Books

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Richard Dawkins: 'Strident? Do they mean me?'

With his latest book, creationist-basher Richard Dawkins believes he has amassed all the evidence he could ever need to convince unbelievers that Darwin was right. Now he just has to get them to read it...

Interview by Emma Townshend

Dawkins says: 'I'd like to think my books are humorous at points...that people laugh'

DAVID SANDISON

Dawkins says: 'I'd like to think my books are humorous at points...that people laugh'

Richard Dawkins is in the middle of London's Natural History Museum, telling me about the applications on his iPhone. Sitting in the museum café, he holds the phone up to his mouth and tips back his head to show me how he can drink a virtual "pint" of Carling on screen, the beer draining as the phone tips further. Which is not exactly what I was expecting.

Dawkins has the enthusiasm of a teenage geek for new technology. "I love my iPhone," he confesses. "I'm on my third already." Then he shows me another phone app, this time simulating Darwinian natural selection. As each generation of a populace is born, the appearance of the group of individuals on screen varies. As Sir David Attenborough walks past and says hello, I feel secretly relieved we aren't still laughing at the lager trick. "Do you find it difficult to switch off from technology?" "Aha, yes," he says with a dark chuckle, straightaway. And do you ever get in trouble for that? He laughs again.

To most observers, Dawkins is the textbook aggressive champion of evolutionary theory. His new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, is intended to amass the scientific testimony for evolution in one place, answering creationist critics who say there is no evidence that evolution by natural selection has ever taken place. In person, Dawkins fails to live up to the "aggressive" label.

More rightly described as "dapper", he is today wearing a pale-grey suit whose stitching and cut look deliciously Savile Row. The smartness is tempered by a touch of English whimsy: the outfit is completed by a hand-painted tie featuring the birds of the Galapagos, with wings outstretched for flight, and talons spread to snatch prey. "My wife painted it for me," he explains proudly.

All in all, he is an intriguing combination. He has the beady-eyed, fiercely scrutinising gaze of the Oxford professor inviting you for interview, and at the same time a warm and generous enthusiasm for science and all its manifestations (including those of Steve Jobs and the Apple corporation). But his greatest wonder is reserved for the natural world.

Walking through the gallery that contains skull casts and bones from our ancestors, he greets each as if they were old friends. "Ah, dear boy!" he exclaims to one skeleton. (It turns out "Dear Boy" is the nickname given by celebrated anthropologists the Leakeys to Paranthropus boisei, a skeleton they carried around for a time in a biscuit tin. It is now recognised as one of our most distant relatives.)

Then, moments later, he says more sadly, "Ah, the Taung baby": a child snatched from its mother by eagles some 2.5 million years ago. The child died after having its eyes pecked out, as evidence from the skull shows. In his new book, Dawkins spends a whole chapter discussing human evolution, including a touching passage on the Taung baby and its bereft mother. It's this ability to be deeply imaginative that captures his readers in their millions. As we walk through a gallery hung with gibbon skeletons, articulated as they would be in their jungle home, he stops and sighs: "It must be a wonderful experience to swing your way through the forest like that, at extremely high speed. They actually take off for a moment when they swing from one branch to the next. Very much like flying," he adds, wistfully.

The Greatest Show on Earth tackles more controversial matters, too. Included is a transcript of his 2008 interview with Wendy Wright from Concerned Women for America, an out-and-out creationist who simply denies the existence of evidence for human evolution. As Dawkins urges her repeatedly to visit any museum and see the skulls and skeletons for herself, she simply ignores him and repeats her own orthodoxy. "Why is it so important to you that everyone believes in evolution?" she asks, almost plaintively. "I am a lover of truth," he simply tells me.

So he is genuinely puzzled by people calling him aggressive. "Well, I'm nothing like as aggressive as I'm portrayed. And I'm always being labelled 'strident'. In the bestseller lists it always has a little one-line summary of the book, and for my new one it says 'strident academic Richard Dawkins'. I'm forever saddled with this wretched adjective. I think I'm one of the most unstrident people in the world. I'd like to think my books are humorous at points," he adds, pensively. "I'd like to think people laugh when they read them."

There are moments in the new book which do make the reader laugh, not all of which concern Wendy Wright and her views about the morning-after pill ("a paedophile's best friend"). Dawkins quotes in full Eric Idle's Monty Python parody of "All Things Bright and Beautiful," a hymn he has clearly enjoyed seeing rewritten. His books also have whimsical moments: in this one, a full-page colour photograph of one biologist's naked back, bearing a large evolution-themed tattoo.

But most importantly his writing radiates an intense sense of fascination. He is a great explainer, taking complex biological processes and making them accessible. Here, that includes the development of the embryo in early pregnancy, the wonkiness of giraffe anatomy, and our own fishy ancestry.

Born in Africa during the Second World War, Dawkins had parents who were both keen naturalists – his father worked for the British government of Kenya, a biologist specialising in agriculture. Africa was an exotic environment for a small child. Walking around the insect gallery, he suddenly sees a large scorpion preserved in a mahogany case, its tail raised as if about to sting, and stands back. "I was badly stung by one of them as a child," he reveals. "I'm quite frightened of large spiders and scorpions still."

But young Dawkins also spent time in England. "My grandparents lived at Mullion in Cornwall, so we always used to go there for our holidays. It was idyllic." Holidaying at their home on the Lizard, he developed a lifelong passion for walking the cliff path. "All the way down from Mullion, past Kynance, to the Lizard," he says, with a smile. "Lovely flowers, sea pinks on the cliffs."

He has a clear sense of his debt to a series of inspiring mentors. An old headmaster at his school, called Sanderson, had been enormously enthusiastic about natural history. "And his spirit lived on there. My old biology teacher Ioan Thomas had come to the school specifically because of it. There was one time he came into class and asked: 'What animal feeds on hydra?' We didn't know. He went right around the whole class asking. Everybody was guessing, and then, finally, we said, 'Sir, Sir, what animal does?' And he waited and waited, and then he said, 'I don't know. And I don't think Mr Coulson does either.' He burst into the next room, got Mr Coulson and dragged him out by the arm, and he didn't know either! It was a wonderful lesson, I never forgot it and neither did anyone else: it's OK to not know the answer."

He is proud of his career so far: "All my books have sold very well, and none has ever gone out of print. The Selfish Gene has sold as many as The God Delusion, but over a longer time span, of course. My books do make a lot of money, and I don't want to keep it myself, so I wanted to find something to put the money into. I started my charitable foundation, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, to promote a sceptical, critical, enlightened view of the world." So, I ask, you never splash out on anything? He pauses. "Actually we do have a swimming pool," he admits, bashfully.

He remains passionately interested in the world around him. At one point he stops in front of a display on dung beetles rolling up balls of faeces in their burrows. "I never knew they did that," he says, wonder in his voice. Today, Dawkins divides his time between writing and campaigning, fighting what he feels is an essential battle. The Greatest Show on Earth is simply the latest weapon in his armoury. So finally I have to ask him, does he honestly think any creationists will read it?

"Hardline, mind-made-up creationists, no. But there are lots of people, people who think they are creationists but who haven't thought about it very hard, people who grew up in some religion or other, who are just beginning to question what they were taught. And all of a sudden they are reading about evolution and saying, wait a minute, this makes sense. I get a lot of letters from people thanking me, saying, 'You've changed my life.' That is very, very gratifying." So you have actually converted people? "Well, for example, I was at one point teaching in Oxford, and we had an animal-behaviour student who was a creationist from some out-of-the-way Bible college in America. He came dutifully to all my lectures, every week, and after the last lecture, he came down to the desk where I was packing up my notes and he said, 'Gee, this evolution, it really makes sense!' So yes, yes, I do believe that people can change their minds, be convinced by the truth. And I thought, yes, that's what I'm here for."

Emma Townshend's new book, 'Darwin's Dogs: How Darwin's Pets Helped Form a World-Changing Theory of Evolution', is published by Frances Lincoln on 5 November

The extract

The Greatest Show on Earth, By Richard Dawkins (Transworld £20)

'...Imagine you are a teacher of recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted... by politically muscular groups of Holocaust deniers. The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central principle of biology they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied'

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
barking mad up the wrong tree
[info]mackname wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 04:22 am (UTC)

does it really matter to all of us that how the world has come to ‘existence’ (*) and ‘evolution’ (*); say by itself (*) or other things (*)?

The major issue however, ought to be the acknowledgment and protection of personal freedom, which one should not eliminate others’ personal opinions. Otherwise, there will be no difference between an extremist to the other extremists.




* for the sake of argument, let’s forget the definition of all these unidentified ‘variables’
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree
[info]zelemo wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:44 am (UTC)
It's not a matter of personal freedom. It's a matter of the difference between the truth and opinion. Evolution is a fact. Religion is an opinion. But many people treat them as if it were the other way round, and try to prevent the fact of evolution from being taught in classrooms.

And that's just plain wrong.

"Evolution" is not an undefined variable. Evolution is a fact. And Darwin's theory of natural selection (with some modifications as we have learned more over the years) is the theory (in the scientific sense) that explains the fact.

If you deny evolution, you might as well deny the world is round. The evidence is as strong for both.
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]elevengoalposts - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:25 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]ganef - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 03:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 10:12 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]elevengoalposts - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 11:51 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 01:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 02:19 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 03:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 02:23 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 06:47 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]tqguru - Thursday, 8 October 2009 at 03:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]pw201 - Thursday, 8 October 2009 at 09:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]elevengoalposts - Friday, 9 October 2009 at 05:13 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 03:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]past123 - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 08:27 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 10:22 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]past123 - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 09:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 06:56 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]past123 - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 08:26 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]past123 - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 08:45 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 09:58 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]past123 - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 10:45 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 10:59 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 01:23 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]past123 - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 09:09 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 09:31 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]past123 - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 09:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 10:10 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 10:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 07:00 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]vanriot84 - Thursday, 8 October 2009 at 12:35 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Saturday, 10 October 2009 at 09:56 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 10:02 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]trimountaingal - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 07:48 am (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]craftlass - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 07:57 am (UTC) Expand
inductive reasoning - [info]rexxxxxxxx - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 08:48 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]nikolche - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 01:21 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: barking mad up the wrong tree - [info]cadwern - Friday, 9 October 2009 at 01:52 pm (UTC) Expand
Alas.
[info]perk_i wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 07:45 am (UTC)
I really wish this guy would do something useful with his time.
Re: Alas.
[info]black_wolf72 wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 09:08 am (UTC)
He just wrote and published an educational book aimed at the layman public. Creationists have been whining and bawling for years now that Richard should 'do something useful' and 'show us the evidence'. If you think evolution is a subject not useful to our society and our world, you are uninformed.
Re: Alas. - [info]perk_i - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 09:15 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Alas. - [info]cylusys - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 10:09 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Alas. - [info]linear_c - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 10:38 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Alas. - [info]aj_uk - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 09:37 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Alas. - [info]dec2 - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Alas. - [info]perk_i - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Alas. - [info]aj_uk - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 05:36 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Alas. - [info]perk_i - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 07:04 pm (UTC) Expand
For Human _Traffiker - [info]anti_arab - Friday, 9 October 2009 at 10:51 pm (UTC) Expand
hero!!
[info]wetgash wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC)
go on ricky enlighten these religious fools once again!!
fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap
[info]abushams wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 11:13 am (UTC)
More fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap ??
Why do Fundies of any kind always insist on converting the "unbelievers" ??
I do not really care HOW God kneaded the clay ...
Evolution .. fine by me .. believe what you want ..
Like the Quran says :
"for you your believes , for me mine"
And now stop trying to ..... convert me ..
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap
[info]linear_c wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 11:35 am (UTC)
How is it possible to be an evolutionist fundementalist? Evolution is a fact of nature, irrespective of anyone's opinions. You can't be fundementalist about something that is true.
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]abushams - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 11:46 am (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]linear_c - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]perk_i - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]linear_c - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]perk_i - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:58 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]linear_c - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]perk_i - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:22 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]linear_c - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]perk_i - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 02:02 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]linear_c - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 07:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]perk_i - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 07:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]linear_c - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 08:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]perk_i - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 08:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: fundamentalist Evolutionist Claptrap - [info]linseysdawn - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:18 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]shegelu wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)
Thank God that Dawkins is back to what he knows about, evolutionary science, and has stopped pontificating about what he is incapable of comprehending, religion!

Any theologist worth their salt could argue that the beauty and ruthlessness of evolutionary process actually support the idea of a divine patterns. Trouble is most fundamentalists have no debating skills whatsoever.

I myself was rather surprised that Dawkins never knew that dung beetles rolled dung!
Shegelu
[info]linear_c wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 11:26 am (UTC)
I suspect Dawkins understands more about theology than you do. There is no good evidence at all for the existence of any gods; not a single piece. What is the good in debating the imaginary?
Re: Shegelu - [info]perk_i - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Shegelu - [info]linear_c - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:59 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Shegelu - [info]perk_i - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Shegelu - [info]linear_c - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:19 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Shegelu - [info]linear_c - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 07:58 pm (UTC) Expand
(no subject) - [info]the_town_crier - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:07 pm (UTC) Expand
And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]shegelu - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 02:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]shegelu - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 03:02 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 06:46 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 06:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]shegelu - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 09:25 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 10:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]shegelu - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 09:08 am (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]sickofstupidity - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]shegelu - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 04:04 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 07:36 am (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]shegelu - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 09:34 am (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 09:51 am (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]shegelu - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 03:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 09:09 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]shegelu - Wednesday, 7 October 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]thomas_hobbes - Thursday, 8 October 2009 at 07:45 am (UTC) Expand
Re: And behold the true believers cometh! - [info]shegelu - Thursday, 8 October 2009 at 12:02 pm (UTC) Expand
surprised too - [info]drewridama - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 09:13 pm (UTC) Expand
Do you mean me!
[info]ij23 wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 11:42 am (UTC)
I do believe that people can change their minds, be convinced by the truth (quoted Richard Darkins)! He is obviously ripe for conversion! Those who deny the loudest usually make the most ardent converts, witness Saul of Tasus! Better know as St. Paul!
Re: Do you mean me!
[info]sickofstupidity wrote:
Monday, 5 October 2009 at 02:18 pm (UTC)
Fatuous drivel.
The citadel of fundamentalism will never be breached
[info]rebukemenot wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 11:54 am (UTC)
I totally agree with Richard Dawkins - I am a retired clergy person, and in my opinion the bible is a paper testimony to the imagination of man. Yes, it contains some history, but modern archaeological surveys have unearthed the truth. Most of the great events recorded in the bible belong to the realm of mythology. The Exodus, Jericho, King David's united empire (a petty village chief at best) all fiction. And are we really to believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the OT? Not only did he list Edomite Kings yet to be born? He even recorded his own death? Sorry! I was forgetting - he was a prophet wasn't he!
I ceased believing in a compassionate interactive deity many years ago, and I never hid my heretical views from the congregation. The greatest problem facing the committed believer is Theodicy; how a loving God can allow evil and suffering to prevail on such a grand scale. John Polkinghorne (Physicist, who changed his Lab coat for a Cassock) believes that he knows the answer. God's hands are tied, he tells us, self imposed divine limitation (self castration), so the poor old fellow sits up above weeping and wailing but unable to intervene - because that would compromise the God given freedom of the created order. We suffer because we are free to suffer is Polkinghorne's mantra.
If suffering existed within reasonable limits then his thesis might have some (theoretical) merit, but it seems to me that while Polkinghorne's God is self-limiting, suffering (when we include the animal kingdom) is limitless. And there are other reasons why his thesis fails - As for miracles? If the quantum world (the world of small things) is not constrained by the laws that govern the visible universe then why should God's Son be? If a quark can be in two places at the same time, then why not Jesus - all that is required is a 'phase change.'
This all hangs on the assumption that what obtains in the (theoretical) world of small particles, also obtains in the world of everyday experience. Not many scientists would agree with this.
I imagine that Richard Dawkin's must fume about this blatant misappropriation of science in an attempt to prove the existence of God.
I am visited frequently by Jehovah Witnesses carrying their version of the bible. They know the OT inside out, but they have no understanding of how the bible came to be the way it is. Like many Christian worshippers, they believe that the bible dropped from the sky wrapped in gold foil, "guaranteed untouched by human hand."
One thing I have learned - When challenged - Biblical literalists retreat into fortress fundamentalism, only to emerge even stronger.
Richard Dawkins will not change such as these, but I welcome his evangelical commitment to the cause of science and reason.
David
Re: The citadel of fundamentalism will never be breached
[info]palestinian_ian wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:51 pm (UTC)
Jehovah's Witnesses, and other Christain faiths, claim there is only one god, but cannot explain why the first Commandment states You shall worship no other god before me. Even in the book of Genesis God says Let Us make man in Our image. So even so-called facts in the OT still manage to evolve into a single almighty god.One also has to wonder why a god who created all the animals etc from nothing, had to take a piece of Adam to produce a woman. Why not just create her?
Darwin was a simpleton !
[info]human_trafikker wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 11:57 am (UTC)
Before his famous voyage Charles Darwin was a simpleton with no pedigree as a scientist; then suddenly after three years on a ship he comes back with remarkable scientific theories. Absolutely amazing !!!

Unless of course you know the real truth and have a good laugh about how the world has been taken in by the "Big Hoax".

It is common knowledge that Charles cloned all his work and based it on Arabic translations of famous Arab Scientists and their work about two centuries earlier. It is all available in the British Library, just spend any afternoon going through the archives in Euston and all will be clear, Charles Darwin was one of the first to use plaigarism to further his career.
Re: Darwin was a simpleton !
[info]arcane_af wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:59 pm (UTC)
Interesting. I would like to know what these books are. Are they in print? Can I order them from Amazon?

Please, let us know. I would love to discover that evolution by natural selection, based on observation of living creatures in the wild, was already old hat before Darwin came along. It wouldn't make evolution any less of a fact, because overwhealming evidence in its favour has been amassed since The Origin Of Species was published, but it would certainly interest me as part of the history of science.

I await to be enlightened as to your sources and further reading (no bonkers web site addresses please.) Although not, to be honest, with my breath held...
Re: Darwin was a simpleton ! - [info]rexxxxxxxx - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 09:03 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Darwin was a simpleton ! - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 02:31 pm (UTC) Expand
Another book, how many does he need!!
[info]hair_clipper wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
Another attempt by Dawkins to convince people of his beliefs. Im beginning to wonder just how many books he needs to write to convince us. Most religions apart from his only need one.
No finite beings without an infinite being. No effect without a cause. A watch in the desert cannot arise by chance. The complexity of the eye and the linking of our organs. The breadth of our universe and the complexity of the cell. All these are just simple straightforward proofs for the existence of a creator. His books have never answered any of these points. The first of creation was either Ourselves, Nothing or a Creator - who exist without a cause. Ourselves is impossible as we didnt exist before, Nothing is impossible as it doesnt exist as 'nothing' is the absence of something. Therfore you only have 1 answer. Which is that we have a Creator. I dont think you need 'books' to answer these points just a long paragraph would suffice but hey its not possible and Dawkins himself knows it.
Re: Another book, how many does he need!!
[info]linseysdawn wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:23 pm (UTC)
Hair Clipper WTF are you on about?
EVERY SINGLE one of your points has been answered in his books! The EYE example alone was explained in TWO! (Unweaving the Rainbow, and The Blind Watchmaker.) The complexity of the cell is mentioned in the new one, along with how we develop in the womb. GEE WHIZZ! How can you mouth off about his books not having these things in when they blatantly DO?!?!?!!? What the hell planet are you on?
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]hair_clipper - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]arcane_af - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:03 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]adampooler - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]hair_clipper - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 02:57 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]adampooler - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 04:44 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]pw201 - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 11:28 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]cadwern - Friday, 9 October 2009 at 05:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]theelectrician - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:23 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]sickofstupidity - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 02:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]suitablysated - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 05:05 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Another book, how many does he need!! - [info]hugh7 - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 07:17 am (UTC) Expand
Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs.
[info]human_trafikker wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
Charles Darwin work was at a selective collection plagiarism derived from the following Arab scholars

1) Abu Reihan Biruni (972-1048)

2) Ibn Bajja (1070-1138)

3) Ibn Tufail (1110-1185)

4) Nasiraddin Tusi (1201 - 1267)

Can Richard Dawkins really be such a simple fellow , that he bases his argument on plagiarised works
that were translated from Arabic ??

Surely note.......................I think Richard Dawkins is just having a giggle on our account. A bit of jovial leg pulling or was he jilted by someone who prefered the companionship of a God fearing believer and is now venting his frustrations on any God fearing mortal.

Try reading "Akhlag Nasiri" by Nasiraddin Tusi, and all will be clear, Charles Darwin is exposed as a smart hoaxer at best.
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs.
[info]linseysdawn wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:28 pm (UTC)
My word!
I just, well Trafficker!

http://azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/92_folder/92_articles/92_tusi.html

Prior to Darwin lots of people knew how animals changed over time. They just couldnt explain how.

How on Earth could you get it so wrong about Darwin?

Because you are choosing it.
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]human_trafikker - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]ganef - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 03:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]icf01 - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]human_trafikker - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:56 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]icf01 - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]arcane_af - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:23 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]arcane_af - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]rayamiles - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 09:59 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]drug_baron - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 02:48 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]rayamiles - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 07:51 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]human_trafikker - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 12:13 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]rayamiles - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 12:31 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]todopalante - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]human_trafikker - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 12:48 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution Theory was first proposed by Arabs. - [info]rayamiles - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 07:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Show me the Money
[info]chrisclarkgold wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:51 pm (UTC)
The internet made it more easy for the more extreme hopemeisters to profit from feeding their followers false hopes and aspirations for a price (Buy my book. Visit my museum.). Engineered controversy over extremes of position (Show me the evidence) attracts more attention, TV appearances fees, memberships and sales. There are similar cult-building pscychologies in use in every case.

Perhaps schools could lead more with teaching pupils critical reasoning over learned information and use it as a life skill. Then younger students of life would be somewhat less inclined to believe without questioning first. And the somewhat single minded Wendy Wright would have a much better opportunity to show us her evidence. After all - she might be completely right, and Concerned Woman for America could devise even more ways than those on the website ((website http://ow.ly/sBAN)) to receive memberships and donations based on demonstratable proof.
religion
[info]jorgec wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 12:59 pm (UTC)
Is atheism just another religion?
Re: religion
[info]icf01 wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:02 pm (UTC)
No.
Re: religion - [info]jorgec - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:27 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]chrissetti - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 05:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]pw201 - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]jorgec - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 07:05 am (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]hugh7 - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 07:24 am (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 10:36 am (UTC) Expand
[info]icf01 wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:02 pm (UTC)
As Dawkins says, he will never convert the hardliners - just read the nonsensical creationist posts here. But his books may enlighten those who retain their critical faculties. That's Wendy Wright and the Concerned Women are so concerned.
Why are Atheists so Nasty?
[info]theprogramme wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:16 pm (UTC)
Each and every Atheist poster on this thread comes across as a real nasty peace of work. Their demeanour is always a threatening, smug and unforgiving. Take the Dawkin's photo above, it's practically a carbon copy of his pose on the atheist bus. The body language and smile says: "I've got ya, I'm not going away and you're going to get it all right!".

But, that said, what else can I expect. Britain is now officially an Atheist state run by a Secular Government. I walk and drive around this miserable place and all I see is aggression and nasty behaviour by humans to their fellow organism's. Not a day goes by where I don't see some form of nasty behaviour to other humans in this rotten country.

I suppose the looks of desperation, the non existent smile and mild neurosis of modern day Britons is just a natural reaction after decades of Atheism in Britain. The rampant crime, high divorce rate, STD capital of Europe, binge drinking, obesity, mass teenage pregnancy, 200,000 abortions per annum, armies of singletons roaming around supermarkets, a quick dose of endorphins when we buy a new gadget, illegal wars, excessive greedy bankers, all this will all take its toll on the poor population of Britain.

Maybe next up on the Atheist charter will be Voluntary Suicide so people can get out of this nightmare whenever they like.
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty?
[info]icf01 wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:31 pm (UTC)
Can't you see that creationists don't come across as very nice either? I'm not atheist, but I take strong exception to people who try to pass off medieval ideas as scientific theory.
Whether you believe in God or not, surely you can see that the only thing seperating us from the animals is our ability to think clearly, intelligently and critically. Without that we are nothing.
Ironically, in their enthusiasm to show we are seperate from animals, creationists are denying the only thing that keeps us seperate.
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]theprogramme - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 02:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]hosl - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 03:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]theprogramme - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:28 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]joffa42 - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 02:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]elevengoalposts - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 02:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]trimountaingal - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 04:46 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]theprogramme - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:21 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]trimountaingal - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:45 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]theprogramme - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 07:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]trimountaingal - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 05:12 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]pw201 - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 07:14 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]theprogramme - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 08:33 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]pw201 - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 09:13 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]theprogramme - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 11:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Why are Atheists so Nasty? - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 10:43 am (UTC) Expand
religion
[info]jorgec wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:40 pm (UTC)
All religions(including atheism)are often hypocritically nasty. Why do creationism and evolution disagree? There's really no need. In reality they are simply different perspectives on the same thing i.e. the awesome power of mother nature. :-)
Re: religion
[info]thomas_hobbes wrote:
Monday, 5 October 2009 at 10:47 am (UTC)
Jorgec,
You're confusing atheism and evolution. One has nothing to do with the other.
Re: religion - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 11:21 am (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]jorgec - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 04:26 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]jorgec - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 04:35 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]thomas_hobbes - Monday, 5 October 2009 at 05:58 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]jorgec - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 07:22 am (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]jorgec - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 07:26 am (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]jorgec - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 07:37 am (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 07:42 am (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]jorgec - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 11:34 am (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]thomas_hobbes - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 11:56 am (UTC) Expand
Re: religion - [info]jorgec - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 12:01 pm (UTC) Expand
The thinking behind creationism
[info]icf01 wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 01:59 pm (UTC)
It's hard to see how certain religious people can deny such an elegant, simple and well-tested theory such as evolution. You really have to turn cartwheels of convoluted thought and put your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA, very loudly, to convince yourself it's not fact. Then you end up looking ridiculous.

Fortunately, just loudly denying something doesn't stop it being true. Eventually all the shouting will die down and evolution will still be there -, as it always was.
(no subject) - [info] - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 02:17 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: to be poor
[info]hosl wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 03:34 pm (UTC)
So why isn't god ever getting the blame for the bad thing? Could he stop the Taunami in Samoa and just looked the other way?
If he exists he is a sick sadist.
Re: to be poor - [info]ganef - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 03:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: to be poor - [info]icf01 - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 03:40 pm (UTC) Expand
dawkins squawkins
[info]basil57 wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 03:42 pm (UTC)
Richard Dawkins is going to hell in a hay-cart and I wouldn't wish that on anyone!
Re: dawkins squawkins
[info]hosl wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 04:06 pm (UTC)
There are millions who would say the same about you- for not believing that Mohammad was god's last prophet, higher in his standing than Jesus.
And if anything, the Koranic description of hell is even more graphic than the biblical version.
Re: dawkins squawkins - [info]brainlego - Tuesday, 6 October 2009 at 11:13 am (UTC) Expand
Dawkin's delights in hearing sound of own voice
[info]muenchenmunkin wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 03:55 pm (UTC)
Why does Dawkins have to keep telling us about what Darwin wrote 150 years ago, and that was based on decades of research and reflection? Is it only because Darwin is dead? What "research" does Dawkins actually do himself? Dawkins is not himself one of the great contributors to "evolutionary theory". Ernst Mayr, and Dawkin's own Ph.d. supervisor, Nichlaas Tinbergen, spring to mind, but not the hallowed D himself.

As somebody wrote in a previous comment: does it really matter how we got here, what about paying more attention to how we behave?
Re: Dawkin's delights in hearing sound of own voice
[info]hosl wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 04:20 pm (UTC)
Dawkins has changed our whole understandin of biology. The "gene centric" model, which is the basis of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, was layed out by Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene".
Why does it matter for someone to speak? Because science is under threat today, like it hasn't been since the time of Galileo. Some of us have to care.
Understanding of evolution has huge practical impacts. From oil exploration (because it is the backbone of geology) to disease epidemiology (because tracing the origins of pathogenic agents uses the same techniques as tracing the ancestry of mammals, birds, and us). If science loses we all do. Can you imagine having a GPS device without Galileo having told us that we go around the sun?
Dawkin's delights in hearing sound of own voice - [info]muenchenmunkin - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 04:51 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Dawkin's delights in hearing sound of own voice - [info]hosl - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Dawkins delights in hearing sound of own voice - [info]muenchenmunkin - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 07:24 pm (UTC) Expand
Evolution is one thing, Origin is another
[info]orsonwrites wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 04:09 pm (UTC)
Anyone who denies the existence of evolution is talking total nonsense. I've worked with viruses in my research days, and they evolve before your eyes. However, when it comes to the origins of the process of evolution: the origin of the code which constitutes DNA and the mechanism of translation, there are some very serious questions that science has failed to answer, and will probably never answer. The RNA world theory fails to answer the ultimate chicken and egg paradox, as does any precursor system of self replication.

There is very little that we don't know about this system, and the fact is it couldn't have evolved itself as it is the start of evolution. It is the origin of life question, and the existence of a code contained in one chemical system for an entirely different chemical system, that points towards some sort of intelligent initiator.

The clergyman above who lost his faith, is an example of someone who has been hoodwinked by the belief that the likes of Dawkins have answered all the key questions. It is true that science has unveiled how we came into being as a species from other forms of life, but science has also exposed the impossibility of life itself coming into being by natural means here, or anywhere else in the universe in spite of its immense age.

It is a shame that the BBC chose to quote the 1st edition of The Origin Of Species at the end of the film Creation, when Darwin himself had included the word Creator in later editions. Although it was only a sop to his wife and the church, it may well contain truth, as he recognised it was a very complex problem and the one that could potentially derail the Materialistic ideology that was being born in his time. Now, more than ever, this paradox lays waste to the notion that science has disposed of the need for a creator.
Re: Evolution is one thing, Origin is another
[info]hosl wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 04:34 pm (UTC)
Science has never shown the impossibility of life having started as a natural process. There are multiple hypotheses that scientists are working on but to claim it is impossible is willful ignorance.
Remember, when there is no scientific answer to a question we can do one of two things. Either accept the fact that we don't know and work on finding one. Or turn to a system that has a terrible track record ongiving us the right answer: religion.
As for Darwin, he was an agnostic. He told us that in so many words in his biography. Trying to present him as a believer is simply dishonset.
Re: Evolution is one thing, Origin is another - [info]orsonwrites - Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 05:08 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Evolution is one thing, Origin is another - [info]duck222 - Monday, 16 November 2009 at 05:25 pm (UTC) Expand
Evolutionary Theory was first proposed by Arabs
[info]david_j_wright wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 04:56 pm (UTC)
human_trafikker

"Why don't Apes still transform into Humans ?"
They don't and nobody who understand evolution says they do. Apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

"Why do we not come across humans roaming around in the jungles who have apes as parents ?"
Evolution takes millions of years and each infant will be very similar to its parents (as we are). Small changes which make survival more likely will be inherited and lead to the evolution of humans, which, I repeat, happened over millions of years.

"Did evolution suddenly decide to selective stop when the process came under the "camera" ? Strange how Evolution suddenly became camera shy ?"
Who says that evolution has stopped? Large changes would not be expected over the course of a couple of centuries (remember the "millions of years" bit?). There are plenty of examples of micro-evolutionary changes over a relatively short period (see examples in "The Greatest Show on Earth)

You obviously have not read the book. Please read it and come back with coherent arguments, which I will be happy to discuss with you.

Incidentally, the work of Arab scientists and Darwin is also adequately covered in Dawkin's book. Please read it.
reply to hosl
[info]orsonwrites wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 05:32 pm (UTC)
Of course Darwin didn't believe in God, which is why I mention his addition of the word creator in later editions of Origin as being a sop. However, maybe he felt that using the origin of life as the place where he could invoke the interference of a creator was suitable as it presented the only process which he could not explain through the theory of evolution.

Science has revealed to us that DNA is translated into proteins through a complex system of translation. This system lies at the heart of the chicken and egg paradox "which came first, DNA, or the proteins that DNA codes for". Scientists have tried to overcome this paradox by invoking the RNA world theory because RNA is involved in translation. However, since the RNA itself does not decode the DNA, but enzymes do, the RNA world brings us no closer to solving the paradox. Whatever system we choose as a precursor brings us to this same problem which is insurmountable through natural means, hence my assertion that science has shown us that a natural solution to the appearance of a code and accompanying translation system is impossible.

If you want a more detailed explanation of this, google my username, orsonwrites. If you do, you may also notice an ironic connection between Darwin and myself.
Re: reply to hosl
[info]hosl wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:05 pm (UTC)
Or maybe Darwin was simply pressured by his wife and others to include the word creator in the subsequent editions of his book. Who knows? All I know is that he didn't at all believe in god in the traditional sense of it.
If you want a review of the models of initiation of life (beyond the RNA world) I recommoned the book "Life Ascending: The 10 great inventions of evolution", by biochemist Nick Lane. Not that I think you are interested in learning anything; this is for the benefit of anyone else that maybe reading.
What you are saying boils down to "arguement from personal incredulity": I can't imagine how it happened, therefore, I conclude that god did it.
But even I'd you can prove that initiation of life under purely natural conditions was "impossible", and I don't see how, what is your point? This won't be the god you're looking for.
It will be a deistic god that created the first cell, went into retirement and has
been missing in action since. It won't be a god that parts seas or answers prayers.
That Man Again!
[info]chiennoir wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:02 pm (UTC)
The Blind Watchmaker is easily Dawkins' best book. Evolution by Natural Selection is by far the most likely account of our origins. People who deny this do so for religious rather than scientific reasons. However, they must defend themselves through pseudoscientific doctrines such as Creationism or Intelligent Design. The God Delusion is - apart from Unweaving the Rainbow - probably his worst. As someone has already said, he should stick to science, not wander off into the dubious realms of metaphysics, philosophy or poetry criticism, for then he just makes a fool of himself.
Dawkin's Creek
[info]scot_in_canada wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 06:53 pm (UTC)
Dawkin's point has always been that religion does not belong in the science classroom. Should you wish to believe in God, then by all means use tour faith as you see fit. But do not use metaphysics to prove or disprove the science of evolution.
Mackname: do you mean "extremists" as in those who wish to understand the riddles of the universe vs. those that don't?
more replies to hosl
[info]orsonwrites wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 07:33 pm (UTC)
"Or maybe Darwin was simply pressured by his wife....."

Again I agree with you here, Darwin almost certainly didn’t believe in God, and that his reference to a Creator was a result of external pressures. As well as being a Darwin he was the son of a Wedgwood and a husband of a Wedgwood, a strong Christian family.

"Not that I think you are interested in learning anything; this is for the benefit of anyone else that maybe reading."

I am always interested in learning as I am only interested in the truth, who would want to believe in lies? I have read many books on this subject, and it is clear that the problem of the origin of the code and its accompanying translation system is not just unknowable but presents a conundrum or paradox that maybe only philosophy or faith can solve. Your faith is in a natural explanation, my faith is in an alternative explanation. That doesn’t mean I believe people should stop thinking about these problems or discovering new science, but the problem of the code and translation is not one that can be solved by biochemistry, it is an information problem.

"This won't be the god you're looking for.
It will be a deistic god that created the first cell, went into retirement and has
been missing in action since. It won't be a god that parts seas or answers prayers."

Many people’s experience of God, including mine, is very different from that which you describe.
Re: more replies to hosl
[info]hosl wrote:
Sunday, 4 October 2009 at 08:19 pm (UTC)
Obviously I was right to conclude you are not interested in learning. Read the book I told you and you will see that models exist, as to how this could have happened.
You don't even realize why he "RNA world" model was proposed in the first place. RNA can act as an enzyme and modulate it's own replication. That is why it could have done double duty- even though at present that is not the most promising hypothesis. That today RNA is transcribed from DNA doesn't mean it always had to be like that. Even today many viruses rely exclusively on RNA to store their genetic information.
But "science has proven life could not have started by itself" is the height of absurdity. Can you show me a peer review article saying that?
I don't have "faith in the material world". When I don't know something, like how life started on earth, I say so plainly. You on the other hand like to pullback god out of a hat to solve the problem.
As for your personal experience with a god-that further goes to show you have no idea what you're talking about. Even if you can prove that life first was started by a deity, there isn't a shred of evidence that that is the god of your imagination. It is more likely that it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date