Evolution: Only a Theory?

a highlight from a conversation between evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss, the entirety of which can be found elsewhere on YouTube.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• science
• philosophy
• evolution
• theory
• fact
• creationist
• creationism
• biology
• physics
• richard
• dawkins
• lawrence
• krauss

[csakegyvid]

Quantum theory and theory of gravitation are based on empirical science, evolution is not an emporical science so should not be compared to those theories.

[drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog; I don't know which subject you have a degree in, but for argument's sake, I'm supposing that you have a degree in economics. I have a degree in a field very closely related to biology. If you were making a comment on the dynamics of the global economic slowdown, I would not venture an assertion (much less call you stupid) on the subject because I know that my knowledge on the subject would be limited as compared to yours. One should assert where one has the knowledge to do so.

[drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: You are entitled to your opinion just as I am to mine and the commentator is to his. But NO ONE is entitled to their own "FACTS". Facts are facts, and if you are going to make claims without checking the facts, you should be prepared for the criticism. Maybe your friend should have verified the pertinent facts before making claims and calling a distinguished professor in the concerned field, "stupid", explicitly.

[drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog; I'm not trying to educate the commentator about evolution. Dr. Richard Dawkins and others are doing enough, already. I was countering the, rather arrogantly made, false claim that "there is no evidence in favour of evolution". It would be more appropriate for you to direct your objections at the commentator, for I am merely addressing him in the same manner as he has been addressing Dr. Richard Dawkins. Funny how you sympathize with him for the same 'tone' but condemn me for it.

[drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: "Reductio ad absurdum" is, after all, a logical fallacy in any argument, and so it is too, in yours. If you are more concerned than the 'tone' of my argument, rather than the 'facts' or the 'logic' in my argument, then you are being ridiculous. Whom you are defending has explicitly called the gentleman in question, "stupid". So your response rather demonstrates your own hypocrisy rather than my (non-existent) "elitism".

[GaolisVideoLog]

@drhtum I have my college degree also & do not have a problem with evolution either. I did not say that you used the word stupid, it was, if you allow "reductio ad absurdum" to unarbitrarily demonstrate to you how you're sounding to others. And you're doing it again. What I tried to get into your head was that if you try to speak to others who are clearly not as educated in the fields of evolution as you are, you should try to explain the matter from their POV to make it comprehensible. Get it?

[drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: It's easy to dismiss someone by calling them stupid without even taking the time to understand what it is that he is saying but it is much more difficult to sweat it out for years to reach the level of knowledge that Dr. Dawkins has. Those of you who are not prepared to sweat it out would rather just call him elite and dismiss him. Also, the gentleman (or anybody at his level) can back their claims with evidence. Can you? I don't think so..

*particular subject

[drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: One more thing - you feel that someone who seems to be knowledgeable about a particular considers himself elite. Well, no one has stopped you or anybody from gathering knowledge. Dr. Dawkins or anybody who has even been to college or grad school and made the effort has worked really hard to understand the subject and has subjected their knowledge to a lot of scrutiny before reaching that position. No one got there without breaking a sweat.

[drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: The culture that I come from finds it perfectly feasible.

Yet again it seems to offend you when you are pointed out when you are wrong.

Besides, I have not even used the word "stupid" to describe the commentator who has used that very word to describe Dr. Dawkins. Do I sense a stink of hypocrisy here? You don't like to be pointed out that he is wrong but you have no problems when he resorts to name calling. Nice going!!

[drhtum]

@GaolisVideoLog: Besides, the commentator is also clearly misinformed given that he states with such confidence that there is not a single piece of evidence in support of evolution. The space here is too small to list, but there is in fact a lot of evidence in favour of evolution. And I notice that only Muslims and Christians seem to get uncomfortable with the idea of evolution (Islam, Christianity and Judaism are Abrahamic religions). The culture that I come from finds it