Evolution cannot explain existence of creationists, concedes Dawkins


In a severe blow to the credibility of evolutionary science, biologist Richard Dawkins admitted today that Darwin’s theory of evolution could offer no rational explanation for the continued existence of creationists. The process of natural selection sees genes which provide an advantage in the battle for survival being preserved across generations, but scientists can find no useful purpose for the gene which leads people to believe that the earth was created in only six days about 10,000 years ago.

‘It’s a flaw in our argument, for sure,’ said Dawkins today. ‘By any reading of evolutionary theory, creationists ought to have died out ages ago. They serve no function in the planet’s ecosystem, and no other species has survived so long while in such fundamental disagreement with observable reality. If I wasn’t such an ardent believer in secular materialism, I’d wager this is really troubling Darwin in the afterlife.’
Despite Dawkins’ concession, scientists are quick to point out that recent years have seen significant advances in our understanding of the evolutionary history of creationists. Not so long ago biology was unable to trace the emergence of the species in the fossil record, but a seemingly close correlation between modern-day American creationists and National Rifle Association members suggests they descended from a group of early hunter-gatherers who exploited another sub-group naive enough to think a man wouldn’t use deadly force to protect his property, a group that is itself all but extinct except in small British enclaves where Liberal Democrats continue to thrive.

Not all biologists are convinced by this explanation, however, and a number of mavericks still cite creationists as evidence of a process of ‘natural aberration’ in which nature sometimes gets it spectacularly wrong, a theory popularised as ‘unintelligent design’. And, like their closest living relative the ostrich, the creationists have benefited considerably from the efforts of conservationists. A vast building programme dating back centuries has provided large unheated refuges in most Western towns, and some creationists have formed closed communities to strengthen their resistance to the advances of modernity. Scientists also suspect that a strong distaste for abortion and homosexuality has probably helped keep population sizes up.

Views: 244

Replies to This Discussion

Evolution allowed creationists to remain here so we can laugh at their stupidity.
To show a real and existing link to our less intelligent ancestors :)
And thereby creating a fresh food source for us! lol
I think creationists were made so that we have a dumb, cheap labor force.
And so we could know that we are the intelligent portion of the population that can use our brains.
here, here!
Yes, generally, although I do know some theists who accept the theory of evolution.

A "creationist" is someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis story: God created the universe and everything in it in 6 days.
Here's my favorite Carl Sagan quote:

"Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof."

And if the claim of a supreme being who has always existed, created the entire universe, and has an interest in tiny beings on a small planet is not an extraordunary claim. . .
Mountain Dew, Oatmeal Cookies and Tapioca pudding.

I apologize. How we see the world is divided between neurological development and predisposition and cultural conditioning. I've been working on trying to find the threshold but I have very limited resources. Does anyone know if second generation mice can find their way out of a maze faster if their parents were trained for it but they, themselves were not?
Dawkins himself has already argued for the evolutionary advantage of a belief system to be taken at face value and not questioned (Religion) in several places including in 'The God Delusion' so I assume he was being humorous.
Much as I said Robi. And I'm sure that if you've been espousing the same truths to people for so long as Mr. Dawkins has the temptation to be facetious when faced with the same old questions for the thousandth time musty be overwhelming!
I think folks are right in presuming Dawkins' sarcasm. He's spent a decent amount of time in his books speaking on this topic. Although I think it's honestly not really a worthwhile pursuit. I don't believe it adds credibility nor does it discredit the process of evolution. It's more memes than genes, it would seem.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service