> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Richard Baker > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:36 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Not reading statistics gets a Drubbing > > Alberto said: > > > Sampling from friends to prove something is very unscientific. Just > > to add unscience to the discussion, just because I know lots of > > vegetarians (and a few almost-pure carnivores) doesn't mean > > that I must reject the hypothesis that humans are omnivores. > > No, but you would have to reject the hypothesis that all people eat > meat.
Agreed, but I don't think that's enough to support Dawkins' claim that he definitely does not have such a gene. Now, I'm an agnostic concerning the existence of a "religious" gene, but let's assume, for argument's sake, that one exists. Can we conclude that all atheists lack this gene? I don't think so. There is significant evidence that human behavior is the result of both nature and nurture. For example, I probably have a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism, yet I'm not an alcoholic (generally consumes 1 drink/week....with a big drinking night totaling two drinks). Similarly, abusive mothers may have the same genetic predisposition that most humans have to nurture babies...but other factors may overwhelm that predisposition. So, in conclusion, while I don't know that Dawkins has such a gene (or even if such a gene exists) Dawkins has not provided sufficient information to falsify that statement. Instead, the correct answer appears to be a definite maybe. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
