Richard Dawkins--trying to persuade the history-deniers?

[Marylou]

“History-denierâ€

“Ill-informedâ€

“Ignorant of biologyâ€

“Deluded to the point of perversityâ€

 

These are a few of the things that Richard Dawkins calls young earth creationists in his The Greatest Show on Earth book.

 

Of course he is entitled to his world view and his opinions. The part I don’t understand is his use of these terms along with his declaration on page 8, “The history-deniers themselves are among those that I am trying to reach in this book.â€

 

Really????

 

If someone is trying to woo me to his “side†he should know that graciousness goes a long way in my decision to even finish reading the book!

[hornblower]

LOL. I love Dawkins.

He says what I want to say. :D

 

I do see your point though - will people stop reading this book because of this. I wonder if he's hoping to reach more the 'waffling & confused' people rather than the segment which is just reading it to say "yes, I have read it and I still don't agree."

 

I am (almost) ready to give up on the hard-core segment. Logic doesn't work there & if you push too hard that group retreats behind their religious texts, and calls it all 'mystery'. There's no arguing with that.

 

cheers~~

[RegGuheert]

It's too bad Richard Dawkins does not have scientific evidence to support his religious belief in evolution:

 

 

 

Yet he likes to hurl insults at those who do not share his worldview. It's a shame...

[hornblower]

It's too bad Richard Dawkins does not have scientific evidence to support his religious belief in evolution:

 

 

Oh man, I haven't laughed so hard in a while! Thanks for that! :rofl::rofl:

[Heather in Neverland]

Yet he likes to hurl insults at those who do not share his worldview. It's a shame...

 

I am doing a DVD study right now and in it Dawkins calls anyone who does not believe evolutionary theory as fact, "idiots, ignorant, stupid and wicked." Yeah, he's a real charmer.

 

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

[JWSJ]

“History-denierâ€

“Ill-informedâ€

“Ignorant of biologyâ€

“Deluded to the point of perversityâ€

 

These terms might seem disturbing at first.

 

But, having listened to numerous interviews with Dawkins, he is excellent at explaining his POV. The terms don't seem that bad after becoming familiar with his arguments.

[hornblower]

oh please. I've heard creationists refer to evolution as sleight-of-hand, a sham, brainwashing. (& worse: evil, Satanic etc etc etc).

Hyperbole is a common literary and debating device.

[RegGuheert]

Oh man, I haven't laughed so hard in a while! Thanks for that! :rofl::rofl:

I'm guessing that in the three minutes that it took you to respond to my post you did not manage to fit in a viewing of the 5-minute video I linked.:001_rolleyes:

 

Perhaps you can provide the scientific evidence that Dawkins is not able to produce? IMO, this is the KEY question that any evolutionist MUST be able to support with concrete scientific evidence if they want to have any credibility for their religious belief about origins:

 

"Can you give a single example of a genetic mutation that results in an INCREASE in information to the genetic evolutionary process?"

 

There is a reason that Dawkins cannot answer this simple question: The answer would require a scientist to observe something that simply does not occur. The simple fact is that all known mutations that occur in nature either delete or damage portions of the existing genome or make copies of the existing genome. In cases where a functional advantage is the result of a mutation, most (all?) of them are the result of a *reduction* in information in the genome and therefore the function of the organism.

[Karen in CO]

I don't like name calling and the derogatory tone. That's just not helpful.

Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True would be more accessible if you aren't a fan of Dawkins. It does a good job of covering evolution with bashing creationists.

 

Dawkins is one of those guys I can only take in small doses.

[Amira]

Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True would be more accessible if you aren't a fan of Dawkins. It does a good job of covering evolution with bashing creationists.

 

Dawkins is one of those guys I can only take in small doses.

 

I agree (as long as you really meant without bashing creationists). Even though I agree with Dawkins in many things, I don't much like reading his books. I read another book about evolution with a fairly conservative bookgroup and it didn't go over well at all. Honestly, if you're trying to change someone's mind, telling them they are stupid isn't likely to work very well. Coyne is a lot less abrasive.

[Karen in CO]

Oh no - it is another evolution debate that will not be resolved here and will change no ones mind. Gee. Who didn't see that one coming?

I thought our topic was Dawkins being abrasive.

[RegGuheert]

Hey, I'm sticking up for Dawkins! He wasn't abrasive in the clip I provided! :D

[hornblower]

I'm guessing that in the three minutes that it took you to respond to my post you did not manage to fit in a viewing of the 5-minute video I linked.:001_rolleyes:

 

a) by the time it loaded up & started, I recognized it

 

b) what I was giggling at was the quote of you I included in post. Not the video.

 

c) I will not engage in an evolution discussion with you, for the reason I listed in post #2. I have nothing but admiration for Dawkins' tireless willingness to engage on this topic, regardless of the small tactical missteps he makes along the way. I have no more patience for it & if I were handed his task, I'd be bald and have ground my teeth down to dust. Unlike Dawkins, I am DONE dealing with all the things that are listed in post #1.

 

:seeya:

[hornblower]

Oh no - it is another evolution debate that will not be resolved here and will change no ones mind. Gee. Who didn't see that one coming?

 

 

No, this time it will be different! Everyone will see the light.

Wait a minute, you're looking at the wrong light!

That's NOT the light!

 

 

I thought our topic was Dawkins being abrasive.

 

Yes. But you know, threads evolve......:D

 

Dawkins CAN be very abrasive. I know some people find him arrogant as well. I *heart* him & I find him hilarious, witty, and charming.

[hillfarm]

Whether the topic is evolution, global warming, homeschooling, animal rights, vaccinations, breast feeding, or swine flu, I find namecalling and mindless rhetoric to be very offensive. I hate it when the person doing that happens to be on "my" side of the argument. IMO, such antics cheapen the issue and bring everything the speaker says into question. If the person is so immature and uncontrolled as to behave in such a way, it makes me wonder if their logic and subject knowledge are equally as immature and full of knee-jerk conclusions. I begin to question their judgement in all areas, not just their inappropriate speech and manners. The more complicated the subject, the quicker I am to discount anyone who demonstrates such poor reasoning and discernment skills, not to mention lack of rigorous intellect and perceptiveness.

 

Anyone who is truly secure in their position on an issue doesn't need all the smoke and mirror distraction of whipping the opposition into a frenzy by insulting them. Anyone who is so unintelligent that they believe that I will follow the teachings of the biggest bully in the issue is sadly mistaken. And anyone who intends to manipulate my opinion through bluster rather than informing me of facts is wasting their breath.

 

I haven't needed a cheerleader to direct my opinions since high school. And I haven't been all that influenced by name calling since even before that. The way to influence my thinking is to give me well researched, logical arguments based on solid evidence, delivered in a way that is polite and respectful of the opposition.

[Karen in CO]

 

 

 

Yes. But you know, threads evolve......:D

 

 

but do they become more complex? :lol:

 

I just don't see charming. Witty, yeah. Maybe even a bit funny. not charming. When I read his books, I feel like I came in to the second session of a lecture. I enjoy, learn, and maybe even feel inspired or challenged, but I also get that feeling that I should have studied before I entered.

 

 

What is his most charming book? Maybe I haven't read enough of his books to feel prepared. And have you read the one that sparked this thread?

 

eta - I have only read The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker. I tried the Selfish Gene but haven't finished it. Maybe my problem is that I don't really get into reading biology. I usually stick to physics type science books. I like Stephen Hawking.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Karen in CO

[hornblower]

:lol: hillfarm, that was funny.

 

 

immature

uncontrolled

knee-jerk

poor reasoning

lack of rigorous intellect

 

The examples in #1 are just as factual as these.

[Michelle T]

I've heard similar, and worse, from creationists.

 

People can be rude, intolerant, impatient. Doesn't make the slightest bit of difference what they believe.

Michelle T

[IsabelC]

Although I agree with the majority of what Dawkins says, I find his writing not only unnecessarily abrasive but also pretty unoriginal. I read The God Delusion expecting it to contain a whole new approach to the subject matter and I don't think it told me anything I hadn't heard/read before. So I don't think I'll bother reading this book [shrug]

[Audrey]

LOL. I love Dawkins.

He says what I want to say. :D

 

:iagree: Exactly.

[hillfarm]

:lol: hillfarm, that was funny.

 

 

 

The examples in #1 are just as factual as these.

 

 

Glad you find it amusing! The bottom line is that I always begin to question when anyone substitutes inflammatory information for factual information. My dh has worked in the media broadcast industry for the last 25 years or so. I have seen way too many cases of how intentional sensationalism is used to gain audiences or influence opinion. He actually moved away from the news end of things after a few years because he could no longer justify participating in such an industry.

 

I consider "immature, uncontrolled, knee-jerk, poor reasoning, and lack of rigorous intellect" to be specific, not just nebulous inflammatory terms. There are generally held standards for what constitutes the line between positive and negative qualities surrounding these attributes. An immature person trying to cause a stir might say that they consider creationists to be stupid. A more mature person holding the same view might say that they cannot see the logic in the creationist view point. The first would cause me to tune that speaker out but the second would cause me to listen to hear why the speaker did not see the logic.

 

I have seen speakers become so caught up in their message that they lose control, saying the most inappropriate things and often actually frothing at the mouth in their urgency to voice their thoughts. Again, I tend to tune out the message (although I have to confess that I sometimes continue to watch out of curiosity to see what they will do next). A more controlled speaker will calmly state their case, which allows me to consider their message, not brace myself against it.

 

I used to work in the field of alternative health care. I occasionally ran into some real knee-jerk people in that industry. Those who would take one event and immediately associate it with the most unusual meanings. Such leaps in logic scare me. To tell a patient that because someone else died from a particular condition means that the patient's days are numbered is clearly not a responsible way to speak. I try not to listen to that type of communication either. I seek those who are more methodical and who consider all the facts before making pronouncements.

 

Poor reasoning...basing decisions on unsubstantiated facts, unrelated conclusions, coincidental occurrences. We can recognise it in our children and others. Why is it name calling to label it?

 

Lack of rigorous intellect... you may be right about this. I'm having difficulty finding the right words here. I mean when the speaker has read a few pseudoscientific journals and then proceeds to tell others that their conclusions are solid truth. When you can tell that there are holes in their logic, their "facts" are weak or have since been proven wrong, and that they are glossing over numerous bothersome bits of information to the contrary of their conclusion. When they obviously just haven't put the time into truly studying their subject, haven't done any troubleshooting of their arguments or considered the devil's advocate viewpoint at all.

 

So while my words were flowery, I don't perceive them as subjective. But thank you for calling it to my attention. I will not sleep during the day and then play online late into the night anymore!:D

[asta]

Glad you find it amusing! The bottom line is that I always begin to question when anyone substitutes inflammatory information for factual information. My dh has worked in the media broadcast industry for the last 25 years or so. I have seen way too many cases of how intentional sensationalism is used to gain audiences or influence opinion. He actually moved away from the news end of things after a few years because he could no longer justify participating in such an industry.

 

I consider "immature, uncontrolled, knee-jerk, poor reasoning, and lack of rigorous intellect" to be specific, not just nebulous inflammatory terms. There are generally held standards for what constitutes the line between positive and negative qualities surrounding these attributes. An immature person trying to cause a stir might say that they consider creationists to be stupid. A more mature person holding the same view might say that they cannot see the logic in the creationist view point. The first would cause me to tune that speaker out but the second would cause me to listen to hear why the speaker did not see the logic.

 

I have seen speakers become so caught up in their message that they lose control, saying the most inappropriate things and often actually frothing at the mouth in their urgency to voice their thoughts. Again, I tend to tune out the message (although I have to confess that I sometimes continue to watch out of curiosity to see what they will do next). A more controlled speaker will calmly state their case, which allows me to consider their message, not brace myself against it.

 

I used to work in the field of alternative health care. I occasionally ran into some real knee-jerk people in that industry. Those who would take one event and immediately associate it with the most unusual meanings. Such leaps in logic scare me. To tell a patient that because someone else died from a particular condition means that the patient's days are numbered is clearly not a responsible way to speak. I try not to listen to that type of communication either. I seek those who are more methodical and who consider all the facts before making pronouncements.

 

Poor reasoning...basing decisions on unsubstantiated facts, unrelated conclusions, coincidental occurrences. We can recognise it in our children and others. Why is it name calling to label it?

 

Lack of rigorous intellect... you may be right about this. I'm having difficulty finding the right words here. I mean when the speaker has read a few pseudoscientific journals and then proceeds to tell others that their conclusions are solid truth. When you can tell that there are holes in their logic, their "facts" are weak or have since been proven wrong, and that they are glossing over numerous bothersome bits of information to the contrary of their conclusion. When they obviously just haven't put the time into truly studying their subject, haven't done any troubleshooting of their arguments or considered the devil's advocate viewpoint at all.

 

So while my words were flowery, I don't perceive them as subjective. But thank you for calling it to my attention. I will not sleep during the day and then play online late into the night anymore!:D

 

Dang, we should merge this thread with Joanne's thread about the Pearl's.

 

:lol:

 

a

[Lizzie in Ma]

Whether the topic is evolution, global warming, homeschooling, animal rights, vaccinations, breast feeding, or swine flu, I find namecalling and mindless rhetoric to be very offensive. I hate it when the person doing that happens to be on "my" side of the argument. IMO, such antics cheapen the issue and bring everything the speaker says into question. If the person is so immature and uncontrolled as to behave in such a way, it makes me wonder if their logic and subject knowledge are equally as immature and full of knee-jerk conclusions. I begin to question their judgement in all areas, not just their inappropriate speech and manners. The more complicated the subject, the quicker I am to discount anyone who demonstrates such poor reasoning and discernment skills, not to mention lack of rigorous intellect and perceptiveness.

 

Anyone who is truly secure in their position on an issue doesn't need all the smoke and mirror distraction of whipping the opposition into a frenzy by insulting them. Anyone who is so unintelligent that they believe that I will follow the teachings of the biggest bully in the issue is sadly mistaken. And anyone who intends to manipulate my opinion through bluster rather than informing me of facts is wasting their breath.

 

I haven't needed a cheerleader to direct my opinions since high school. And I haven't been all that influenced by name calling since even before that. The way to influence my thinking is to give me well researched, logical arguments based on solid evidence, delivered in a way that is polite and respectful of the opposition.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[creekland]

Call me a cynic, but I'm in the school that believes it's all about the money. He makes far more off his books than anything else, so if he can sell his books to his choir (and then some), well...

 

I see him the same way I see Ann Coulter - brash, with a motive, and only really appealing to those that already agree with them, but both bringing in decent $$ for themselves.

[kalanamak]

Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution is True would be more accessible if you aren't a fan of Dawkins. It does a good job of covering evolution with bashing creationists.

 

 

ohhh, I just ordered that.

 

Did anyone see David Attenborough's broadcast about evolution? I think it was broadcast by the BBC, and isn't available to us schlumps in the US at this point. He genuinely believes it, and I don't think he did the project "just for the money".

[dangermom]

While Coyne is far less abrasive than Dawkins, I did have problems with his book. The parts explaining evolution are great; the parts where he tries to discuss religious faith are, to my mind, ham-handed and unhelpful. He certainly thinks that all religious people (whether or not they accept evolution) are gullible idiots. It seems to me that making that attitude obvious is not a good way to win religious people over to your side.

 

Whether the topic is evolution, global warming, homeschooling, animal rights, vaccinations, breast feeding, or swine flu, I find namecalling and mindless rhetoric to be very offensive. I hate it when the person doing that happens to be on "my" side of the argument. IMO, such antics cheapen the issue and bring everything the speaker says into question. If the person is so immature and uncontrolled as to behave in such a way, it makes me wonder if their logic and subject knowledge are equally as immature and full of knee-jerk conclusions. I begin to question their judgement in all areas, not just their inappropriate speech and manners. The more complicated the subject, the quicker I am to discount anyone who demonstrates such poor reasoning and discernment skills, not to mention lack of rigorous intellect and perceptiveness.

 

I cannot say enough how much I agree with this. Name-calling and yelling is counter-productive from both sides.

 

(--dangermom, religious person who has no problem with evolution whatsoever)

[dangermom]

I've heard as much nastiness, if not more, from the other side as well. He just calls people stupid. At least he doesn't tell them they are going to hell. He also doesn't hang, burn, or behead anyone (as was done historically to non believers of certain religions).

 

 

So, it's OK to wallow in the mud if everyone else is doing it too? No need to rise above and keep the high ground here. OK, gotcha.

[Sasha]

I've always thought he was a preach-to-the-choir type myself. Like Keith Olbermann or Michael Moore (and I love all three, just didn't figure they were seeking a new audience).

[kalanamak]

At least he doesn't tell them they are going to hell. He also doesn't hang, burn, or behead anyone (as was done historically to non believers of certain religions).

/QUOTE]

 

Yes, in this sense, the times we live in are better.

And, hey, the thread is another excuse to post Russell's Teapot, which is too long for my sig:

 

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

[RegGuheert]

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Nice quote. I can describe a very similar teapot:

 

If I were to suggest that inside each of our cells there is a china teapot, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that I will change my story about where to find the teapot whenever anyone points out it is not there. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in 150 year-old books, taught as the sacred truth every Monday through Friday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age.

 

I'm sorry, but the emperor has no clothes.

[Heather in Neverland]

Nice quote. I can describe a very similar teapot:

 

If I were to suggest that inside each of our cells there is a china teapot, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that I will change my story about where to find the teapot whenever anyone points out it is not there. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in 150 year-old books, taught as the sacred truth every Monday through Friday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age.

 

I'm sorry, but the emperor has no clothes.

 

:thumbup:

[LibraryLover]

:iagree:

:iagree: Exactly.

[elfgivas]

there is a film nova produced called "judgement day - intelligent design on trial". it is a reenactment of the dover school trials in 2004.

 

it is available free from google films as online streaming. it does the best job i've seen yet of examining the evidence and talking about what it means that its "only a theory".

 

a good book is "beak of the finch", not at all rude, and highly descriptive of what scientists found in the galapagos.

 

enjoy!

ann

[dangermom]

Where is he wallowing? He just says what he thinks.

 

Evidently so do the creationists. All that name-calling and yelling is sure adding up to a respectful and constructive dialogue, isn't it?

[kalanamak]

 

I'm sorry, but the emperor has no clothes.

 

I am such a doubter, I don't know that there is an emperor. And my point is that I am pleased we no longer burn people at the stake, regardless of their thoughts.

Edited November 22, 2009 by kalanamak

[dangermom]

Frankly I think evolution within the whole religion vs. science debate is very small potatoes. A staunch supporter of evolution can be very religious. Those two things are not incompatible in my mind.

Well, we certainly agree there. All I'm saying is that screaming and insults--from anyone at all--are not conducive to rational discourse.

 

Someone once told me they believe there would be more peace in the world if there were more atheists. That just might be true if you consider that many wars are about religion (and I believe the war in Iraq is among those religious wars).

I must disagree with you there--were WWI and WWII about religion?-- but that is a discussion for another thread.

[kalanamak]

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in 150 year-old books, taught as the sacred truth every Monday through Friday, and instilled into the minds of children at school

 

BTW, I went to a public school that did not teach evolution. It was forbidden (Rural Kansas in the 60's). I did not get any "instillation" whatsoever. My parents never discussed religion pro or con. They considered "belief" a private and personal matter, and such things as debates on religion or Darwin infra dig. So do I.

 

I'm just pleased I'm not afraid of being burned at the stake.:)

[RegGuheert]

 

I did not get any "instillation" whatsoever.

Really? Did you also not have a television? I have a vivid recollection of the many National Geographic specials on television during the 1960s and 1970s featuring Dr. Richard Leaky. Those specials were full of evolutionary "instillation!" :)

[Ester Maria]

If someone is trying to woo me to his “side†he should know that graciousness goes a long way in my decision to even finish reading the book!

Disregard the rhetoric - which is nothing new and unheard of and relies on the same tricks many other persuaders into other ideas rely on as well - and focus on his arguments. Dissect those to see where does his approach to the problem and methodology differ from yours, and what leads him to his conclusions as opposed to yours.

If I were to suggest that inside each of our cells there is a china teapot, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that I will change my story about where to find the teapot whenever anyone points out it is not there. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in 150 year-old books, taught as the sacred truth every Monday through Friday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age.

 

I'm sorry, but the emperor has no clothes.

I will say only one word: METHODOLOGY.

That's what it all comes down to. And that's what Dawkins as a scientist primarily has a problem with: he's thinking in the pattern of scientific method, which is drastically opposed to a worldview which stems from religion.

 

It can never be the same to have a system which explains itself from the "inside" (if we're going to simplify, "It's true because it's written in a book which claims it's true.") and declares itself immune to any kind of criticism from the "outside"; and to have a system which suggests a model of the world (! notice the BIG difference here!), coming to the a posteriori conclusions and theory after empirical observations, actively OFFERS it to peer review and criticism and declares itself well disputable and disprovable.

The two "teapots" are two very, very different stories.

[hornblower]

he's thinking in the pattern of scientific method, which is drastically opposed to a worldview which stems from religion.

 

:confused:

 

There are plenty of scientists who are religious.

Evolution is accepted by many Christian denominations.

 

Dawkins rejects religion, that's true. But there are other, rigorous scientists - Polkinghorne comes to mind - who don't. So I believe you're drawing a false dichotomy here.

 

And about a pp issue about instillation - Dawkins was raised Anglican.

[kalanamak]

Really? Did you also not have a television? I have a vivid recollection of the many National Geographic specials on television during the 1960s and 1970s featuring Dr. Richard Leaky. Those specials were full of evolutionary "instillation!" :)

 

No TV when I was little, and then a very strict limitation of time after we got one B and W set.. I saved mine up to see The Wizard of Oz. I also liked Green Acres. My mother ironed while she watched and hurled insults "bad content" (e.g. "that's right, get upset and go for a drive! Kill someone else besides that rotten husband." and "Oh shop whining and leave the b*stard", although I recall she loved Jack LaLane.)

 

My father, a geographer, boycotted Nat. Geo as fatuous. Never saw them. We had one channel. My parents didn't pop for cable until daddy was in his 90's and he was too feeble to have other pursuits. I spent my time reading the old books we had. I recall reading a dusty essay called Confessions of an Opium Eater and a story called The Man Without A Country. Almost all 19th century. My parents were both born before 1920, and were very old-fashioned except that they were a bit towards biological naturists...i.e. if we were in the middle of no where, they thought nothing of a family skinny dip. But old fashioned. How often did I hear my mother say "Dr. Spock's chickens have come home to roost" when the news was on in the late '60's. But they were politically eclectic, which points to their attention to each circumstance, not a dogmatic stance.

 

The closest I got to knowing my father's opinion on evolution, was a remark he made in his late 80's: "I think all life, even if on other planets, is carbon based. I can't imagine silicone, for example, silicone based life. Can't imagine it."

 

By the time I was old enough to have more freedom about TV (13 or so) I quit it all together, and didn't know who, e.g. Mork and Mindy were until they were off the air for a decade. But I am not rabid about TV and love Yes, Minister, e.g.

Edited November 22, 2009 by kalanamak

[RegGuheert]

Interesting! Sounds nice, really! Thanks for sharing! :)

[Ester Maria]

:confused:

 

There are plenty of scientists who are religious.

Evolution is accepted by many Christian denominations.

I know; what I was referring to were methodological differences between science and religion as worldviews.

 

Of course, evolution does not necessarily contradict the text of Genesis.

[WishboneDawn]

LOL. I love Dawkins.

He says what I want to say. :D

 

Which is the the point. He's not about engaging creationists and convincing them, he's about speaking to those who agree with him already. I don't care for him any and I think he should probably refrain from commenting about religion as he's pretty intellectually lazy on that front (ditto Hitchens on that one) BUT I don't think his names are worth getting in a snit about.

 

It happens in all arenas and on all sides. It's probably time we just accepted that some people will do that rather then get offended and self-righteous about it. So what? If a person wants to learn about evolution there are plenty of good resources out there and Dawkins can safely be ignored.

[WishboneDawn]

Really? Did you also not have a television? I have a vivid recollection of the many National Geographic specials on television during the 1960s and 1970s featuring Dr. Richard Leaky. Those specials were full of evolutionary "instillation!" :)

 

And none of this labeling of education on the matter of evolution as instillation or indoctrination says anything about the plausibility of evolution itself. It's rhetoric, a debate trick that turns some arguments about religion as education on it's head but really adds nothing to a clear and reasonable debate.

 

I think it's this sort of thing that frustrates people like Dawkins. Very often the science of evolution is something you can't even get to because the debate stays at a shallow rhetorical level, most often by the creationists but increasingly by those who accept evolution as well. It's a debate to persuade rather then a discussion to inform. What are you left with when an opponent won't discuss the actual science but keeps haggling over something like the meaning of scientific theory or how a true Christian can't accept evolution?

 

Really, so what if schools harp on about evolution? They harp on about gravity too, does that mean gravity is false? Algebra? French? Lunch time?

 

As much as I understand Dawkins' frustration I do think he's on the wrong path. His name-calling simply makes the matter even more shallow and moves people even further away from the science. Yes, he's brilliant about science and has lots of interesting things to say but there are many that will never hear it because of his abrasiveness. Just as I won't bother trying to hear what a creationist has to say when he's using feints like the claim of indoctrination.

 

Cut the bull, show me the science. Then I'm happy.

[smrtmama]

oh please. I've heard creationists refer to evolution as sleight-of-hand, a sham, brainwashing. (& worse: evil, Satanic etc etc etc).

Hyperbole is a common literary and debating device.

 

Exactly. I know a woman who refers to it as "government mind control."

[secular_mom]

a) by the time it loaded up & started, I recognized it

 

b) what I was giggling at was the quote of you I included in post. Not the video.

 

c) I will not engage in an evolution discussion with you, for the reason I listed in post #2. I have nothing but admiration for Dawkins' tireless willingness to engage on this topic, regardless of the small tactical missteps he makes along the way. I have no more patience for it & if I were handed his task, I'd be bald and have ground my teeth down to dust. Unlike Dawkins, I am DONE dealing with all the things that are listed in post #1.

 

:seeya:

 

I couldn't agree more.

[monk17]

It's too bad Richard Dawkins does not have scientific evidence to support his religious belief in evolution:

 

 

 

Yet he likes to hurl insults at those who do not share his worldview. It's a shame...

 

 

Down Syndrom adds. Find another.

[mcconnellboys]

Yeah, I can't manage to get through a Dawkins book to save my life. The perverse egotism makes me throw the book across the room every five minutes or so......

[WishboneDawn]

Yeah, I can't manage to get through a Dawkins book to save my life. The perverse egotism makes me throw the book across the room every five minutes or so......

 

There are a good number of people who are firm supporters of evolution or staunch atheists that have the same trouble and likely for similar reasons. :)