Re: virus: About Dawkins' Stupidity

David Leeper (
Tue, 28 Aug 1956 04:12:55 +0000

Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
> David Leeper wrote:
> >You got me dead to rights. I mis-quoted. It was an honest mistake.
> >However, this was on the list because of the "only way" and "slow,
> >gradual evolution" part of the quote, so it stays on the list.
> OK, apology accepted. I still won't let you go with it, David. What's
> wrong with "only way"? This is *his* book and the reader is aware of it.
> He presents *his* view and *not* everybody else's. He is not saying "there
> is another way of explaining seemingly designed objects in nature by the
> existence of God the Designer" -- we know lots of people who "explain" them
> this way. He is also not saying that if you assign a Simple Number to each
> living creature you can explain the "seemingly designed objects" with
> Cohesive Math (as some people "explain" the Christian Mass :-))! He
> presents "the only way" from his point of view, based on his experience and
> thinking.

His thinking is out of date.

> The second part: "slow, gradual evolution". Would "fast" or "not gradual"
> be better?

Dawkins says "The only way to explain blah blah blah is by the process of slow
gradual evolution." Later in the book he describes evolution as occuring
"instantaniously". Which statement is right?

> >I didn't call Dawkins an "idiot" just to be a smart-ass.
> Here is a challenge for you, David: rephrase this sentence from the cover
> flap of "Climbing Mount Improbable" the way you think a *non-idiot* author
> would write it.

I don't know if I'm a non-idiot, but I'd be happy with changing

"The only way to explain seemingly designed objects is by slow, gradual
evolution blah blah blah"


"The only way to explain seemingly designed objects is by the processes of
evolution blah blah blah"

or keep the statement as is, and later on don't refer to evolution as
occuring "instantaniously".

The first option is better, since evolution of a new species can occur
within the lifetime of one human being.

David Leeper
Homo Deus  
1 + 1 != 2