Dawkins on Evolution

[DrPizza]

Agreed, Hayabusa - I'm certainly no Dawkins fan, although he does have the occasional answer that I love. i.e. the refutation quote in the OP.

 

[sandorski]

That's a perfectly reasonable attitude, however Dawkins and people like him earn a living out of ridicule. I'll cite Francis Collins who makes Dawkins look like a high grade moron comparatively speaking. You can look him up if you don't know the name.

Because he has a religious faith Dawkins decided on his own that Collins wasn't qualified as a scientist. That was the entire objection against his nomination as head of the NIH. That he considers evolution as established fact doesn't matter. That he played a leading role in the Human Genome Project didn't count. He's a Christian and for that he hates him. Hate is the word for it.

Well Collins got the post based on his merits, and by all accounts Dawkins was livid because his personal world view wasn't the criteria used.

He has his own personal Spanish Inquisition mentality, which is rather ironic.

waaaah, you guys sharing a hanky?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

waaaah, you guys sharing a hanky?

Beats banging a transexual.

 

[sandorski]

Beats banging a transexual.

Ill take your word for it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ill take your word for it.

Heh, maybe you haven't seen?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155369

 

[Darwin333]

I think the recent (last 10 years or so) push for Atheism has been quite telling. That advert on the side of the bus in Britain? Some of the prominent atheists in our mother country became quite concerned after a professing Christian won the White House not once but twice in a row. They thought they had gotten the Christianity behind them but surprisingly all the public school education and evolution teaching in the world wasn't enough to convince the majority of Americans there was no God.

Their (and especially the atheists on the internet) desire to force these views on everyone makes me wonder who it is they're really trying to convince. Seems they are quite uneasy with themselves judging by the fervor with which they direct their campaigns (and for those on the internet, their slander-- never have I seen a more spiteful, hateful group).

In the end if there is no God, why does any of it matter? Just let the Christians live their lives the way they want and leave them alone. I rarely see any atheists living by example in this. Double standards all over the place.

The theory of evolution has as much to do with religion as Geocentrism and Heliocentrism. The Theory of Evolution does not try to prove or disprove the existence of God(s). It does not try to prove how the universe began. There is no reason why whatever God you believe in could not have "designed" the evolutionary process. It actually makes the "design" better by several orders of magnitude since it allows the created to adapt to an ever changing world (that I assume you believe he created as well.... woulda been a pretty big fuck up if he created a world that evolved and life that didn't).

Even more amusing, the Catholic church itself now believes that the evidence supports evolution. My daughters Catholic school teaches evolution in science class. I know of 4 other local Catholic schools that do the same. Yet here you are still trying to inject religion into an argument that has nothing to do with it. Sure the Atheists do the same thing but neither side will win the argument they are trying to make, proof or disproof of God. OTOH, science has pretty much already won the real debate.

 

[sandorski]

Heh, maybe you haven't seen?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155369

Will have to watch later as the Canadian site isn't loading right now.

 

[sandorski]

The theory of evolution has as much to do with religion as Geocentrism and Heliocentrism. The Theory of Evolution does not try to prove or disprove the existence of God(s). It does not try to prove how the universe began. There is no reason why whatever God you believe in could not have "designed" the evolutionary process. It actually makes the "design" better by several orders of magnitude since it allows the created to adapt to an ever changing world (that I assume you believe he created as well.... woulda been a pretty big fuck up if he created a world that evolved and life that didn't).

Even more amusing, the Catholic church itself now believes that the evidence supports evolution. My daughters Catholic school teaches evolution in science class. I know of 4 other local Catholic schools that do the same. Yet here you are still trying to inject religion into an argument that has nothing to do with it. Sure the Atheists do the same thing but neither side will win the argument they are trying to make, proof or disproof of God. OTOH, science has pretty much already won the real debate.

Good summary. We wouldn't really be even discussing this if there wasn't such a large contingent of US Christians who are very vocal Biblical Literalists.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good summary. We wouldn't really be even discussing this if there wasn't such a large contingent of US Christians who are very vocal Biblical Literalists.

That doesn't explain the constant religion threads though. It's beating the dead horse over and over. People who refuse to accept evolution as valid won't, not all people who are religious reject evolution, and some people hate religion regardless of what anyone thinks. Some don't.

It's like constantly complaining about the weather. Well that's how I see it, but with more angst. Lots more.

 

[sandorski]

That doesn't explain the constant religion threads though. It's beating the dead horse over and over. People who refuse to accept evolution as valid won't, not all people who are religious reject evolution, and some people hate religion regardless of what anyone thinks. Some don't.

It's like constantly complaining about the weather. Well that's how I see it, but with more angst. Lots more.

It goes both ways and into numerous subjects. People like to argue about shit.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

That's a perfectly reasonable attitude, however Dawkins and people like him earn a living out of ridicule. I'll cite Francis Collins who makes Dawkins look like a high grade moron comparatively speaking. You can look him up if you don't know the name.

Because he has a religious faith Dawkins decided on his own that Collins wasn't qualified as a scientist. That was the entire objection against his nomination as head of the NIH. That he considers evolution as established fact doesn't matter. That he played a leading role in the Human Genome Project didn't count. He's a Christian and for that he hates him. Hate is the word for it.

Well Collins got the post based on his merits, and by all accounts Dawkins was livid because his personal world view wasn't the criteria used.

He has his own personal Spanish Inquisition mentality, which is rather ironic.

Reinventing truth does not make it true.

What you just typed is BULLSHEIT and any sane human being who actually has one SINGLE bit of information on this knows that.

What Dawkins (who, BTW is a scientist in a field of expertise that Collins is NOT but still tries to correct although he has no formal or other training nor experience in) said was that the cop out that Collins uses, that there is evidence for God everywhere but it doesn't need explaining because God doesn't need an explanation, is an extreme cop out which leads to no requirements of evidence and no need for further investigation, it's ANTI SCIENCE and he is perfectly correct about it.

Collins book is ridiculous, he tries so EXTREMELY hard to push an anomaly that can be explained within the realms of an area he's not equipped to deal with, namely physics.

Collins might have had a free mind but he gave it up for the explanation of "god did it" he says EXACTLY THAT and that is why Dawkins dislikes him.

So, the entire objection was that instead of research and using the scientific method Collins uses "god did that because we cannot explain it (referring to certain physical constants)" and a scientist who isn't eager to find objective truth but already has his subjective truth clear to him is no scientist at all.

Dawkins was right, he usually is even if he's arrogant and crude.

£100 says that no one expected this reply from a Brittish officer.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Reinventing truth does not make it true.

What you just typed is BULLSHEIT and any sane human being who actually has one SINGLE bit of information on this knows that.

What Dawkins (who, BTW is a scientist in a field of expertise that Collins is NOT but still tries to correct although he has no formal or other training nor experience in) said was that the cop out that Collins uses, that there is evidence for God everywhere but it doesn't need explaining because God doesn't need an explanation, is an extreme cop out which leads to no requirements of evidence and no need for further investigation, it's ANTI SCIENCE and he is perfectly correct about it.

Collins book is ridiculous, he tries so EXTREMELY hard to push an anomaly that can be explained within the realms of an area he's not equipped to deal with, namely physics.

Collins might have had a free mind but he gave it up for the explanation of "god did it" he says EXACTLY THAT and that is why Dawkins dislikes him.

So, the entire objection was that instead of research and using the scientific method Collins uses "god did that because we cannot explain it (referring to certain physical constants)" and a scientist who isn't eager to find objective truth but already has his subjective truth clear to him is no scientist at all.

Dawkins was right, he usually is even if he's arrogant and crude.

£100 says that no one expected this reply from a Brittish officer.

Bullshit. Show me how Collins used any methodology in any of his research besides establish protocol. He's proved time and time again he's capable. Now if you can demonstrate objectively that he hasn't done his job show us.

Show us in his work where Collins research, data, and conclusions are illegitimate.

Dawkins has claimed that Collins cannot do his job. Prove it and your opinion about religion counts for nothing, only what he has done in the scientific community.

Good luck

Personally I think Dawkins is reasonably intelligent, but no genius. What has Dawkins done that even comes close to Collins?

Nothing.

Personally I think it irks him that someone smarter than he is, someone who is more accomplished, doesn't follow Dawkin's mandate.

He's a stupid bastard

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Bullshit. Show me how Collins used any methodology in any of his research besides establish protocol. He's proved time and time again he's capable. Now if you can demonstrate objectively that he hasn't done his job show us.

Show us in his work where Collins research, data, and conclusions are illegitimate.

Dawkins has claimed that Collins cannot do his job. Prove it and your opinion about religion counts for nothing, only what he has done in the scientific community.

Good luck

Personally I think Dawkins is reasonably intelligent, but no genius. What has Dawkins done that even comes close to Collins?

Nothing.

Personally I think it irks him that someone smarter than he is, someone who is more accomplished, doesn't follow Dawkin's mandate.

He's a stupid bastard

Have you read his book? Do you realise that he believes that God created everything in this universe and claims that evolution is evidence of it while at the same time saying that god needs no evidence for existance since he's out of natural existance?

I am well aware of Collins work and i have nothing bad to say about it, his leadership of the HGP was without flaws.

But if you can read, read what he has said in his book. He disqualifies science by entering the supernatural nature of God and what we cannot know is known but can't be explained because it's supernatural.

We could have said the same about anything at any time and science would stop just there.

Dawkins is brilliant and brilliant men are often arrogant when it comes to dealing with unusually daft people. SO, if you think Collins was badly treated because of his cop outs that "needs no explanation, goddidit" bullsheit, well, the twat did deserve worse than that.

It's a fucking disgrace that someone who is inherently anti science is in charge of anything that has to do with science.

Right about now you are probably researching Collins for the first time, i'll give you time and please, take your time.

God created everything is what he said, it's what Dawkins objected to and Dawkins was right.

 

[JSt0rm]

The reason Dawkins is so outspoken on religion is because religion is constantly attacking his science. He has every right to defend scientific methodology from knuckle draggers. In fact the more outspoken atheist movement has come about in the last 10 years. Reason? Political pressure from religion has been trying to shape science, that's the real travesty here.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

The reason Dawkins is so outspoken on religion is because religion is constantly attacking his science. He has every right to defend scientific methodology from knuckle draggers. In fact the more outspoken atheist movement has come about in the last 10 years. Reason? Political pressure from religion has been trying to shape science, that's the real travesty here.

Actually, in England, where Dawkins and I live we are not attacked at all.

People like Dawkins and Hitchens wouldn't be sheit without the US evangelicals trying to fit god into every fucking thing where it doesn't fit.

The US is still a predominantly fundamentalist nation, you know, like Iran and SA.

Fortunantly GB and the EU is not ruled by religious dogma but rather rational thoughts, we'll see how this pans out in a hundred years or so.

 

[JSt0rm]

ohh I know dude. I live here I hate those people. Although here in LA we just get all the "new age" Hindu Buddhist types and not so much of the RR. I would rather hear some new age hippy chick tell me about some spiritual side dimension then listen to the banter of people steeped in dogma and controlling religion. Not that I believe any of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Have you read his book? Do you realise that he believes that God created everything in this universe and claims that evolution is evidence of it while at the same time saying that god needs no evidence for existance since he's out of natural existance?

I am well aware of Collins work and i have nothing bad to say about it, his leadership of the HGP was without flaws.

But if you can read, read what he has said in his book. He disqualifies science by entering the supernatural nature of God and what we cannot know is known but can't be explained because it's supernatural.

We could have said the same about anything at any time and science would stop just there.

Dawkins is brilliant and brilliant men are often arrogant when it comes to dealing with unusually daft people. SO, if you think Collins was badly treated because of his cop outs that "needs no explanation, goddidit" bullsheit, well, the twat did deserve worse than that.

It's a fucking disgrace that someone who is inherently anti science is in charge of anything that has to do with science.

Right about now you are probably researching Collins for the first time, i'll give you time and please, take your time.

God created everything is what he said, it's what Dawkins objected to and Dawkins was right.

It is you and Dawkins and the six day types that have created this artifice that if you are religious you are anti science. There is a good chance that Collins will wind up with a Nobel for his work at some point, while the "real" scientists like Dawkins won't, and there's the rub. The two of you dismiss the facts of his accomplishments based on your faith that Collins is anti-science. It's your religion which says "thou must be an athiest to be a scientist". Collins just doesn't fit into Dawkin's box, which is the only criteria for validation.

You keep bringing up his religious beliefs. You wish to dismiss him based on that and not the merits of his work.

As far as Dawkins goes, unless they create a category for asshole then he's never going to see a Nobel. The "anti-science" person is superior to the one who claims he's inferior. Now that's hubris on Dawkins part.

BTW, I'm brilliant too

 

[JSt0rm]

you don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist but the policy in this country for the past decade has been anti-science if that science doesn't meet our political goals and we will throw in some hot topic shit to make sure people get to the voting booth. You people get played like a fiddle. Stop being controlled by some religion. Be spiritual but don't be controlled - that's weak.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

you don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist but the policy in this country for the past decade has been anti-science if that science doesn't meet our political goals and we will throw in some hot topic shit to make sure people get to the voting booth. You people get played like a fiddle. Stop being controlled by some religion. Be spiritual but don't be controlled - that's weak.

That's a perfectly reasonable attitude. Humans can be very complex and don't think as we do. In science quality talks, BS walks. When I was doing peer review eons ago I didn't ask about religious tendencies. No one would have thought of such a thing. What we cared about was the quality of the paper, how good was the research done and presented. That's science. Nothing else matters.

 

[Zorkorist]

Once you give up religion, Darwinism, Science, are obvious.

Stop taking the leap of faith, and continue to ask questions.

At least your questions, in science, will not be answered by "Trust me," or "Have faith."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Once you give up religion, Darwinism, Science, are obvious.

Stop taking the leap of faith, and continue to ask questions.

At least your questions, in science, will not be answered by "Trust me," or "Have faith."

The questions are the interesting things. Science won't be able to answer all things, so there will always be a need for philosophies of various kinds, but that too is fascinating. It's a big universe.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Fortunantly GB and the EU is not ruled by religious dogma but rather rational thoughts, we'll see how this pans out in a hundred years or so.

GB is full of religious dogma - your head of state is mandated based on religion. It's so disgusting. Religion is completely entwined in your political establishment and culture that the people now see it as normal.

You worship a Queen!

 

[Zorkorist]

It could also be called tradition, RabidMongoose.

Whil I tend to agree with you, what's going to happen when we destroy people's religion?

It's not going to be fun.

 

[glenn1]

you don't have to be an atheist to be a scientist but the policy in this country for the past decade has been anti-science if that science doesn't meet our political goals and we will throw in some hot topic shit to make sure people get to the voting booth. You people get played like a fiddle. Stop being controlled by some religion. Be spiritual but don't be controlled - that's weak.

Any downside that religious people may currently inflict (lectures about hell or whatnot) gets mitigated by their charitable work with the poor, homeless, abused women shelters, relief efforts in third world countries, etc. Atheists harrass people about religious beliefs, and then proceed to do absolutely nothing to make the world a better place - when was the last time you saw an atheist soup kitchen?

 

[Zorkorist]

Glenn, those same atheists you mention, are starting small businesses and hiring employees.

They don't have time to work in soup kitchens, but never the less, they are helping more people than those that donate bread, to soup kitchens.