Information icon.svg Nominations and Campaigning for the 2022 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now closed.

The election booth is now open!

Talk:Hugh Dower

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How can he be both anti-evolution and an adherent of the aquatic ape hypothesis? The AAH proposes alternate evolutionary history, but it's not anti-evolution in any sense. Blue Talk 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hugh Dower is a closet creationist and only believes the earth is a few 1000 years old yet claims in his theory the AAH exists and that he accepts evolution, he seems to merge different ideas together but I do not understand how the AAH would fit into a young earth. Theres some articles on the internet about his ideas but I don't have a chance to dig them up at the moment. I don't understand his position either, but it is clear he is a creationist. There seems to be a trend recently by a few authors who have pretended to accept evolution but are in actual fact creationists, see Shaun Johnston for example. DinoCrisis (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there a cite for this guy being a Quaker? I couldn't find one, but that would be rather unusual these days (outside the evangelical branches, anyway). --Benod (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a creationist[edit]

Hugh Dower has edited his own article claiming not to be a creationist yet at the same time claims 'impressive' research for Richard Milton. Milton has claimed the earth is 175,000 years old or younger. I will assume good faith but how is it possible to not be a creationist whilst at the same time believing the earth is so young? Forests (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent conflicts[edit]

Hughdower is asserting a few changes, including some minor wording issues, softening the creationist angle, and a change in Dower's citizenship. Are there any sources for or against any of it? I'm just seeing a lot of silent reversions.--ADtalkModerator 02:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hugh Dower is a young earth creationist, I debated him over email about two years ago, he believes the earth is 175,000 years old. So not the typical 10,000 year old YEC model but still a young earth. He's an old guy in his 70s. I have not heard anything from him in over a year. He is best friends with the intelligent design proponent Shaun Johnston and his website has not been updated. He doesn't accept common descent, but he claims to accept evolution. He has some very strange beliefs. The person reverting the article is probably not Dower. I believe it may be the guy on amazon who gave him a positive review. I debated the guy about a year ago as well and his insisted that Dower is an "evolutionist" and not a creationist even though he believes the earth is only 175,000 years old. I would like to know what mechanism he is proposing for such abrupt evolutionary change but this does not seem to be explained by Dower. DinoCrisis (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not "the guy on amazon who gave him a positive review", but I have read Dower's book
  • Dower tells us he is British. The description of him as American is based on no evidence whatever
  • By his own account, he had a Quaker upbringing. There are no grounds for asserting that he is still a Quaker in belief or practice
  • He says he accepts evolution, and ought to be presumed to know his own mind. Given that he also favours a fairly young earth, this only implies that he thinks evolution is much faster than usually assumed. He explicitly favours a Lamarckian model for this.
  • One might well agree that "He has some very strange beliefs", but that hardly makes it necessary or desirable to lie about what those beliefs are. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Dower lives in America. He claimed to me in an old email exchange that he still reads the Bible so from his Quaker upbringing he obviously has not lost his belief. Evolution is not compatible with a 175,000 year old earth unless you invoke spiritual forces or a God. Saltational evolution does exist, but a 175,000 model of the earth is absolutely ridiculous. Lamarckian evolution is gradual not saltational, and his book does not invoke Lamarckism. He confuses epigenetics (which has sometimes been called "quasi-Lamarckian") with Lamarckian inheritance. DinoCrisis (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Do either of you have any sources for your claims beyond your word? The man's nationality seems like something that should be relatively easy to prove if he has any importance whatsoever, without y'all just arguing based on your own personal credibilities, right?--ADtalkModerator 15:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Samuel, but are you actually trolling the article? You wrote "Dower was influenced by Richard Milton, who has provided impressive evidence that the Earth is very young". How has Richard Milton provided "impressive evidence" that the earth is young? What scientific publications have accepted Milton's young earth model? DinoCrisis (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
impressive' evidence that the Earth is very young"!! At least it's funny! I'm dying to see this!--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That "impressive evidence" along with "arguments very similar to those found in intelligent design literature where those arguments are validly opposing the particular evolution theory that is neo-Darwinism." is exactly why I rolled back Samuel's recent "corrections." For me, that last bit was painfully awkward to read, whatever its truthiness may be. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dower is British and lives in Britain. I was talking to him, in Britain, two days ago. He may well read the Bible on occasion, but that doesn't mean he believes it. My reversions were based on his own words, but I have modified the reference to Milton to make it clear that this is his view, not ours. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no evidence that he accepts evolution, you should stop trying to add that in. What mechanism does he advocate which brought about all biological organisms in less than 175,000 years? DinoCrisis (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You've put in the article that he "pretends to accept evolution". So either he accepts evolution or he is, pointlessly, lying about it. You have no basis for implying the latter, and I find it gratuitously offensive to him. That fact that you're not convinced by his ideas on the mechanism is beside the point. We're describing what he's written, not agreeing with it.
BTW your name is a reference to the Bible? 1 Samuel 28:3-20? DinoCrisis (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
See wp:User:SamuelTheGhost. You're the first person that ever asked. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Well Samuel, I can't work you out you have an interesting username and you are an experienced Wikipedia editor with good edits! Yet you come on here and try to defend a crank anti-evolution author. I find it suspicious that your edit reversions were exactly the same as the ones that Hugh Dower had done himself last year. Did he put you up to come on and edit his article? If the earth is only 175,000 years old then what is the mechanism of evolution which Dower advocates? He never explained this to me or anyone. The fossil record does not support an earth that is 175,000 years. If you read the book by Richard Milton, the idea of a 175,000 year old earth did not originate with him, but it was taken from the Mormon creationist Melvin A. Cook, who believed that the earth itself formed around that time period but life on earth is only 6,000 years old. These are nonsensical claims which have been debunked many years ago. This is not "impressive" evidence. If you check rationalwiki you will see articles on alternative evolutionary mechanisms, see non-Darwinian evolution for an example. It is not crackpot to invoke different evolutionary mechanisms but what Dower doing is not evolution. DinoCrisis (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
It's perfeetly simple really. Hugh Dower is a personal friend, but I disagree with most of his ideas. So I will indeed defend him personally against clear factual mis-statements or imputations of dishonesty, but I have no reason to defend his theories. Indeed, some time ago I presented him with a long written critique of "The Alternative Life". I'd never heard of RationalWiki until he mentioned it to me, but then I reverted to his version because it was mostly just an accurate statement of what he thinks. I've accepted that a few things then got stated as facts, rather than his opinion, and I and Sprocket J Cogswell made the appropriate modifications. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
If he's a personal friend can you explain how common descent is compatible with an earth that is 175,000 years old? What mechanism does he advocate that has caused such a fast origin of species? DinoCrisis (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I can't speak for him on that. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Dower and Evolution[edit]

Right this has gone on long enough. Dower/Samuel please provide with references that Dower accepts evolution. If you can provide that evidence it will go into the article. DinoCrisis (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It has indeed gone on long enough. I have deleted most things for which there is zero support and rewrote much of what remained. I hope the results are satisfactory to all parties, and that any future additions will be better written and sourced. Thanks :) --ADtalkModerator 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
On his website there is a quote that says he is impressed with evidence for a young earth or similar words to that effect, and Dower made it clear to me two years ago that he believed the earth was young. I am still confused on how common descent is compatible with an earth that is only 175,000 years, this is not explained by Dower. Lamarckian inheritance is a gradual mechanism of evolution, and Lamarck himself stated that evolutionary change takes huge amounts of time. I do not see how this guy Dower is a "Lamarckist". I won't get into an edit war over this, but I believe this guy to be a creationist. DinoCrisis (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, and maybe a good guide for looking through the evidence. I'll be interested to see what quotes or docs you turn up to support that, since it sure doesn't seem to make sense to try to cram in common descent into such a short time-span.--ADtalkModerator 17:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)