Quotes from Prof Dawkins

[tyro]

The opposite of these attempts to explain the evolutionary process is the insistence that dinosaurs were on Noah’s ark. Not just one type, but all of them and in pairs.

Still can’t determine how he first got his hand on and then returned to their natural habitat such things as penguins and koalas.

He was a busy man.

The creation museum

[Rick]

At least you came close.

I am not arguing for a "God" per se.

I am trying to point out that Dawkins poo poos to the point of calling anyone that believes in God a "Religious Nutter".

However as I will mention one more time Dawkins "God" is evolution. He believes that a mechanism exists (but has never seen) that punctuates phylogeny to the point that a completely new generation with never before features can exist.

He has "FAITH" that that mechanism exists yet it has never been shown in the lab or witnessed 1st hand.

What is the difference between that and my "FAITH" that a "God" exists?

The fact that he does not believe in my "God" is irrelevant (man I wish I had a spell check). I don't believe in his either.

Again my contention based on this view is that he is intellectually dishonest.

It is completely acceptable for him to have "FAITH" in something unseen, yet I'm a "NUTTER"...

ETA: Tyro converseley I don't accept everything "as Gospel" that the religious world promulgates...

[Andrew D]

He has "FAITH" that that mechanism exists yet it has never been shown in the lab or witnessed 1st hand.

What is the difference between that and my "FAITH" that a "God" exists?

One is supported by facts and reasoning, whereas the other is inimical to facts and reasoning.

It is possible for one to imagine evidence that would falsify the theory of evolution. It is not possible for one to imagine evidence that would falsify the pseudo-theory of creation.

The creationist's approach to evidence is simple: It doesn't matter. If we find X, that proves that God created everything. And if we find the exact contrary of X, that also proves that God created everything. As science, it is horseshit from top to bottom.

That does not, of course, mean that creationism is not true. The fact that something is not demonstrable by anything that even vaguely resembles genuine scientific reasoning does not mean that that thing is not true. Maybe the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has got it spot on ....

[Rick]

Post a "Fact" about the development of the human eye that has relevance to it "evolution".

If you find any it is anecdotal but that's acceptable, yet not seen, conjecture on the part of the person doing the writing "this so this".

Jesus contemporaries (both friend and foe) listed his works (and not all to boot) yet we must throw those out.

"EYE" witnesses...

[Big RR]

A fact keld? How about several? Mutations exist--fact 1. Some of these mutations are negative and lead to early deaths, some are neutral, and some are positive--fact 2. The positive mutations ar emutations which make it better for the individual to survive in its envrionment--fact 3 (don't believe it? i recall once having an infestation of moths in my kitchen--the white moths were killed by swatting since they were easily seen, the brown ones blended in with the cabinets and reproduced more reaily, eventually winding up with brown moths adapated to survival in my kitchen)--fact 3. Life has developed over millions of years--fact 4. What more do you need?

[Rick]

A fact keld? How about several? Mutations exist--fact 1. Some of these mutations are negative and lead to early deaths, some are neutral, and some are positive--fact 2. The positive mutations ar emutations which make it better for the individual to survive in its envrionment--fact 3 (don't believe it? i recall once having an infestation of moths in my kitchen--the white moths were killed by swatting since they were easily seen, the brown ones blended in with the cabinets and reproduced more reaily, eventually winding up with brown moths adapated to survival in my kitchen)--fact 3. Life has developed over millions of years--fact 4. What more do you need?

Big RR I want to know how the eye was formed not stuff you learned in grammar school real information.

How was a half formed eye beneficial?

Using one of Dawkins own there are a bunch of snakes, these snakes very in the number of vertebrae. No doubt these would not happen with a slow progression, what use is half a vertebrae? So we just accept by "FAITH" that poof, poof, poof successive generations just up and got another vertebrae.

Fine what was the mechanism? It's not as simple as poof, there's musculature, ribs etc. to take into consideration.

We have a fully formed eye, nerves, orbital socket, musculature, eye lids. lashes, brows.

Poof...

[Andrew D]

Post a "Fact" about the development of the human eye that has relevance to it "evolution".

National Geographic published a brilliant article conclusively demonstrating the evolutionary path of the human eye and utterly demolishing the claim that the existence of the human eye in its present form contradicts the theory of evolution -- that is, the idea of evolution, which is abundantly supported by objectively verifiable facts, as against the notion of creationism, which is supported by objectively verifiable nothing. (I have the article around here somewhere, but my house routinely swallows things, so I can't put it in front of me right at this moment.)

But creationists don't care about such things. For creationists, evidence is a sideshow. Any piece of evidence that suggests, even obliquely, some support for the creationist position is clung to like a life raft. (Which is not surprising: The entire history of creationism has been an uninterrupted series of retreats in the face of evidence.) The overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution is derided and/or ignored. That difference in approach is exactly why those who have approached the subject rationally have overwhelmingly come down on the side of evolution.

[Big RR]

Grammar school? Not that I recall. But precisely what information are you looking for? A fossil record of something with "half an eye"? why would you think that would be "successful" enough to produce some kind of fossil record? Do you dispute the contention that an infinite number of monkeys typing for an infintie amount of time will reproduce the works of William Shakespeare because you've never even seen a monkey type one sonnet? Some things cannot be demonstrated, but are, on their face, self-evident and valid. And random mutations are just that.

Face it, if I throw a dye long enough, every number will come out on a roll, ditto for every combination of two dice (or three or four or whatever); do you really doubt that?

Basically, that's all Darwin said--that mutations occur and that those most fit will surivive to reproduce. What's so threatening that it should be disputed? We've seen it in many systems, one need only look at the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria to see how a mutation will confer long term vialbility on the mutated strains. Where is this "faith" you are referring to?

As for your mentioning of snakes and the number of vertebrae, I fail to see why you think the changes would be "poof, or why there would be half a vertebra that would confer any advantage on the mutated indivduals. it happened over a period of time, not in an instant, and those best adapted thrived and reproduced.

As for the eye, the same thing is true; every one of those things you mention would confer advantages on some species, causing them to thrive and the changes to abound. I don't see what the big deal is.

There are many scientific theories/mechanisms that I (and many other scientists and non scientists) accept because they are in line with the data collected thus far, and useful for predictive purposes. Does this mean everything happenes exactly the was that is proposed? No, science is open to additional data and will hone its theories/mechansisms/etc as the new evidence becomes available. Right now this is the best interpretation we have, based on the evidence, for the origin of species and little exists to contradict it. Find something to challenge it and science is flexible enough to change; one need only look at the revolution in physics in the early 20th century (from classical physics to relativisitic physics) to demonstrate this; the understandings of Newton, et al. gave way to those of Einstein et al. Which is how it should be.

Now this has nothing to do with the faith the religious have in a supreme being. As Andrew said, nothing would ever prove to the faithful that the supreme being does not exist--such is the essence of faith. And that's how it should be, as well. I have faith in a supreme being not because it has been proven to me in a scientific way, but because I choose to. And whatever "proof" I have is not subject to rigorous scrutiny; it's a belief, something not subject to rational testing. Very different.

[Rick]

Fine I'll let it go...

[Gob]

Keld, Dawkins has faith that by continually advancing science the answer to the question may be found. The religious have faith that God did it, end of story.

It's the between faith in our ability to improve our understanding that Dawkins had.

Now tell me, because this strawman has led us up a totally different path to the OP.

What is best for humanity, basing our morals on philosophical discourse, or basing them of reinterpretations of a book written 1500 years ago?

[Gob]

Whoops, missed you last post Keld..

Sorry...

[tyro]

Evolution of the eye

[thestoat]

What is best for humanity, basing our morals on philosophical discourse, or basing them of reinterpretations of a book written 1500 years ago?

I believe the bible to be a complete crock not just because it was written by dubious sources hundreds of years after Jesus was supposed to have existed.

The Bible initially consisted of something like 12 gospels - these were arbitrarily whittled down to 4 by the Emperor Constantine for his own purposes. They don't all agree. Also - a startling coincidence that the story of Christ is largely similar to that of Dionysis, Mithras and many others: I don't believe in such huge coincidences. The Romans used to conquer a people by essentially keeping what they had and then Romanizing it - is why so many place names in the UK derive from the Roman name that derived from the old Celtic names.

When I read "The God Delusion" by Prof Dawkins, the message I took away was now "Don't believe in god". It was "Make your OWN mind up - THINK for yourself, and if you still believe in a god then fine". I'd be surprised if someone thought for themselves and then decided to believe in a god based on the text in an extremely old book that had been modified for so many reasons by so many people for so long.

How was a half formed eye beneficial?

Keld - I think that misses the point. An organ is not formed bit by bit so we'd get 10% of an eye, then 20%, etc. I am certainly no biologist, but I can easily see how an organ can very slowly start to become responsive to light (so that an animal notices an enemy move, perhaps) and then improves from there.

Just my two penneth

[Big RR]

I'd be surprised if someone thought for themselves and then decided to believe in a god based on the text in an extremely old book that had been modified for so many reasons by so many people for so long.

If you're saying that someone exmined the bible and used it to prove the existence of god, then I think you are right. But belief in god is not an intellectual exercise anymore than falling in love is; it's something quite different. By all means question and reason and test hypotheses as best you can, open yourself to all experiences, and then decide what you believe (or don't). Dawkins seems to be unable to get beyond the idea that the existence of god cannot be proven (or disproven for that matter) by scientific scrutiny, precisely because god does not exist as part of the natural world with which science is concerned. One can choose not to believe in a supreme being of any sort, and I fully endorse their right to make that decision (and i imagine any supreme being would as well); but Dawkins does not provide the same courtesy to those who choose to believe. In his efforts to draw attention to himself and to make himself seem somehow smarter than he is, he feels the need to denegrate and ridicule those who have made the inquiries he suggests and chose to believe. In doing so, he has proven himself to be just as ridiculous and insensitive as the worst of those those he criticizes. I see Dawkins as a pathetic man who was picked on as a boy, and now seeks to aggrandize himself by saying "I've come beyond the chains that are enslaving the rest of you fools", without having nay knowledge of the metaphysical discussion. Belief is very easy to ridicule, it's far more difficult to understand.

[thestoat]

he feels the need to denegrate and ridicule those who have made the inquiries he suggests and chose to believe

I have seen some TV where Prof Dawkins interviews senior clergy and he has always been respectful in his questions and never patronising (from everything I have seen). Also, I have never felt he has ranted in his books. I would be interested in any examples you may have. I'm not suggesting he is perfect - he gets a great deal of hate and bile from "Christians" who disagree with him, but I have never read something from him that ridicules religion per se. As I say, I would be interested in any examples

[Big RR]

thestoat--I'll see if I can google any quotes later if I have time as i oin't have anything here with me, but I have always found him to be more concerned with the sound bite than with discussing the subject. There is one quote I recall which says something like we shouldn't have to be so open minded [about religion] that our brains deop out, and I recall a number of similar quotes. What's the point of saying something like that other than to stop any serious discussion--it's the intellectual equivalent of plugging one's ears with one's fingers and humming loudly. The giant spaghetti monster quote is similar--reducing religion to something laughable and ridiculous to stave off the discussion; the same point could have been made without the stupid imagery (designed to provoke laughter at the very idea of religion), but then a serious discussion might have followed.

I don't really pay much attention to him precisely because of this. I have seen some of his writings, and find that same arrogant sarcasm throughout. But I amit he may have naother side that i just have not seen.

Now, without a doubt, some of the most intolerant people in the world are (or claim to be) religious and probably heap many times that level of abuse on him, but you can't have it both ways. Want to discuss the subject rationally? then do so. Want to sink to their level and tactics? Then do so. You just can't have it both ways.

[Rick]

I'd be surprised if someone thought for themselves and then decided to believe in a god based on the text in an extremely old book that had been modified for so many reasons by so many people for so long.

If you're saying that someone exmined the bible and used it to prove the existence of god, then I think you are right. But belief in god is not an intellectual exercise anymore than falling in love is; it's something quite different. By all means question and reason and test hypotheses as best you can, open yourself to all experiences, and then decide what you believe (or don't). Dawkins seems to be unable to get beyond the idea that the existence of god cannot be proven (or disproven for that matter) by scientific scrutiny, precisely because god does not exist as part of the natural world with which science is concerned. One can choose not to believe in a supreme being of any sort, and I fully endorse their right to make that decision (and i imagine any supreme being would as well); but Dawkins does not provide the same courtesy to those who choose to believe. In his efforts to draw attention to himself and to make himself seem somehow smarter than he is, he feels the need to denegrate and ridicule those who have made the inquiries he suggests and chose to believe. In doing so, he has proven himself to be just as ridiculous and insensitive as the worst of those those he criticizes. I see Dawkins as a pathetic man who was picked on as a boy, and now seeks to aggrandize himself by saying "I've come beyond the chains that are enslaving the rest of you fools", without having nay knowledge of the metaphysical discussion. Belief is very easy to ridicule, it's far more difficult to understand.

Very well put.

In my bumbling way that was the message I was trying to convey.

Thanks...

[thestoat]

we shouldn't have to be so open minded [about religion] that our brains deop out

I don't see that as offensive per se, though I guess context is everything. It chimes in with my earlier statement that his message is "Make your OWN mind up - THINK for yourself, and if you still believe in a god then fine". If you draw the conclusion from your quote above that religion implies no brain then that would be offensive; I don't draw that conclusion though. I believe he is saying that he feels you should just think about things and not accept them without thought.

Belief is very easy to ridicule, it's far more difficult to understand

I agree with you. I'm not being flippant or offensive (at least I hope not) when I add that there are many doctors who work with the mentally ill and insane who would also agree with the statement.Because you believe something doesn't make it so - but I guess you echoed those sentiments earlier

[Big RR]

Big RR wrote:
we shouldn't have to be so open minded [about religion] that our brains deop out

I don't see that as offensive per se, though I guess context is everything. It chimes in with my earlier statement that his message is "Make your OWN mind up - THINK for yourself, and if you still believe in a god then fine". If you draw the conclusion from your quote above that religion implies no brain then that would be offensive; I don't draw that conclusion though. I believe he is saying that he feels you should just think about things and not accept them without thought.

I guess i see it differently; i see it as saying the one should be open minded, but some things are so stupid (require the brains to drop out) that it goes too far. Offensive? Not really; more designed to poke fun and derail the serious discussion. Humor can be a potent weapon, and can be shot somewhat covertly and, if there are any complaints, open the target to "What, can't you take a joke?"

I agree with you. I'm not being flippant or offensive (at least I hope not) when I add that there are many doctors who work with the mentally ill and insane who would also agree with the statement.Because you believe something doesn't make it so - but I guess you echoed those sentiments earlier

I think so; belief does not make something a fact, but sometimes belief is all one has available.

[thestoat]

but sometimes belief is all one has available.

Agreed. And if that belief gives people comfort then that's a win for them.