DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Ramirez]

Dawkins MO is to try to convince the public at large that God doesn't exist. His most famous work is 'The God delusion'. He cannot prove the non existance of God, so instead goes about cherry picking examples of how stupid believers are. This interview was an example of that. Ramirez, you posted the interview initially with the same intention and to say you didn't would be disingenuous.

Just wondering when you became clairvoyant to know the motivations of Dawkins so well? Or me for that matter. You keep ignoring the evidence much like that woman.

He voluntarily brings forth that the Catholic Church, the Church of England and many evolutionary scientists are also believers....sounds like someone trying to make the "believers" look foolish? IIRC he even told her to read Kenneth Miller's book.

And actually my intention was to show how creationists will stick to their ideology in the face of over whelming evidence.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

You know Bill, I'm going to disagree again. A bit.

I am not saying, and I don't think it is correct, that mutations and evolution are conscious decisions the same way that surgeries are (to alter appearance or function, remove dangerous aspects, implant beneficial ones). That would be choice, from a conscious point of view. But to say that it is completely random is a bit out as well. From that perspective, you could argue that the wolf-like ancestors of modern whales centuries and millenia after entering the oceans randomly evolved flippers instead of legs and feet/hands. Mutation is random, and typically leads nowhere. But evolution is not quite so random. It is the effects of the random interchange of differing genetic groupings, which may or may not lead to repeated traits being found in subsequent generations, often but not always related to the survivability of the species or individuals in question

But it is geared to specific circumstances. Those may include environment (the isolation of the Galapogos Islands, as well as Madagascar and other places), available food sources (more food often equals bigger animals, as well as resulting in specialised feeding methods), spread of available mates (big, showy displays when competition is fierce, loud calls when distance needs to be overcome), and more. Often, evolution can be a way to take a niche position in an ecosystem.

I would be very hesitant to say that "evolution does not have an intent", then follow that by stating that it favours the survival of the species. That could be taken as being contradictory. But I see evolution as a process, so assigning it intent, I agree, is wrong. However, to state that it is simply random chance is denying the purpose evolution plays. While not necessarily a directed action (a creature doesn't just wake up in the morning, and think "you know what, I think I'd like to have thumbs!"), it is a guided process, by the methods and influences listed above.

Oh, and while not consciously being aware of it, on a species level, I think the staph bacteria were aware they were being targeted, and the mutation is part of their survival strategy. It's the same as animals in cold environments developing (evolving) thick coats.

Chris, I am pretty sure that Bill is not arguing that the process of adaptation is entirely random. What he is saying (and what evolutionary biologists say) is that mutation is random. Most mutations are deleterious. Those that confer an advantage increase the lifetime reproductive success of an individual. Depending on the strength of selection, the trait will either invade the population quickly or slowly (1 generation vs hundreds of generations). If the strength of selection is not that great, the trait will not confer enough of an advantage to overcome stochastic processes; the trait won't spread through the population fast enough to counter the random effects of genetic drift (statistical sampling error). If the trait is highly advantagous, the likelihood of it spreading over time (before it is lost through genetic drift) is much greater. So it appears that the evolutionary process is guided, because the end result is better adapted to the environment than it's predecessor. But that is akin to a teleogical argument. Really, it is simply statistics coupled with the strength of selection on any particular trait.

Jen

 

[Gordon Nore]

I did not get hit, but I did get expelled from Catechism. I had to wait on the front steps of the school for my dad to come pick me up.

Though baptized in the United Church and raised with minimal religion, I spent seven years in a Catholic boys school. My grade eight home room and Catechism teacher was Brother Arthur, whom I remember with much fondness. I'd ask questions during religion out of genuine curiosity -- it wasn't until high school that I became openly rebellious. He'd look at me and say, "Gordon, you're not a Catholic boy, are you?"

I kinda' knew that brother had me earmarked for limbo.

 

[Tez3]

I'm curious as to which religion promotes this practice?

Not castration but female circumcision is practised widely still.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/241221.stm

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Not castration but female circumcision is practised widely still.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/241221.stm

This thread tangent led me to read up on this practice. I knew it existed, but I didn't know it was linked to religious practices.

Every day I realize how very, very lucky I am.

 

[Tez3]

This thread tangent led me to read up on this practice. I knew it existed, but I didn't know it was linked to religious practices.

Every day I realize how very, very lucky I am.

Religion gets blamed for so much but frankly that's only an excuse for people to do what they were going to do anyway. Humans will always find an excuse to be barbaric. Look at all the so called religious wars and crusades and there will actually be greed, land lust, power lust and politics at the heart of it, all very human things dressed up in the name of religion. Take away religion and nothing will change, we'll just find other excuses.

 

[blindsage]

Not castration but female circumcision is practised widely still.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/241221.stm

Oh yes Tez, I'm acutely aware of the practice and how widespread it still is. I was just trying to figure out which religion CC was saying is to blame for creating and promoting it.

 

[Tez3]

Oh yes Tez, I'm acutely aware of the practice and how widespread it still is. I was just trying to figure out which religion CC was saying is to blame for creating and promoting it.

It is largely a Muslim practice.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Just wondering when you became clairvoyant to know the motivations of Dawkins so well? Or me for that matter. You keep ignoring the evidence much like that woman.

He voluntarily brings forth that the Catholic Church, the Church of England and many evolutionary scientists are also believers....sounds like someone trying to make the "believers" look foolish? IIRC he even told her to read Kenneth Miller's book.

And actually my intention was to show how creationists will stick to their ideology in the face of over whelming evidence.

I know what Dawkin's motivations are by observing his ads on the side of London buses. His other motivation is to sell books and make money.

 

[Ramirez]

I know what Dawkin's motivations are by observing his ads on the side of London buses. His other motivation is to sell books and make money.

oooooh... We are just going to have to call you Sherlock. I bow before your fantastic powers of deduction.

Yeah he writes a books, he expects to sell some, good call Sherlock!

 

[Tez3]

oooooh... We are just going to have to call you Sherlock. I bow before your fantastic powers of deduction.

Yeah he writes a books, he expects to sell some, good call Sherlock!

Some people publish purely as an academic exercise to give their research or thoughts a wider airing or to circulate among fellow academics. Others however follow a commerical path and will hype their books to enable them to make their fortunes so a sarcastic answer wasn't needed here.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Hitchens at his best. It's funny no matter what you believe.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/10/06/2706358.htm

 

[Sukerkin]

I know what Dawkin's motivations are by observing his ads on the side of London buses. His other motivation is to sell books and make money.

And all Catholics/Protestants/C-of-E cry "No! YL, do not throw stones in our glass houses".

The problem with pointless debates like this is enshrined in statements that seek to undermine the rightness of a point of view by assigning unproveable, self-serving, motivations to the indivduals front-lining the scientific opposition.

The churches of various faiths have been prosyletising and extorting their worshippers and the public at large for more than two millenia - give the other side time to catch up eh?


And now you got me to break my self-imposes prohibition not to get involved in this nonsense ... {takes self by scruff of neck to bed as it's 3:30}

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It is largely a Muslim practice.

I don't think that it is. As I recall, it's practiced by Muslims, but specifically by Africans specific to an area in Africa that I can't recall now, which includes animists. So the fact that some Muslims practice it is coincidental. Local Muslim leaders where it happens and Sharia is the lawful government permit the practice but do not condone it or mandate it. It's like saying mowing your lawn is a Christian practice. Yes, lots of Christians do it, and there's nothing against it in the Bible, but that's not the same as saying it is a Christian practice.

For whatever reason it might be practiced, female genital mutilation is a horrible thing.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hitchens at his best. It's funny no matter what you believe.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2009/10/06/2706358.htm

I don't find it funny. So how is it "funny no matter what you believe?"

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Chris, I am pretty sure that Bill is not arguing that the process of adaptation is entirely random. What he is saying (and what evolutionary biologists say) is that mutation is random.

Yes, thank you. And the way it is said is subtle and important.

Organisms do not mutate to meet changes in environment. They mutate anyway. If a mutation happens to be better adapted to survive and reproduce than the original organism, it will tend to supplant that original organism.

Thus, organisms do not adapt to changing environments, even though one often hears that on television nature shows.

Environments change, and organisms that are adapted to the change tend to survive. The adaptation is not because of the change, but the survival of the newly-mutated organism may be as a result of that environmental change.

Put more simply, if you take ordinary fish and put them in a cave with no light, they will not suddenly begin to create mutations that have no eyes. They would create those mutations anyway. The difference is that outside of the dark cave, the eyeless mutations would die quickly, because that mutation is not advantageous to survival when light is available. Inside the cave, the same mutation would do very well, or at least suffer no ill effects from being blind. Same mutation - different outcome. But the mutation did not happen because of the dark cave.

So we end up with blind cave fish that have no eyes. The nature channel will say they 'adapted to their environment', but that is incorrect. They are adapted to their environment. The single word 'are' makes the difference between a correct statement and an incorrect one here. Subtle but important.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I don't find it funny. So how is it "funny no matter what you believe?"

Bill, I enjoy your posts on other threads, (you have good logic and wit), but man you get your feelings hurt in the religious ones way to easily.

I hate it when I get condescending attitude from religious people acting like I’m a child and there’s something wrong with me for not believing in the invisible man in the sky. If only I would really listen to them, I could be where they are, and feel the light and goodness flowing through christ. They criticize and argue against atheism. So what? My feelings are intact. We each think the other to be naïve children. We each think that if we provide all the “facts” the other person will understand. Doesn’t work that way. To move from one side to another, you have to have an epiphany. I had mine the same time I stopped believing in Santa, the Tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and The Great Pumpkin.

I have religious friends who have seen the video and appricated the humor in it all. They’re still religious and not offended. What’s not funny about it? Do you not laugh at your religion at all? Do you not see the insane stories in both the NT and the OT? Do you not see the inconsistencies? I doubt very much Bill that you believe in everything the RC religion and the pope say.

 

[arnisador]

Dawkins MO is to try to convince the public at large that God doesn't exist. His most famous work is 'The God delusion'.

Perhaps, but The Selfish Gene is likely his most influential book (along with The Extended Phenotype, a sequel of sorts).

Religion gets blamed for so much but frankly that's only an excuse for people to do what they were going to do anyway.

There's a lot of truth to that, but I think there's more to it too--religious fervor is a special state of mind, and while control of the masses is one application of religion by those who may be merely greedy, there are plenty who wer motivated by concerns about the supernatural.

I know what Dawkin's motivations are by observing his ads on the side of London buses. His other motivation is to sell books and make money.

You're not buying the whole 'scientist' thing?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, I enjoy your posts on other threads, (you have good logic and wit), but man you get your feelings hurt in the religious ones way to easily.

I think you may be misunderstanding me if you think my feelings are hurt. I was raised Catholic, and I am one now, but I tend to make my religious brethren nervous when I freely admit I have no personal proof that God exists or that Jesus was the Son of God, heaven, hell, any of it. I have doubt, and I don't mind saying it. For me, religious belief is a choice I make, not an imprint of truth on my mind.

I also find religion very funny. I love Monty Python skits on religion, etc.

What I do not like is cruelty-for-entertainment disguised as enlightenment. Sadism sickens me. The fact that this particular instance involves religion is, to me, not the point. And that is what this particular video was all about, I believe.

One has merely to observe the responses from the crowd who gather to hoot and howl and catcall at this video and others like it - they're not gathered to watch a debate, they're gathered to enjoy a one-sided asskicking, delivered with lots of rope-a-dope.

I hate it when I get condescending attitude from religious people acting like I’m a child and there’s something wrong with me for not believing in the invisible man in the sky. If only I would really listen to them, I could be where they are, and feel the light and goodness flowing through christ. They criticize and argue against atheism. So what? My feelings are intact. We each think the other to be naïve children. We each think that if we provide all the “facts” the other person will understand. Doesn’t work that way. To move from one side to another, you have to have an epiphany. I had mine the same time I stopped believing in Santa, the Tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and The Great Pumpkin.

I'm with you. I have zero interest in proselytizing, and I have no idea if atheists, agnostics, or Zoro-Astrians are on the right track and I'm not. Don't much care, either! I am as likely to be wrong in my beliefs as they are in theirs.

I have religious friends who have seen the video and appricated the humor in it all. They’re still religious and not offended. What’s not funny about it? Do you not laugh at your religion at all? Do you not see the insane stories in both the NT and the OT? Do you not see the inconsistencies? I doubt very much Bill that you believe in everything the RC religion and the pope say.

I do laugh at my religion all the time. In fact:

http://www.growlery.com/wigwam/2005/04/my-god-they-killed-santa-claus.html

Too bad the photo I originally linked to in my blog didn't survive, but it showed the Holy Father being carted out of the Vatican in a red outfit, looked to me like Santa Claus on a stretcher; hence my irreverent comment about 'they killed Santa Claus'.

I also think that there is no way to take the Bible literally, because it contains too many contradictions. It also shows evidence of an insanely jealous, angry, and vindictive God, if the descriptions in the Old Testament are to be believed. A somewhat childish Supreme Being who throws temper tantrums when things don't go His way.

And somehow I remain a Catholic, but believe me, lots of Catholics shake their heads and me and wonder how I manage that bit of illogic. Perhaps, like the Red Queen, I can believe impossible things.

Now, getting back to why I take offense at Hitchens. Nothing to do with religion, my friend. Nothing to do with evolution. I've already said I beleive in evolution and I have no problem poking fun at my own religion (and others too). I have a problem with cruel sadistic bastards who get their jollies by publicly taking people not their equal down a couple pegs in public. Not the taking down a few pegs part, the doing it for enjoyment part. People who debate deserve what they get, win or lose. Wear your big boy panties or go home.

I've been saying that, but all anyone seems to be thinking I'm doing is being offended that my precious religion is being berated. Berate away. But humiliate a religious person (or any person) for sadistic joy and you'll earn my enmity. I don't like sadists.

 

[yorkshirelad]

And all Catholics/Protestants/C-of-E cry "No! YL, do not throw stones in our glass houses".

The problem with pointless debates like this is enshrined in statements that seek to undermine the rightness of a point of view by assigning unproveable, self-serving, motivations to the indivduals front-lining the scientific opposition.

The churches of various faiths have been prosyletising and extorting their worshippers and the public at large for more than two millenia - give the other side time to catch up eh?


And now you got me to break my self-imposes prohibition not to get involved in this nonsense ... {takes self by scruff of neck to bed as it's 3:30}

You seem to think by the above post that I am somehow sympathetic to organized religion. I am not. I agree that religious institutions have made billions off of the vunerable. I believe that Dawkins is in the same camp and has created a religious following along with all the trappings, the need to make **** load of money.

I have said before, I don't like to be preached to by religious folks including Christians and atheists. It's interesting to note that of the atheists, jews, christians and muslims I know, the jews preach to me the least, if at all. If only they all could just leave us to our beliefs.