The Greatest Show On Earth by Richard Dawkins: CHAPTER 1 'Only a Theory?'

Defining who is as clever as he is

This chapter seeks to establish that all, ‘thoughtful and rational" people believe that ‘we are all descended from one organism which lived billions of years ago’. ‘Evolution (common ancestry) is a fact’. To underscore this-the phrase is repeated over 10 times in this chapter alone.

Only a theory? RD replies, no way, ‘common ancestry’ is a fact that no rational, intelligent, informed, educated, reputable or unbiased person can deny.

I am sure that I am not the only person that realizes, that by stating this, he is telling us that to deny that ‘evolution is a fact’, is an admission that you are irrational, unintelligent, misinformed, uneducated, disreputable or just plain biased.

These are not things that many people want to admit to, and thereby some will feel it easier just to agree, without actually ‘examining the evidence’.

His ‘claim’ is that “thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept” ‘common ancestry’ and that “no reputable scientist disputes it” is not one that is open to debate.

He quotes an article in The Sunday Times, in which the then Bishop of Oxford (now Lord Harries) states “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and from a Christian perspective one of the greatest of God’s works’ “

All of this, is in a sense, appeasement to those who are Christians but also accept evolution, something, which I am sure, he would have preferred not to do, but perhaps he is following advice to get this message over to more people.

He states these things to establish that ‘all sensible and sane, rational and reputable’ people agree, that ‘evolution is a fact’.

But, and this is a big but, this is not true! Not every sensible and sane person does agree with either him, or this claim. There are many people that do not agree with this claim- so they must be, irrational and disreputable in the eyes of RD, and then by extension, to all of those that he has persuaded to his viewpoint.

Using his own figures, (quoted both in this chapter and in the Appendix), around 40% of people in the U.S. and similar in other countries, do not accept that ‘common ancestry’ is a fact. So his claim that ‘all’ church people and scientists agree with him, has to be ‘qualified' by the descriptive “rational and reputable” phrase, which he can then defines as he wishes.

So, he must redefine these words to include all of the people that disagree with him. As you would expect this is exactly the position he takes.

Only the “ill-informed”, or the “woefully uninformed” or “brainwashed” children, along with ‘historydeniers’, those on par with the Holocaust deniers, actually deny evolution.  So, he has to label 40% of the U.S. and similar figures elsewhere as being mentally inferior to him, and his followers.

If we accept that there is a definition of the term ‘reputable’ beyond his narrow definition, or that there is a definition of the term ‘rational’ beyond his one, then we are forced to acknowledge that there are many scientists and church people that do not think that ‘common ancestry’ is a fact.

This is the ‘sad fact’ for him, and it is this that has provoked him to write this book, to attempt to stop this 40% increasing in number.

Right at the start of the chapter, he compares those who question evolution, with those that dispute parts of history. This is a line that he has been using for a long time, I heard him use it in an Oxford debate over 30 years ago, though, I am not sure when he started comparing them with 'Holocaust deniers'.  If he wants to put ‘evolution’ on par with ‘historical events’ it is up to him to provide ‘indisputable evidence’, something which he now acknowledges that he has not done for us up to now in his books.

He takes the rest of the chapter, to define the terms ‘theory’ and ‘fact’, and then suggests that we use the word ‘THEORUM’ to describe ‘evolution’.

He acknowledges that “inference after the event is all that is available to us”, for evolution, but seeks to prove that ‘scientific inference’ is better than ‘every eyewitness’ testimony, in ANY court, in ANY case, in ANY century. This is a big claim, as though there is no doubt, that some eyewitness testimony is open to debate, surely it cannot be claimed that ALL eyewitness testimony is equally debatable.  If we can ‘believe’ his assertion, (as he does not try to back it up with any credible evidence) we must then refuse to admit any eyewitness testimony at all. He uses an example of a ‘guy in a gorilla suit’ appearing in a movie, that was unseen by ‘MANY’ people that watched the video. With this single example, which he admits does not fool all of the people; he seeks to dismiss ‘eyewitness’ testimony. I do not doubt the results of the ‘experiment’, but, it only shows that when you are looking for something in particular, (counting the number of ball throws in this video) you can miss other details. As he acknowledges, it did not show that ‘every’ eyewitness account is faulty, only that some were, including his as it fooled him. Though it is nowhere stated, I think that one of the reasons RD wished to dismiss eyewitness testimony, is to enable him, and his followers to be able to use this argument to dismiss the ‘eye witness testimony’ recorded in the bible. 

RD then finishes the chapter by making very big claims for the ‘evidence' which he is about to give us in the rest of the book. Can he REALLY show that  the evidence for ‘evolution’ or “common ancestry” is better than any eyewitness account EVER, and that it is so ‘indisputable’ that no rational person will be able to close the book and doubt it.

I read the book, and examined the ‘evidence’ he presents. I found that he has presented even less evidence than the usual evolutionary text book. I was not convinced that it is ‘indisputable’; it is up to others to show that he has presented a sound case. I do not think he has settled anything.