Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information

From EvoWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Claim

In an interview in 1997, Richard Dawkins was asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." Apparently unable to answer, he paused a long time and finally responded by changing the subject.

[edit] Source

  • Anon., 1998. Skeptics choke on Frog: was Dawkins caught on the hop? Answers in Genesis [1]
  • Keziah Films, "From a Frog to a Prince" (video)

[edit] Responses

  1. The interviewers were Creationists working for Answers in Genesis (AiG), who gained access to Dawkins without saying who their sponsor was, possibly because they knew that Dawkins does not talk to creationists, possibly because they had no idea it made a difference. When the interviewers revealed their true colors, by asking a question which nobody but a Creationist would ask, Dawkins realized that he was in a situation he wanted to avoid. At that point, the annoyed Dawkins spent several seconds silently debating with himself whether or not he should throw them out; he elected not to, but the Creationists repaid his courtesy by packaging their recording of his pause as "evidence" that he was unable to answer their question.
  2. The reason Dawkins did not talk to creationists was his suspicion that whatever he said or did would be distorted in the end product. This experience justified the suspicion - AiG still spreads the misinformation that Dawkins paused because he didn't have an answer.
  3. Examples of information increasing exist (see Mutations don't add information) regardless of whether Dawkins was unable to think of one when put on the spot by creationists, or just thought about something else during the time.
  4. This question has been asked and answered many many times before and after the interview. The claim that Dawkins had a chance to offer a response but couldn't is simply unfounded: Dawkins has a policy against giving creationists material for their propaganda videos, but he is perfectly willing to answer and refute their claims in print, and has done so countless times in books and articles.
  5. Furthermore, the claim that mutation and evolution cannot add information is one of the very weakest claims in the creationist arsenal, since it can be refuted by a simple and straightforward logical deduction which is very hard to dispute without also denying that mutation can decrease information.
  6. Shortly after the discussion about the affair, Dawkins wrote an article that answers the question (see The Information Challenge under External Links below). Since it has six pages, it would hardly have been appropriate as a sound bite. Dawkins explains how information applies to biology and analyzes what the question means. His conclusion is:
    • The "information challenge" turns out to be none other than our old friend: "How could something as complex as the eye evolve?" It is just dressed up in fancy mathematical language - perhaps in an attempt to bamboozle. Or perhaps those who ask it have become bamboozled themselves, and don't realize that it is the same old and thoroughly answered question."
  7. add more responses

[edit] Fallacies contained in this claim

[edit] External Links

[edit] References

  1. Dawkins, 1999. The "Information Challenge". How Evolution Increases Information in the Genome, Skeptic Vol.7 No.2 p.64

[edit] Further Reading

  • Williams, Barry, 1998. Creationist Deception Exposed, The Skeptic 18(3): 7-10.

[edit] Related claims

[edit] See Also

Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

[edit] Acknowledgments

Retrieved from "http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Dawkins_could_not_give_an_example_of_increasing_information"
Personal tools