The Watchmaker And Other Creationist Arguments

Science & Reason on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/ScienceReason

The Watchmaker And Other Creationist Arguments - Richard Dawkins @ UC Berkeley.

---
Please subscribe to Science & Reason:
• http://www.youtube.com/Best0fScience
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceMagazine
• http://www.youtube.com/ScienceTV
• http://www.youtube.com/FFreeThinker
---

Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He was voted Britain's leading public intellectual by readers of Prospect magazine and was named one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People" for 2007.

Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene", which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term "meme". He is a prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker", he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics.

Richard Dawkins is an atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist, and supporter of the Brights movement. In his 2006 book "The God Delusion", he contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that faith qualifies as a delusion − as a fixed false belief.

• http://www.richarddawkins.net
• http://www.youtube.com/richarddawkinsdotnet
• http://tinyurl.com/DawkinsVideos

If you enjoy the video and would like to support the work of The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, please purchase the program on DVD at http://richarddawkins.net/store/
.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• The
• Blind
• Watchmaker
• Creationist
• Arguments
• Richard
• Dawkins
• UC
• Berkeley
• God
• Delusion
• Atheist
• Experience
• Atheists
• Atheism
• Christianity
• Christians
• Science
• Islam
• Islamic
• Muslim
• ID
• Religious
• Faith
• Belief
• Bible
• Jesus
• Christ
• Satan
• Hell
• Catholic
• Quran
• Koran
• Terror
• Young
• Earth
• Creation
• Creationists
• Creationism
• Reason
• Secular
• Coalition
• American
• Humanists
• Sam
• Harris
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Daniel
• Dennett
• Freethinker
• FFreeThinker

[ApatheticOmniscience]

@hevy99 "HE REVEALS HIMSELF QUITE CLEARLY TO THOSE WHO HEAR HIS VOICE" - Ahh, so does this occur before or after one has completely shut themselves off from any logic, reasoning, evidence, respect for humanistic values and deluded themselves so much they now believe that using caps lock is more effective for communicating on the internet?

[iz2sicc]

@hevy99 See what I mean about your inability to have a civil discourse? I wouldn't have knocked you for your grammar if you in the same breath called someone else a dummy. It's like all the people on the Internet that type out the comment, "Your dumb".

[dkthg]

@misterdeadly1 Very true.(i've had my own arguments with creationists about evolution, and it's NOT a fun experience.) I should've seen that, based on your name, you are not to be messed with. Keep fightin the good fight! ATHEIST AWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

[misterdeadly1]

@dkthg To quote myself "I get that you're (probably) joking, but ridiculing the concept of sexual selection is out of the creationist playbook".

Sorry to sound stuffy, but I think I made a valid point. Snickering at the concept of sexy animals goes hand-in-hand with snickering sentiments like "why aren't monkeys turning into people today?"

I'm glad you were kidding, and its no big deal, but its worth noting that snickering is pretty common among those who don't understand evolution.

[dkthg]

@misterdeadly1 Dude, i was JOKING with you! Put down your rifle, i'm an atheist myself!

[misterdeadly1]

@dkthg To peahens, yes. Not to me, and I hope not to you.

I get that you're (probably) joking, but ridiculing the concept of sexual selection is out of the creationist playbook. Some traits--like the elaborate plumage of many birds--can make survival more difficult for an individual animal. The explanation for those fancy feathers is that the downside risk of increased vulnerability to predators is outweighed by the advantage of leaving more offspring. Another win for Darwin.

[dkthg]

@misterdeadly1 Yeah...peacock's are SEXY birds...mmmmmmm

[misterdeadly1]

I do wish Dawkins had explained natural selection's mechanism more clearly: the non-random survival of random mutations.  Many people who don't understand evolution think it is just about random mutations, and don't understand that the survival value of some mutations, which in turn get passed onto subsequent generations, is the key to the crane metaphor.

I'd also have liked a few words on sexual selection--for example, a peacock's tail is the result of what generations of peahens find sexy.

[tyuo9980]

I can make up a creature that is invisible and undetectable and i'll just write a whole book about how it created the world. Oh so now because you cant disprove it, it must mean this creature is real.

the fact is we don't know the answer to everything, but saying that an invisible man in the sky did it and deem him unquestionable is absolutely stupid.

[CatFacedKillers]

AHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[iz2sicc]

@hevy99 I can type in CAPS too...

WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN YOU HAVE TO STAND BEFORE THE MIGHTY FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER? HIS MIGHT MEATBALLS AND NOODLY APPENDAGES WOULD NOT APPROVE OF YOUR JESUS.