The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher

GostHacked · May 18, 2009

At a certain point in the past the Universe would have been opaque...but the 2 degree kelvin background temperature is apparently the remains of the fireball. Re: gravitational lensing...I agree...the average reader might not understand what's going on.
I just find it amazing that there actually folks who 'don't believe' in dinosaurs.

I watched a couple vids on gravotational lensing. And the guy who hypothesised it was able to prove it as fact. It was tested and seen to be true elsewhere in the galaxy. Science !!

benny · May 18, 2009

Dawkins isn't pursuing science at the moment. He's pursuing a film career. That however doesn't make science or what it has discovered invalid. A scientist is someone practicing the scientific method.

Dawkins should also consider pursuing poetry and psychoanalytic careers. Speaking of genes as selfish molecules contravenes the scientific method to a point where we have to ask if he was not projecting a part of his personality on his object of research.

WIP · May 19, 2009

At a certain point in the past the Universe would have been opaque...but the 2 degree kelvin background temperature is apparently the remains of the fireball. Re: gravitational lensing...I agree...the average reader might not understand what's going on.

Science journalist - Sandra Blakeslee said in a recent interview that the biggest problem science writers are having these days is that editors are giving them less and less space to tell the story. If they're constrained to 500 or 800 words, then a lot of information can't get properly explained for the average reader.

I just find it amazing that there actually folks who 'don't believe' in dinosaurs.

Some like Ken Ham, believe that they walked off the Ark in pairs, just like the elephants, giraffes, tigers, kangaroos etc........and somehow, T-Rex was soon hunted to extinction by Noah's descendants.

betsy · May 19, 2009

Whew....the waters getting too murky around here. Evolutionist followers make it appear that the whole scientific field is under attack....when the truth of the matter is that only a few scientists - the fundamentalist, fanatical few who use science to advance their Atheistic views are. Only those who fanatically follow Dawkins!

What is lost to the disciples of Dawkins - what they refuse to see, what they blindly ignore, or perhaps what they genuinely do not comprehend - is the fact that Dawkins' credibility as a scientist is in question!

Omission of fact, whether deliberately ...or through negligence ...or

through irresponsibility, is damning to credibility!

Edited May 19, 2009 by betsy

betsy · May 19, 2009

Antony Flew states:

The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book although he has since announced his intention to retire) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form. Thus we find in his index five references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein and Einstein on morality; on a personal God; on the purpose of life (the human situation and on how man is here for the sake of other men and above all for those on whose well-being our own happiness depends); and finally on Einstein’s religious views. But (I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins) he makes no mention of Einstein’s most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it. (I myself think it obvious that if this argument is applicable to the world of physics then it must be hugely more powerful if it is applied to the immeasurably more complicated world of biology.)

Dawkins, in his book, used Einstein and touched on morality, personal God, purpose of life, and Einstein's religious views. And yet Flew charges that he failed to mention Einstein's most relevant report: Einstein's view on Intelligent Design!

that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it.

We know - and it's quite clear - why Dawkins omitted this information! It goes against what he is trying to advance!

So the question now: What other facts or important findings that merit considerations -

in the realm of science, especially those that goes against what he is trying to advance - did he omit, or suppress?

So why should he and his co-horts be taken seriously as scientists? Dawkins didn't really follow the ethics or principle of true journalism on non-fictional writing ...why do we assume he'd follow the ethics and true principles of science?

Dawkins is very much caught up in his own religion. He is just like any other preacher of any religion, although he definitely falls under the category of fundamentalist!

His belief is that there is no God.

Edited May 19, 2009 by betsy

betsy · May 19, 2009

Disciples keep chanting about the empirical evidence....(empirical evidence, empirical evidence, empirical evidence)....

...yet they can't see what's clearly empirical evidence on Dawkins and minions! :lol:

Edited May 19, 2009 by betsy

BubberMiley · May 19, 2009

I think there is a remotely plausible pro-creation argument out there, where god created a world and made it appear to have evolved naturally in order to test our faith. Dinosaurs didn't exist but, rather, he put the fossils here to see how unshakable our "faith" is.

Putting aside the fact that this would be an extremely insecure and deceptive god, there is a better argument out there. I think if I were a creationist, I would be a little pissed off that their side is only being represented by character attacks and smiley faces.

betsy · May 19, 2009

I think if I were a creationist, I would be a little pissed off that their side is only being represented by character attacks and smiley faces.

Well....the empirical evidence on Dawkins and minions speaks for itself. All I did was present them. That it questions his credibility - no doubt about that, and I'm not denying that - is through no fault of anyone, - not me or Flew or anyone who questions it -, but Dawkins himself!

He wrote the book! He was the one who did the omission! So? :lol:

Take careful note that the Philosopher exposing his sort-of-deception used to be an Atheist ...he used to be one of you guys! BUT with stature, special qualifications and no small amount of achievement!

It's the blind effort and oh, the creative contortions they go through....that goes among shell-shocked followers still in denial that I find.....rather amusing!

Edited May 19, 2009 by betsy

GostHacked · May 19, 2009

Well....the empirical evidence on Dawkins and minions speaks for itself. All I did was present them. That it questions his credibility - no doubt about that, and I'm not denyinh that - is through no fault of anyone, - not me or Flew or anyone who questions it -, but Dawkins himself!

His personal views might be challenged, and so has his scientific discoveries. His scientific discoveries stand the test of time and science. His personal beliefs are another thing altogether. He may thought there was creation or ID, but he can't prove that in any substantial way.

He might be saying that this is creation then evolution. Or a combination of them. I know how rediculouos that sounds.

Take careful note that the Philosopher exposing his sort-of-deception was used to be an Atheist ...he used to be one of you guys! BUT with stature, special qualifications and no small amount of achievement!

Philosophy is not science. And I am agnostic. The question will remain unanswered until the moment I am dead.

Athiests do become beleivers, and many beleivers become athiests. Even without the whole question of creation vs. evolution. Maybe Dawkins is scared of no afterlife and wants to make amends. That is his personal problem, and not science's problem.

It's the blind effort and oh the contortions they go through....that goes among shell-shocked followers still in denial that I find.....rather amusing!

The ones that follow them are interested in his science. Not his personal beliefs.

benny · May 19, 2009

I think that if we were to force scientists to stop using metaphors (like selfish gene), nothing would remain of science as we have come to know it (since its inception).

Edited May 19, 2009 by benny

Chuck U. Farlie · May 19, 2009

Betsy, why did you label this thread "The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher" and go on and on calling atheists 'minions' and 'disciples'?

Do you honestly believe that Dawkins is some sort of atheist leader?

There are a lot of atheists out there who don't know or don't care what Dawkins said. Dawkins is not creating his stuff to convince atheists - we already are non-believers! I, for one, have never read anything Dawkins has published and I don't need to. Dawkins is creating his stuff (I presume) to educate the believers (and those that haven't made up their minds) and to try to improve the world by getting away from the backward non-scientific thinking as well as the indoctrination they preach - but as I said, I am not of his target audience because I am already open-minded... unlike some people.

P.S... if you are unclear about the term open minded... here is a nice little video that explains how YOU are not:

ToadBrother · May 19, 2009

Do you honestly believe that Dawkins is some sort of atheist leader?

To be a leader, one would have to have some sort of reasonably organized body to be a leader of. Atheists are not some large homogeneous body. There are certainly "humanist" and "free thinker" associations, but I, for one, have little interest in sitting in a room with a bunch of people whose commonality is disbelief in deities. I certainly don't accept Dawkins as any kind of leader or guide, I find his anti-theistic arguments (much like Hitchens) to be infantile and shallow, and I think he spends an inordinate amount of time tweaking noses (not that some noses in certain religious groups don't deserve some tweaking).

ToadBrother · May 19, 2009

Well....the empirical evidence on Dawkins and minions speaks for itself. All I did was present them. That it questions his credibility - no doubt about that, and I'm not denying that - is through no fault of anyone, - not me or Flew or anyone who questions it -, but Dawkins himself!
He wrote the book! He was the one who did the omission! So?

Take careful note that the Philosopher exposing his sort-of-deception used to be an Atheist ...he used to be one of you guys! BUT with stature, special qualifications and no small amount of achievement!

It's the blind effort and oh, the creative contortions they go through....that goes among shell-shocked followers still in denial that I find.....rather amusing!

First of all, Flew is not a scientist, so I don't consider him terribly credible on that point. Second of all, his pro-theistic arguments are every bit as silly and shallow as Dawkins' and Hitchens' anti-theistic arguments. And ultimately, none of it has anything to do with evolutionary biology, which has nothing to say one way or the other on the existence of God. So, in a very real sense, anything that Flew or Dawkins has to say on the metaphysical arguments over the existence or non-existence of God is completely irrelevant to science. It's a silly sideshow.

benny · May 19, 2009

With his egoist gene, Dawkins shows he is linked to Darwin like Queen Elizabeth the first is linked to Elizabeth II, all these people live inside the Malthusian tradition.

ToadBrother · May 19, 2009

With his egoist gene, Dawkins shows he is linked to Darwin like Queen Elizabeth the first is linked to Elizabeth II, all these people live inside the Malthusian tradition.

You are aware, I hope, that whatever Dawkins writings on atheism vs. theism, he is a rather talented scientist, and certainly one of the most important researchers into evolutionary biology in the last four decades. He is an actual scientist, and while I doubt he's does as much research now as he once did, still, I think you have to give credit where credit is due. His anti-theism rants and writings are separate from the science he has done.

DogOnPorch · May 19, 2009

P.S... if you are unclear about the term open minded... here is a nice little video that explains how YOU are not:

Good find, Chuck. That pretty much sums up the thread.

GostHacked · May 19, 2009

Good find, Chuck. That pretty much sums up the thread.

I had the chance to watch this just now. And this explains it very well. But some will disregard this evidence.

betsy · May 19, 2009

Betsy, why did you label this thread "The Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher" and go on and on calling atheists 'minions' and 'disciples'?
Do you honestly believe that Dawkins is some sort of atheist leader?

No, I'm not calling all Atheists his minions and disciples.

I think it's pretty clear why I call him the Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher. You have to read all the way from the beginning of this thread....and the thread Canadians Divided On Creation/Evolution.

betsy · May 19, 2009

Btw, there's a book by Vox Day titled: The Irrational Atheist (Dissecting The Unholy Trinity Of Hawkins, Harris and Hitchens).

And the following is part of the review of this book by an Atheist blogger named Brent Rasmussen.

--------------------------------

In the first chapter Day makes the following audacious statement:

This is not a theological work. The text contains no arguments for the existence of God and the supernatural, nor is it concerned with evolution, creationism, the age of Earth, or intelligent design. It contains no arguments from Scripture; in attacking the arguments, assertions, and conclusions of the New Atheists, my only weapons are the purely secular ones of reason, logic, and historically documented, independently verifiable fact. (TIA, Pg. 2)

Now, he does get quite a bit theological in the late chapters of the book, as I describe below. The theological and philosophical speculation runs deep. (Hah! Gotcha Vox! Take that! Pow! *Biff!*) This was actually the part of the book I enjoyed the most.

But in the beginning chapters where he addresses each author's book, Day proceeds to do exactly that. He scrupulously breaks down many of the arguments and claims made by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and Onfray in their books, and then demonstrates, with meticulously detailed footnotes and references, why each one is flawed in some fashion - logically fallacious, historically inaccurate, mathematically incorrect, or statistically flawed.

It was actually painful for me to read. This is due to the fact that that I really do respect Richard Dawkins and his scientific accomplishments, as well as Daniel Dennett's heady forays into philosophical thought. I also absolutely love listening to Christopher Hitchens speak and debate. As for Michel Onfray and Sam Harris? Eh, not so much, but I do appreciate their ability to raise awareness and articulate some of the same things that I have thought about myself over the years and to put them into commercially successful books.

I am not going to go into a point by point review of the various arguments that Day addressed in TIA. Suffice it to say that by the end of the chapters dealing with the individual authors, I was happy that it was over. It was a thorough, detailed, dispassionate (with a little snarky levity thrown into the footnotes for flavor), and completely disheartening take-down of some of the best arguments that the godless have put into print - on their own terms, without using the Bible (in the first part of the book, that is), or any other sacred text to do it with. Amazing. And depressing. It is not my place to defend their books. I truly hope that they do find time to defend and clarify their books, specifically to the counter-arguments and claims made by Vox day in TIA, though, because they really need to. Trust me, it wasn't pretty.

http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com/node/1727

Edited May 19, 2009 by betsy

ToadBrother · May 19, 2009

Btw, there's a book by Vox Day titled: The Irrational Atheist (Dissecting The Unholy Trinity Of Hawkins, Harris and Hitchens).

I think Dawkins and Hitchens have infantile arguments which really have been hashed out by others long before them. However, the reason that this is all an issue is because the Judeao-Christian god is formulated in such a fashion that there is no real way to demonstrate its non-existence. I could formulate similar beings, say like claiming that a dozen invisible undetectable faeries live in your left ear and command your every decision. It's an absurd claim, but I challenge you to find a way to prove me wrong.

So before you get too smug, ponder that theistic claims are often no more meaningfully supportable than atheist ones. My own atheism isn't a reaction to theism, but rather because I simply see no need for such a being as your god, or any sort of Prime Mover. I can't prove it doesn't exist (you can't really prove negatives anyways), nor do I think atheism is in any way a scientific position. I do, however, think it is a rational position.

ToadBrother · May 19, 2009

No, I'm not calling all Atheists his minions and disciples.
I think it's pretty clear why I call him the Evolutionists' Fundamentalist Preacher. You have to read all the way from the beginning of this thread....and the thread Canadians Divided On Creation/Evolution.

I do love it when Creationists try to tar scientists with slurs that really describe them much better. Atheism and evolution are two separate things. Dawkins is still a scientist of considerable reputation, and for good reason, but scientists don't view him as sort of messiah, preacher, high priest or anything of the kind. Your problem is your incapacity to understand that a man is capable of wearing different hats. But prove it to yourself. I challenge you to go the peer reviewed and primary literature, and find anything in Dawkins' published scientific work (I'm not talking popular books like the Selfish Gene here, but actual scientific literature and papers) where he deals with the existence of God, or in any mentions God at all.

betsy · May 19, 2009

I think Dawkins and Hitchens have infantile arguments which really have been hashed out by others long before them. However, the reason that this is all an issue is because the Judeao-Christian god is formulated in such a fashion that there is no real way to demonstrate its non-existence. I could formulate similar beings, say like claiming that a dozen invisible undetectable faeries live in your left ear and command your every decision. It's an absurd claim, but I challenge you to find a way to prove me wrong.
So before you get too smug, ponder that theistic claims are often no more meaningfully supportable than atheist ones. My own atheism isn't a reaction to theism, but rather because I simply see no need for such a being as your god, or any sort of Prime Mover. I can't prove it doesn't exist (you can't really prove negatives anyways), nor do I think atheism is in any way a scientific position. I do, however, think it is a rational position.

If you see no need for God....that's your decision.

As for supportable claims, I thought I've only my faith.....until I accidentally discovered some facts while debating on this thread. I don't know if you've been on that particular thread, REJOICE ON THIS DAY.

that theistic claims are often no more meaningfully supportable than atheist ones

Well, evidently there's more weight to ID, as supported by several scientists and learned men. Imagine that, to think that what's supposed to be impossible to prove is actually drawing these men towards that direction....

Edited May 19, 2009 by betsy

DogOnPorch · May 19, 2009

If you see no need for God....that's your decision.

Even 'God' has 'his' place in the make-up of Western thought. Who can deny the beauty of some churches/cathedrals...the passions of various choirs...the morality of certain biblical ideas/ideals? It's part of our collective culture.

betsy · May 19, 2009

I do love it when Creationists try to tar scientists

But surely you must love it best when Dawkins tar Creationists, and all religion, and all who have faith in God.

Atheism and evolution are two separate things.

Supposed to.

But what happens when a scientist like Dawkins is a fanatical Atheist consumed with contempt and ridicule for all religion and everyone who have faith?

The evidence speak for themselves.

Dawkins is still a scientist of considerable reputation,

I'm sure. But his credibility is in question when it comes to the truth of origin.

There's this conflict of interest that come into play!

That omission he did on Einstein's belief on ID is damning!

Your problem is your incapacity to understand that a man is capable of wearing different hats.

And your problem is your incapacity to understand that the man is not credible wearing those hats.

You may say he is capable.....but the question is: is he credible?

Edited May 19, 2009 by betsy

benny · May 20, 2009

You are aware, I hope, that whatever Dawkins writings on atheism vs. theism, he is a rather talented scientist, and certainly one of the most important researchers into evolutionary biology in the last four decades. He is an actual scientist, and while I doubt he's does as much research now as he once did, still, I think you have to give credit where credit is due. His anti-theism rants and writings are separate from the science he has done.

If two activities are separate, I don't have to know both.