| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/1/2008 6:33:08 AM | | I agree with u on that one And Can It Be.Talk about propaganda,whoever he votes for I will make sure to vote opposite for the sake of the country.As for the one ur speaking to he does rant on and on and on and on trying to quote everyone else to prove what exactly other then he hates.I am put in mind of a film I saw once where the person smiled like a big cheese eater at everyone but the minute the back was turned knife was inserted with the same broad smile.Relishing in the kill perhaps even before the body is dead?Where else has that been seen? | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/1/2008 12:58:14 PM |
TheMadFiddler: Are you saying that Michael Moore is a less than honorable filmmaker? May it never be!
Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks as the book of Proverbs says. People will always eventually say what they truly know to be the truth. Michael Moore is a liar, and his movies are pure propoganda.
Not to put a fine point on it but yes, I regard Michael Moore as a p*ss poor filmmaker as well who uses extreme distortions of truth and ambush journalism to get a point across. There are however usually grains of truth to be found at the bottom of a Michael Moore film somewhere.
Stein on the other hand has made a piece of garbage worthy of Der Sturhmer. There is absolutely nothing of merit here and that has been effectively "Exposed."
http://www.expelledexposed.com/ | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/1/2008 2:40:43 PM | | Dawkins is perhaps the smartest human in the entire history of the Earth from an objective standpoint (not a relative one however since Davinci was farther removed from his contemporaries then Dawkins is with his, nontheless overall Dawkins still holds the torch by popular consent as smartest person of all time) and does have alot of credibility on many issues. However he does have a quote saying that although he's an athiest he acknowledges Jesus had a great moral philosophy. I disagree since he said in Matthew to poke out your eyes and casterate yourself, not to mention hate your family!!! But no ones perfect. I agree with Penn Gillette on the issue of the bible. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/1/2008 6:55:25 PM | ^^^^ That's not to be taken literally! No one goes around poking their eyes out.
That's why I don't take "Burn in Hell'' literally
| |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/1/2008 7:07:32 PM |
Had he outright rejected ID in spite of being seeded by aliens, you would have a point. He admitted to the logical possibility...
One can outright reject a claim and still consider it a logical possibility. For instance, it is a logical possibility that you will turn into a frog in the next five seconds, but that doesn't mean I don't outright reject such a possibility. Perhaps this would be clearer for you if you understood what it means to say something is a "logical possibility". All this means is that the hypothesis is not illogical or contradictory.
What had to happen on the other planet to bring about the aliens is immaterial from this planets perspective since we can only claim to be designed by an Intelligent Designer if that was really the case.
It is definitely material to the matter at hand. The basic reasoning of ID is that if something is complex, it must have been designed. Therefore, to propose complex aliens as the designers, we are left with more complexity, and this would necessitate a further appeal to another complex designer. Dawkins' point is that this would have to spiral on into infinity, and this is why he rejects the basic argument of ID. That was the only reason he was entertaining the logical possibility of aliens creating us--simply to show how worthless the ID position really is as an ultimate explanation for the origin of complex life.
But the short answer is that Dawkins does not believe aliens seeded life on Earth (he even refers to it as a joking proposition). There is no evidence to suggest this is the case, and hence Dawkins clearly doesn't believe it. The whole principle of his argument shows that our being designed is highly unlikely, because ultimately we've got to come to an evolutionary origin of complexity regardless. And if there is no reason to think we were designed, then obviously the evolutionary origin of life from non-life like simple proteins makes more sense.
I know this is what Dawkins thinks because I've read most of his books and I'm very familiar with his work. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/1/2008 8:10:29 PM | I didn't see the clip that you are talking about, but it does take me back to his book, The God Dilusion. Even though in this book his goal is to raise "consciousness", he never completely states with 100% certainty that a God, or a Higher Intelligent force does not exist. As a matter of fact, on his rating scale of 1 - 7, with 1 being the total belief in the existence of God, and 7 being the total belief of God's non-existence, he puts himself at a 6. Just an interesting insight.  | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/1/2008 10:29:27 PM |
Perhaps this would be clearer for you if you understood what it means to say something is a "logical possibility". All this means is that the hypothesis is not illogical or contradictory.
It is clear for me and I am glad to see it is clear for you also. It simply amazes me how many evolutionists do not see ID as even being a logical possibility. Count yourself as one the more enlightened ones.
It is definitely material to the matter at hand. The basic reasoning of ID is that if something is complex, it must have been designed. Therefore, to propose complex aliens as the designers, we are left with more complexity, and this would necessitate a further appeal to another complex designer. Dawkins' point is that this would have to spiral on into infinity, and this is why he rejects the basic argument of ID.
ID proponents are stating that there is insufficient evidence on this planet for ToE to be the agent explaining both the diversity and complexity of the biological life that exists here. If the record was more complete with transitional fossils showing clearcut steps of evolution, this 150 year old debate would not still be taking place.
The hypothetical aliens could have a much clearer record of its own evolution or perhaps be a life form that didn't require a long involved process as we supposedly did and it is therefore immaterial from the perspective of our origins. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/1/2008 11:01:18 PM |
If the record was more complete with transitional fossils showing clearcut steps of evolution, this 150 year old debate would not still be taking place.
If the record were more complete it would make no difference. If we took away 90% of the evidence we currently have for evolution, it would still be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. What possible use would it be to provide more evidence, more knowledge, more truth to someone who goes out of their way to ignore it? They believe in things with no evidence, and despite evidence, so it would be no use to give them more. If the fossil record was complete, would you blind yourself to it with a blindhold or just cover your eyes with your hands?
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. | |
|
| |
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/2/2008 12:24:44 AM |
ID proponents are stating that there is insufficient evidence on this planet for ToE to be the agent explaining both the diversity and complexity of the biological life that exists here.
Not sure which planet your living on ekyro but here on earth evolution is currently THE ONLY rational explanation for the complexity and diversity of life.
I've been reading your posts with interest to see how you answer some of the more informed members and you have yet to come up with an alternative Theory.
You can say God, or Aliens did it until you're blue in the face but where is the EVIDENCE for either of these scenarios?
And why is it that evolution doubters only have an issue with Darwin's Theory? It has as much evidence going for it as any other scientific hypothesis. Actually it has more credentials than many so why pick on evolution ekyro? Global warming caused by human activity has a few gaps in it, why not put your energy into that one?
If the record was more complete with transitional fossils showing clearcut steps of evolution, this 150 year old debate would not still be taking place.
It would'nt matter one iota if there was an unbroken chain of fossils showing one species evolving into another. Nothing will EVER sway the minds of the ID aka creationist brigade. No amount of hard, incontrovertible, objective evidence will ever be enough for these people. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/2/2008 7:23:27 AM |
... as one paleontologist put it to Kenneth Miller as he explained in one of his recent lectures, there are so many transitional fossils showing up now that at the conference scientists practically break into fistfights deciding what to name them.
If history is any indication they likely have differing opinions over whether the fossils are precursors to pigs, cows, dogs or flying spaghetti monsters. After all if they can take a pig's tooth and hypothesize that it is from the Nebraska Man, then the possibilities are endless.
Not sure which planet your living on ekyro but here on earth evolution is currently THE ONLY rational explanation for the complexity and diversity of life.
THE ONLY ALLOWED explanation whether rational or not, as has been shown in the Expelled documentary.
You can say God, or Aliens did it until you're blue in the face but where is the EVIDENCE for either of these scenarios?
As I have repeatedly pointed out, it isn't the evidence but the INTERPRETATION of the evidence. It is becoming increasingly apparent that random, undirected mutations are not capable of bringing about the complexity of biological life. The more they study DNA, RNA etc., the more complexity they discover.
Nothing will EVER sway the minds of the ID aka creationist brigade. No amount of hard, incontrovertible, objective evidence will ever be enough for these people.
What will sway the minds of Evo's? How much incontrovertible, objective evidence is needed before they will open their minds to the possibility that the specified complexity of life itself is too great to be a result of random mutation and is the result of an Intelligent Designer? | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/2/2008 8:40:07 AM | If history is any indication they likely have differing opinions over whether the fossils are precursors to pigs, cows, dogs or flying spaghetti monsters. After all if they can take a pig's tooth and hypothesize that it is from the Nebraska Man, then the possibilities are endless.
Never having heard of Nebraska man I did a quick internet search which revealed him to be the subject of a short term controversy in 1922 concerning the misidentification of a worn and water eroded pigs tooth. The mistake was realised within five years. Another inspiring example of science correcting itself. Thanks E Kyro for bringing it to our attention. It would be nice if religious dogmas had a similar self correcting ability, but of course the folks who wrote the texts and devised the doctrines are all dead and the tendency is to regard anything scriptural as set in stone for eternity. Oh well.. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/2/2008 9:20:15 AM | Hmm, yes. It only took a year for scientists to realize their mistake but another 4 years to publically admit it. They've evolved since then though as it now takes many more years to publically admit they are wrong. I guess that's why some of us prefer absolute truth to the "flavour of the day" truth, evolutionists are famous for. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/2/2008 10:17:34 PM | ^ yeah right.
Scientists don't even have to admit it anymore (although they will if they wish to preserve their reputation). Their research is made public and under heavy scrutiny of other scientists that are eagerly hoping to prove them wrong. I think that its great when scientists make mistakes - mistakes help us learn. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone tells the occasional lie. Everyone is human.
Did you know that every priest and preacher in the world is a pedophile? Did you know that every Christian is a murderer? I do - because I learned it in the E.Kyro School of Blaming the Majority for the Actions of a Few. I learned a lot there - I can condemn anybody I want to now, merely because they believe differently than I do. If a few scientists lied decades ago, I condemn the hundreds of thousands of honest scientists today. Its so easy - I simply imagine what Jesus would do, and I do the opposite. If He wants me to be honest, I lie, if He wants me to accept others, I'm intolerant, if He wants me to honor the Lord, I refuse to accept the evidence of the world He created. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 12:19:14 AM | | Amazing as it may seem....most scientists aren't very concerned over the question of God's existence. They are focused on what can be demonstrated, not on what can't. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 12:21:07 AM | | The only thing I have ever heard Dawkins say that might be misconstrued as that would be that there might be a "first cause", not a personal god that so many people believe in, but one event that brought about existence. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 1:44:55 AM | E Kyro posted
I guess that's why some of us prefer absolute truth to the "flavour of the day" truth, evolutionists are famous for.
Well, E Kyro......you are nothing if not consistent, and predictable.......science, and evolutionary science in particular...seem to represent an unacceptable challenge to the "absolute truth" of the bible.....so, what better than discredit (by fair means or foul) the science and the evidence that underpins the challenge. That might be ok, if you actually provided credible evidence for your own position, but instead you just merely mouth the weak arguments and pseudo scientific polemic of the creationist herd.
The problem with preferring any "absolute truth" is that there is little motivation for challenging it, and testing that truth to evaluate whether that truth still holds....um...true. The "flavour of the day" truth that you are criticising aka the scientific method and truths derived by it, are by it's nature always tentative. That is entirely a good thing. If a better understanding of something can be found by a newer theory that better explains an older theory or supplants an older theory explanatory of some physical phenomanon in this world, then that newer theory is rigorously tested and if accepted, then becomes the prevailing theory. That is how science works.....but you either do not understand that concept or refuse to acknowledge the utility of the scientific method when it doesn't agree with your own religious world view.
An early explanation of disease was that of abiogenesis...or spontaneous generation of disease.....how different would our world be if that theory was held as an unchallengable orthodoxy of "absolute truth". The "germ theory" when it was proposed by Louis Pasteur was a very controversial theory at the time, but the theory was rigorously tested by his peers, and by scientists well after Pasteur, and Pasteur's results have been consistently confirmed. The "flavour of the day", "Spontaneous Generation" (Flavour of the day for some thousands of years) was changed to the "flavour of the day" of "Germ Theory", which, although admittedly a day of only about 150 or so years, still is the basis of hygiene practices in the food industry and in the medical world.
Yep, Kyro....hold to the "absolute truth" of the bible if it makes you feel more comfortable, but don't expect your "absolute truth" to be incorporated into educational curricula, other than as a subject for study in theology, comparative religion, sociology or cultural anthropology....it doesn't have any place in the science curricula.....but that of course won't stop creation scien.....oops...Intelligent Design proponents from doing their damnedest. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 4:53:52 AM |
Amazing as it may seem....most scientists aren't very concerned over the question of God's existence. They are focused on what can be demonstrated, not on what can't.
I agree with you there. It's the book writers and their readers that attempt to translate the research into supporting the respective worldviews. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 9:29:03 AM | E.Kyro wrote:
I guess that's why some of us prefer absolute truth to the "flavour of the day" truth, evolutionists are famous for.
People with "absolute truth" mentality scare me. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 10:20:13 AM | Ben Stein is a corrupt, unethical scumbag who misrepresented who he was and what he was doing. If you go to Dawkins' website, he will tell you himself what happened with Stein.
And no, Richard Dawkins does NOT believe in intelligent design of any kind. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 11:49:37 AM |
As I have repeatedly pointed out, it isn't the evidence but the INTERPRETATION of the evidence.
What!!?
ekyro, are you saying there is more than one conclusion to make after all the evidence has been painstakenly studied by experts in the field?
Quick! Release all the criminals who;
Told people beforehand that they were going to commit the crime
admitted doing the crime
Were photographed doing the crime
Were seen doing the crime by numerous sober witnesses
Left DNA and other forensic evidence at the scene of the crime
Had DNA and other forensic evidence from the scene of the crime on their person
Apparently, according to ekyro, there is more than one way to interpret this data and these inmates may in fact be be completly innocent! | |
|
| |
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 12:44:11 PM | and here I thought it was about the dog that ate the cake.
Hey, did you know that since 1963 in the state of Illinois alone, 381 homicide convictions were overturned due to it being found out the murderer was actually innocent? Thats a lot of painstaking experts who interpreted the data wrong. Forensic sciences doesn't seem to be an exacting science. | |
|
| Dawkins believes in Intelligent design?
Posted: 5/3/2008 1:04:20 PM |
Thats a lot of painstaking experts who interpreted the data wrong. Forensic sciences doesn't seem to be an exacting science.
No, that's a lot of non-scientist jurors who were wrong, and whose errors were revealed by more exacting scientific advances like DNA testing.
E.Kyro, your problem is that you don't realize that the ability to realize when and how you are wrong is a good thing. Believing absolutely that you are right, in all contexts, regardless of the evidence, is far worse. The fact that such people won't ADMIT they are wrong doesn't mean they aren't usually wrong. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
