OK, I'll take it.

What is the problem with metaphor? It's often the case that it's easier to explain something by using metaphors. The point about the Blind Watchmaker is that this is an immediate riposte to the old adage that if you find something like a watch, it is obvious that it must have been designed; therefore if there is something complex in nature (for example, the eye) it is "obvious" that it must have been designed. Dawkins' argument is that the complex items can and do evolve, without any requirement for design; evolution is the Blind Watchmaker.

I actually thought that River out of Eden worked quite well - the point being (and some of the diagrams showed it) was that we have this "flow" of generations of animals, but geographical splits occur (the river divides) and at that point, the two different paths can (and do) take massively different evolutionary routes. However, the analogy is flawed - most rivers flow INTO each other and become huge at the sea - the River out of Eden divides into a massive number of little rivers, many of which become dead-ends. So I didn't find that analogy quite so convincing - but nevertheless, it worked for me.

The problem is with evolution is that though there is overwhelming evidence for it (despite what the creationists or "intelligent design" people would have you believe), there is NOT massive evidence for any particular step from one level to the next. There can't be - they happened in some cases millions of years ago. So we have to speculate methods by which something might have happened. And sometimes, what we're trying to describe doesn't lend itself to easy explanations - so we try to descibe it in terms of things that people DO understand - while making it very clear that we're using a metaphor.

Using metaphor or models is a common way of describing scientific concepts. Sometimes, with complex problems, it's essential. A simple example - the atom is often described as like a little solar system with electrons flying round the nucleus like little planets. It's not a bad analogy, either. It's actually far more complex than that, but it works OK at a basic level, and doesn't actually seriously mislead.

Dawkins, I think, would argue that he doesn't have a message - he's trying to show you the facts, and trying to demonstrate that that's all that is required. He and Stephen Jay Gould are often considered to be on opposite sides of the fence - but they both agree on one fundamental thing - that evolution is real, and that you don't need a God to explain life. You may choose to have a God - that's up to you - but it's not necessary to explain anything.

Yes, Dawkins is trying to show me what he adduces as 'fact'- I admire your reasoning BUT I have to take issue with your own 'simple example' because I see any figurative language here - simplified analogy maybe - but really no call to the imagination. This is the crux of my argument with Dawkins - if he questions/denies the possibility of the roots of the imaginative process - then he is not entitled to use the language of imagination.
Now then - River Out of Eden - the title alone provokes the reader to consider what is 'Eden' - which is in itself a symbol - as is 'river'. Why did'nt he give this book a scientific title? Same goes, even more so for The Blind Watchmaker - a figurative pattern of words that conjure up a complex imaginative process.
The question of God, a god, the God - and Dawkins' views on religion I can accept as a basis for exploration into scientific/biological/physicial evolutionary studies - it doesn't bother me.
I understand (not from Dawkins) that we find certain landscapes beautiful and comforting etc., because at some time in our human existence - forests, mountains, plains, shores have been places of safety.
However Dawkins is not excused (by me) for using language- images, symbols, figures, in his denigration of 'the spiritual' - let him stick to simple descriptive words and I might then find his arguments worthwhile.
Thanks Martin

"...if he questions/denies the possibility of the roots of the imaginative process - then he is not entitled to use the language of imagination."

???

I don't think Dawkins questions the roots of the imaginative process - I think at best he may say that he's not entirely sure what it is. (Though he, and others, have some suggestions.) What he does query is the existence of God, or similar entities. And what you seem to be implying in your phrase "questions/denies the possibility of the roots of the imaginative process" is that those roots are based in some form of God. Which is exactly the point that Dawkins is trying to challenge.

If that's not what you mean, then I don't really understand your sentence above. What is wrong with imagery, symbology - imagination, even? - in trying to explain the beauty and majesty of life? But that beauty and majesty itself does not require a God to explain it.

First-I've never read Dawkins, so maybe I am speaking from too much ignorance to make a valid point-but I have heard about him, so I opened this thread....and, like Martin, I am confused about the basis for your argument to limit the language Dawkins is "allowed" to use. Language is there to comunicate ideas to others-I don't think the use can be limited. Scientists can use imagery, just as theologists can use simple descriptive words.

Of course scientist will use figurative language - why not?
It's Dawkins who should consider his position as a debunker of almost everything that cannot be explained by science - using the source he eschews to propogate his 'message'.
BTW I could agree with his arguments if his methodology was reasoned and was not flawed by such a disparity between what he says and the way he says it.

I think we may have to agree to differ on this one, Jan.

I see no disparity between what he says and the way he says it. And I can't see that Dawkins in any way undermines his own position as a debunker just because of the way he says something.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that "imagination cannot be explained by science; Dawkins does not believe in anything that cannot be explained by science; therefore he should not be using metaphor and imagery to explain himself, as this requires imagination".

But I don't think Dawkins says that imagination cannot be explained by science. There are, I believe, several possible explanations, both of how it works and how it arose. We don't KNOW how imagination/consciousness/whatever arose, or how it works, but it doesn't mean it can't be used.

It's not quite the same thing as saying, for example "I don't believe in ghosts, as they can't be explained by science." The point about imagination is that no-one (or very few) scientists actually deny its existence - so all (HA!) they have to do is explain it. Whereas many - most? - scientists deny that ghosts exist, and would require very convincing proof that they do.

Hi Martin
At last I've managed to get back to you (I haven't been honing my argument- just busy tidying up papers etc).
I actually agree with what you say - BUT - I still have to exclude Dawkins - as I am in no way convinced by someone who uses the very methods which he denounces to explain his theories.
Als I think he is a VERY dodgy bloke - his 'selfish gene' (another filched figure of speech) theory opens the door for all sorts of extremists to follow their manipulation of their 'inferiors' - after all they cant help having a 'selfish gene' can they?
Thanks for the discussion
Jan