I would love to see Prof. Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, I had to see Billy Graham (10+ years ago). I'm the only atheist in my family. My parents are Christians, but my Grandparents, wow... My grandfather asked me if I believe in the "Old Earth" or "New Earth", and I said, "The Earth is ~4.54 billion years old. It's a fact, so Old Earth." I want a "New Earth" (not the 6000 year old Earth) but an Earth where everyone agrees all religions will soon be mythology.
I was raised in a religiously neutral house. When it came time for me to start thinking about what religion I should choose, from an objective standpoint, religion seemed absolutely absurd to me. How is it possible for an "entity" to be so sadistic? I remember a quote from Dawkins. He said something about Atheism being a freeing experience. He was right, I feel like I am tied to myself and my family, no one else. My mind is free to think upon the questions that arise.
You cut out the heckler! He was amusing. I hope Richard took it philosophically; after all, is he trying to win a popularity contest, especially in God's America!?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I think that it is stupid to say that evolution is fact when not one human being has ever witnessed it, experienced it, or has any significant proof other than animals looking alike and having similar DNA or for evolution to be "scientific fact" if it has not yet been proven!
@Ztiller1991 I have heard it, and I belive it, but I belive it was God that made the positive mutations so he could improve the species in wich "evolution" has occured.
@natureman97 farmers change up the pesticide every number of seasons because insects grown immune to them. What do you think that is? its because the insects that can survive the pesticide can reproduce and it creates a population that becomes immune to that specific pesticide. That's evolution, thats been witnessed, its a fact.
@natureman97 why the god of the bible? why not god of Egyptian mythology. or Greek, the flying spaghetti monster. its only because the shear chance that you were born in this era, in that geographical location to discover this notion of god and christianity.
the success of the human specie can be mainly credited to our intelligence. Please stop spreading your plague of ignorance.
@hawkister I'm not the ignorant one but I will stop spreading the plague because that is just what a good cathic or cristian person would do why would a man of God spread somthing that cause pain and illness and death?
@natureman97 Its much harder to see evolution occur in humans because we mature sexually at a later age compared to other smaller organisms and the time between generation is much longer.
Think of your birth and the growth process as evolution. you can't tell that your maturing. only when this process of growth is sped up , by taking a picture every year, can you see that your growing. Each fossil we find, is just another picture to show us how life evolved.
For a true believer to try and seek, let alone find, any explanation for any part of the physical world other than it being God’s will and creation is at best a waste of time or irrelevant and at worst, rather blasphemous. Thinking of God should be enough and proves the world to be wicked. Get into it and continually relive Christ’s slow, painful death and to eat his body and drink his blood. Experience transcendent forgivenness and climax to a state of grace.
For a true believer to try and seek, let alone find, any explanation for any part of the physical world other than it being God’s will and creation is at best a waste of time or irrelevant and at worst, rather blasphemous. Thinking of God should be enough and proves the world to be wicked. Get into it and continually relive Christ’s slow, painful death and to eat his body and drink his blood. Experience transcendent forgivenness and climax to a state of grace.
@ritchloui here's a translation on what you said: "I believe it because i want it to be true and if you ever bring me evidence that i'm incorrect i will put my fingers on my ears and shout"
@mauriciohavok God delivered us his son so that we could kill him, endlessly. Jesus said he wanted to be eaten as well, and we reckon his mum was a virgin. The crucifixion should not be seen as the sacro-sexual passion of a blood cult, nor the eating and drinking of human blood as cannibalism. That there are no earthly remains of Jesus or Mary is evidence of truth. Not that the subsequent religion made it all up. Also, if Jesus’ father was not Joseph or Gabriel then his mum must be virgin.
@ritchloui Jesus was in fact a green alien, and he always preached the importance of having a towel handy, as for her mother she was indeed a virgin, what you don't know is that she got pregnant because of the annunaki who wanted to spread the word of the holy taco.
And I have the same amount of evidence to believe that as you. NONE WHATSOEVER.
@mauriciohavok I’m appalled that you think Jesus was a green alien, next you’ll be calling his father His Almighty Invisibleness. Presumably you think your green Jesus advised having a towel handy because God’s invisible hand is always at work. For heavens sake, if we couldn’t make exacting replicas of killing him on a cross and earnestly celebrating eating him all the time we wouldn’t know right from wrong for a start and would probably age quicker. Chew on that.
@ritchloui Morality has nothing to do with religion, if it did you would be killing disobeying children as stated in the bible, as for living longer, well in the Christian dark ages life expectancy was not even half of what it is today, and people were more religious then than now. I don't believe in green jesus, is as irrational as believing in regular Jesus.
For a true believer to try and seek, let alone find, any explanation for any part of the physical world other than it being God’s will and creation is at best a waste of time or irrelevant and at worst, rather blasphemous. Thinking of God should be enough and proves the world to be wicked. Get into it and continually relive Christ’s slow, painful death and to eat his body and drink his blood. Experience transcendent forgivenness and climax to a state of grace.
One of the biggest problems I have with the science world today is that they do not investigate both sides of the arguement. Without being biased, there is so much push saying that evolution is fact, when in reality it is just a theory. Though Dawkins and others like him have done extensive research on the topic, there are still major holes, like the creation of intelligence from non-intelligence, the violation of the law of non-contradiction, and spontaneous generation. All views require faith.
@ShilohPepBand actually you are right evolution is just a theory just like gravity there is no such thing as fact in science. and evolution has nothing to do with how life was created but merely the gradual altercation of species over time through natural selection. now there is alot of evidence for evolution I'll stick to one thing. nylonase the nylon eating bacteria was caused by a frame shift after the first 7% of DNA developed
Here, Richard Dawkins demonstrates one of the biggest fallacies in any argument: Reductio Ad Absurdum.
It is not that he is intolerant of Young Earth Creationist, but his over-all opinion that his is the only way of thinking about everything, and anyone who disagrees is a deranged & dangerous fool.
@mysticresistence "...and anyone who disagrees is a deranged & dangerous fool." I suppose you are correct, but can you think of another term more appropriate to describe someone who thinks the world is less than 10 000 years old?
@L00NGB00W No, the notion that, as astrophysicist Dr. Paul Davies says, the universe appears to have been set in motion by some first cause that could be called "God" does not equal a belief in a flying spaghetti monster. This is but one of the many fallacies Dawkins uses over & over again. Once upon a time religion had worthy opponents, like Nietzche, but now there are just people like Dawkins who wouldn't know a philosophical argument from a blue print of a genome.
In regards to the 'first cause', why not? It stands to reason that something 'started' the big-bang. But I see no reason why that 'something' should be some omnipotent, omnipresent, omnidesigning, invisible dude.
I agree that Nietzche was indeed a brilliant and unique individual. I think Fred and Dick could be thought of as being on opposite sides of the Pessimist/Optimist spectrum. I tend to lean more towards optimism.
@L00NGB00W I agree. I am a theist & believe in God, but I do not believe that God is a "big bearded white guy who lives in the sky" but rather is an unfathomable force beyond any real understanding. That is one of the many points that get overlooked in the "god debate", what definition of God are we talking about? The term is probably the most nebulous one in the English language. I'm ignostic: I believe in God, but am of the opinion that it really can't be fathomed by mortals
I don't like the word Atheist even though I am one myself, but I somehow think it doesn't represent an opinion, except for the point that I don't believe in God. I'd call myself a humanist, who doesn't believe in God, so that people can judge me on that. I like that better.
I believe in evolution not because of science, but rather it's due to smell! Smell you may ask? Yep, my farts have evolved from sweet as a rose smelling to as bad as a stale, 95 year old man's farts!!!! They have clearly evolved!!!!!
Here's something for you Christians to think about. 90% of Atheists were christians at one point in time.
Doubt and insincerity are sins covered by Jesus' death. Even if you reject God now, if you even once accepted God in the past, the doubt and rejection of God is merely a sin.
And sins are covered by Jesus' sacrifice, right?
In the grand scheme of things, rejecting god is merely a sin, and sins are forgiven.
I'm afraid that Dawkins is wrong on one particular point, offence is not what's left for them...
I'm afraid that fundies wishing us hell are one the verge to push one step further and start murdering atheists... Some already bombed clinics... They have that potential...
My college campus had Mormons the other day. They were standing in the middle of the plaza and wouldn't just let you walk by, they would harass you until you stopped walking and then they would talk to you. They're WAY worse than the Greenpeace people! These people are different from you and me, Mormons are like robots. You can't offend them, you can't injure them or insult them. They will stop at nothing to get your soul. They'll even lay claim to it after you're dead.
The question: why there are so many contradiction in the Bible? God will not make such silly mistake but human do. How brilliant the human, he/she will bound to make a mistake but not God. Thats why Bible has so many revisions, so many different authors, so many bibles, gospels & so on.
And people wonder how some refuse such doctrines. I think if we had a discussion on all the twisted things religions contain, we'd be there for quite a few hours.
Lol yeah its faith and we can't dare laugh at that. I wonder if Tony Blair would have contributed millions of dollars to schools that taught the Xenu story as part of "diversity"
If it doesn't have scientific evidence and is socially acceptable it must be closer to the truth because more people believe it, that's so true, like when people believed the earth was flat...yeah
yep, but rational argument has to win out, I don't trust people based on what degree they have or what college, just by their rationality...one of the friends of the family believes in God and all that, he Got his PHD in astrophysics, but in that area he is not rational, but any logical questions about the universe and almost any other area, he's incredible insightful and rational.
I would not call evolution a fact rather an extremely well supported theory. As in science a theory holds more weight then someone stating something as a fact. A theory is a good thing in science and its a good thing to question or try and define the theory even more. If someone assumes something to be fact they will not try and investigate it further. But I do understand why you use the term fact to help the less educated understand the overwhelming evidence for the theory at this point.
The bible does not talk about evolution, if evolution is correct, creationism is wrong, you cant have bolth. If you need to ask people to go to a website or video, it just proves you cant provide a proper defence.
When a layperson uses the phrase, "only a theory" you can rest assured that he has no idea of the hierarchical status given to the term "theory" in science. The person is scientifically illiterate and as a result unqualified in conducting such a debate. Don't use a superficial understanding of biology to obfuscate the compelling, unambiguous evidence that supports this idea just to promote your agenda. This is nonscience!
Your wrong about Genesis 14 that does not mean light as in sun....But a moon came in orbit changing Earth...."lights"
With a moon of great size a powerful MF starts and clear the skys and the Stars details came out in the skys for the 1st time. Acting like God him self place the stars there...
Genesis 24-25 kind after his kind, and after THEIR kind. means change over time...
Corinthians 15: 38-41
Seed of his own body started from light in the big bang "Enegry"
Come on, be serious! Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights— the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
This is 5 verses past the vegetation verses. Moon light can't sustain plant life!
Why does god create man and woman twice? Is the rib creation another "variation" of evolution? Please!!
Corinthians 15: 38-41????? Where does this phrase take place? "...light in the big bang "Energy"? You can't just make this up and then be taken seriously.
I'm glad science doesn't play lose and arbitrary like this-the scientific method prevents it!
LOL Don't even talk about the scientific method to me! Scientist today lost there way......This is why....Scientific method is the Search for truth base of all side of the story meaning all "information" with out there own feeling getting in the way of the Search for truth. Even of some body tells you a lie there is some truth to the story...Scientist today only pick one area of study and have EGO so big they blind in there own work.Great Scientist jumped around. BTW Stars one 1st day..=D
Check your bible, there are no stars on day one!! Light...
I didn't think you had any reverence for science, but reason will beat your superstitious nonsense any day of the week. Alchemy to chemistry, astrology to astronomy and soon we will get rid of religion and reason will prevail.
So many of you who have no respect for science have a computer and a cell phone, both fruits of scientific research. You listen to the weather report on tv, you drive a car, fly from Tulsa to Denver and you cook on an electric stove. You already take for granted the products of some aspects of science, yet when it comes to evolution, suddenly scientists don't know what they are talking about.
You sould not judge becuase you will be judged back, I have a deep science background, your the one mistaken about great many things, and you will pay for them as I did.
I don't care about being juded back. If posting your opinion on youtube is 'judging', then it stands to reason that we are all judging, and so are you when you claim I am mistaken about "many things". And what do you mean I will "pay" for them? Please. I have grown weary of the threats and the fear card used to intimidate independent thinkers and those who don't toe the line. Just plain tired of the BS.
You say that now, You have will power, What you do with it will come back on you, what you feel and think will come back on you if you do not change, many people will have to learn the hard way like I have, who is making threats? Poeple with hate, who make war? poeple with Hate, who killed Jesus poeple that hated him.
And finally, Newtons ideas were highly explanatory, but Einstein came along and revolutionized ideas about physics. Newtons work wasnt bad or wrong, its just that there was more underlying physics than he envisioned. Now, explanations for DNA information, consciousness, etc., are proving elusive. In this context, shouldnt scientists be modest and cautious about making broad metaphysical assertions about the nature of the universe? When is it okay to say Dawkins is reckless?
The concepts you list aren't really as elusive as you suggest. They are maybe not as perfectly understood as some other natural phenomena but one thing is sure. The research solving these questions will come from neuroscience, not mythology or religion as will be the case for every other question we have. I actually think scientists have been a bit over cautious actually with laypeople as if they can't handle the fact that the only proces which always gets the job done has nothing to do with god
Third: Dawkins seems to think that evolutionary causes preclude corresponding transcendent reality. But thats not logical. There may be an evolutionary cause and utility for abstract concepts like purpose, design, and joy, that correspond with a transcendent metaphysical reality of purpose, design, and joy. In other words, there may be harmony between physical and metaphysical reality. Could it be that Plato was right? And finally
Of course there is an evolutionary cause for our concepts of purpose, design and other abstract concepts. Easy explanation: they are useful for survival. That however doesn't mean that we actually know something when our savannah-evolved purpose detector for noises in high grass makes a false alarm and suggests that the university is designed and has a purpose.
Second: Drawing philosophical conclusions from empirical evidence is tricky business and reasonable folks can disagree. Lots of smart people look at the balance in the universe, biological information, and the existential human condition and conclude there is a God. Other smart people conclude otherwise. In this context, it seems wrong for any person (including Dawkins) to insist there is only one reasonable conclusion. Nice trick for his groupies, but completely bogus. Third
First, as previous comments have clarified, Dawkins isnt practicing anything akin to science in this video. He is, in reality, promoting his own philosophy. But scientific fact is totally different than broad philosophical conclusions about the nature of the universe. Sure, it is tough to fully separate science and philosophy, but credible leaders make good faith efforts to do so. Shouldnt Dawkins be more professional and disciplined? Secondly
Joining in the conversation has helped me sort out a few more questions/objections to Dawkins ideas. So, for all you anti-design apologists out there, here are four more friendly points to ponder. First of all
I love reading the comments here. They are about as irrational as the video. Can anyone say: Srawman? Can anyone here spot a mob atmosphere? I wonder if these champions of science, who are so emotionally attached to Dawkins, can explain to me, scince I obviously know nothing about evolution how Dawkins knows that life processes are directionless and purposeless? Did he see that in a microscope? Or perhaps he's got a new math equation that solves for meaninglessness?
He didn't say he KNOWS its directionless and purposeless, he said there is no evidence that it is. There is no reason to think there is a purpose if the more you look the less purpose you find. I ask you, if you do indeed think so, how considering you have not studied origins as you admit, you have any basis to think that life does have meaning and purpose. Belief comes after evidence. Dawkins is waiting for evidence that there is purpose, before he believes it. I'm sorry that troubles you.
The main point, it seems to me, is that Dawkins injects his own metaphysics (i.e. directionless and purposeless) into a scientific discussion. After all, we cant measure purpose using the scientific method. Its like using math to measure joy. Or a telescope to find happiness. But he then condemns ID folks for responding with their own metaphysics (i.e. design). In this particular sense, Dawkins is a hypocrite.
What exactly are you referring to as Dawkins Metaphysics? I am not sure what you mean. He sometimes talks about finding your own meaning or purpose in life, but that isn't metaphysics. he condemns ID for using metaphysics as part of a scientifc hypothesis. I cannot recall a time where Dawkins injected anything metaphysical into a scentific explanation, theorem, etc.
Dawkins work—from The Blind Watchmaker to The God Delusion to the video you and I are discussing—is based on the Darwinian orthodoxy that life is unguided and purposeless. Darwinian leaders from George Gaylord Simpson to Futuyama have all promoted that idea. Even the recent Newsweek article that compares Darwin to Lincoln says Darwinism is mechanistic and purposeless. Thats why, it seems to me, Darwinists are so passionately opposed to ID. Its not about science; its about philosophy.
The phrase, Darwinian Orthodoxy is telling of your capability to differentiate between a theory which is open to improvement or abolishment should a better theory come along, and orthodoxy. Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't say life is unguided, its guided by natural selection, or that it is purposeless, the purpose of evolution is a function of life which causes it to get more complex. The unguided part you are referring to is some sort of metaphysical supernatural guide cont...
part II, and the purpose you are look ing for is something metaphysical and supernatural as well. Darwin or Dawkins don't say anything about this because it isn't science. Metaphysics and supernatural ultimate purposes are not science. The theory is grounded in physical natural evidence that is part of our natural world. ID proposes supernatural purpose and guidance as science. This is why Dawkins is opposed to them. There is no room for baseless propositions in science.
I agree with your definitions concerning orthodoxy, science, and metaphysics, but I respectfully suggest that you are mistaken about Darwinism. I used the word orthodoxy because, based upon what Ive read (I cited a few examples), many Darwinists promote philosophy. Concerning this particular video, you would agree would you not, that Dawkins isnt discussing anything scientific? He is attacking those with an opposing idea by using a rather cheap (albeit entertaining) straw-man tactic.
I amunclear what you mean when you say that you used orthodoxy because Darwinists promote philosophy. Many Naturalists promote hat wearing, its irrelevant. Darwinism isn't even really a proper term for anyone. You wouldn't call someone who believes in the theory of gravity a newtonist. Darwin's theory is a scientific theory, which is a model that explains a natural phenomenon. To say that a person who believes this theory, also has an opinion on philisophy, has nothing to do with cont...
part II.... anything. What you said is that Dawkins injects his metaphysics into scientific discussion. Not only do I disagree, even if I didn't, he still wouldn't be doing what ID proponents do, injecting metaphysics into a scientifc HYPOTHESIS. I would agree that Dawkins isn't discussing scientific facts in the video, but he isn't dicussing metaphysics either. He is using satire and analogy to make a valid point about the ID movement, that Oklahoma official, and to entertain.
I concur with you that the video presentation is an analogy, but that doesnt mean its not a straw-man. Specifically, the video pretends all skeptics of Darwinism are all stupid, ignorant, etc. I can only hope that the students at Oklahoma will take time to read Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Michael Engor, Dr. Michael Denton, William Dembski, etc. Theres lots of quality folks out there who voice reservations. Dont you think its possible that Dawkins is just a tini-weeny bit over the top?
"the video pretends all skeptics of Darwinism are all stupid, ignorant, etc."
I disagree. It makes the point that specifically the intelligent design movement is akin to saying storks bring babies rather than reproduction, and I think it is humorous in addition to being a good way to portray the absurdity of intelligent design's challenges, specifically the whole expelled notion. So not all skeptics, just one specific group with one specific belief. cont.....
PartII.... I didn't get the impression the video was referring to all skeptics, just ignorant ones who r skeptical while knowing not even the basics of the subject. Dawkins may be a bit more outlandish than your average scientist, but that is because he has become one of the main figures of a cultural movement, and it is in this capacity that he uses such theatrics. However this has not compromised his scientific integrity, or competency. He wouldn't show that video at a scientific conference
Thanks the exchange. At least we agree that Dawkins is not engaging in science here. He is, as you say, leading a cultural movement. But we disagree about his methods. I think his approach is overly simplistic and plays to the mob. You think its fine and dandy. But this brings us back to my original gripe, which is that Dawkins non-science (read: philosophy) is adored and welcomed, but dissenting views are ridiculed and expelled. Such is the impoverished state of Western academia.
No, you are creating a false dichotomy by saying that if it isn't science, its philosophy. Your gripe was that Dawkins inserts his metaphysics into a scientific discussion. Our converstaion has never shown him to do any such thing. There is nothing metaphysical about the video he showed, or even philosophical. It is a satire and an analogy, and not meant to be scientific, but it isn't philisophical either. to be cont....
Part II... It is not Dawkins philosophy that is so adored, and it is not dissenting philosophies that are being ridiculed and expelled, we are talking about science and evolution. Intelligent design is ridiculed and expelled, not because it is a dissenting philosophy, but because it is nonscience masquerading as science. It is childish. Philosophy, Dawkins or anyone elses, is irrelevant to the conversation. Dawkins doesn't inject metaphysics into science, as was your original gripe.
Part III..... Dawkins doesn't condemn ID proponents for talking about puropse in discussion, he condemns them for presenting non science as science. Dawkins has his own philosophy, but doesn't take that and try to use it as a scientific explanation for some phenomena. ID proponents talk about supernatural causes for natural things. this is where the problem lies. Dawkins does not do this. This is the point. The fact that Dawkins has views about purpose has nothing to do with science
Dawkins work, was based on science, the natural world. It doesn't imply meaning or guidance because this has nothing to do with science or the natural world. It isn't based off of a Darwinian orthodoxy that it IS unguided and purposeless, it's just that when you have a scientific explanation based on natural causes, purpose and direction simply aren't part of the equation, not because of orthodoxy, but because we are dealing with the natural world not the supernatural.
Can't you think of ONE purpose for your life without relying on what someone else tells you?
We create purpose, There is a good reason why you think Science is orthodox...Because it fucking works and most people can see that it does and use the distilled knowledge that it gives us to improve our situation.
Alright here is the short answer to your question: Because we observe left over genes (genes for making teeth in birds, genes for making legs in whales etc) and badly "designed" biological structures (like the human eye) we can conclude that evolution is very much blind. The altarnate scenario would be that the entity guiding evolution is blind but occam's razor says we should dispose of unnecessary assumptions so a blind process is preferable over a process with a blind controller.
It seems to me left over genes are similar evidence to homologous structures because those aspects of the evidence support common descent. But Im not sure I follow how like genes or inadequate functionality equates to absence or presence of design. Could you elaborate a little? Thanks. Just to restate my original thought, I think the concepts of purpose and design are metaphysical in nature and should be omitted from the science of evolution.
Indeed purpose and design are human perceptions of the world for the existance of which there are very good evolutonary explanations. Inadequete, bad "designs" and leftover genes in my personal view either indicate a blind process or a blind designer so indeed I leave the option of a designer open. Occams razor (our favourite logical tool and separate from the science of biology) tells us to remove unnecessary assumptions though and in my view proposing a designer qualifies as unnecessary.
Thanks for elaborating. I agree and will go even further. It seems to me that, in a scientific context, we shouldnt even have to invoke Occams to reject a Designer because science should normally avoid all transcendent causes, even when we dont have adequate explanations. In other words, Darwinism may not adequately explain biogenesis, or DNA information systems, but that doesnt mean we should look to supernatural causes. But this still leaves a few open issues that Ill post on top
I would screaming my head off if I was there. Dawkins is the MAN.
ZachRose88 5 months ago
I would love to see Prof. Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, I had to see Billy Graham (10+ years ago). I'm the only atheist in my family. My parents are Christians, but my Grandparents, wow... My grandfather asked me if I believe in the "Old Earth" or "New Earth", and I said, "The Earth is ~4.54 billion years old. It's a fact, so Old Earth." I want a "New Earth" (not the 6000 year old Earth) but an Earth where everyone agrees all religions will soon be mythology.
BTW, I won't reply to trolls.
KarbineKyle 7 months ago 3
I was raised in a religiously neutral house. When it came time for me to start thinking about what religion I should choose, from an objective standpoint, religion seemed absolutely absurd to me. How is it possible for an "entity" to be so sadistic? I remember a quote from Dawkins. He said something about Atheism being a freeing experience. He was right, I feel like I am tied to myself and my family, no one else. My mind is free to think upon the questions that arise.
DrFreeman00 10 months ago
You cut out the heckler! He was amusing. I hope Richard took it philosophically; after all, is he trying to win a popularity contest, especially in God's America!?
benthejrporter 10 months ago
regarding free thought - how's my "what i is" vid?
desirefirst 1 year ago
I think the conservative right should make a documentary titled "An ignorant fool" where they talk about the myths of Global Warming.
HIMYNAMEISEVAN 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think that it is stupid to say that evolution is fact when not one human being has ever witnessed it, experienced it, or has any significant proof other than animals looking alike and having similar DNA or for evolution to be "scientific fact" if it has not yet been proven!
natureman97 1 year ago
@natureman97 Don't feel bad. Alot of people are as ignorant and uneducated as you.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 What makes you say that?
natureman97 1 year ago
@natureman97 Evolution have been witenessed. But you probably didn't want to hear that.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 I have heard it, and I belive it, but I belive it was God that made the positive mutations so he could improve the species in wich "evolution" has occured.
natureman97 1 year ago
@natureman97 Improve? Ever heard of Downs Syndrome?
Also, with that view, no evidence will ever be enough.
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 People with Downs are God's wariors that he has chosen to battle this horrible mutation because their souls are stronger than most.
natureman97 1 year ago
@natureman97 Are you a troll, or are you just incredibly stupid?
Ztiller1991 1 year ago
@Ztiller1991 I'm one eighth troll as a matter of fact.
natureman97 1 year ago
@natureman97 farmers change up the pesticide every number of seasons because insects grown immune to them. What do you think that is? its because the insects that can survive the pesticide can reproduce and it creates a population that becomes immune to that specific pesticide. That's evolution, thats been witnessed, its a fact.
hawkister 1 year ago
@hawkister Natural selection...
WITH GOD!
natureman97 1 year ago
@natureman97 why the god of the bible? why not god of Egyptian mythology. or Greek, the flying spaghetti monster. its only because the shear chance that you were born in this era, in that geographical location to discover this notion of god and christianity.
the success of the human specie can be mainly credited to our intelligence. Please stop spreading your plague of ignorance.
hawkister 1 year ago
@hawkister The God of the Bible because he is the only real one.
natureman97 1 year ago
@natureman97
they all have equal amount of proof of existence. None. Biblical god is no more real than all the other humans have created.
Again, please stop spreading your plague of ignorance. one day our human specie may depend on it :)
hawkister 1 year ago
@hawkister I'm not the ignorant one but I will stop spreading the plague because that is just what a good cathic or cristian person would do why would a man of God spread somthing that cause pain and illness and death?
natureman97 1 year ago
@natureman97 Its much harder to see evolution occur in humans because we mature sexually at a later age compared to other smaller organisms and the time between generation is much longer.
Think of your birth and the growth process as evolution. you can't tell that your maturing. only when this process of growth is sped up , by taking a picture every year, can you see that your growing. Each fossil we find, is just another picture to show us how life evolved.
hawkister 1 year ago
Isn't 5000 dollars too little?
mauriciohavok 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a true believer to try and seek, let alone find, any explanation for any part of the physical world other than it being God’s will and creation is at best a waste of time or irrelevant and at worst, rather blasphemous. Thinking of God should be enough and proves the world to be wicked. Get into it and continually relive Christ’s slow, painful death and to eat his body and drink his blood. Experience transcendent forgivenness and climax to a state of grace.
ritchloui 1 year ago
For a true believer to try and seek, let alone find, any explanation for any part of the physical world other than it being God’s will and creation is at best a waste of time or irrelevant and at worst, rather blasphemous. Thinking of God should be enough and proves the world to be wicked. Get into it and continually relive Christ’s slow, painful death and to eat his body and drink his blood. Experience transcendent forgivenness and climax to a state of grace.
ritchloui 1 year ago
@ritchloui here's a translation on what you said: "I believe it because i want it to be true and if you ever bring me evidence that i'm incorrect i will put my fingers on my ears and shout"
mauriciohavok 1 year ago
@mauriciohavok God delivered us his son so that we could kill him, endlessly. Jesus said he wanted to be eaten as well, and we reckon his mum was a virgin. The crucifixion should not be seen as the sacro-sexual passion of a blood cult, nor the eating and drinking of human blood as cannibalism. That there are no earthly remains of Jesus or Mary is evidence of truth. Not that the subsequent religion made it all up. Also, if Jesus’ father was not Joseph or Gabriel then his mum must be virgin.
ritchloui 1 year ago
@ritchloui Jesus was in fact a green alien, and he always preached the importance of having a towel handy, as for her mother she was indeed a virgin, what you don't know is that she got pregnant because of the annunaki who wanted to spread the word of the holy taco.
And I have the same amount of evidence to believe that as you. NONE WHATSOEVER.
mauriciohavok 1 year ago
@mauriciohavok I’m appalled that you think Jesus was a green alien, next you’ll be calling his father His Almighty Invisibleness. Presumably you think your green Jesus advised having a towel handy because God’s invisible hand is always at work. For heavens sake, if we couldn’t make exacting replicas of killing him on a cross and earnestly celebrating eating him all the time we wouldn’t know right from wrong for a start and would probably age quicker. Chew on that.
ritchloui 1 year ago
@ritchloui Morality has nothing to do with religion, if it did you would be killing disobeying children as stated in the bible, as for living longer, well in the Christian dark ages life expectancy was not even half of what it is today, and people were more religious then than now. I don't believe in green jesus, is as irrational as believing in regular Jesus.
mauriciohavok 1 year ago
For a true believer to try and seek, let alone find, any explanation for any part of the physical world other than it being God’s will and creation is at best a waste of time or irrelevant and at worst, rather blasphemous. Thinking of God should be enough and proves the world to be wicked. Get into it and continually relive Christ’s slow, painful death and to eat his body and drink his blood. Experience transcendent forgivenness and climax to a state of grace.
ritchloui 1 year ago
One of the biggest problems I have with the science world today is that they do not investigate both sides of the arguement. Without being biased, there is so much push saying that evolution is fact, when in reality it is just a theory. Though Dawkins and others like him have done extensive research on the topic, there are still major holes, like the creation of intelligence from non-intelligence, the violation of the law of non-contradiction, and spontaneous generation. All views require faith.
ShilohPepBand 1 year ago
@ShilohPepBand actually you are right evolution is just a theory just like gravity there is no such thing as fact in science. and evolution has nothing to do with how life was created but merely the gradual altercation of species over time through natural selection. now there is alot of evidence for evolution I'll stick to one thing. nylonase the nylon eating bacteria was caused by a frame shift after the first 7% of DNA developed
PIKLEWEAZL95 1 year ago
@TehChillinJuggalo
You shouldn't insult Egon like that. =(
DON'T CROSS THE STREAMS!
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
Here, Richard Dawkins demonstrates one of the biggest fallacies in any argument: Reductio Ad Absurdum.
It is not that he is intolerant of Young Earth Creationist, but his over-all opinion that his is the only way of thinking about everything, and anyone who disagrees is a deranged & dangerous fool.
mysticresistence 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mysticresistence "...and anyone who disagrees is a deranged & dangerous fool." I suppose you are correct, but can you think of another term more appropriate to describe someone who thinks the world is less than 10 000 years old?
damo2353 1 year ago
@mysticresistence
I don't think 'Reducto' comes into the equation when it comes to these topics. They're already absurd.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W No, the notion that, as astrophysicist Dr. Paul Davies says, the universe appears to have been set in motion by some first cause that could be called "God" does not equal a belief in a flying spaghetti monster. This is but one of the many fallacies Dawkins uses over & over again. Once upon a time religion had worthy opponents, like Nietzche, but now there are just people like Dawkins who wouldn't know a philosophical argument from a blue print of a genome.
mysticresistence 1 year ago
@mysticresistence
In regards to the 'first cause', why not? It stands to reason that something 'started' the big-bang. But I see no reason why that 'something' should be some omnipotent, omnipresent, omnidesigning, invisible dude.
I agree that Nietzche was indeed a brilliant and unique individual. I think Fred and Dick could be thought of as being on opposite sides of the Pessimist/Optimist spectrum. I tend to lean more towards optimism.
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
@L00NGB00W I agree. I am a theist & believe in God, but I do not believe that God is a "big bearded white guy who lives in the sky" but rather is an unfathomable force beyond any real understanding. That is one of the many points that get overlooked in the "god debate", what definition of God are we talking about? The term is probably the most nebulous one in the English language. I'm ignostic: I believe in God, but am of the opinion that it really can't be fathomed by mortals
mysticresistence 1 year ago
@mysticresistence
Well, my understanding is if you spell it 'God' like a proper noun;
You are referring to the 'one' god of Abraham. YHWH. aka: Jehovah, Allah
Whereas 'god' could refer to any number of other deities. ie: Kuahana, Venus, Ahura Mazda, Odin, Set.
And agnosticism is a whole other kettle of beans covering many beliefs... =\
L00NGB00W 1 year ago
Temples of religion are to be replaced with individual buckets filled with sand.
isleofyew1 1 year ago
I want to meet this guy
ThatGuyOverThere428 1 year ago
Amazing!
moss824 1 year ago
Ben Stein is.... AN IGNORANT FOOL
BrothaDesmond1 1 year ago 14
I don't like the word Atheist even though I am one myself, but I somehow think it doesn't represent an opinion, except for the point that I don't believe in God. I'd call myself a humanist, who doesn't believe in God, so that people can judge me on that. I like that better.
SchiThug2CE 1 year ago
I believe in evolution not because of science, but rather it's due to smell! Smell you may ask? Yep, my farts have evolved from sweet as a rose smelling to as bad as a stale, 95 year old man's farts!!!! They have clearly evolved!!!!!
99minerkc 2 years ago
I love the applause this man gets!! It is so great to see such a wonderful Atheist get such gratitude.
maddcow666ink 2 years ago 5
Here's something for you Christians to think about. 90% of Atheists were christians at one point in time.
Doubt and insincerity are sins covered by Jesus' death. Even if you reject God now, if you even once accepted God in the past, the doubt and rejection of God is merely a sin.
And sins are covered by Jesus' sacrifice, right?
In the grand scheme of things, rejecting god is merely a sin, and sins are forgiven.
So even IF God exists, we'll be covered.
Relax.
No need to baptize by fire!
XeliosX 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
its 1 corinthians 1 verse 10, not 1 to 10, idiot.
kready 2 years ago
who cares, none of it makes an inch of freakin sense anyway
PassTheClap 2 years ago
I'm afraid that Dawkins is wrong on one particular point, offence is not what's left for them...
I'm afraid that fundies wishing us hell are one the verge to push one step further and start murdering atheists... Some already bombed clinics... They have that potential...
Acrimonator 2 years ago
If I remember correctly they bombed abortion clinics didn't they? Pro-Choice is not atheism ^^
RazielKain 2 years ago
I want to make sweet love to Dawkins.
Slickback83 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
.
All Christians who turned atheist God will kill them, they are mere cowards
.
conceil8 2 years ago
troll?
safewaysecurity 2 years ago
Atheists are unafraid of a supposed "all powerful being" and his eternal punishment, yet we're cowards?
No, I see absolutely no reason to believe in a god. I dismiss the idea a silly, bronze age superstition, and I'm unafraid to do so.
Havenfall 2 years ago 10
@conceil8
You're the coward, fool.
andrew123987465 2 years ago
The cowards are those fearing death to the point that they need to invent an after life...
Acrimonator 2 years ago 4
@conceil8, that's Christ-like of you........
jround93 2 years ago
My college campus had Mormons the other day. They were standing in the middle of the plaza and wouldn't just let you walk by, they would harass you until you stopped walking and then they would talk to you. They're WAY worse than the Greenpeace people! These people are different from you and me, Mormons are like robots. You can't offend them, you can't injure them or insult them. They will stop at nothing to get your soul. They'll even lay claim to it after you're dead.
CanadiaNecro1 2 years ago
I just love how they quote mine Dawkins in the storch theory clip XD
xBuscopanx 2 years ago
I was here! Oh it was awesome.
ReallyNow9 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
The question: why there are so many contradiction in the Bible? God will not make such silly mistake but human do. How brilliant the human, he/she will bound to make a mistake but not God. Thats why Bible has so many revisions, so many different authors, so many bibles, gospels & so on.
padangrengas1 2 years ago
Dude, the Qu'ran has a significant amount of contradictions too. I find Islam more of a screwed up religion than Christianity or Judaism.
DantehMan 2 years ago
I never thought a religion could be more screwed up then Christianity and then I came across Islam. 72 Virgins? What's in it for the virgins?
seonf 2 years ago 37
And people wonder how some refuse such doctrines. I think if we had a discussion on all the twisted things religions contain, we'd be there for quite a few hours.
DantehMan 2 years ago 5
Yep people laugh at Xenu in Scientology but don't give mainstream religions the same treatment.
seonf 2 years ago 4
HOW DARE YOU LAUGH AT XENU, XENU IS SERIOUS STUFF, RESPECT MY INSANE BELIEFS BECAUSE I SAY SO, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED BY THE TRUTH!
lol...
Anastasius37 2 years ago 67
Lol yeah its faith and we can't dare laugh at that. I wonder if Tony Blair would have contributed millions of dollars to schools that taught the Xenu story as part of "diversity"
seonf 2 years ago 6
If it doesn't have scientific evidence and is socially acceptable it must be closer to the truth because more people believe it, that's so true, like when people believed the earth was flat...yeah
Anastasius37 2 years ago 4
Yep my view is just because the majority believe it doesn't mean its automatically right. The flat Earth is a perfect example.
seonf 2 years ago 5
yep, but rational argument has to win out, I don't trust people based on what degree they have or what college, just by their rationality...one of the friends of the family believes in God and all that, he Got his PHD in astrophysics, but in that area he is not rational, but any logical questions about the universe and almost any other area, he's incredible insightful and rational.
Anastasius37 2 years ago 3
@seonf: To cite from Harvie Krumpet's notebook of fakts: "the Bible was written by the same people who thought the earth was flat".
LOL ...equals 1 Cor. 1:10
He made them so look the ignorant fools they are. These motherfuckers wanted to bring down the inquisition on Dawkins.
Science will continue to close the gaps until there's hopefully no space left where god can hide so he will eventually implode and vanish for good.
derunausstehlichekid 2 years ago
I hope so. Evolution has already made him unnecessary for the creation of life. It's only a matter of time.
seonf 2 years ago
@Anastasius37 Brilliant
Xwowplaya 1 year ago
"What's in it for the virgins?"
I'd guess most Muslims probably don't think twice about having their own herem ripe for the raping.
HelplessVictim 2 years ago
@seonf lots of sex?
TheDcac 11 months ago
@TheDcac With insane people? Probably smelly as well, yeah some heaven.
seonf 11 months ago
@seonf I was joking haha.
TheDcac 11 months ago
@TheDcac H ha yeah but it's still my idea of hell.
seonf 11 months ago
@seonf
Any money says you're a female...
ajnode 9 months ago
@seonf I wonder what sex they are ?
Tony2438 8 months ago
@seonf I wonder if they are the kind that play world of warcraft.
joslinnick 5 months ago
Pls read Quraan and u wil find the answer
padangrengas1 2 years ago
How will I find the answer?
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
I should clarify. What answer in the Quraan will I find.
Foxcanine1 2 years ago
Probably the one about why religion is bullshit.
DantehMan 2 years ago
I dissagre with dawkins here
dubbeltid 2 years ago
As piss takes go, I applaud your efforts.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
In your face, Mr. Thomsen!
ImTheRiffRaff 2 years ago
The baby summons the stork. Duh.
Joerexia 2 years ago 5
rofl
TheRainman19 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Evolution Is Only A Theory"
The Bible talks about Evolution to know what I'm talking about watch all of Omega Theory & judge for your self...
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
EVOLUTION IS A FACT
1947Chief 2 years ago 60
I would not call evolution a fact rather an extremely well supported theory. As in science a theory holds more weight then someone stating something as a fact. A theory is a good thing in science and its a good thing to question or try and define the theory even more. If someone assumes something to be fact they will not try and investigate it further. But I do understand why you use the term fact to help the less educated understand the overwhelming evidence for the theory at this point.
BKF666 2 years ago 11
So what? Gravity is also a theory, guess what, religion is a FANTASY, big difference there.
Naeux 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I just say the Bible talks about Evolution...
I don't study the bible or go to church I just happen to see the it....Watch my videos...
EVOLUTION IS A FACT
there are big holes in EVOLUTION But it did happen I think...becuase what see see in the timeline....LOOK AT MY VIDS the timeline mach
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
The bible does not talk about evolution, if evolution is correct, creationism is wrong, you cant have bolth. If you need to ask people to go to a website or video, it just proves you cant provide a proper defence.
xGothimox 2 years ago
your wrong =D
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
Darkfoster22,
When a layperson uses the phrase, "only a theory" you can rest assured that he has no idea of the hierarchical status given to the term "theory" in science. The person is scientifically illiterate and as a result unqualified in conducting such a debate. Don't use a superficial understanding of biology to obfuscate the compelling, unambiguous evidence that supports this idea just to promote your agenda. This is nonscience!
dwolfcoach 2 years ago 12
he only wanted to know how babby was formed *sob* (refer xkcd)
TheRainman19 2 years ago
There is evidence that supports my idea.
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
Which idea, that the bible talks about evolution? Give me the chapter and verse.
Is this the same bible that explains god's creation of the plants before he makes the Sun? That is not a good beginning!
dwolfcoach 2 years ago
Your wrong about Genesis 14 that does not mean light as in sun....But a moon came in orbit changing Earth...."lights"
With a moon of great size a powerful MF starts and clear the skys and the Stars details came out in the skys for the 1st time. Acting like God him self place the stars there...
Genesis 24-25 kind after his kind, and after THEIR kind. means change over time...
Corinthians 15: 38-41
Seed of his own body started from light in the big bang "Enegry"
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
Come on, be serious! Genesis 1:16 God made two great lights— the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
This is 5 verses past the vegetation verses. Moon light can't sustain plant life!
Why does god create man and woman twice? Is the rib creation another "variation" of evolution? Please!!
dwolfcoach 2 years ago
Sun came before that...
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
Corinthians 15: 38-41????? Where does this phrase take place? "...light in the big bang "Energy"? You can't just make this up and then be taken seriously.
I'm glad science doesn't play lose and arbitrary like this-the scientific method prevents it!
The sun came on the 4th day, plants the 3rd!!
dwolfcoach 2 years ago
LOL Don't even talk about the scientific method to me! Scientist today lost there way......This is why....Scientific method is the Search for truth base of all side of the story meaning all "information" with out there own feeling getting in the way of the Search for truth. Even of some body tells you a lie there is some truth to the story...Scientist today only pick one area of study and have EGO so big they blind in there own work.Great Scientist jumped around. BTW Stars one 1st day..=D
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
Check your bible, there are no stars on day one!! Light...
I didn't think you had any reverence for science, but reason will beat your superstitious nonsense any day of the week. Alchemy to chemistry, astrology to astronomy and soon we will get rid of religion and reason will prevail.
Have a good day friend!
dwolfcoach 2 years ago
So many of you who have no respect for science have a computer and a cell phone, both fruits of scientific research. You listen to the weather report on tv, you drive a car, fly from Tulsa to Denver and you cook on an electric stove. You already take for granted the products of some aspects of science, yet when it comes to evolution, suddenly scientists don't know what they are talking about.
kadene2 2 years ago 2
You sould not judge becuase you will be judged back, I have a deep science background, your the one mistaken about great many things, and you will pay for them as I did.
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
I don't care about being juded back. If posting your opinion on youtube is 'judging', then it stands to reason that we are all judging, and so are you when you claim I am mistaken about "many things". And what do you mean I will "pay" for them? Please. I have grown weary of the threats and the fear card used to intimidate independent thinkers and those who don't toe the line. Just plain tired of the BS.
kadene2 2 years ago
You say that now, You have will power, What you do with it will come back on you, what you feel and think will come back on you if you do not change, many people will have to learn the hard way like I have, who is making threats? Poeple with hate, who make war? poeple with Hate, who killed Jesus poeple that hated him.
What will you say I am not like the others?
Darkfoster22 2 years ago
I will say that you're speaking in riddles and not making much sense.
kadene2 2 years ago
why is the whole lecture not up?
NegativeNick 2 years ago 4
I second this.
sh1znack 2 years ago 3
I third it.
The first seven minutes are fabulous.
RebelVoDKa 2 years ago 3
And finally, Newtons ideas were highly explanatory, but Einstein came along and revolutionized ideas about physics. Newtons work wasnt bad or wrong, its just that there was more underlying physics than he envisioned. Now, explanations for DNA information, consciousness, etc., are proving elusive. In this context, shouldnt scientists be modest and cautious about making broad metaphysical assertions about the nature of the universe? When is it okay to say Dawkins is reckless?
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
The concepts you list aren't really as elusive as you suggest. They are maybe not as perfectly understood as some other natural phenomena but one thing is sure. The research solving these questions will come from neuroscience, not mythology or religion as will be the case for every other question we have. I actually think scientists have been a bit over cautious actually with laypeople as if they can't handle the fact that the only proces which always gets the job done has nothing to do with god
omegavalerius 2 years ago
hey simpson keith shut the fuck up
SubZX 2 years ago
Third: Dawkins seems to think that evolutionary causes preclude corresponding transcendent reality. But thats not logical. There may be an evolutionary cause and utility for abstract concepts like purpose, design, and joy, that correspond with a transcendent metaphysical reality of purpose, design, and joy. In other words, there may be harmony between physical and metaphysical reality. Could it be that Plato was right? And finally
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
Of course there is an evolutionary cause for our concepts of purpose, design and other abstract concepts. Easy explanation: they are useful for survival. That however doesn't mean that we actually know something when our savannah-evolved purpose detector for noises in high grass makes a false alarm and suggests that the university is designed and has a purpose.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
Comment removed
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
Second: Drawing philosophical conclusions from empirical evidence is tricky business and reasonable folks can disagree. Lots of smart people look at the balance in the universe, biological information, and the existential human condition and conclude there is a God. Other smart people conclude otherwise. In this context, it seems wrong for any person (including Dawkins) to insist there is only one reasonable conclusion. Nice trick for his groupies, but completely bogus. Third
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
First, as previous comments have clarified, Dawkins isnt practicing anything akin to science in this video. He is, in reality, promoting his own philosophy. But scientific fact is totally different than broad philosophical conclusions about the nature of the universe. Sure, it is tough to fully separate science and philosophy, but credible leaders make good faith efforts to do so. Shouldnt Dawkins be more professional and disciplined? Secondly
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
Joining in the conversation has helped me sort out a few more questions/objections to Dawkins ideas. So, for all you anti-design apologists out there, here are four more friendly points to ponder. First of all
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
Is there a place where you can watch the whole thing?? I was going to go but I had to work, which was really tragic....
TousVous 2 years ago
Very funny parody, but shouldn't it have been 'Sexspelled: No Storks Allowed'?
tubian323 2 years ago
I love reading the comments here. They are about as irrational as the video. Can anyone say: Srawman? Can anyone here spot a mob atmosphere? I wonder if these champions of science, who are so emotionally attached to Dawkins, can explain to me, scince I obviously know nothing about evolution how Dawkins knows that life processes are directionless and purposeless? Did he see that in a microscope? Or perhaps he's got a new math equation that solves for meaninglessness?
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
He didn't say he KNOWS its directionless and purposeless, he said there is no evidence that it is. There is no reason to think there is a purpose if the more you look the less purpose you find. I ask you, if you do indeed think so, how considering you have not studied origins as you admit, you have any basis to think that life does have meaning and purpose. Belief comes after evidence. Dawkins is waiting for evidence that there is purpose, before he believes it. I'm sorry that troubles you.
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
The main point, it seems to me, is that Dawkins injects his own metaphysics (i.e. directionless and purposeless) into a scientific discussion. After all, we cant measure purpose using the scientific method. Its like using math to measure joy. Or a telescope to find happiness. But he then condemns ID folks for responding with their own metaphysics (i.e. design). In this particular sense, Dawkins is a hypocrite.
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
What exactly are you referring to as Dawkins Metaphysics? I am not sure what you mean. He sometimes talks about finding your own meaning or purpose in life, but that isn't metaphysics. he condemns ID for using metaphysics as part of a scientifc hypothesis. I cannot recall a time where Dawkins injected anything metaphysical into a scentific explanation, theorem, etc.
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
Dawkins work—from The Blind Watchmaker to The God Delusion to the video you and I are discussing—is based on the Darwinian orthodoxy that life is unguided and purposeless. Darwinian leaders from George Gaylord Simpson to Futuyama have all promoted that idea. Even the recent Newsweek article that compares Darwin to Lincoln says Darwinism is mechanistic and purposeless. Thats why, it seems to me, Darwinists are so passionately opposed to ID. Its not about science; its about philosophy.
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
The phrase, Darwinian Orthodoxy is telling of your capability to differentiate between a theory which is open to improvement or abolishment should a better theory come along, and orthodoxy. Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't say life is unguided, its guided by natural selection, or that it is purposeless, the purpose of evolution is a function of life which causes it to get more complex. The unguided part you are referring to is some sort of metaphysical supernatural guide cont...
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
part II, and the purpose you are look ing for is something metaphysical and supernatural as well. Darwin or Dawkins don't say anything about this because it isn't science. Metaphysics and supernatural ultimate purposes are not science. The theory is grounded in physical natural evidence that is part of our natural world. ID proposes supernatural purpose and guidance as science. This is why Dawkins is opposed to them. There is no room for baseless propositions in science.
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
I agree with your definitions concerning orthodoxy, science, and metaphysics, but I respectfully suggest that you are mistaken about Darwinism. I used the word orthodoxy because, based upon what Ive read (I cited a few examples), many Darwinists promote philosophy. Concerning this particular video, you would agree would you not, that Dawkins isnt discussing anything scientific? He is attacking those with an opposing idea by using a rather cheap (albeit entertaining) straw-man tactic.
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
I amunclear what you mean when you say that you used orthodoxy because Darwinists promote philosophy. Many Naturalists promote hat wearing, its irrelevant. Darwinism isn't even really a proper term for anyone. You wouldn't call someone who believes in the theory of gravity a newtonist. Darwin's theory is a scientific theory, which is a model that explains a natural phenomenon. To say that a person who believes this theory, also has an opinion on philisophy, has nothing to do with cont...
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
part II.... anything. What you said is that Dawkins injects his metaphysics into scientific discussion. Not only do I disagree, even if I didn't, he still wouldn't be doing what ID proponents do, injecting metaphysics into a scientifc HYPOTHESIS. I would agree that Dawkins isn't discussing scientific facts in the video, but he isn't dicussing metaphysics either. He is using satire and analogy to make a valid point about the ID movement, that Oklahoma official, and to entertain.
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
I concur with you that the video presentation is an analogy, but that doesnt mean its not a straw-man. Specifically, the video pretends all skeptics of Darwinism are all stupid, ignorant, etc. I can only hope that the students at Oklahoma will take time to read Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Michael Engor, Dr. Michael Denton, William Dembski, etc. Theres lots of quality folks out there who voice reservations. Dont you think its possible that Dawkins is just a tini-weeny bit over the top?
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
"the video pretends all skeptics of Darwinism are all stupid, ignorant, etc."
I disagree. It makes the point that specifically the intelligent design movement is akin to saying storks bring babies rather than reproduction, and I think it is humorous in addition to being a good way to portray the absurdity of intelligent design's challenges, specifically the whole expelled notion. So not all skeptics, just one specific group with one specific belief. cont.....
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
PartII.... I didn't get the impression the video was referring to all skeptics, just ignorant ones who r skeptical while knowing not even the basics of the subject. Dawkins may be a bit more outlandish than your average scientist, but that is because he has become one of the main figures of a cultural movement, and it is in this capacity that he uses such theatrics. However this has not compromised his scientific integrity, or competency. He wouldn't show that video at a scientific conference
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
Thanks the exchange. At least we agree that Dawkins is not engaging in science here. He is, as you say, leading a cultural movement. But we disagree about his methods. I think his approach is overly simplistic and plays to the mob. You think its fine and dandy. But this brings us back to my original gripe, which is that Dawkins non-science (read: philosophy) is adored and welcomed, but dissenting views are ridiculed and expelled. Such is the impoverished state of Western academia.
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
No, you are creating a false dichotomy by saying that if it isn't science, its philosophy. Your gripe was that Dawkins inserts his metaphysics into a scientific discussion. Our converstaion has never shown him to do any such thing. There is nothing metaphysical about the video he showed, or even philosophical. It is a satire and an analogy, and not meant to be scientific, but it isn't philisophical either. to be cont....
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
Part II... It is not Dawkins philosophy that is so adored, and it is not dissenting philosophies that are being ridiculed and expelled, we are talking about science and evolution. Intelligent design is ridiculed and expelled, not because it is a dissenting philosophy, but because it is nonscience masquerading as science. It is childish. Philosophy, Dawkins or anyone elses, is irrelevant to the conversation. Dawkins doesn't inject metaphysics into science, as was your original gripe.
evidelogiceason 2 years ago 3
Part III..... Dawkins doesn't condemn ID proponents for talking about puropse in discussion, he condemns them for presenting non science as science. Dawkins has his own philosophy, but doesn't take that and try to use it as a scientific explanation for some phenomena. ID proponents talk about supernatural causes for natural things. this is where the problem lies. Dawkins does not do this. This is the point. The fact that Dawkins has views about purpose has nothing to do with science
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
Dawkins work, was based on science, the natural world. It doesn't imply meaning or guidance because this has nothing to do with science or the natural world. It isn't based off of a Darwinian orthodoxy that it IS unguided and purposeless, it's just that when you have a scientific explanation based on natural causes, purpose and direction simply aren't part of the equation, not because of orthodoxy, but because we are dealing with the natural world not the supernatural.
evidelogiceason 2 years ago
Can't you think of ONE purpose for your life without relying on what someone else tells you?
We create purpose, There is a good reason why you think Science is orthodox...Because it fucking works and most people can see that it does and use the distilled knowledge that it gives us to improve our situation.
MilesB1975 2 years ago
Besides , where does it say in any holy book what our purpose is?
To praise god? Why did god bother to make the universe?
MilesB1975 2 years ago
I see your point. I dont agree with it but I do see it.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
Alright here is the short answer to your question: Because we observe left over genes (genes for making teeth in birds, genes for making legs in whales etc) and badly "designed" biological structures (like the human eye) we can conclude that evolution is very much blind. The altarnate scenario would be that the entity guiding evolution is blind but occam's razor says we should dispose of unnecessary assumptions so a blind process is preferable over a process with a blind controller.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
It seems to me left over genes are similar evidence to homologous structures because those aspects of the evidence support common descent. But Im not sure I follow how like genes or inadequate functionality equates to absence or presence of design. Could you elaborate a little? Thanks. Just to restate my original thought, I think the concepts of purpose and design are metaphysical in nature and should be omitted from the science of evolution.
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
Indeed purpose and design are human perceptions of the world for the existance of which there are very good evolutonary explanations. Inadequete, bad "designs" and leftover genes in my personal view either indicate a blind process or a blind designer so indeed I leave the option of a designer open. Occams razor (our favourite logical tool and separate from the science of biology) tells us to remove unnecessary assumptions though and in my view proposing a designer qualifies as unnecessary.
omegavalerius 2 years ago
Thanks for elaborating. I agree and will go even further. It seems to me that, in a scientific context, we shouldnt even have to invoke Occams to reject a Designer because science should normally avoid all transcendent causes, even when we dont have adequate explanations. In other words, Darwinism may not adequately explain biogenesis, or DNA information systems, but that doesnt mean we should look to supernatural causes. But this still leaves a few open issues that Ill post on top
SimpsonKeith 2 years ago
"Taking offense, is all they've got left.
And the one thing you can be sure of, is they don't actually know anything about what they reject"
I love this man.
HEXMETAL 2 years ago
3:07 was hilarious.
XionXi 2 years ago
He's like a rock star! Listen to the crowd.
RyanTheTruthSeeker 2 years ago 3
Oh yes!!!!!
JimEllis1975 2 years ago
OOH I believe in the stork theory!
My parents never fucked to have me!
yeah!
your dad pulled out just in time from your mon!
Flawless logic there!
emancoy 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oobashsfghaaaaata ooooavvbbbaaokanda
i spickon alll cizzzens tatashata bappa
HelmutVonSphincter 2 years ago
I wish i could rate 6 stars sometimes...
IronMAidan 3 years ago 3
just vote 4 stars more often
mAmor300 3 years ago
That's what sock puppet accounts are for!
takotheoktopus 2 years ago
As a sex MANIAC I'm pretty hostle to the rival "stork theory."
LOL.
GambitX37 3 years ago 6