Overlooked in Previous, about Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth

Dawkins made a challenge, on knowing the past.
On Reading The Greatest Show by Dawkins - Parts of it!
Overlooked in Previous, about Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth
Medieval Matters for Richard Dawkins
Do evolutionists ever make unfalsifiable claims?
Two bishop Richards in dialogue (tongue in cheek)
Dawkins said Edgar Andrews had his book "well written" and that is one true word from him
Assortedretorts : ... on "Science Works" quote c/o Dawkins
... on Side issue to "Science Works"



Overlook A:

The scenario depicted by Edgar Harold Andrews is like "how do we know there was no argon to begin with", but argon atoms featuring at random distances in crystals in positions precisely where we would expect a potassium compound as everywhere else in the crystal does seem awkward.

That is, if exactly where a potassium compound ion or a potassiu ion is expected instead an argon atom or argon ion is found each time, then it speaks for the evolutionist interpretation, and a creationist could concentrate on disputing rather half life or molten state.

If on the other hand argon atoms or ions - even argon 40 - are trapped between the grids of the crystal, or if one cannot tell the exact position of argon atoms as related to the grids of the crystal, then Edgar H Andrews had a very legitimate point.

Overlook B:

Getting back to pressure of natural selection and microevolution: Wendy, I think she was called, was so much into Hitler, Eugenics, Racism when criticising that. THere is another side of it that also could be morally relevant.

One man is said - in Dawkins' book - to have very much approved of the experiment with cichlids. Until he heard it was based on the theory of "natural selection by survival of the fittest" as per Darwin. Now, Dawkins calls this man narrow minded. That is a possibility. But I see another possibility: he first approved of it because he did the like with humans, then was very annoyed because he discovered what he did with humans was a Darwinian thing. You see, in the US some Republicans are very Darwinian up to the point where Darwin is mentioned. Do not take this as endorsement of Obamacare with abortion, by any means, but that is a fact.

To G K Chesterton, Hitler was disgusting as a Prussian barbarian (he was Austrian by birth but identified with Prussian culture to the point of hating the Habsburgs) rather than as an evolutionist. He had another axe to grind with them.

And conditioning who is likely to survive among your "inferiors" (including human ones) if you are superior can be done strictly on individual trait basis, without singling out any group, or so it would seem. And that is exactly what Chesterton dreaded from Evolutionism, not in the hand of Nazi tyrants but in the hand of Big Capital, Big Finance and Big Companies. Making it likelier to reproduce if you can stay at work for fourteen hours on end without once peeing and with only a quarter of an hour for lunch is a thing which might be fashionable once things get confortably international and evolutionist for the "Big Fish".

Would Mr. Dawkins contribute to that? I think not. If he quoted Belloc, I think he is not quite into that moral culture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris (a cyber café)
St Gerald of Aurillac
13-X-2012