have stood the test of time.
Professor Bajema talked of other contributions made by Dawkins including his term “memes” where cultural artifacts—involving advertising, music, art,religious concepts, literature, jingles, expressions, etc. take on a sort of genetic “behavior.” They spread with different success rates, are passed along with modifications over time, and have a blind “selfishness” and simple code of “copy me” that he ascribes to genes. He took the term memetics and made it a compact word that has the look and feeling of the word “gene.” He extended this to ideas of memplexes, or complexes of memes working to ensure their own fitness (again, without actual cognitive intent) by association with other memes within a structure that helps to replicate them. The dogmas of a religion may be seen as memes within the memeplex of the religion itself.
Dawkins is also known for his use of computer modeling to allow blind replication of computer generated beings that have no goals except to replicate. Differences in the environment or their interactions with each other cause selection of some variations naturally occurring in the copying process to become more fit or unfit and therefore increasing or decreasing the replication of certain entities. Their morphologies are directed by this Darwinian process, and no intelligence is at work to shape outcomes or with any outcomes in anyone’s mind. This blind process is used in some manufacturing where a plethora of randomly occurring design possibilities are winnowed by adaptive success in the environment they are tested in, with results that no human engineering would have come up with. Ironically, given Dawkins’ use of computers for the above mentioned models as well as conceptually in his writing to progress ideas (he writes of the junk pieces of data that are preserved in word processing in analogy to junk DNA, and uses many other computing analogies to get across ideas of what is preserved that is useful and the exponential increases in fitness as more and more elements fit together, etc.), he maintains no website himself. There is, however a “world of Richard Dawkins” site that is run by others and has good information regarding this scientist.
The work done by Hamilton, Williams and others to make mathematical models to test ideas of organisms getting as many of their genes into the next generation as possible, is very much a part of Dawkins’ message. This work has explained examples of “aberrant” or counter intuitive behavior in organisms if seeking an adaptationist explanation, such as rape and altruism, to name but two. Adaptive strategies based on this simple but powerful idea of genetic replication for individual success has produced a great deal of controversy but provides data that is not easily dismissed.
Dawkins also speaks of the Genetic Book of the Dead that resides in the genome of every extant organism. It is a legacy of what worked at different times along the evolutionary trajectory of that changing, adapting organism throughout time. It causes one to take a deeper view of survival and evolutionary success than merely looking at the living creature as is before you. Bajema stated that this reveals not only what worked in the past but is still at work within us now. It is this understanding that helps us to work with the immune system and provide effective treatments for diseases and understanding the effects of agents toxic to organisms and why they operate as they do.
Both Dawkins and Bajema have an understanding of the environment and the fragility of resources in it, so Carl spoke to us about these issues and his own and Dawkins’ “take” upon them. Bajema spoke of how some scientists have found common ground with the religionists when trying to effect environmentally positive changes. The former seeing it from a scientific perspective, the latter viewing themselves as stewards of God’s creation.
In the Q&A portion Bajema addressed the occurrence of obesity, how we approach morality issues from a scientific perspective. Science is innately blind to political views but can be used to further differing agendas. He noted that saving people from destruction and bringing about more effective “death to the infidels” may both be accomplished more effectively via science than through religion. He gave Dawkins credit for the quote: “Everyone is an atheist with respect to all other gods.” The atheist merely disbelieves in one fewer god than the theist. Bajema said that science became a real threat to religion when it began to address the “big questions”—origins, aberrant behavior, conception, our place in the universe, longevity, etc.
In mentioning the “just so” stories that adaptationists supposedly deal in, Dr. Bajema noted that they can be tested! The fruit of this view is not just dogma. Whatever is folly will fall by the wayside when tested. He also talked about the difference in approach to extinctions—with some focusing on how extinctions made things happen while others look at what happened between extinctions. He said that it is still Darwinism after the fact of an extinction process.
He discussed the laxity of standards on college campuses regarding good evolutionary understanding. When standards become too post-modernistically leaning it is easier to get the grades but less education takes place. He lamented the paucity of what E.O. Wilson called “consilience” where those approaching problems from different backgrounds of expertise can work together to get at the truth better. And in this vein, he said how there are so many clubs and groups that our social species creates but no Darwin clubs.
Dr. Bajema debated the Socratic approach for efficacy and he was asked what he thought of Dawkins’ suggestion that non-theists be known by the self-designation of “brights” in the same way that homosexuals adopted “gays” as a term with positive associations. Bajema was not aware of this suggestion by Dawkins but echoed the idea that words have power and an easier to digest term can more readily work itself into mainstream consciousness, making the controversial ideas more palatable. Dr. Forbes mentioned the wording in the pro- creationist House Bills where they speak of the “methodological naturalism hypothesis” as opposed to the “design hypothesis.”
We also discussed strategies and game theory oriented concepts where cheaters can have more success but risk punishment from the non-cheaters and so on.
This was a very interesting presentation and was especially remarkable for the short notice Carl had in adapting his presentation to the suddenly changing situation he found himself in when the book he was to review had not made it to him in time.
Secretary: Charles LaRue
