Wow. they interview drunken footballers who cheat on their wives and drug-addicted pop stars with reverence and patience and yet the first thing they ask him, Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford for 12 years, is: "Do you think you've failed in any sense?"-well if he has failed I don't think he would be being interviewed- his ability to communicate science is the reason the scientifically-illiterate crowd at channel 4 IS interviewing him; by teaching science in baby-talk to the public.
Ok Richard, I would push you out of the way of a bus and allow myself to get hit, but if you go after my happy fictional books like harry potter your touching a nerve sir. I grew up watching Looney tunes cartoons yet it has never occurred to me that I could drop an anvil on someone or float in mid air if I walked off a cliff until I noticed..Remember many things in science and technology today came from science fiction writers that sparked the imagination of people to become scientists.
Fantasy shouldn't be mixed with religious belief. Religion is dangerous, fantasy as in religion that isn't taken seriously is a very inspirering thing. Archetypes for different human emotions fighting each other in fictional worlds that doesn't depend on reality. You can achieve beautiful things with fantasy, religion is fantasy...but fantasy isn't religion. Dawkins should seperate the two, even though I agree about everything else he sais. He is a bit wrong in this interview...
Dawkins is arrogant like PZ Myers. Both claim to listen to dissenting views but neither do, even from other atheists (like me). If they reject other atheists and defragment christians going onto their blogs and forums, then it make me wonder what their agenda is. I think the agenda of both of these men is not the goodness of mankind but themselves.
All I can say about Children and myth is that it's quite possible that the awakening that occurs when a child finds out the first few fables that are untrue that drives them to discovery. What better drive could there be then finding out something you thought was so.. was not.
I'm quite firmly convinced it is that very thing that drives science further and further on.
Here we have the unacceptable face of scientism. This is the Cromwellian Puritanism that cancelled Christmas, enforced its austere views willy-nilly and led directly to the Restoration. Children distinguish fantasy from reality without any problem, they don't need some po-faced watchdog telling what not to read and enjoy. I hope that Dr Dawkins was taken out of context. If so he should be more careful of what he says and how it could be construed.
@Haroldbeavis1969 Teaching children arbitrary mythology IS teaching them to believe in fairy tales. If somebody taught their kids to believe in Amen-Re or Zuess today they would be considered bad parents and simply weird or stupid. I wonder then why it's okay to teach a different mythology which is just as unsupported (Christianity, Islam...etc). Religious faith, by definition, is identical to a delusion: Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.
@brj0207 Uh, yes, I think we're in agreement but that's not what I was referring to. Parents aren't teaching their children to believe in such fairy tales as Jack in the Beanstalk, Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood etc. They're teaching them to use their imagination. To your point, they tend to treat stories based on the deity of their choice with a little more weight.
@Haroldbeavis1969 Parent's (hopefully) DON'T teach their kids to BELIEVE in fairy tales, but simply as entertainment. For the most part, they tell them it's fake...or eventually at least, in the case of things like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
They do teach their kids to actually BELIEVE in things like Christianity. They teach them to simply follow the heard and not question it, and THAT is wrong.
@Haroldbeavis1969 Either way though, teaching organized or independent religion to children is psychologically unhealthy, as it leads the child to believe that logical reasoning and evidence are not the only ways truth can be found. However, they are.
@brj0207 Not sure what the difference between organized and independent religion is other than the former tends to have been around longer and has more followers. I don't know about "psychologically unhealthy" but i do think teaching religion to children is an immoral practice. Many of us were taught this garbage as youngsters. But as we started becoming educated we learned it was a total crock. Some of us anyway. Can't speak for others but i don't think i was psychologically damaged.
@Haroldbeavis1969 Well I meant independent as in the parents may be "spiritual" or moderately Christian, Muslim, etc. I don't think it's exactly HEALTHY to believe religion is true, but I may have exaggerated a little in the last message.
The only problem happens when the people early on decide whether their religion is actually true or not, and if they think it's true, it's often hard to get them out of it even showing them a MOUNTAIN of contrary evidence. Hence Pat Robertson, Kent Hovind, etc.
@brj0207 Pat Robertson, Kent Hovind, ShockofGod, etc are akin to snake oil salesmen. Buy my elixir and I guarantee you'll feel better. Who doesnt want to feel better? The problem with people who buy and sell this crap is they don't understand that the truth is a never-ending journey. It certainly is not a destination that can be arrived at by reading so-called "Holy" books, perhaps aptly named since they're filled with so many holes.
@Haroldbeavis1969 lol that was nice. Either way, I don't think science OR religion have the actual answers to questions like how the universe formed, the origin of life, etc... but science is the closest to the truth as we'll know it for as long as we exist.
@brj0207 Here's the difference: Religion doesnt have the answer but they're convinced they do: God did it, not need to look any fruther. Science doesnt have the answer but it will continue to look for clues that might provide an answer.
Again, you're confusing truth as a destination when it's merely a journey. Nineteenth century French writer Andre Gide put it best: Believe those seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.
@Haroldbeavis1969 Science does have the answers in a literal and/or practical sense. It gives the best supported explanations, and is the only truth about physical things. With the origins of the universe, it may be a never ending journey for humankind because of it's complexity; but things like the laws of physics, from a literal/practical standpoint, are the only truths.
Mental concepts like emotions are in a completely different realm of thinking, and cannot really be scientifically assessed.
@brj0207 just as long as concepts as emotions stay in their realm, no one has any objections. but when some try to explain physical world was made by those 'mental concepts', that's a different story. either you keep them separate, or accept inquiry and scepticism.
Far from having a "pernicious" effect on an individual's sense/.perception of reality, I'd argue that exposure to the fantastical and the magical in fiction provides precisely the opposite. Becoming familiar with the tropes, themes and traditional structures of fairy-tales, mythic sagas etc allows one to recognise them for what they are; it is one of the many reasons I rejected biblical and associated mythologies at an early age; I was able to compare and contrast them with, for example...
...the Greek and Nordic myths and realise that there were common themes, character templates, rhythms, recurring stories told in different ways etc etc. This does not rob said tale sof their beauty or human significance, and it worries me that Dawkins seems to demonstrate a misunderstanding of their true worth, that is not as rigid ideologies, accounts of percieved histories etc, but expressions of the inner narrative and self mythologisation of humanity that expresses...
...as much about our own protean, internal worlds as physics, chemistry and biology do about the external. It's sort of like saying: "I don't see the point in dreaming."
When I was a child, I did an experiment to see if there was a correlation between not telling my mum when my tooth fell out then putting it under my pillow and a bit of money appearing under my pillow the next morning. I conducted my experiment 4 times and all 4 times, there was still the tooth under my bed and never any money. When I told my mum about it years later she laughed but I hope my kids are the same and I promise never to feed them lies like that.
As long as you know harry potter isn't real it's not a problem. Richard dawkins shouldn't attack the world of fairy tales and fantasy. Fantasy is what makes us humans, and what makes us create great art. As long as it's just a fantasy and not a religion it's fine. But of course there are crazy cults around harry potter as well >_>
ppsimmons videos will open your eyes about evil-lution
do you know that the Bible says that there would be false religions, false messiahs,Jesus said many would come in my name and deceive many,he said there would b whole church in deceit when He said that MANY would come in My name and deceive many,so if you sort out all the wrong stuff it narrows it down considerable
It sort of implying in a way... that he is talking about 'Harry Potter', but I see those stories intellectually stimulating by using the creative areas of the mind. Being creative has a lot of attributes that are found beneficial in science, finding unique solutions to otherwise over-bearing problems.
But Richard Dawkins a children's book writer? Imagine that? I wonder if the adults in this generation will take as much interest in them as the kids would? we'll see.
i think its essential that he does reach out to children as theyre always society's future.kids and fairytales go together too well and it makes things worse when adults fill their heads with mythical nonsense such as santa claus,the easter bunny,etc.although the problem might be that parents will avoid his publications because theyre brainwashed,not so much that theyre not interested in purchasing his material for their children.
Dawkins is by no means opposed to Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings, or Beowulf for that matter. This is one of many examples of the media trying to portray Dawkins as a stuck up, angry old man. He is merely trying to counter the numerous brain washing efforts of adult authorities, with a more rational approach. Get the fuck off his case people. If you ever decided to read any of his books, you would realize that he is a humorous, intelligent person.
Notice that Richard Dawkins didn't even mention Harry Potter. Notice that he didn't unequivocally state that fairy tales warp children's minds. He was just asking, in the same way someone might ask if Barbies give girls unrealistic expectations of how their bodies should look. Nothing wrong with investigating.
I'll tell you the effects of letting children believe in fairytales and magic... it allows them to be children and have fun. For goodness sake Dawkins I agree with you on a lot of things but we're talking about innocent children's fun for crying out loud, kids have about 10 or so years of their life before they realise how fucked up the world is and what life is really like... they have every right to enjoy magic, myths, fairytales and a make believe world if it gives them fun and happiness.
Yes it does, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a good book or a fantasy like Harry Potter, I love the Matrix myself. But it not good for them to not known the difference between fact or fiction.
Of course, but it usually becomes very clear to a child by their teenager years as to what they take as fact, fiction or what could possibly be fact. Aslong as they are not indoctrinated and it doesn't harm anyone- they can take whatever they want as being true.
Once again the media is forcing this kind of controversial image of Dawkins. Not once in this interview did he "tackle Harry Potter", he merely said he would like to write a children's book promoting science and critical thinking. Nor did he say that fiction is wrong, which some posters here somehow seem to have heard..
Furthermore, he is neither a geneticist nor an "evangelical atheist". I don´t want to seem like a fanboy, but the damn dude just always says things I happen to agree with.
(suite) i understand your point of view is but let it be taken slowly cause not all poeple are the same level of consciousness and killing their fary tale is the equivalent of killing their saoul,and by personal experience it is worst killing one in a what you call saoul than a physical killing
please richads do not take the imaginary state of mind of kids away they need it , even adult need it sometime there is planty of time to be down to earth ,we have to be balance psychologically speaking , i my self is a big fan of scientifique world and i consider myself as scientist but sometime i permit myself to let go and live in farytale into my mind like if a was an e.t. coming to the earth what will i do what i gonna say about their belive systeme would i tell some one who i amect,,,,
Uh, what? Kids don't believe Harry Potter is real, Mr. Dawkins. I've been with you all the way up until now, but how do you not understand the entire genre of fiction? You have a fucking PHD...
I don't even like HP, I can't believe I have to defend it against a fellow atheist of all people.
I agree. I thought it was totally absurd that he used the phrase "brought up to believe" concerning Harry Potter and mythical fantasy books. Religion is taught to children as being true. They are told this is how the world works. Harry Potter is taught as being entertainment. They are brought up to believe it is not true. No adverse effect. Kind of like how Dawkins advocates teaching the Bible in schools (as fiction) to understand allusions in Western literature.
It doesn't even make sense, and almost seems like a poorly edited moment, in hindsight. Why would he say "I don't know what to think of magic." It's allegorical, it's fantastical, it's outside of rational thinking and in a realm of exploration. Does he not dream? Even if we knew exactly what dreams were, it wouldn't change their effect. Reading a good fantasy novel is a way to stretch the brain, just like a good joint. It sounds like Dick just needs to let loose.
I hope this book comes out in time for me to read it to my kid. It sounds like a great tool to begin teaching children to think like mature adults rather than nieve, brainwashed asses.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sometimes being able to suspend our own sense of disbelief. Without imagination we are nothing! Though thats not to say that i would ever condone taking our imagination completely literally.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Yawn, yawn, have't we seen garden variety bigots, small-minded hate mongers like Dawkins, yes weve seen it all before. In pre-war Germany, it was "Jew-science" the preposterous doctrine that Jews were responsible for all crime on earth. Dawkins has a whole slew of preposterous beliefs he peddles as "science". His name, rhymes with "Hawking" other than that, he nothing to do with science. Just another demagogue.
What an ignorant fool you are. Dawkins is not a hate monger, he is an intelligent, clear thinking man who has produced an enlightened way of approaching the delusion of belief in religion.
this a joke response right? You're comparing Dawkins to the Nazi's? You obviously have not read any of his work. His knowledge in science is vast and his overall depth of knowledge is remarkable. I suppose his being a Professor at Oxford is some anti-theist conspiracy, right?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If you're impressed by academic credentials perhaps you should check-out Nobel Laureate William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, prominent Atheist / racist who taught that Blacks should be paid to not reproduce. Like Dawkins, a thin veneer and pretense of science and social concern and a hard core of bigotry & hatred. Yes we have seen it all before. There is nothing new under the sun.
I like Richard Dawkins but I think he takes himself and his crusade too serious. Science is important and critical thinking is important too but I just don't get why he feeling the need to attack fantasy and fairytale. I really don't see these things as being "anti-science" as he says. Children should be allowed to play. I love science but I also love to dream from time to time. I would not want to imagine a child who never has a dream or fantasy.
Well his kids books sound like their going to be boring.
I think he should just team up with some who already wrights kids books, and make a scientist version of Nancy Drew. Because Richard Dawkins maybe a bit of a buzz kill for kids.
Thank you Mr Richard Dawkins,for you speak the truth,there are no myths in what you say and I`m certain that you will take into account,that all young childrens imaginations,are ,simplistic,unexplainable,beyond belief,and above all imaginary.A bit like religion :)
now i totally agree with Dawkins views on religion but....a childs book?
i think the point of childhood is to learn for yourself, discover its truth's and fantasies by experience. i mean if they never came up with santa clause then we would never be excited of a jolly man coming down our chimney and giving us gifts, and us behaving for the entire year just for it. we would just stare at our parents wanting toy's
logic i think is a necessity but who says you cant have some imagination.
He is awesome in certain respects but I cannot entirely agree with this idea. I think it is awesome that kids get told many imaginative fascinating stories and I think thats its great to do that in a fictional context. There needs to be an important division of fantasy and reality but that doesnt mean the villification of fantasy and fiction.On reflection if he can do it objectively then I think it is a good idea.
Well, the way I see it, its one thing to show someone a card tric and another thing to tell them its magic. Or its one thing to read a spiderman comic to your kid and another one to tell him that spiderman is real. Etc. Think you see my point. I think (hope) thats what he is saying.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This guy is missing some basic parts that make people normal What kind of person goes around saying human DNA was created by aliens, then says no one should read harry potter because its not real. Dawkins says that raising children is best left to the state and that the state should teach children only what dawkins deems appropriate.
and you lack the basic elements of comprehension . He said neither of what you have stated. Shame on you for twisting his words into something obtuse and untrue
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Twist his words?? Are you kidding?? His words and thoughts are twisted enough. Dawkins uses the most extreme vitriol in describing any other belief concerning the meaning and purpose of life -other than his own beliefs (the word for that is bigotry) And he openly talks about the State's obligation to teach Atheism to children. His position on aliens is that if we can't find any explanation for the origin of life on Earth, there are always aliens, they could have done it. How crazy is that??
No I'm not kidding & again you are mis quoting him and babbling nothing more than BS. You lack the ability to understand the spoken english word. He was asked what OTHER POSSIBLE mechanism could there be for life on earth & he suggested exobiology which only suggests that microbial organism could have been present perhaps within the ice of comets that impacted on early earth. This a normally accepted argument for the foundations of life on our planet. Alien life doesn't mean green men
No Waterman, what he meant was that things turning into other things in a supernatural sense is unscientific. Evolution is done only in a natural sense. And as for us not being "merely complex arrangements of particles," try going into a coma or shooting yourself in the head and see how much "energy" is still flowing through you. We are amazingly complex beings that have naturally evolved over billions of years via the non-random process of natural selection.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Did he just say that things turning into other things is unscientific? Isn't that what evolution is? Would this guy please shutup and let kids still have an imagination? We are not merely complex arrangements of particles. There is an energy that flows through all life forms. I don't know if its god, allah, or moses, but there is something.
I know that Hitchens has had to (he talks about it in several of his books), after he and his family received death threats, mainly from muslims who were upset with Hitchens having and voicing an opinion about their religion.
Harry Potter is a fucking story! Thats the purpose of stories. THey are funa nd amusing but not real. Taking away a childs imagination hurts creativity. Imagining things is diffrent from belivign they are real. I used to imagine that I had millions of dollars but I did not BELIVE it. THeres a diffrence. Now I am a millionaire (for real) so its fun to loo back and go "BOOYAH!". Well my dads a millionaire.
The organisation that made the report presented it as Dawkins Vs Harry Potter. He didn't say anything about telling kids that Harry Potter is rubbish. He just spoke about his idea for writing a book for kids that would present a scientific outlook on things. Your a victim of journalistic editing.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the same material was used, not that we came from the same thing.
"The chance of plants and animals coming up with DNA independently is astronomical" - I completely agree.
Is it not possible for all humans, animals, and plants to have been individually designed using the same basic formula and given the skills to survive and adapt?
The theory of evolution or Darwinism is to say that all life on earth is an accident. I'm not arguing with evolution in the sense that creatures adapt. I just wanted to make that clear.
Now when you look at the vascular system, the muscular system, or the precision of the solar system and see the complexity of it all how can one say that it was an accident?
If one force or one component of the solar system was off or changed the earth would be unable to sustain life. That was an accident?
According to Dawkins(selfish gene theory), amino acids/protein forms a replicating molecule(RM). Replicating molecules spread though out the oceans. Replicating molecules change (mutates) due to effects of electricity, heat, and UV.
Result- Some RM become successful and more complicated e.g. starts to steal molecules from other RM (precursor to eating).
Also you said yourself that "the chance of plants and animals coming up with DNA independently is astronomical".
What about psychology and reproduction? How can it be that organisms on their own decided who would be male and female? How did they just happen to know to grow the right parts fitting them together to create another life form?
the chance of plants and animals coming up with DNA independently is astronomical.
what i mean=
why didn't plants come up with another way of passing genes besides using DNA? The fact that both plants and animals use DNA to pass on info suggests that we come from a common ancestor. (also check out similarities in plant and animal cells and hormones.
Or there's the molecule in and of itself. there are so many intricate parts of it that interact perfectly within itself and then interact perfectly with other molecules to form systems and structures and they know what to do without being told.
3) Anatomy- Homologous organs. Bone structures of a human hand, bats wing, seals flippers, etc are quite common. Notice the 5 arrays in the hand, wings, and flippers.
Independently developed or common ancestor?
4) Physiology- general- check out similarities in hormones and their purpose in organisms such as Estrogen and Testosterone. Check out organs- heart, lungs, stomach, etc. Check similarities in DNA between humans, rats, and monkeys. Independently developed or common ancestor?
knowledge and information gained through systematic study. I don't know if you were looking for my understanding of the term or if by "mean" you were refering to how important it is to me. You should be more clear.
An organism 'changes.' For example, In London, White moths changed into black moths to blend in with the smoked stained evironment. Why? Natural selection- white moths were easier to spot and catch, the darker moths weren't. Black moths multiplied moreso than white moths.
But the moth is still a moth. Adaptation is common sense and not the same as saying that all current life forms came from one common ancestral gene pool. A gene pool that scientist cannot prove existed or how it got there in the first place.
1) Chemistry- DNA. Plants and animals use DNA to pass info from one generation to another. The chance of plants and animals coming up with DNA independently is astronomical. Perhaps we share a common ancestor?
2) Physiology- Embryology. humans, fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals look alike at the early stages of development. We all have gill slits.
He's already written a children's book, The God Delusion. It's for really bad children who are afraid of being punished. Dawkins hates God and thinks aliens made us. Yes, he's one heck of a scientist. Just look at his fan base.
Actually, Dawkins doesn't believe aliens made us. And there's really no cause to impugn his professional integrity by making a pointless ad hominem against his "fans."
But, I suppose actually having something to say is too much for you.
No, atheism is just the disbelief in a stupid claim, it is not a worldview. When you say you are an atheist, all you say is "i dont believe in god", which is not to be mistaken with "i am sure god doesnt exist". that's all, no worldview, no religion.
I agree. It annoys me that atheism is turned into some sort of philosophy or "religion". All it is is lacking belief in all gods. Christians lack belief in all gods but the judeo-christian god. We just choose to not believe in that god either. People do not believe in unicorns, but they do not belong to the a-unicorn worldview, philosophy, or religion. Double standards at their best...
Richard Dawkins is my absolute hero, but I think Harry Potter and religion are very seperate understandings. I don't think Harry Potter is threatening to Children in the same respect as religious indoctrnation is.
That's a bit outlandish. Literature is fiction, and we are not about to expell that just because some texts are 'unscientific'. We can still use our imagination for entertainment value and not be convinced that Magic Spells are real. You are missing the larger picture here. Imagination invokes ideas/possibilities, and if we didn't test our imaginations we would not have had the ability to challenge ideas and create modern day inventions.
Comparing Evangelicals to Harry Potter readers is nothing short of eccentric. Evangelicals are told to believe in creationism,the notions of afterlife, retribution, etc. There is no practice of indoctrination of sorcery where children are told to believe that Harry Potter stories are valid. Harry Potter is not a divine belief. It's purely of entertainment value. The age of black magic and witchcraft has long since ended for us to make that distinction, unlike religion.
Let people live in a delusion that they are vampires, just as someone may proclaim he is Napoleon. The bottom line is that's miniscule and society does not take them seriously. It's science-fiction; populations have labeled witches and vampires as fiction. It is not threatening in the same standards as religion, which has existed for thousands of years through mass propagandism and persuasion as well as an enormous amount of financing to its benefit.
i think you'll find the amount of truly indoctrinated religious people in our culture is less than the number of people with equally religious faith in non-religious things. i have a zero-tolerance policy for all faith, i refuse to let people live in their delusions.
Actually it seems like you have more of a botheration with people have vested interests outside your own, and it seems you take their interests too literal. Some people rather live life in a more imaginary sense. It's nothing to be threatened by, unless it's dogmatic religion that argues to have their values to be ingrained in the law of the land.
Which I must stress again - is NOT the case with self proclaimed vampires or those who read Harry Potter
It seems like you want to instill a censorship amongst people's absorptions. Perhaps you should start your own communist country where you can authorize public opinon. That's no more rational, progressive, and parochial in comparison to ethics of organised religion. Systems of totalitarianism have never benefited a society in a more enterprising and dynamic sense. The concept of restricting opinion and public interest is bronze-aged.
moral relativism is where religion comes from. with a scientific view comes a very rigid sense of morality, and for a thinking being to harm themself or others by denying reality is wrong and must be prevented and stopped.
It's a very curious thing to hear an Atheist/Free-Thinker say interests in science-fiction should be classified as 'wrong and must be prevented and stopped.' Your mentality is dogmatic and nothing short of being religious like.
Furthermore, fanatical religion comes from ages of tyranny through culture and by childhood indoctrination. Moral relativism is only threatening when it's revolutionary.
What you are arguing is for people not to be able to choose.
With his subsequent books, Dawkins will do more to raise our consciousness in his retirement than he could spending time as a professor.
I have a book coming out soon (google: The Land of Intuit) that is a fantasy story which uses scientific "magic" with a moral/allegory on how young readers can follow their intuitions to remain curious and think critically. I can only hope to come close to Dawkins but I'll give it a go.
Seems like a good idea. I don't think that things like Harry Potter are bad at all, and they might have their place, but what Dawkins' is doing isn't taking the 'magic out of childhood'- he's replacing the magic of illusion with the magic of reality.
Frankly it seems bizarre that this hasn't been done long ago, with what we now know about life, humanity, and the universe.
I'm an atheist and I greatly respect him, yet I think he's missing a slight distinction re: magic and fairy tales for children when he says "BELIEF" in spells and tales as opposed to merely THINKING about them.
As a child it's great fun to THINK about them, for a moment, without necessarily believing in them. And as children grow older, there is a great lesson to be learned about how not to let desire trump reality.
They'd miss that lesson if they were taught "it's bollocks" from day one.
well some Children do beleive, because I remember when I was younger, i was terribly dissapointed when I was not contacted to attend Hogwarts. But it's whether they cling on to that belief or they outgrow it and become rational adults that is the concern.
Id say its more likely that you will repent that instead of appreciating the beauty and majesty of this world and your life, you wasted your time telepathically kissing the ass of some Jewish zombie from the Bronze Age.
You were the key player in provoking me to view the world through different eyes Richard. I hope you live to a ripe old age.
petestrat07 1 year ago
Wow. they interview drunken footballers who cheat on their wives and drug-addicted pop stars with reverence and patience and yet the first thing they ask him, Richard Dawkins, professor at Oxford for 12 years, is: "Do you think you've failed in any sense?"-well if he has failed I don't think he would be being interviewed- his ability to communicate science is the reason the scientifically-illiterate crowd at channel 4 IS interviewing him; by teaching science in baby-talk to the public.
MuonRay 1 year ago
Ok Richard, I would push you out of the way of a bus and allow myself to get hit, but if you go after my happy fictional books like harry potter your touching a nerve sir. I grew up watching Looney tunes cartoons yet it has never occurred to me that I could drop an anvil on someone or float in mid air if I walked off a cliff until I noticed..Remember many things in science and technology today came from science fiction writers that sparked the imagination of people to become scientists.
barthburger 1 year ago 4
this guy owns religion like chuck norris owns evrything else !!
oBLACKIECHANoo 1 year ago
Fantasy shouldn't be mixed with religious belief. Religion is dangerous, fantasy as in religion that isn't taken seriously is a very inspirering thing. Archetypes for different human emotions fighting each other in fictional worlds that doesn't depend on reality. You can achieve beautiful things with fantasy, religion is fantasy...but fantasy isn't religion. Dawkins should seperate the two, even though I agree about everything else he sais. He is a bit wrong in this interview...
Hermoor 1 year ago
Dawkins is arrogant like PZ Myers. Both claim to listen to dissenting views but neither do, even from other atheists (like me). If they reject other atheists and defragment christians going onto their blogs and forums, then it make me wonder what their agenda is. I think the agenda of both of these men is not the goodness of mankind but themselves.
nicksynnz 1 year ago
All I can say about Children and myth is that it's quite possible that the awakening that occurs when a child finds out the first few fables that are untrue that drives them to discovery. What better drive could there be then finding out something you thought was so.. was not.
I'm quite firmly convinced it is that very thing that drives science further and further on.
PaleHearse 1 year ago
@PaleHearse You make a good point.
masala505 1 year ago
Here we have the unacceptable face of scientism. This is the Cromwellian Puritanism that cancelled Christmas, enforced its austere views willy-nilly and led directly to the Restoration. Children distinguish fantasy from reality without any problem, they don't need some po-faced watchdog telling what not to read and enjoy. I hope that Dr Dawkins was taken out of context. If so he should be more careful of what he says and how it could be construed.
colourmegone 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@noirkitten " I'm quite let down by Dawkins harsh understanding of the joys fairy-tales can bring children "
Oh of course.. Dawkins is out to kill Cinderella now.
* sigh
You've completely missed the point.
Roper122 1 year ago
Dawkins is starting to sound like the religious nuts he's opposed to...
jackooboy1 1 year ago
Children are not brought up to believe in fairy tales. They're encouraged to use their imagination. That's a subtle but important distinction.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Haroldbeavis1969
"Children are not brought up to believe in fairy tales."
-
Have you ever been taught of any religion when you were a kid? Santa Claus, possibly? Did you believe in the boogie man?
justforflag2 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Teaching children arbitrary mythology IS teaching them to believe in fairy tales. If somebody taught their kids to believe in Amen-Re or Zuess today they would be considered bad parents and simply weird or stupid. I wonder then why it's okay to teach a different mythology which is just as unsupported (Christianity, Islam...etc). Religious faith, by definition, is identical to a delusion: Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.
brj0207 1 year ago
@brj0207 Uh, yes, I think we're in agreement but that's not what I was referring to. Parents aren't teaching their children to believe in such fairy tales as Jack in the Beanstalk, Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood etc. They're teaching them to use their imagination. To your point, they tend to treat stories based on the deity of their choice with a little more weight.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Parent's (hopefully) DON'T teach their kids to BELIEVE in fairy tales, but simply as entertainment. For the most part, they tell them it's fake...or eventually at least, in the case of things like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
They do teach their kids to actually BELIEVE in things like Christianity. They teach them to simply follow the heard and not question it, and THAT is wrong.
brj0207 1 year ago
@brj0207 Precisely my point brj. Organized religion is crock of BS that requires parents to brainwash their children in order to sustain itself.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Either way though, teaching organized or independent religion to children is psychologically unhealthy, as it leads the child to believe that logical reasoning and evidence are not the only ways truth can be found. However, they are.
brj0207 1 year ago
@brj0207 Not sure what the difference between organized and independent religion is other than the former tends to have been around longer and has more followers. I don't know about "psychologically unhealthy" but i do think teaching religion to children is an immoral practice. Many of us were taught this garbage as youngsters. But as we started becoming educated we learned it was a total crock. Some of us anyway. Can't speak for others but i don't think i was psychologically damaged.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Well I meant independent as in the parents may be "spiritual" or moderately Christian, Muslim, etc. I don't think it's exactly HEALTHY to believe religion is true, but I may have exaggerated a little in the last message.
The only problem happens when the people early on decide whether their religion is actually true or not, and if they think it's true, it's often hard to get them out of it even showing them a MOUNTAIN of contrary evidence. Hence Pat Robertson, Kent Hovind, etc.
brj0207 1 year ago
@brj0207 Pat Robertson, Kent Hovind, ShockofGod, etc are akin to snake oil salesmen. Buy my elixir and I guarantee you'll feel better. Who doesnt want to feel better? The problem with people who buy and sell this crap is they don't understand that the truth is a never-ending journey. It certainly is not a destination that can be arrived at by reading so-called "Holy" books, perhaps aptly named since they're filled with so many holes.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 lol that was nice. Either way, I don't think science OR religion have the actual answers to questions like how the universe formed, the origin of life, etc... but science is the closest to the truth as we'll know it for as long as we exist.
brj0207 1 year ago
@brj0207 Here's the difference: Religion doesnt have the answer but they're convinced they do: God did it, not need to look any fruther. Science doesnt have the answer but it will continue to look for clues that might provide an answer.
Again, you're confusing truth as a destination when it's merely a journey. Nineteenth century French writer Andre Gide put it best: Believe those seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.
Haroldbeavis1969 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Science does have the answers in a literal and/or practical sense. It gives the best supported explanations, and is the only truth about physical things. With the origins of the universe, it may be a never ending journey for humankind because of it's complexity; but things like the laws of physics, from a literal/practical standpoint, are the only truths.
Mental concepts like emotions are in a completely different realm of thinking, and cannot really be scientifically assessed.
brj0207 1 year ago
@brj0207 just as long as concepts as emotions stay in their realm, no one has any objections. but when some try to explain physical world was made by those 'mental concepts', that's a different story. either you keep them separate, or accept inquiry and scepticism.
hipp6y 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hipp6y "...some try to explain physical world was made by those 'mental concepts', that's a different story."
I'm not following you here...
brj0207 1 year ago
@Haroldbeavis1969 Well said!
masala505 1 year ago
Far from having a "pernicious" effect on an individual's sense/.perception of reality, I'd argue that exposure to the fantastical and the magical in fiction provides precisely the opposite. Becoming familiar with the tropes, themes and traditional structures of fairy-tales, mythic sagas etc allows one to recognise them for what they are; it is one of the many reasons I rejected biblical and associated mythologies at an early age; I was able to compare and contrast them with, for example...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy
...the Greek and Nordic myths and realise that there were common themes, character templates, rhythms, recurring stories told in different ways etc etc. This does not rob said tale sof their beauty or human significance, and it worries me that Dawkins seems to demonstrate a misunderstanding of their true worth, that is not as rigid ideologies, accounts of percieved histories etc, but expressions of the inner narrative and self mythologisation of humanity that expresses...
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
@ExaggeratedElegy
...as much about our own protean, internal worlds as physics, chemistry and biology do about the external. It's sort of like saying: "I don't see the point in dreaming."
ExaggeratedElegy 1 year ago
When I was a child, I did an experiment to see if there was a correlation between not telling my mum when my tooth fell out then putting it under my pillow and a bit of money appearing under my pillow the next morning. I conducted my experiment 4 times and all 4 times, there was still the tooth under my bed and never any money. When I told my mum about it years later she laughed but I hope my kids are the same and I promise never to feed them lies like that.
ciaracustard 1 year ago
For those who say "but he didn't retire!". Well, he didn't retire as an active promoter of Rationalism, he retired as a professor in Oxford.
grimordwow 1 year ago
As long as you know harry potter isn't real it's not a problem. Richard dawkins shouldn't attack the world of fairy tales and fantasy. Fantasy is what makes us humans, and what makes us create great art. As long as it's just a fantasy and not a religion it's fine. But of course there are crazy cults around harry potter as well >_>
Hermoor 1 year ago
@Hermoor who said he was going to?
Springheel01 1 year ago
Good Job Richard, Your a good man.
mattyrm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ppsimmons videos will open your eyes about evil-lution
do you know that the Bible says that there would be false religions, false messiahs,Jesus said many would come in my name and deceive many,he said there would b whole church in deceit when He said that MANY would come in My name and deceive many,so if you sort out all the wrong stuff it narrows it down considerable
majorl31 2 years ago
Dawkins is sooo victorian in his thinking, he is sooo 1800s. (the triumph of) rationality, progress, scientific materialism, reductionism
peacewalker7 2 years ago
what the fuk he didint retire his comming to australia and new zeland in march.
moe69girls 2 years ago
... for a few days to um, meet his fans
lukeism2 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
It sort of implying in a way... that he is talking about 'Harry Potter', but I see those stories intellectually stimulating by using the creative areas of the mind. Being creative has a lot of attributes that are found beneficial in science, finding unique solutions to otherwise over-bearing problems.
But Richard Dawkins a children's book writer? Imagine that? I wonder if the adults in this generation will take as much interest in them as the kids would? we'll see.
INSOMNASTALGICAL 2 years ago 2
i think its essential that he does reach out to children as theyre always society's future.kids and fairytales go together too well and it makes things worse when adults fill their heads with mythical nonsense such as santa claus,the easter bunny,etc.although the problem might be that parents will avoid his publications because theyre brainwashed,not so much that theyre not interested in purchasing his material for their children.
TLSlayer 2 years ago
Dawkins is by no means opposed to Harry Potter, Lord of The Rings, or Beowulf for that matter. This is one of many examples of the media trying to portray Dawkins as a stuck up, angry old man. He is merely trying to counter the numerous brain washing efforts of adult authorities, with a more rational approach. Get the fuck off his case people. If you ever decided to read any of his books, you would realize that he is a humorous, intelligent person.
sfmike20 2 years ago 4
Notice that Richard Dawkins didn't even mention Harry Potter. Notice that he didn't unequivocally state that fairy tales warp children's minds. He was just asking, in the same way someone might ask if Barbies give girls unrealistic expectations of how their bodies should look. Nothing wrong with investigating.
InYourFaceNewYorker 2 years ago 4
I'll tell you the effects of letting children believe in fairytales and magic... it allows them to be children and have fun. For goodness sake Dawkins I agree with you on a lot of things but we're talking about innocent children's fun for crying out loud, kids have about 10 or so years of their life before they realise how fucked up the world is and what life is really like... they have every right to enjoy magic, myths, fairytales and a make believe world if it gives them fun and happiness.
bazzymushpea123 2 years ago 2
You act like you don't still do that as an adult anyways.
rkyeun 2 years ago
Yes it does, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a good book or a fantasy like Harry Potter, I love the Matrix myself. But it not good for them to not known the difference between fact or fiction.
myg0tpurepunk 2 years ago
Of course, but it usually becomes very clear to a child by their teenager years as to what they take as fact, fiction or what could possibly be fact. Aslong as they are not indoctrinated and it doesn't harm anyone- they can take whatever they want as being true.
bazzymushpea123 2 years ago
Of course it does, myself even at 5 I didn't believe in Father Christmas. But some kids arn't like that.
myg0tpurepunk 2 years ago
DAT FUCKING IDIOT GOD
RRRRRFONG 2 years ago
Once again the media is forcing this kind of controversial image of Dawkins. Not once in this interview did he "tackle Harry Potter", he merely said he would like to write a children's book promoting science and critical thinking. Nor did he say that fiction is wrong, which some posters here somehow seem to have heard..
Furthermore, he is neither a geneticist nor an "evangelical atheist". I don´t want to seem like a fanboy, but the damn dude just always says things I happen to agree with.
thinghurlos 2 years ago 6
If it means I don't have to hear another word about Harry Fucking Potter or Lord of the Rings then I'm all for it.
NapoleonInDrag 2 years ago
(suite) i understand your point of view is but let it be taken slowly cause not all poeple are the same level of consciousness and killing their fary tale is the equivalent of killing their saoul,and by personal experience it is worst killing one in a what you call saoul than a physical killing
mystisme 2 years ago
please richads do not take the imaginary state of mind of kids away they need it , even adult need it sometime there is planty of time to be down to earth ,we have to be balance psychologically speaking , i my self is a big fan of scientifique world and i consider myself as scientist but sometime i permit myself to let go and live in farytale into my mind like if a was an e.t. coming to the earth what will i do what i gonna say about their belive systeme would i tell some one who i amect,,,,
mystisme 2 years ago
Uh, what? Kids don't believe Harry Potter is real, Mr. Dawkins. I've been with you all the way up until now, but how do you not understand the entire genre of fiction? You have a fucking PHD...
I don't even like HP, I can't believe I have to defend it against a fellow atheist of all people.
TheBSG 2 years ago
[Uh, what? Kids don't believe Harry Potter is real, Mr. Dawkins]
I didn't understand this to be what he meant.
rrpostalagain 2 years ago
When did he say people believe harry potter is real?
dietermauer 2 years ago 3
He said nothing about Harry Potter, he spoke of magic and mysticism and their real-life applications, not pieces of entertainment.
ShadowKain666 2 years ago
I agree. I thought it was totally absurd that he used the phrase "brought up to believe" concerning Harry Potter and mythical fantasy books. Religion is taught to children as being true. They are told this is how the world works. Harry Potter is taught as being entertainment. They are brought up to believe it is not true. No adverse effect. Kind of like how Dawkins advocates teaching the Bible in schools (as fiction) to understand allusions in Western literature.
prolefeedprocessor 2 years ago
It doesn't even make sense, and almost seems like a poorly edited moment, in hindsight. Why would he say "I don't know what to think of magic." It's allegorical, it's fantastical, it's outside of rational thinking and in a realm of exploration. Does he not dream? Even if we knew exactly what dreams were, it wouldn't change their effect. Reading a good fantasy novel is a way to stretch the brain, just like a good joint. It sounds like Dick just needs to let loose.
TheBSG 2 years ago
I hope this book comes out in time for me to read it to my kid. It sounds like a great tool to begin teaching children to think like mature adults rather than nieve, brainwashed asses.
TimMcGrath74 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sometimes being able to suspend our own sense of disbelief. Without imagination we are nothing! Though thats not to say that i would ever condone taking our imagination completely literally.
hanson666999 2 years ago
Teaching kids about things that are real is a good thing. Teaching kids about things that aren't real is a waste of time.
jpayne68177 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yawn, yawn, have't we seen garden variety bigots, small-minded hate mongers like Dawkins, yes weve seen it all before. In pre-war Germany, it was "Jew-science" the preposterous doctrine that Jews were responsible for all crime on earth. Dawkins has a whole slew of preposterous beliefs he peddles as "science". His name, rhymes with "Hawking" other than that, he nothing to do with science. Just another demagogue.
karlmahlmann 2 years ago
haha, funny
Skimpot 2 years ago
What an ignorant fool you are. Dawkins is not a hate monger, he is an intelligent, clear thinking man who has produced an enlightened way of approaching the delusion of belief in religion.
roac7777 2 years ago 2
this a joke response right? You're comparing Dawkins to the Nazi's? You obviously have not read any of his work. His knowledge in science is vast and his overall depth of knowledge is remarkable. I suppose his being a Professor at Oxford is some anti-theist conspiracy, right?
carlrw630 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If you're impressed by academic credentials perhaps you should check-out Nobel Laureate William Shockley, inventor of the transistor, prominent Atheist / racist who taught that Blacks should be paid to not reproduce. Like Dawkins, a thin veneer and pretense of science and social concern and a hard core of bigotry & hatred. Yes we have seen it all before. There is nothing new under the sun.
karlmahlmann 2 years ago
And how is Dawkins a racist or similar to racists?
Spartan9688 2 years ago 2
Richard Dawkins is not a GENETICIST.
He's an evolutionary biologist.
Otzmatron 2 years ago
I like Richard Dawkins but I think he takes himself and his crusade too serious. Science is important and critical thinking is important too but I just don't get why he feeling the need to attack fantasy and fairytale. I really don't see these things as being "anti-science" as he says. Children should be allowed to play. I love science but I also love to dream from time to time. I would not want to imagine a child who never has a dream or fantasy.
phlewis86 2 years ago
Well his kids books sound like their going to be boring.
I think he should just team up with some who already wrights kids books, and make a scientist version of Nancy Drew. Because Richard Dawkins maybe a bit of a buzz kill for kids.
DiceWarwick 2 years ago
That's assuming that science and reason are "boring". I don't find them in the least bit boring, and I didn't as a child either.
AtheistBrit 2 years ago
Thank you Mr Richard Dawkins,for you speak the truth,there are no myths in what you say and I`m certain that you will take into account,that all young childrens imaginations,are ,simplistic,unexplainable,beyond belief,and above all imaginary.A bit like religion :)
naybobdenod 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good. Psalm 53:1
boxofthoughts 2 years ago
now i totally agree with Dawkins views on religion but....a childs book?
i think the point of childhood is to learn for yourself, discover its truth's and fantasies by experience. i mean if they never came up with santa clause then we would never be excited of a jolly man coming down our chimney and giving us gifts, and us behaving for the entire year just for it. we would just stare at our parents wanting toy's
logic i think is a necessity but who says you cant have some imagination.
pyromaster2 2 years ago
He is awesome in certain respects but I cannot entirely agree with this idea. I think it is awesome that kids get told many imaginative fascinating stories and I think thats its great to do that in a fictional context. There needs to be an important division of fantasy and reality but that doesnt mean the villification of fantasy and fiction.On reflection if he can do it objectively then I think it is a good idea.
Mikey2058888 2 years ago 3
Well, the way I see it, its one thing to show someone a card tric and another thing to tell them its magic. Or its one thing to read a spiderman comic to your kid and another one to tell him that spiderman is real. Etc. Think you see my point. I think (hope) thats what he is saying.
0no1one 2 years ago
:( hes not teaching anymore? - he should become a part time/substitute highschool science teacher until the end.
nodvick 2 years ago 2
yeah he would be the best subtitute ever
especialy in RE
77Metallica 2 years ago 6
He would be the best gym class prof... "RUN FASTER EAT OR BE EATEN"
BFGUITAR 2 years ago 3
NATURAL SELECTION MY FRIENDS!!
pyromaster2 2 years ago
Alvin Plantinga certainly found The God Delusion pretty funny.
23discordians 2 years ago
Well I'd certainly like to say Harry Potter banned, mostly because it's so poorly written.
dococksmother 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is missing some basic parts that make people normal What kind of person goes around saying human DNA was created by aliens, then says no one should read harry potter because its not real. Dawkins says that raising children is best left to the state and that the state should teach children only what dawkins deems appropriate.
karlmahlmann 2 years ago
and you lack the basic elements of comprehension . He said neither of what you have stated. Shame on you for twisting his words into something obtuse and untrue
rationalpower 2 years ago 17
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Twist his words?? Are you kidding?? His words and thoughts are twisted enough. Dawkins uses the most extreme vitriol in describing any other belief concerning the meaning and purpose of life -other than his own beliefs (the word for that is bigotry) And he openly talks about the State's obligation to teach Atheism to children. His position on aliens is that if we can't find any explanation for the origin of life on Earth, there are always aliens, they could have done it. How crazy is that??
karlmahlmann 2 years ago
No I'm not kidding & again you are mis quoting him and babbling nothing more than BS. You lack the ability to understand the spoken english word. He was asked what OTHER POSSIBLE mechanism could there be for life on earth & he suggested exobiology which only suggests that microbial organism could have been present perhaps within the ice of comets that impacted on early earth. This a normally accepted argument for the foundations of life on our planet. Alien life doesn't mean green men
rationalpower 2 years ago 13
Dude, did you watch some other video because this video does not reflect a thing you are saying! What gives?
dheeraj12 2 years ago
loool u silly silly muppet
gezzer2 2 years ago
No Waterman, what he meant was that things turning into other things in a supernatural sense is unscientific. Evolution is done only in a natural sense. And as for us not being "merely complex arrangements of particles," try going into a coma or shooting yourself in the head and see how much "energy" is still flowing through you. We are amazingly complex beings that have naturally evolved over billions of years via the non-random process of natural selection.
Jdawgg49 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Did he just say that things turning into other things is unscientific? Isn't that what evolution is? Would this guy please shutup and let kids still have an imagination? We are not merely complex arrangements of particles. There is an energy that flows through all life forms. I don't know if its god, allah, or moses, but there is something.
Waterman42069 3 years ago
I wonder if Dawkins and Hitchens have to hire security for protection
AtheistRevolutionX 3 years ago
I know that Hitchens has had to (he talks about it in several of his books), after he and his family received death threats, mainly from muslims who were upset with Hitchens having and voicing an opinion about their religion.
stalwartatheist 2 years ago
Harry Potter is a fucking story! Thats the purpose of stories. THey are funa nd amusing but not real. Taking away a childs imagination hurts creativity. Imagining things is diffrent from belivign they are real. I used to imagine that I had millions of dollars but I did not BELIVE it. THeres a diffrence. Now I am a millionaire (for real) so its fun to loo back and go "BOOYAH!". Well my dads a millionaire.
Hamhark98 3 years ago
The organisation that made the report presented it as Dawkins Vs Harry Potter. He didn't say anything about telling kids that Harry Potter is rubbish. He just spoke about his idea for writing a book for kids that would present a scientific outlook on things. Your a victim of journalistic editing.
rannygrash 2 years ago 5
There are plenty of evidences to suggest we come from a related gene pool.
dysonwolf 3 years ago
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the same material was used, not that we came from the same thing.
"The chance of plants and animals coming up with DNA independently is astronomical" - I completely agree.
Is it not possible for all humans, animals, and plants to have been individually designed using the same basic formula and given the skills to survive and adapt?
Common ancestor or common creator?
cschreirat 3 years ago
Do you think intelligent design is a science?
dysonwolf 3 years ago
you didn't answer my question. I see no reason to answer yours
cschreirat 3 years ago
It seems that our conversation has steered to ID. I merely wanted to make clear of our topic. Balls in your court.
dysonwolf 3 years ago
The theory of evolution or Darwinism is to say that all life on earth is an accident. I'm not arguing with evolution in the sense that creatures adapt. I just wanted to make that clear.
Now when you look at the vascular system, the muscular system, or the precision of the solar system and see the complexity of it all how can one say that it was an accident?
If one force or one component of the solar system was off or changed the earth would be unable to sustain life. That was an accident?
cschreirat 3 years ago
Comment removed
dysonwolf 3 years ago
2) Is life an accident?
Not quite. Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago.
It was close enough from the sun to have water (the basis for a lot of chemical reactions).
Primitive earth had quite a bit of organic compounds- Ammonia, Methane, Water, Hydrogen, to list a few.
It also had quite a lot of activities from Volcanoes, storms, earth quakes (lots of electricity, heat, and UV).
SO what happens when you add all this together?
Water + organic compounds + energy= amino acids
dysonwolf 3 years ago
Stanley Miller showed this in the 1950s.
Amino acids are the building blocks for protein.
What happens next?
According to Dawkins(selfish gene theory), amino acids/protein forms a replicating molecule(RM). Replicating molecules spread though out the oceans. Replicating molecules change (mutates) due to effects of electricity, heat, and UV.
Result- Some RM become successful and more complicated e.g. starts to steal molecules from other RM (precursor to eating).
dysonwolf 3 years ago
Replicating molecules have been developed in the lab by Julius Rebek 1990.
RM changes though time and eventually reaches the stage of simple prokaryotes.
dysonwolf 3 years ago
Comment removed
dysonwolf 3 years ago
Comment removed
dysonwolf 3 years ago
Also you said yourself that "the chance of plants and animals coming up with DNA independently is astronomical".
What about psychology and reproduction? How can it be that organisms on their own decided who would be male and female? How did they just happen to know to grow the right parts fitting them together to create another life form?
cschreirat 3 years ago
the chance of plants and animals coming up with DNA independently is astronomical.
what i mean=
why didn't plants come up with another way of passing genes besides using DNA? The fact that both plants and animals use DNA to pass on info suggests that we come from a common ancestor. (also check out similarities in plant and animal cells and hormones.
dysonwolf 3 years ago 2
Or there's the molecule in and of itself. there are so many intricate parts of it that interact perfectly within itself and then interact perfectly with other molecules to form systems and structures and they know what to do without being told.
Perhaps there was a plan all along.
cschreirat 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To answer your questions-
1) What are the chances of earth being the only hospitable planet for life?
Lets see:
There are over 100 billion stars in our galaxy.
There are over 100 billion galaxies in our universe.
What are the chances of earth being the only planet hospitable to life?
>1: 1.0x10^22 as Im not counting planets.
dysonwolf 3 years ago
As for ID
watch the doc
NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial | PBS
dysonwolf 3 years ago
Have you ever considered that you've been lied to by organised religion?
dysonwolf 3 years ago 2
However, intelligent design is the answer scientists are faced with when they cannot come up with a theory for the origin of life.
Intelligent design is the answer to the question. It is truth, much like gravity.
cschreirat 3 years ago
please give me evidence that supports intelligent design.
before that, you might want to watch this-
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
dysonwolf 3 years ago
3) Anatomy- Homologous organs. Bone structures of a human hand, bats wing, seals flippers, etc are quite common. Notice the 5 arrays in the hand, wings, and flippers.
Independently developed or common ancestor?
4) Physiology- general- check out similarities in hormones and their purpose in organisms such as Estrogen and Testosterone. Check out organs- heart, lungs, stomach, etc. Check similarities in DNA between humans, rats, and monkeys. Independently developed or common ancestor?
dysonwolf 3 years ago
wait....things turning into other things is unscientific? I thought that's what evolution was
cschreirat 3 years ago
what does science mean to you?
dysonwolf 3 years ago
knowledge and information gained through systematic study. I don't know if you were looking for my understanding of the term or if by "mean" you were refering to how important it is to me. You should be more clear.
cschreirat 3 years ago
What makes you think Evolution isn't a science?
dysonwolf 3 years ago
I never said that. Don't make accusations.
Richard Dawkins clearly said that "things turning into other thing is unscientific". The theory of evolution is that one thing can turn into another.
cschreirat 3 years ago
Things don't turn into other things.
An apple doesn't turn into a coconut.
An organism 'changes.' For example, In London, White moths changed into black moths to blend in with the smoked stained evironment. Why? Natural selection- white moths were easier to spot and catch, the darker moths weren't. Black moths multiplied moreso than white moths.
dysonwolf 3 years ago
But the moth is still a moth. Adaptation is common sense and not the same as saying that all current life forms came from one common ancestral gene pool. A gene pool that scientist cannot prove existed or how it got there in the first place.
cschreirat 3 years ago
We do have evidence.
1) Chemistry- DNA. Plants and animals use DNA to pass info from one generation to another. The chance of plants and animals coming up with DNA independently is astronomical. Perhaps we share a common ancestor?
2) Physiology- Embryology. humans, fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals look alike at the early stages of development. We all have gill slits.
Independently developed or common ancestor?
dysonwolf 3 years ago 2
He's already written a children's book, The God Delusion. It's for really bad children who are afraid of being punished. Dawkins hates God and thinks aliens made us. Yes, he's one heck of a scientist. Just look at his fan base.
karlmahlmann 3 years ago
Actually, Dawkins doesn't believe aliens made us. And there's really no cause to impugn his professional integrity by making a pointless ad hominem against his "fans."
But, I suppose actually having something to say is too much for you.
dhx84 3 years ago 3
Wow... what an unbelievable twisting of the facts. You're way off the mark, but then, you probably enjoy believing the delusion, don't you?
911goodbye 2 years ago
keep writing Dawkins
LotharioCasanova 3 years ago 3
Atheism is a worldview, not a religion
sakuraba633 3 years ago 4
No, atheism is just the disbelief in a stupid claim, it is not a worldview. When you say you are an atheist, all you say is "i dont believe in god", which is not to be mistaken with "i am sure god doesnt exist". that's all, no worldview, no religion.
notToast 3 years ago 3
I agree. It annoys me that atheism is turned into some sort of philosophy or "religion". All it is is lacking belief in all gods. Christians lack belief in all gods but the judeo-christian god. We just choose to not believe in that god either. People do not believe in unicorns, but they do not belong to the a-unicorn worldview, philosophy, or religion. Double standards at their best...
laxplayer231 3 years ago
atheism is a non-prophet organisation.
neomp5 3 years ago
Atheism also accredits free thinking.
Why can't I seem to grasp that from your attitude?
wysock84 3 years ago
Richard Dawkins is my absolute hero, but I think Harry Potter and religion are very seperate understandings. I don't think Harry Potter is threatening to Children in the same respect as religious indoctrnation is.
wysock84 3 years ago
any fiction is threatening when a person allows it to replace reality
neomp5 3 years ago
That's a bit outlandish. Literature is fiction, and we are not about to expell that just because some texts are 'unscientific'. We can still use our imagination for entertainment value and not be convinced that Magic Spells are real. You are missing the larger picture here. Imagination invokes ideas/possibilities, and if we didn't test our imaginations we would not have had the ability to challenge ideas and create modern day inventions.
wysock84 3 years ago
but when someone replaces reality with fiction, it becomes threatening. fiction is vastly beneficial, but only when you know it's fiction.
neomp5 3 years ago
Now you are just assuming that people don't know that Harry Potter is fiction.
Kind of ridiculous.
wysock84 3 years ago
people don't accept that the bible is fiction. that's no more ridiculous, and many fiction fanbases are just as religious as any evangelical church.
see Schoolspirit17's comment above.
neomp5 3 years ago
Comparing Evangelicals to Harry Potter readers is nothing short of eccentric. Evangelicals are told to believe in creationism,the notions of afterlife, retribution, etc. There is no practice of indoctrination of sorcery where children are told to believe that Harry Potter stories are valid. Harry Potter is not a divine belief. It's purely of entertainment value. The age of black magic and witchcraft has long since ended for us to make that distinction, unlike religion.
Note the difference.
wysock84 3 years ago
tell that to the overimaginative anne rice fans who actually think they're vampires.
indocrtination helps systems of faith spread, but people still choose them.
neomp5 3 years ago
Let people live in a delusion that they are vampires, just as someone may proclaim he is Napoleon. The bottom line is that's miniscule and society does not take them seriously. It's science-fiction; populations have labeled witches and vampires as fiction. It is not threatening in the same standards as religion, which has existed for thousands of years through mass propagandism and persuasion as well as an enormous amount of financing to its benefit.
You need to consider those factors.
wysock84 3 years ago
i think you'll find the amount of truly indoctrinated religious people in our culture is less than the number of people with equally religious faith in non-religious things. i have a zero-tolerance policy for all faith, i refuse to let people live in their delusions.
neomp5 3 years ago
Actually it seems like you have more of a botheration with people have vested interests outside your own, and it seems you take their interests too literal. Some people rather live life in a more imaginary sense. It's nothing to be threatened by, unless it's dogmatic religion that argues to have their values to be ingrained in the law of the land.
Which I must stress again - is NOT the case with self proclaimed vampires or those who read Harry Potter
wysock84 3 years ago
And you "refuse" it?
It seems like you want to instill a censorship amongst people's absorptions. Perhaps you should start your own communist country where you can authorize public opinon. That's no more rational, progressive, and parochial in comparison to ethics of organised religion. Systems of totalitarianism have never benefited a society in a more enterprising and dynamic sense. The concept of restricting opinion and public interest is bronze-aged.
No better than what religion is.
wysock84 3 years ago
moral relativism is where religion comes from. with a scientific view comes a very rigid sense of morality, and for a thinking being to harm themself or others by denying reality is wrong and must be prevented and stopped.
neomp5 3 years ago
It's a very curious thing to hear an Atheist/Free-Thinker say interests in science-fiction should be classified as 'wrong and must be prevented and stopped.' Your mentality is dogmatic and nothing short of being religious like.
Furthermore, fanatical religion comes from ages of tyranny through culture and by childhood indoctrination. Moral relativism is only threatening when it's revolutionary.
What you are arguing is for people not to be able to choose.
You should be stopped!
wysock84 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He has a religion, it's called atheism.
SauronsEye 3 years ago
Stop making yourself look like a fool and look up the meaning of the word "religion."
jjukil 3 years ago 8
Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
Zing!
Greywyn7 3 years ago 9
With his subsequent books, Dawkins will do more to raise our consciousness in his retirement than he could spending time as a professor.
I have a book coming out soon (google: The Land of Intuit) that is a fantasy story which uses scientific "magic" with a moral/allegory on how young readers can follow their intuitions to remain curious and think critically. I can only hope to come close to Dawkins but I'll give it a go.
gotaiwo 3 years ago
How did I miss this???
xneuroticxloserx 3 years ago
Seems like a good idea. I don't think that things like Harry Potter are bad at all, and they might have their place, but what Dawkins' is doing isn't taking the 'magic out of childhood'- he's replacing the magic of illusion with the magic of reality.
Frankly it seems bizarre that this hasn't been done long ago, with what we now know about life, humanity, and the universe.
sws5 3 years ago
I'm an atheist and I greatly respect him, yet I think he's missing a slight distinction re: magic and fairy tales for children when he says "BELIEF" in spells and tales as opposed to merely THINKING about them.
As a child it's great fun to THINK about them, for a moment, without necessarily believing in them. And as children grow older, there is a great lesson to be learned about how not to let desire trump reality.
They'd miss that lesson if they were taught "it's bollocks" from day one.
HolyFungus 3 years ago 4
well some Children do beleive, because I remember when I was younger, i was terribly dissapointed when I was not contacted to attend Hogwarts. But it's whether they cling on to that belief or they outgrow it and become rational adults that is the concern.
Schoolspirit17 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He will so repent one day.
Metsada007 3 years ago
Id say its more likely that you will repent that instead of appreciating the beauty and majesty of this world and your life, you wasted your time telepathically kissing the ass of some Jewish zombie from the Bronze Age.
ShadeeFan 3 years ago 5
Good word, good word.
jjukil 3 years ago
kinda looks like David Tennant
maastona 3 years ago
lol, just realized dawkins was a pretty handsome guy in his youth (not to say he isn't now), and I'm not even gay :(
maastona 3 years ago 4
My Dad is catholic!
dave7733 3 years ago
More fool him
ReeT0ric 3 years ago 2