Bill Tammeus, former religion editor of the Kansas City Star, has an interesting post about the problem with Richard Dawkins.

http://billtammeus.typepad.com/

A person does not even have to belong to a church or religion to be disgusted by his tactics. And his books that made him popular with scientists (like The Selfish Gene) are no longer scientifically relevant with scientists, so he's no longer a scientific authority like he once was.

The Selfish Gene is no longer scientifically relevant with scientists? How in the world can Gary think that?

Gary....A person does not even have to belong to a church or religion to be disgusted by his tactics.


When there are no silly ideas, they will not be ridiculed by those who have facts to support ridicule and scientific irrelevancy of these silly ideas. In short, don't adhere to silly beliefs, nobody will be attacking you and you will not be disgusted.

Gary....And his books that made him popular with scientists (like The Selfish Gene) are no longer scientifically relevant with scientists, so he's no longer a scientific authority like he once was.

Gary, your ignorance displays an inherent contradiction. He was the authority in part because of the book which made him along with others the authority.

The Selfish Gene was a fundamental shift in the way biologists looked at genetics. Gary, you need to get out more and read some real stuff and not silly ID web sites. I think it just had 30th anniversary edition published a few years ago. It is a phenomenal book. It is a trove information for scientists and is on par

I recommend you read it with a pencil, Gary.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Dawkins is no longer a scientist, he is an Anti Theist Propagandist.

I know this from my own experience with such a gene-centric way of thinking leading to false predictions and oversimplification, as well as discussion with a scientist who still liked Dawkins and had enough experience in that area of science as well as the book (they once thought was completely unarguable) to have to admit that it's now a relatively old-fashioned way of thinking. They reminded me of how old the book is, to account for why it is now dated.

Now I would like to ask the same (but opposite) question to you and Dagny.
How do you know The Selfish Gene is still scientifically relevant with experienced scientists who have enough experience in that area to know for sure either way?

Gary........How do you know The Selfish Gene is still scientifically relevant with experienced scientists who have enough experience in that area to know for sure either way?


Gary,

If you had sufficient education in Biology and Genetics you'd know. Or at least read up on the most current research.

But this should suffice. Or not for you. The names of the people on this panel are well known in the world biological community.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish ... index.html

I agree that in its day it was a revolutionary new way of thinking about the newly discovered “Gene”. The problem is that it’s now 2012. It’s now known that most of the DNA has unexpected functions galore that seriously complicate the earlier thinking. Need more than Selfish Gene theory to compete in the now existing scientific arena where you need to know where systems biology is going or you’re not even a serious contender.

In this forum’s archives I’m on the record for seeing the Theist/Atheist divide as a mechanism that creates competition that can lead to accelerated scientific progress. It was there in Galileo’s time, with Bruno a flaming example of how hot it got. Even have had many bloody wars, by becoming too divided. It’s a good idea to keep it a safe as possible competition by both sides being on the same page as to rules that make for a healthy as possible competition.

I’m not saying your link is wrong about it having been sensational and all that. The problem is that much scientific progress has been made. From my experience with how things work, it’s turning out to be like David L. Heiserman described in his “How To Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot” book of roughly similar age although here it’s an electronic circuit that still works the same today. That in turn leads to the challenge that the theist side responded back with, where the paradigm changes to being from the perspective of intelligence, not an unguided process such as natural selection. After discovering what they found that was so stirring, I knew I had to explain it, for the sake of keeping the controversy a more healthy scientific competition for both sides.

If you consider The Selfish Gene to be the most current research then you are admittedly decades behind in science. It's nothing personal or anything, it's just that it's now a view from the old days that everyone in the scientific arena already knows about, not what's new, that's in the arena right now.

Gary writes, "If you consider The Selfish Gene to be the most current research then you are admittedly decades behind in science. It's nothing personal or anything, it's just that it's now a view from the old days that everyone in the scientific arena already knows about, not what's new, that's in the arena right now."

I don't think anyone said it was the most current research. I would agree with what Gary says here. Originally Gary said it was no longer relevant, which is different. It's still relevant, but no, it's not the cutting edge idea.

I agree that in that case I could have been more precise. Sorry for my throwing you with that one.

I soon noticed that I did not exactly explain what was no longer relevant, then got to work on 2+ hours of as briefly as possible wording it, which I felt I owed you after such a cliffhanger. Your being able to agree with that, makes every minute of it worthwhile.

It also ties in hot issues I was trying to explain in other threads, along with something to help us all keep cool heads through all of this science weirdness. Besides Jack, you and the KCFS forum has for me been like the teacher that taught me much of what I most needed to know to put theory like this together. And you can't say I'm making "evolutionary theory" an issue. A theory has to stand on it's own scientific merit, not make an issue of of another, needs to be tested in scientific arenas outside the public school classrooms, and all else you expect.

Here it has to be with Planet Source Code proud to have had an arena form there where the hottest of the evolutionary biologist related protest later entered the ring in comments to argue it out to the finish, then even with half its globes punched out the Intelligence Design Lab and included theory still easily won the award that they hand out there. It's not a major science journal, but is still a great outside the classroom arena for gauging usefulness in at least the "Planet Source Code community" arena. Only thing out of the ordinary is it had to start where the earlier model and theory badly needed the updated model and theory. There, none expect it have perfect grammar, would rather I just hurry up and get what I got online by last Thanksgiving so we would at least have that to help make the holidays more memorable, with a scientific arena forming there on account of my having what I needed to update what in the same way was likewise no longer relevant, for theory, none should be working from thinking it's the cutting edge idea, from me.

It's the same dilemma, but in my case I had the source code and theory needed to better explain the circuit that I did not get exactly right, was obliged to update to eliminate the cliffhangers I had in the theory that needed more detail. Regardless of what has changed since then, the Intelligence Generator model and theory was none the less worth being there to get something started, even though it's now so dated not even I want anyone to try starting there anymore.

Jack, here’s a fun one that’s kinda topical with a Jack in it, I youtubed at TalkRational. One reply after next below it I explain the plan for going to book form with the theory, while at the same time getting the most upper lever “peer review” possible as you have been saying is a problem for you.

http://www.talkrational.org/showthread. ... ost1758734