Dawkins and the Pause Heard Round the Creationists' World

Recently I received a link to a YouTube video of famed atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins being allegedly stumped by a question by an interviewer. It went something like this:

Interviewer: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?

Dawkins: …………

[Here’s a link to the YouTube video that is making the rounds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoXzF9zDy_k]

Those who have been circulating the video trumpet the incident as a triumph for creationism. It proves, they claim, that Dawkins can’t answer a fundamental criticism of evolution and thus the theory is as flimsy and pointless as a pair of Lady Gaga’s underwear.

Most everyone has made up his or her mind regarding evolution vs. creation, so I’m not going to offer up my humble opinion on that combustible issue. That would be like whizzing on a forest fire – it’s not going to accomplish anything except maybe pissing a few folks off (pardon my pun). However, what is worthwhile is examining whether or not the video is a point well made or a well-made deceit. To make that determination, we’re going to have to ask a few questions.

• How do you know Dawkins was actually ‘stumped’? Is it possible that there are other explanations for his pause other than lack of an answer?

• How do you know the moment in question wasn’t taken out of context or that the video wasn’t manipulated in some way?

• How do you know you’ve seen enough of the video to make a fair judgment of Dawkins’ response?

• How do you know his answer did or didn’t address the question posed? How much do you actually understand about the theory of evolution and how it works? What sources have you read?

And perhaps the most important question of all:

• Have you bothered to hear Dawkins’ side of the story? There are always two sides to a story. One or both may be lies; there may be no way to determine for sure. But there are always two sides. Is it right to think you understand a situation before you’ve heard both?
For example, what if your jealous coworker (you know the one) accused you of stealing office supplies, and he showed everyone a picture of you holding a stapler and a pack of Post-It notes? The picture alone doesn’t really prove anything, right? But what if everyone just believed your jealous coworker and didn’t bother to ask you about it? Not terribly fair of them, is it? And they won’t get the whole truth (or even part of it) without hearing what you have to say, will they?

Until you have addressed these questions, the Dawkins video constitutes a Swiss cheese argument, one that’s smelly and full of holes. It contains only those pieces of the story that make the creationists’ case and is conveniently missing those that weaken or even contradict it. It’s a little tactic called leaving out inconvenient truths and cherry picking your facts. While it is an effective way to sound convincing without having to deal with all those pesky facts and rational arguments, it’s no way to get at the truth.

To get at truth, you’ve got to find and confront all the facts, not just the ones you like. Worse, you have to have the man-spheres to question and test your own assumptions and biases and see if the facts support what you believe. In short, you have to be fair, open-minded and thorough. I admit, it’s not a fun or easy process (it gives me hives), but if truth is what you’re after, then it’s what you must do (rash or no rash).

So the next time some enticing video floats your way, especially if it’s something that you already agree with, ask yourself a few questions before you accept its claim as valid and sound. Ask
Where did it come from?
Who is circulating it?
Is it complete or a chunk taken out of context?
Does it present both sides?
Do you fully understand the issue at hand?

This’ll get you started on the path to truth.

“Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it.”
- Samuel Johnson

p.s.
Here’s a link to Dawkins’ side of the story.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/