DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[yorkshirelad]

What other option did he have?

Um....to not be patronizing.

It's interesting to note that in the past science and religion were quit harmonious. Some, if not most of the greatest scientific minds in our history have believed in both science and the deity.

 

[Omar B]

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.

I've never seen atheism as a religion, I don't think any atheist does. It's just an opinion on one topic.

 

[arnisador]

It's interesting to note that in the past science and religion were quit harmonious. Some, if not most of the greatest scientific minds in our history have believed in both science and the deity

...because the religious types would torture the scientists otherwise. Science is an ever-eviolving web of knowledge. In the time of the ancient Greeks, the Zeus theory may have been a pretty good one--who else could have created the four elements? The modern scientific method took some while to really catch on.

Scientists are products of their environments and respond to cultural forces. My similarly irreligious wife and I were married in a church--what would my mother have said if I hadn't been? The difference is that science is self-correcting, whereas religion has its feet set in concrete. (Er, except when it doesn't.) Everyone may have believed the world to be flat at some point (or not), but scientists are able to take in new evidence and adjust their views in light of the data.

"When someone convinces me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" --John Maynard Keynes, when accused of being wishy-washy in his (economic) opinions

 

[yorkshirelad]

...because the religious types would torture the scientists otherwise. Science is an ever-eviolving web of knowledge.

Einstein wasn't an atheist and rebuked those who said he was. Was he threatened with torture by the Princeton elite? :rofl:

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What?!?

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

No, it's not ridiculous. You stated that people are being born more and more without an appendix, and that is evolution.

First, as far as I know, it's not true that more people are being born sans appendix than before.

But second, even if that were true, it's not an example of evolution. It's an example of random mutation, which is the basis for evolution.

If being born without an appendix (or with a third eye, or with green skin) conveys a survival advantage, then those with the mutation will tend to survive and breed better those without the mutation, and those with the mutation will eventually become the new normal.

Having no appendix does not convey a survival advantage to modern man. A person born without an appendix is no more or less likely to survive and breed that a person with one. It would be a mutation, but not an example of evolution.

"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.

Not at all. Faith is when a person holds a belief that has no rational basis that they can explain. There is a rational basis for evolution, but if a person can't explain it because they do not understand it, then they are practicing 'faith' in that thing, which I equate with religion.

If I believe that moss always grows on the north side of trees, but I have no idea why, then that is faith, not science - even if there is science to explain why moss grows on the north side of trees. My statement is true - many people 'believe' in evolution without understanding the first thing about it - and that is faith. Just another form of religion.

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.

But that is not evolution. Species do not adapt to their environments. Species mutate, and most mutations do not result in a survival advantage. Those that do tend to survive. Species do not mutate more in response to environmental pressure, they mutate all the time.

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.

Nope. The fish mutates constantly, just like everything else that lives and breeds. Some mutations are better adapted to a changing environment, and those with the better mutation will survive and therefore breed, passing on that mutation to the next generation, until it becomes the new normal.

The fish did not produce more mutations as a result of pressure due to isolation. It produced the same number it always had. But conditions changed, which no longer favored the original, and did favor one of the mutations. That mutation survived because it had a survival advantage - purely as a result of random chance.

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.

I do not believe one can prove creationism. In my concept, it is not hard to imagine the invisible man set up the rules that govern evolution. So you would have evolution, but a cause for it to exist. However, I won't attempt to prove it because I cannot. That is the basis of faith - one cannot prove it. Just like a person who believes in evolution but does not understand how it works. Whether it is true or not is beside the point - if they believe in it and can't explain it, that's faith. Just like my faith in God and creation.

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.

But you don't have any facts. You do not know how evolution works. No offense either, but that makes your belief in evolution a faith. You believe in it, but you don't understand it. Me too, I just call my faith religion and you call yours science.

 

[elder999]

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
-- Richard Dawkins

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene[/FONT]

My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- Richard Dawkins, The Humanist, Vol. 57, No. 1[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004[/FONT][/FONT]

Richard Dawkins is brilliant, witty,erudite, and urbane. He's also rude and insensitive, not to mention a man with a mission: the eradication of religion. He has his reasons-some of them good ones-and probably views himself as in the vanguard of the next step in man's evolution.

Many "religious" people are against evolution in principle. This is, of course, a mistake-exactly the kind of mistaken "thinking" that Dawkins (rightly) derides. Make no mistake, though-the debate wasn't about "evolution vs. creationism," for him, it was strictly "R. Dawkins v. religion."

The two positions are, naturally, irreconcialable. I'm pleasantly surprised-given his past behavior-that he handled the woman so gently. On the other hand, her position has no scientific basis whatsoever.

Evolution is more than a viable theory (testable, disprovable) it's probably the law, like "gravity." "Intelligent design," being neither testable nore disprovable, is not a "viable theory," in fact, it's not a theory at all.

 

[Omar B]

But you don't have any facts. You do not know how evolution works. No offense either, but that makes your belief in evolution a faith. You believe in it, but you don't understand it. Me too, I just call my faith religion and you call yours science.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. Not the first time I've heard a christian try to call a belief in evolution "faith." It's quite the misnomer and ignores the fact that everything born on earth is a creature in transition, we see diseases evolve over short term. You pointed out mutation, yet don't seem to get that evolution is a mutation.

Evolution's been observed on micro and macro scale. It's not a matter of faith, but of observable evidence.

 

[celtic_crippler]

No, it's not ridiculous. You stated that people are being born more and more without an appendix, and that is evolution.

First, as far as I know, it's not true that more people are being born sans appendix than before.

But second, even if that were true, it's not an example of evolution. It's an example of random mutation, which is the basis for evolution.

...sigh...that IS evolution.

If being born without an appendix (or with a third eye, or with green skin) conveys a survival advantage, then those with the mutation will tend to survive and breed better those without the mutation, and those with the mutation will eventually become the new normal.

Having no appendix does not convey a survival advantage to modern man. A person born without an appendix is no more or less likely to survive and breed that a person with one. It would be a mutation, but not an example of evolution.

Mutations that result as a result of the current envirnonment is evolution. This is simple BIO 101

Not at all. Faith is when a person holds a belief that has no rational basis that they can explain. There is a rational basis for evolution, but if a person can't explain it because they do not understand it, then they are practicing 'faith' in that thing, which I equate with religion.

Okay... that's pretty much what I said. Faith does not necessarily require proof, but science does.

If I believe that moss always grows on the north side of trees, but I have no idea why, then that is faith, not science - even if there is science to explain why moss grows on the north side of trees. My statement is true - many people 'believe' in evolution without understanding the first thing about it - and that is faith. Just another form of religion.

Actually it is science if proof exists that moss grows on the north side of trees...easily provable or disprovable...just check a tree or two. LOL

But you have a point in that when people believe in something without a valid reason it is mostly faith. Faith in what they are told by a trusted individual or other trusted source.

But that is not evolution. Species do not adapt to their environments. Species mutate, and most mutations do not result in a survival advantage. Those that do tend to survive. Species do not mutate more in response to environmental pressure, they mutate all the time.

Yes it is. BIO 101.

For example: Darwin made note of the different species of finch in the Galapogos islands and that thier beaks had evolved to adapt to the different food sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

The fish mutates constantly, just like everything else that lives and breeds. Some mutations are better adapted to a changing environment, and those with the better mutation will survive and therefore breed, passing on that mutation to the next generation, until it becomes the new normal.

Yup. Natural Selection is a key component in regards to evolution.

The fish did not produce more mutations as a result of pressure due to isolation. It produced the same number it always had. But conditions changed, which no longer favored the original, and did favor one of the mutations. That mutation survived because it had a survival advantage - purely as a result of random chance.

Sigh...Isolation is a key variable to the evolution of a species. Refer to above in regards to the Galapagos Finches.

I do not believe one can prove creationism. In my concept, it is not hard to imagine the invisible man set up the rules that govern evolution. So you would have evolution, but a cause for it to exist. However, I won't attempt to prove it because I cannot. That is the basis of faith - one cannot prove it. Just like a person who believes in evolution but does not understand how it works. Whether it is true or not is beside the point - if they believe in it and can't explain it, that's faith. Just like my faith in God and creation.

You can't prove creationism and that's the point. However, you also can't really win an argument with someone that devoutly believes in their religion.

Whether it's true or not is beside the point? Not in my world, but then I'm not trying to convince anyone to live in my world. If you want to believe in the Easter Bunny I'm not going to try and stop you.

But you don't have any facts. You do not know how evolution works. No offense either, but that makes your belief in evolution a faith. You believe in it, but you don't understand it. Me too, I just call my faith religion and you call yours science.

No proof? No facts? Whatever...

There's plenty of proof and facts in any basic Biology text.

Being cynic at heart I tend to believe in things that are supported by fact. I'm not about to try and conduct a basic BIO 101 class here nor am I attempting to poke holes in anyone's religous beliefs.

If you want to believe in things that have no basis in reality and can not be supported by fact I will not stand in your way. It's a free country and you can believe in the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Gremlins, or whatever... As long as you're not trying to replace fact with fiction in our schools' textbooks I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Celtic,

Respectfully, Bill is correct with respect to random mutation. It is a small difference in how things are worded, but an important difference. However, I think that he should get off your jock because your line of thought is sound.

Bill, you know I think you're awesome. Most people don't know the nuts and bolts of natural phenomena. For instance, I have forgotten a substantial portion of the particle physics I tucked away in college. But it doesn't mean that my acceptance of physical explanations for the way matter and energy behaves is faith. Faith is believing something to be true without evidence. But I know there is evidence for string theory, etc. I just haven't evaluated the evidence firsthand.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Celtic,

Respectfully, Bill is correct with respect to random mutation. It is a small difference in how things are worded, but an important difference. However, I think that he should get off your jock because your line of thought is sound.

Bill, you know I think you're awesome. Most people don't know the nuts and bolts of natural phenomena. For instance, I have forgotten a substantial portion of the particle physics I tucked away in college. But it doesn't mean that my acceptance of physical explanations for the way matter and energy behaves is faith. Faith is believing something to be true without evidence. But I know there is evidence for string theory, etc. I just haven't evaluated the evidence firsthand.

String theory...well...when you do...and understnd it...how about explaining it to the rest of us. LOL

 

[Chris Parker]

Einstein wasn't an atheist and rebuked those who said he was. Was he threatened with torture by the Princeton elite? :rofl:

Just to address this point, I think what Arnisador was getting at was less Einstein, and more Gallileo, you know, eppur si muove and all that...

Interestingly, though, Eistein had his very honest religious beliefs which led him to want to desire a particular universe, what is known as a "constant universe", which is supported by a Creator theology. In essence, the universe size and spacings are constant, as they were in the beginning (when created). However, he was a scientist, so he went about exploring the physic and laws that govern such things, giving us the Theory of General Relativity amongst other things, being the fist to successfully contradict aspects of Newtonian Physics.

The problem was that his work showed that his religious belief in a constant universe was not supported by the scientific realities. Physics shows the universe constantly expanding, moving outward from a central point, indicating that there was a definate beginning point and time. This is sometimes refered to as a Finite Universe Model, as it has a definate beginning and end, and is the origin of what is known as the Big Bang Theory. For the record, this theory is not without it's problems (mainly, first there was nothing, which exploded, releasing everything that was inside it...). The best, and most credible attempts to overcome this, as well as manage to integrate Quantum Physics with General Relativity, is what is known as String Theory, or sometimes M-Theory. Unfortunately at this point there is no way to feasibly test the hypothesis, however all the maths works... Ed Witten is the best guy to check out here.

So Einstein was religious, and had a world view that was based in his religious beliefs. But being a scientist, he opened his mind to gaining an understanding of the realities of the universe, and that actually went against his religious beliefs. So, instead of hiding the new evidence, or ignoring it because it didn't work the way he wanted it to, he changed his beliefs about the way God showed His hand in the universe. He didn't stop being religious, he didn't become atheist, he didn't stop being a physist, he just realised that he needed to better understand how the two interacted in his world view. A better way, I feel.

Oh, by the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I am far more on Dawkins side here. And I would have not been anywhere near as gentle or patient with Wendy Wright... But as he says in the interview, that was done for a TV show on Darwin, not religion, so that is why he was tempered. And his take on religion, although relevant on a number of his other shows and publications, has limited relevance here.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

String theory...well...when you do...and understnd it...how about explaining it to the rest of us. LOL

You will have quite a wait, my friend. I really liked physics in college, but differential equations was too much for me so I didn't take it as far as I was inclined.

 

[elder999]

String theory...well...when you do...and understnd it...how about explaining it to the rest of us. LOL

I could explain it, but Bob doesn't have enough bandwidth for the "mom the shrink" explanation....:lol:

Just to address this point, I think what Arnisador was getting at was less Einstein, and more Gallileo, you know, eppur si muove and all that...

The more you know about that story, the more you see that it was personal.Gallileo had been friends with Pope Urban VIII since befor he was Cardinal Barberini....

 

[Chris Parker]

Ha, agreed on the bandwidth required... but it is interesting, to say the least. I would steer people towards things like Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe book (or the DVDs for easier consumption...) for probably the easiest-to-understand description of String Theory.

As to Gallilieo, yeah, very true. And honestly, eppur si muove is most likely scientific folklore than anything else. It would not have been the smartest thing for Gallileo Gallilea to say at that point...

 

[yorkshirelad]

But as he says in the interview, that was done for a TV show on Darwin, not religion, so that is why he was tempered. And his take on religion, although relevant on a number of his other shows and publications, has limited relevance here.

So you're saying that choosing this particular "kooky" woman to interview wasn't an attempt to make the faithful look stupid? I would say the religious debate has everything to do with dawkins and thi thread. The guy is not about merely conducting scientific research to understand evolution more thoroughly. His MO is and has been debunking the idea of a deity. Did'nt you see the ads he placed on the sides of London buses?

I for one have FAITH in God. I also believe in evolution not merely as theory, but as proven science. There are many others who believe as I do, but Hawkins doesn't necessarily want to interview or be interviewed by them because once you get past the argument of evolution, there is no way of knowing if there is or isn't a deity. His interview with O'Reilly proves that. Oh and btw, the probability is that he didn't want the O'Reilly interview, but he knew that as a result of it, his book sales would go through the roof.

 

[yorkshirelad]

The more you know about that story, the more you see that it was personal.Gallileo had been friends with Pope Urban VIII since befor he was Cardinal Barberini....

Even though Galileo was a personal friend of Urban, he was also a true believer. His love of the Bible was such that he felt impelled to create an updated version which would reconcile science with christinaity, catholicism in particular. His love for his religion and science is what got him in trouble with the powers that be.

 

[elder999]

Even though Galileo was a personal friend of Urban, he was also a true believer. His love of the Bible was such that he felt impelled to create an updated version which would reconcile science with christinaity, catholicism in particular. His love for his religion and science is what got him in trouble with the powers that be.

Galileo was a man of immense ego, who delighted in overturning the dogma of Aristotle and others who came before him-he also delighted in attempting to overturn Church dogma (which, as far as science goes, was largely based on Aristotle) and that's what got him into trouble......
.....that, and he thought he'd get a pass from his old pal Maffeo.....:lfao:

 

[Chris Parker]

Hi, Yorkshirelad,

No, that is not what I am saying. Dawkins has on many occasions gone out specifically to knock down religion, and has had TV programs, books, and more to do just that (but no, living in Melbourne, Australia, I haven't seen the ads on London buses). But what I am saying is that that is not what that interview was about. The religious aspects, to me at least, are a minor part of it. I personally don't feel that Wendy Wright is representative of all people of faith, I feel she is representative of ignorance and unwillingness to learn. Her place was not to assist him in debunking religion, but to assist him in pointing out unthinking blind ignorance, and in that she excelled.

His arguments were all skewed towards the evidence of evolution, not attacking her for being religious. In fact, most of her arguments against evolution boiled down to her belief that non-religion (atheism) equals a lack of "respect" for human beings, which I see as completely unrelated to whether or not there is evidence for evolution, which is what Richard was trying to get across to her. She would say that there was no evidence, Richard would present multiple examples, and she would then ask for evidence to be presented (?). This was then punctuated with references to atheists leading to worse societies (and completely ignoring Richards agreement that a Darwinist society would not be a good thing).

In fact, Richard refered to a number of senior clergy members, up to and including the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Catholic Church who think the same way you do, with a combination of Creationism and Evolution. And he goes on to state that that, although not his belief, is fine with him. It's the complete uninformed negation of evolution that he is fighting against here. The religion stuff is for other times...

I am glad that you have a positive force in your life in the form of faith. That's what it is for, really. So that's a good thing. As to the interview with O'Reilly, is this the one you're refering to:

? Because I think that Bill is the one coming off badly, not Richard. And as you say, once you get past the question of evolution, the idea of whether or not there is a deity of any form is a matter of faith, not proof, so we leave the realm of science there.

I mean really, we could look at many different things as being that spark of the Divine. It could be an intelligence, deliberately creating and watching. Or it could be found in the laws of nature, hidden in the patterns of DNA, sub-atomic particles dancing around each other. Or it could be the creation itself, the original moment when everything began, sending it all on the pathto where we are now, and beyond. Or none of them. But that's a theological discussion. We could get into that, but I don't know if we really want to, it'll just get messy, and too many people will be unintentionally hurt by different expressions of spirituality.

Hmm, I'm not sure about Galileo re-writing a version of a scientifically acurate Bible, I've never come across that before. Where did you get that information from? He was certainly religious, as we were in the time of the Holy Roman Inquisition it would only be natural, and he certainly had religious friends, but all writings I have seen attributed to him are purely scientific and mathematic in nature.

He was asked by Pope Urban VIII to write both pro- and anti-heliocentric arguments (heavy on the anti...), and include the Pope's personal views in the book. He wrote the book, titling it "Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems", and in it he had a character called Simplicio (said in the preface to be a reference to Simplicius, an Aristotelian philosopher) present most of the Pope's geocentric views... whether deliberately or not, Simplicio has the connotation of "simpleton", or "slow-witted" in Italian, so that was not taken well. For the record, it is popularly accepted that Galileo did not act out of malice, and did not intend to embarrass the Pope. However, the fallout resulted in Galileo's house arrest after being brought in to Rome to defend his writings.

Remember that this was the time of the Inquisition, so writings were supposed to be approved by the Papacy, and that was something Galileo had neglected to do, getting neither Papal nor Inquisition approval.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Hmm, I'm not sure about Galileo re-writing a version of a scientifically acurate Bible, I've never come across that before.
.

I can see where my post did seem like I was saying that Galileo wrote a version of the Bible. What he did do was take certain text from the old testament in particular and tried to explain it in rlation to the POV of the writer's truth and then the particular science. In his 12 year work 'Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, Ptolmaic and Copernicon', he explains the arguments of both systems with preference to the planets revolving around the sun. He was, however a staunch believer in the Deity and found little conflict in his belief in God and Science, although he did have a problem with catholic dogma.

As for his interview with O'Reilly, we see what we want to see. He had to admit that he didn't know the true origin of the universe and because of that his atheistic belief is just as much blind faith as that of believers.

 

[Chris Parker]

Cool, so you were refering to the pro- and anti- heliocentric arguments in "Dialogue..." that I mentioned earlier, yes? That makes more sense, thanks.