DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Sukerkin]

I can see I'm going to have to watch this now so as to be able to increase the sample size to two .

 

[arnisador]

Richard Dawkins

He's speaking near us next week, I think--we are trying to get tickets.

The irony is thick as fog around Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens et al. That they deride those who oppose their viewpoint as "indoctrinated" and "fundamentalist" without appreciating the depth of their own unswerving creed is just too unbearable for me to take them seriously. Though the concepts may arguably be well-founded

...for example, the fact that medicine works...

I pity neo-Darwin theorists having to suffer the lamentable Dawkins as a figurehead. Understanding concepts without understanding the motivations of the people to whom those concepts supposedly apply is not the mark of superior intellect in my opinion.

Well, it's the mark of a scientific intellect.

Richard Dawkins is just the best-known of those few scientists who bother to try to refute the anti-scientific bleatings of the creationists. Here's an excerpt on the subject, from his latest book:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216140

 

[celtic_crippler]

The "facts" that go against evolution?

Evolution is "questionable"?

There's "no" evidence for evolution?

"Close-mindedness"?

....sigh...wow...

Whatever...I had to stop watching because it occured to me that this person may actually have some sort of influence over things that may effect my life and that really disturbed me.

She's not the only person on the planet living in La-La Land.

I don't know why people still cling to supernatural gobbeldy-gook in the 21st century.

This woman would probably think it silly for a grown up to believe in the Tooth Fairy yet in the same breath expects you to belive that an invisible man wave his hand and created you and me out of dirt.

This same person would most likely think you insane for praying to Poseidon to stop the flooding caused by the recent Tsunamis, yet encourage you to accept that praying to her "god" would be more productive.

Hypocrosy and ignorance. I dream of a day when people no longer cling to the supernatural to explain things or for relief from strife and instead take it upon themselves to what they can to better their world.

I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings. That is not my intent, but you can not deny the evidence.

...well...I guess you can...as evidenced here... but claiming the sky is green does not change the fact that it appears blue to most and that it is caused by how the human eye distinguishes color and how our atmosphere filters particles of light.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I think that provides the basis for the interview. It's not like Dawkins showed up out of the blue, and she gave the interview.

Now it's interesting that atheism has been thrown into the Creationism/Evolution debate. One doesn't have to be an atheist to accept evolution. Similarly, a Christian does not have to believe in Creationism.

Evolutionists are not on the side of scientific rightness (dare I say, correctness) because they are atheists; they're on the scientifically correct side because they are talking about science, not faith or religion.

QFT! I believe in evolution and creatitionsm. There is irrefutible evidence of evolution and now the Wilkinson probe has tracked the known universe to its beginning (almost). The trouble is that there is noone out there who can supply evidence of what was there the second before that beginning, if anything. There is noone out there who can explain why or even how it happened. At that point there is just speculation.

The trouble with Dawkins and Hitchens is that you can agree with them about evolution but if you disagree with their opinion that there is no deity, you will be dismissed as being ignorant.

Their atheism is the new intolerant religion. This interview was chosen by Dawkins because the woman's refusal to accept any and all evolutionary theories is quite frankly kooky and he want to tar all other 'believers with the same brush. It really is in the Michael Moore style of cherry picking.

 

[Ramirez]

I think he was behaving like an ******* also, and I am British.

That was a joke, but please he was being incredibly easy on her, she gave him so many opportunities to make her look like a bigger fool and didn't take them, like Ken said Hitchens would have had her in tears.

 

[Ramirez]

Their atheism is the new intolerant religion. This interview was chosen by Dawkins because the woman's refusal to accept any and all evolutionary theories is quite frankly kooky and he want to tar all other 'believers with the same brush. It really is in the Michael Moore style of cherry picking.

Did you watch it all? He quite explicitly points out that there are many evolutionary scientists who are also believers , he even names them and IIRC cites books by them, he also tells her that evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church and the Church of England...so where is this tarring of all other "believers"?

 

[yorkshirelad]

Celtic, fortunately for all here there is no point arguing the toss about the existance of a deity. The truth is that we will not know until we have breathed our last. I think I can see enough of a reason in my world to justify a belief in a creative intelligence. I wouldn't be too arrogant to believe that I understand such a being or that I could hazard a guess of what it is, how it looks or why it makes the decisions it makes, but I still believe in it.

I'm just a little amused when unbelievers accuse me of naivete or of stupidity when they themselves don't know and just BELIEVE the contrary.

 

[yorkshirelad]

That was a joke, but please he was being incredibly easy on her, she gave him so many opportunities to make her look like a bigger fool and didn't take them, like Ken said Hitchens would have had her in tears.

I'm aware it was a joke and maybe he did 'go easy on her', but he still came off as an ******* in tone. He was patronizing in the extreme.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ken raises a good point Bill, this woman is out there promoting a ideology is a public figure and probably working actively to prevent evolution being taught in public schools.

Why should you think Dawkins is making her look foolish when she puts herself in the public forum willingly?

I think Dawkins saw an opportunity to make someone look foolish whom he felt deserved to be ridiculed and he took it. It wasn't about proving his point, it was about creating a laughingstock for his sycophants.

But what do I know? I'm just a stupid ******* American, I clearly don't get it. Right?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Did you watch it all? He quite explicitly points out that there are many evolutionary scientists who are also believers , he even names them and IIRC cites books by them, he also tells her that evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church and the Church of England...so where is this tarring of all other "believers"?

I did not watch it all, nor would I. I frankly want my 60 seconds back. He was into smacking her about the head and shoulders for the benefit of his many followers, and he got what he wanted. Like the difference between Johnny Carson and David Letterman. Carson was gentle and funny, Letterman plays being gentle because he enjoys being mean.

I think you made a mistake assuming that everyone here would enjoy poking fun of the woman and her 'automaton' behavior. The more I think about it, the less I think of people who find the event amusing.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Celtic, fortunately for all here there is no point arguing the toss about the existance of a deity. The truth is that we will not know until we have breathed our last. I think I can see enough of a reason in my world to justify a belief in a creative intelligence. I wouldn't be too arrogant to believe that I understand such a being or that I could hazard a guess of what it is, how it looks or why it makes the decisions it makes, but I still believe in it.

I'm just a little amused when unbelievers accuse me of naivete or of stupidity when they themselves don't know and just BELIEVE the contrary.

Even the most intelligent and gifted among us have argued that there is too much order in the universer for there NOT to be some supreme intelligence behind it...

What is too arrogant is to think think that such an intelligence is flawed by the same flaws and short-comings as we are... but that's probably best left for a separate thread.

One thing that is not arguable, is that there is plenty of evidence to support evolution while there is none to support creationalism.

Snakes have bones that prove that they once had appendages. Humans are being born without an appendix...because we no longer use it. Evolution is logical, easily proven, and real. I've yet to see any evidence to prove that females evolved from the rib of a male.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Evolutionists are not on the side of scientific rightness (dare I say, correctness) because they are atheists; they're on the scientifically correct side because they are talking about science, not faith or religion.

May I say that in my opinion, many evolutionists, like many creationists, do not have a grasp of just what it is they believe in or why it works (or doesn't). I've many an evolutionist whom I could pound in the ground like a tent stake, metaphorically speaking, because they hadn't the first bleeding clue about how evolution works. When it came right down to it, they believed in evolution because they believed in it. That's religion.

I know there are many evolutionists to whom that does not apply. But I speak of the masses. They are as extremist and angry and incapable of grasping the facts as the uber-creationists. But they sure do like to poke fun at 'automaton' creationists to make themselves feel better.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Humans are being born without an appendix...because we no longer use it.

That is not how evolution works. And that's my point. Most evolutionists haven't the first clue how it works. Which makes belief in it a form of religion, belief without evidence.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Did you watch it all? He quite explicitly points out that there are many evolutionary scientists who are also believers , he even names them and IIRC cites books by them, he also tells her that evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church and the Church of England...so where is this tarring of all other "believers"?

Watch the above interview with Bill O'Reilly. It was originally posted on youtube by some fool, so please ignore the original posters biased add ons.
If you notice at around 2.07 into the clip. Bill says "You don't know how everything got there" and Dawkins replies, "We're working on it". So it seems theat Dawkins motives are not just trying to discover the beginnings of evolution, but also to try and prove the non existance of a deity.

 

[Flea]

I did find it a little sad that she pointed to a belief in Deity as a prompt for people to respect human dignity. Where was she on 9/11? Or any other countless atrocities committed in the name of the Divine ... now that's naive.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Evolution is logical, easily proven, and real. I've yet to see any evidence to prove that females evolved from the rib of a male.

I agree that evolution is logical. There is no evidence that females evolved from a male rib because it is a parable, to me anyway. I believe in a creative intelligence because of the logic in evolution, not despite it.

 

[yorkshirelad]

That is not how evolution works. And that's my point.

I know how evolution works. It went, Germ to fish, to mermaid, to man. (I stole that from Ricky Gervais):rofl:

 

[Gordon Nore]

Their atheism is the new intolerant religion.

I believe there is merit in this argument, I'm sad to say.

In my case, seven years of Catholic education left me an agnostic, and most of what I've seen and heard of organized religion in the thirty years since has pushed me to the brink of full-blown atheism.

It is much too easy to dismiss the faithful based upon the rantings of an ever-louder chorus of narrow-minded individuals. Fortunately, in life I've come to know a few people of very deep personal faith who have a wonderful capacity to spread their spirit around, rather than proselytize everyone in sight and make them think the way they do.

I've no problem with a belief in Creationism or, for that matter, Intelligent Design. But neither of these is science, and therefor one cannot debate them against a scientific theory, just as one cannot debate evolution against a theological construct.

If I were asked to teach Creationism in my school tomorrow -- unlikely, in an Ontario public school -- I could probably do it. After all, I teach a variety of things about different beliefs that people have that have nothing to do with science. For instance, I have a Native dream catcher hanging on the wall in my library. Dream catchers were used by First Nations peoples to catch bad dreams from disturbing their children's sleep. A kid asked me about it the other day -- Does it really catch bad dreams, Mr Nore?

Well, I said, if the kid feels better and sleeps through the night, who's to say it didn't work? Heck, I told my kid about the tooth fairy, and, as a result, losing a tooth was the cause of celebration, rather than upset. Absolutely nothing scientific about it. And nothing wrong with it either.

Now, when someone says they want Creationism or Intelligent Design taught in my son's science class, that's when I start looking for Ashton Kutcher in a trucker's cap. That's over the top. It's not science, but, just as important, it is not the role of a scientist to tell someone they shouldn't believe in God on that basis.

 

[celtic_crippler]

That is not how evolution works. And that's my point. Most evolutionists haven't the first clue how it works. Which makes belief in it a form of religion, belief without evidence.

What?!?

No clue as to how it works? Sorry Bill, but that's ridiculous.

"Belief" has nothing to do with it. There's no "faith" involved here...faith is necessary to believe such things like the entire world was flooded and that a single man was able to collect every animal on the planet onto a boat to preserve thier existance.

The fact that a species adapts to it's environment in order to survive and therefore evolves into another species is a little bit easier to swallow.

I was just watching Nat-Geo last night and they were studying the Congo River and the various species of Tiger Fish as a result of how that river isoloated the fish and forced it to "evolve" or perish.

Show me proof that that some invisible man waved his magic wand and created these various "species" instead of things like natural selection, or genetic drift actually affecting it and maybe you'll begin to win me over.

Again, please don't be offended as I'm not intentionally attacking anyone's religous beliefs but I'm just one of those people that require some facts in order to sway my opinion.

 

[arnisador]

Their atheism is the new intolerant religion.

It's actually just the old science. A-theism is no different from a-unicornism and a-LochNessMonsterism. Scientsist say the same for all of them: Show me the evidence for your position.

Strictly speaking scientists are (when acting as scientists) agnostic on the existence of gods (and unicorns and Nessie), but eventually the lack of evidence makes one weary of drawing the finer distinction.

People who believe in the methods of science don't necessarily know all about all branches of science. They trust in the scientific community and the peer-review system, just as religious individuals may not have learned Greek and Hebrew but believe in the system that trains their priests. (For those denominations that don't expect their clergy to read the actual bible, just a translation...nevermind.) Evidence in favor of trusting science: Planes, trains, and automobiles. Evidence in favor of trusting the religious system: The fallacy of positive instances.

He was patronizing in the extreme.

What other option did he have?