Aesop brings the Hammer Of Truth down on the good professor:
One cannot have "only a quarter of an eye, only a hundredth of an eye, or half an eye, is better than nothing " (3:50ff).
Basic physiology disagrees:It doesn't work like that.In the trade, there's a technical term for what you are when you have a half, a quarter, or a hundredth of an eye (and by this we mean not just the eyeball itself, but the entire cascade of processes enabling vision): BLIND.
There's a lot more in the post, and even more in the comments. But what I find most interesting is the fact that Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and so he knows this. Aesop has a simple answer to why Dawkins still tells this sort of lie (he's a lying liar). Well, sure.
But that's not particularly interesting. Why does he lie? Moldbug explained this 15 years ago:
(At least here at Unqualified Reservations, pwned alliterates with posse and rhymes with loaned.) How could such a learned and wise mind exhibit such an exploitable vulnerability? And who—or what—has taken unauthorized control over Professor Dawkins? The aliens? The CIA? The Jews? The mind boggles.
Ah, those crazy kids and their barbaric slang like pwned. Good Lord, do I really have over 400 posts with that tag? Ahem.
Continuing with Dawkins' failure to adequately explain the difference between Science and Religion:
Now I must warn you, Moldbug is pretty thick going. Fosetti has a very accessible overview that will give you 95% of Moldbug's arguments.
One other interesting comment at Aesop's place concerned science as a process. As I've pointed out repeatedly over the last few years, science as practiced today is very, very sick, and the reason is The Iron Law of Bureaucracy in action:
I can't seem to find and data about the number of scientists working today, vs. the number a century ago. I can't even find decent proxy data for this - say the number of scientific articles published in 2010 vs. the number published in 1910. But we can all agree that there has been a vast increase in the number of working scientists and the number of published articles (which may be up to 50 Million by now).
And yet we are not seeing any obvious acceleration in the pace of scientific discovery. Nigel Calder again:
While the modern advances are all impressive, are they really more impressive than those from a century ago? Especially when you adjust for the army of scientists at work today - perhaps a thousand times as many as at the dawn of the 20th Century - the question becomes why has science slowed down?
The post about how sick science as practiced today is gives the reason:
This is a long and detailed discussion which is hard to excerpt. This bit seems very important as to the institutional rot:
The people who run the institutions of Science don't see that there's a problem. I mean, hey - there's a ton of grant funding coming in and nobody can be allowed to rock that boat, amirite? And so it's all gatekeeping and name calling.
The result? Scientific Progress has essentially ground to a halt.
Note that this doesn't apply to Engineering, which we can call "science that works". SpaceX is Exhibit 1 for the Prosecution here. But Science as currently practiced is a game for fools and liars. And Richard Dawkins, but I repeat myself.
Retractionwatch is Exhibit 2 for the Prosecution. A few minutes thought will produce another dozen Exhibits.
I doubt, with Dawkins being so invested, intellectually and morally, in the lifelong lie, he'd ever be intellectually honest enough to admit that he, just like Darwin, had a grudge against the idea of the divine or supernatural, and both had therefore sunk their spurs into the idea that there is no god, because it makes the rest of their pathetic existence tolerable and comfortable, not to mention lucrative.
He's entitled to go to hell in whatever way he sees fit to do so; that's free will in action.
But to make it his life's work to try and bamboozle others by deliberately ignoring the utter lack of any scientific underpinning for his delusions, and furthermore the evidence to the exact contrary, and outright lying about both in support of his line of twaddle, is quite inarguably and inexcusably monstrous and damnable.