RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 3, 2013 at 1:16 am
(This post was last modified: January 3, 2013 at 2:35 am by SkyMutt.)
(January 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I have transcribed this as best I could from the following video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGenk99YDwY
It occurs at the 34 minute mark for those who want to check on my transcription.
In context Tyson had just outlined how common the ingredients for lie are in the universe and how relatively fast in cosmic time live took to start on earth when...
How convenient for your purpose that you omitted the first thing that Dawkins says in reply to Tyson. Why did you do that? Why couldn't you have made an honest presentation of what is being said?
The answer is obvious: You've clipped out the part of Dawkins' statement that negates your point. This sort of tactic is so common among a certain variety of internet Christians that I don't find it surprising, nor disappointing. In fact I expect it and look for it, and rarely fail to find it.
Beginning at 33:48 in the video--
Quote:Tyson: The point is, it happened relatively quickly, with the most common ingredients in the universe. To now say, "Life on Earth is unique in the universe," would be inexcusably egocentric.
Dawkins: Yeah, I agree with that.
Tyson has just been expounding on the fact that the evidence from life here on Earth makes it seem likely that life is not an especially unusual occurrence in the universe. Given the right conditions, it's probable that life is likely to arise. Dawkins agrees with him.
(January 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Dawkins says “ I would go further and say that if ever you meet somebody who wishes to claim that he or she believes that life is unique in the universe, then it would follow from that belief, that the origin of life on this planet would have to be a quite stupifyingly rare and improbable event and that would have the rather odd consequence that when chemists try to work out theories and models of the origin of life, what they should be looking for is a stupendeously improbable theory and implausible theory because if there was a plausible theory about the origin of life that wouldn’t be it because life would have to be everywhere."
Dawkin's then I think realises the implication of his statement and immediately tries to say but if we can't find life it doesn't mean its not out there as it is probably to spread out for us to ever find. Surprisingly close to what we as Theists say about God but you won't take from us.
You have used your out of context quote to try to imply that Dawkins is saying something that he is not saying. The point of Dawkins' statement that follows the part you omitted is that the person who asserts that life is unique to Earth will not be satisfied by any plausible model of abiogenesis, because (according to such a person) a plausible working model cannot be the right one, since that person believes that life is unique to the Earth. He's pointing out the dysfunctional logic of such a belief, albeit somewhat clumsily. Such a person will dismiss any plausible model of abiogenesis because of their beliefs. Your interpretation of what he's saying is simply wrong.
(January 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: The first thing that popped into my mind was would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory?
"GOD" is not in the category of scientific theory at all, improbable or not. "GOD" is not even a scientific hypothesis. The first thing that (according to you) popped into your mind was nonsense, apparently spawned from your ignorance of what a scientific theory entails. That is the more charitable interpretation of the OP. I don't happen to believe that interpretation, as hinted above.
Serious, but not entirely serious.
