(2017-11-12, 08:04 PM)Chris Wrote: I think Dawkins succeeded in saying some daft stuff - and apparently in thinking it was fine for him to indulge in wacky speculation, but not for anyone else. Whether the makers of the film were trying to deceive I have no idea, but in any case they must have been very pleased with the daftness that Dawkins provided them with.
Dawkins answered a question within the framework of a hypothetical situation.
The premise of the hypothetical was something like, " If we assume a designer, what could be the nature or identity?".
Within the constraints of that premise, what he said becomes less daft. I think he wanted to show the absurdity of the premise.
His comment becomes understandable, if we look at the basic idea behind ID creationism.
Since the claim is, that we recognize design in nature from comparing it with human design, we have to assume this designer is human- like.
It can't be humans though, they appear at the end of the story. So a plausible alternative that does not assume supernatural cause, are aliens.
It was probably meant as some kind of a reductio ad absurdum.
Of course it sounds daft out of context, but that the intent of the whole setup.
"The mind is the effect, not the cause."
Daniel Dennett
Daniel Dennett