Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

My personal view on this is that Dawkins is very careful about how he selects his targets: I genuinely believe he's a bit cowardly in this.

I agree.
Its easier to attack Christianity than Islam.

But i think that anyone who wants to say that gods do not exist need to look at the oldest religions we have,such as Hinduism and the beliefs of the Sumerians and Egyptians.Its those they should be debating as we all know that they have impacted greatly on the one god religions and are the origin of many of the stories and rituals within them.





[edit on 25-10-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by jakyll


youd be aiming at Pharaoh Akhenaten's cult of Ra

it was the first monotheistic religeon we know of, there is already a suggested link between this and judaism but much of the evidence for the cult was destroyed when egypt returned to its pantheon of gods

as that influenced judaism it also effected christianity and islam as they are just reworkings

and from the sumarians ...or was it babylonians we get the story of noah

the modern religeons care nothing for these older religeons(in many cases especially the more hard line or truley fundamental) becasue thier creation myths say thier religeon was there at the begining of everything so couldnt have been effected by them

there are chistians on ats that will tell you christinaity isnt 2000 years old its 6000 years old it was there from the creation of earth totaly denying its jewish begining

thats why these are over looked

Actually, quite a bit of what you mention was not edited out. Dawkins did mention the possiblity of alien life seeding earth. However, this movie was not about the proving the existence of God. Neither was it intended to be supportive of Christianity. It was intended to ask why scientists are closed minded to the question of Intelligent Design.
I am open minded on the whole God thing. I don't care what you call it. But to deny possiblity of Intelligent Design is akin to having a tornado go through a junkyard and come out on the otherside with a perfectly working Rolex.
I am sure that there were quite a few things edited out of the movie that I would have perferred be left in. But that's what directors do. Oliver Stone is a good example.
And one last point. I have complete and total confidence in Ben Stein's integrity, even if he did write speeches for Richard Nixon.

reply to post by Simplynoone
That is the whole point. This movie is NOT about about Christianity, Islam, Judism, or any other religion. This is about the refusal of the scientific community to step outside of their narrow little boxes, and questioning not just the how, but the WHY!
Ben Stein is not, as far as I know, a Christian. He is a brillant man who happens to be a Jew. I'm not even aware how observant he is, and I don't really care. I have more respect for this man than just about anyone I know.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Actually, quite a bit of what you mention was not edited out. Dawkins did mention the possiblity of alien life seeding earth. However, this movie was not about the proving the existence of God. Neither was it intended to be supportive of Christianity. It was intended to ask why scientists are closed minded to the question of Intelligent Design.
I am open minded on the whole God thing. I don't care what you call it. But to deny possiblity of Intelligent Design is akin to having a tornado go through a junkyard and come out on the otherside with a perfectly working Rolex.

You're wrong on both points. Scientists don't suppose or speculate on God(s) and evolution and that's completely different to ruling out God. If you understand evolution, then you know this. Also no part of evolution features tornadoes -> watches par events and It doesn't rely on them ether.

I am sure that there were quite a few things edited out of the movie that I would have perferred be left in. But that's what directors do. Oliver Stone is a good example.
And one last point. I have complete and total confidence in Ben Stein's integrity, even if he did write speeches for Richard Nixon.

Ben Stein has said that science kills men and other equally stupid things. He even supposed that Darwinian evolution (which he couldn't distinguish for modern evolution) was incomplete as it didn't explain gravity.

'Expelled' is religious propaganda attacking science thus promoting anti-intellectualism.

Part 22 of the 'Why do people laugh at creationists' series looking at Stein and his movie.



[edit on 10/25/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by jakyll

Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?

This is so idiotic... I am quite positive that the Richard Dawkins of 10 years ago would have said the exact same thing. I am quite sure that many atheists are open to the possibility that a God like being of sorts created the universe. The only problem we have is with lack of evidence, and people claiming to know which God it was that created the universe. People thousands of years ago would have said Zeus, people of today say the christian God.

I, as an atheist am open to the possibility that a God like being created the universe, and set things into motion. But I do not for one minute take anything said in the bible, or any holy book as truth. A God may exist, but who, or what he is is up for debate.

Originally posted by AlexG141989
But I do not for one minute take anything said in the bible, or any holy book as truth.

Indeed. You have numerous 'Holy Books' of respective faiths all claiming that they are the only truth and that the others are wrong. They can't all be right so logic tells us that they are all wrong, at least for the most part.

reply to post by kettlebellysmith



I know ..I dont think you read my thread ..
I even said they were not Christians or creationists on that Documentary ..

reply to post by Simplynoone
Sorry, I did read your thread. I was actualy agreeing with you. I just get carried away sometimes.

reply to post by Good Wolf
[more You obviously don't understand analogy. A tornado going through a junkyard and producing a Rolex. Random selection producing human beings. Can you say long, long odds?
I don't know if Stein said that or not. I'll have to watch the movie again. But I must say the misuse of science has killed many, many people. If you doubt, I simply point you to Alfred Nobel. I greatly suspect that what you quote Stein as saying was taken out of context.
I'm not talkin about science proving or disproving the existence of God. This movies has nothing to do with creationsim. That statement is repeated time and time again in the movie. You just choose not to believe anything outside your narrow view. But a true scientist must, if he/she is being intellectually honest, consider ALL POSSIBLITIES.
I am trying to keep an open mind.
You on the other hand seem to be taking the attitude of "My mind is made up. Don't try to sway me with Facts!"



[edit on 25-10-2008 by kettlebellysmith]

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Random selection producing human beings. Can you say long, long odds?

Firstly, its not "random selection" it's random mutation and natural selection. Evolution isn't random.

Secondly, even if it were "long, long odds" that doesn't mean anything because a blind system producing a particular thing are long, long odds.

You on the other hand seem to be taking the attitude of "My mind is made up. Don't try to sway me with Facts!"

What facts? You haven't pointed out any. I used to be a creationist, switching to an evolutionist after reviewing the science in detail swayed
my opinion, that's more open minded than most.

[edit on 10/25/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by AlexG141989



sorry the only argument/facts/proof you have put forward is tornadoi's in scrap yards

yes yes yes yes it is massive odds to go from a single light sensative cell to a human or octopus eye are staggering

but to go from 1 cell to 2 cells and so on and so on then produce a lens to protect it and muscle to deform the lens to give focus

to go from a-z is massive odds .. to go from a-b-c-d-e-f-g-h is a whole bunch of low odds jumps and whats more if it doesnt benifit the creature on that small leap its not gonan reproduce so we get a do over (im ignoreing none interfering mutations here just covering supposedly good/bad)

sorry somthing appering to be to complex doesnt mean it is

and yes your right about the video thats my fault i was tying to anser two things in one

the video is a view if how ID isnt taken seriously in science and how anyone who supports it gets booted out fast ...

the point i made mixed in there is ... these people wernt booted out for believing ID or for beleiveing thier feet turned to wood when they put shoes on them and couldnt see them anymore or any other beleif

of the 6, 3 were gotten rid of becasue they were bed at thier job one was even told he was going before he released his ID paper

1 never got sacked or was asked to leave nothing

and the other two are based on purely false reasoning such as its so easy to get tenure at a university that 97% of all people do but i didnt .. really comeone now if that were the case there would be more tenured tutors then students at ANY university or college

the simple truth is so few give ID the time of day becasue its not actually a real theory, it doesnt do anything, what Id is is a collection of unproven (or disproved) bites of evidence who's sole purpose is to try and disprove evolution.

it doesnt stand as a stand alone thoery if evolution suddenly disappeared ID would fall over faster then it does under scrutiny becasue it couldnt cling to evolution an try and drag it down with it

there is no real evidence for ID it fails to disprove evolution and fails to prove its self ...... if someone in your maths class beleived 1+1=3 and was so adamant about it they began to build an argument that 1+1=3 and not 2 but then couldnt really prove 1+1 doesnt equal 2 and then also couldnt really prove 1+1=3 either. would you expect the whole class to be swayed and change thier math to be 1+1=3 .. would you expect the whole entire world to suddenly unlearn a proven 1+1=2 and start beleiveing 1+1=3 when its unproven cant stand on its own doesnt fill in the gap of what plus what equals 2 filling the big whole in the theory


if your going to use chance and odds to argue a theory then make sure its a theory on statistics or gambling it just doesnt cit it anywhere else

Crossroads: The Intersection of Science and Religion
It has been the central question of humanity through the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, “The Origin of Species.” In the century and a half since, geologists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin’s idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. The conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond.

this is the documentary they were asked to be interviewed for ... a far cry from exposed (and the they changed the name of it later is wrong the wed address was brought for it before the interveiws even took place) www.expelledexposed.com...

Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved,

richarddawkins.net... (bold underline italic mine)

wow im pretty sure his comment in the documentray IS taken out of context

alien could have started life on earth has ID suggests but the aliens them selves would have had to evolve to be intelegent enough to then design a lower system ... so that was in the video then?

no it was clearly edited so he said ID on earth was a possability and it was left at that, so it a)failed in showing that the possability was so remote it went against all evidence ever found of how we got here b)the creators of said almost imposible ID world would them selves have had to have evolved not been created through ID unless thier creators had evolved or thier creators had evolved .. no matter howfar this goes someone somewhere at the end of the line evolved

again i state emfatically the video was based on lies and false premise, used underhanded and deceitful actions to gain interviews and manipulate them interviewe, then misrepresented what they ahd said and bundled it all up in more lies and mis-information and sold it to the public under a title that its self was decietful Expelled:no intelegence allowed should be honestly renamed Expelled:no intelegence used and not much honesty either

[edit on 26/10/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 26/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by Evasius

In hindsight I now look upon their views of reality as cold and clinical...almost robotic. My view of the world was very materialistic, as though we were all merely complex machines derived from random chaotic occurrences and driven by some sort of unconscious yet decisive evolutionary process.

It is only natural, there is the spiritual and the physical , or maybe there isn't, maybe we are all souls having a human experience, sometimes nothing seems real,

There is a place between waking and sleeping where you catch a glimpse of eternity.

In the twinkling of an eye, God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

reply to post by Simplynoone

Why is man so afraid to believe that there may be a GOD

Good question, we are way to sophisticated, for, A GOD!

personally I believe in a Creator, but now days people think that is foolish, one way or the other, no one knows for sure.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


sorry i think your unclear what an atheist believes, ready?

Atheism 101

Atheism is a mind set that relise on evidence to construct a rational sensable explenation for life the earth and everything which requires 0 faith to get there

to say there is 100% no dought there is no god would require faith, there is no evidence of god and by the same token there is no evidence to say god/gods doesnt exist

so the actual mindset of an atheist is, there is no proof for god or gods of any kind from any reliegon despite the ages of some relgeons

this lack of evidence would imply there is almost certainly no god, and that no one from the trillions of people who have lived and worshiped various gods or group of gods have ever given us evidence would suggest that the odds of a god or gods existing are so tiny it is just easier to say there is no god and over look the improbability until such time evidence is found and we can re-evaluate

the dont beleive there is no god they(we me ) believe the chances there is a god is so remote and far fetched that the implications are rediculousy small ..but thats a mouth full so "there is no god" suffices

you bring the proof well bring the belief ^_^ cant be more open minded then that

from the thousands of religeons and gods that have existed through out humanity what is it that makes you think yours is THE right one(or statsistically right ones as a panthien of gods is a much older construct then monotheism) when they all say they are the right one(s)? what makes yours special ... now try answering that without quoting your book of choice or referencing some figure from said man made book that distinguishes and raises your religeon above all others that can not be used to raise anyother religeon above or equal to yours -- lies and false steroetypes will be pointed out and people will be arranged to form a circle around you to point and laugh at your sillyness

"i am the one the only one, i am the god of kingdom come, gimme the prize" - Freddie Mercury

sorry this freddie mercury quote is as valid, infact more valid as there is proof that he existed and said the words and wrote the words down then any section of the bible (especially when we can identify who copied what from where as most of it plagerism of other reliegoens or other supposed disciples)

shall we all start wearing yellow leather coats and worshipping the great moustache and teeth in the sky?

though shall not let video kill the radio star
though shalt wear a wig and a 60's style dress while hoovering !
though shalt gimme gimme gimme fried chicken

hey look were 1/2 way to a religeon already


[edit on 26/10/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun

sorry i think your unclear what an atheist believes, ready?

Maybe so, there are so many variables, hence my new found motto,


Reductio ad absurdum

[edit on 123131p://bSunday2008 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by Stormdancer777


always prefered

carpe crapula myself ^_^


denego ignarus as they say around here

[edit on 26/10/08 by noobfun]

Honestly, these type of arguments suck. I used to be on the christian side, arguing against evolutionists. I understand where you are coming from. Then I got a postgrad degree in genetics, and along the way realised how wrong I was, and how stupid I looked to the people who knew what they were talking about. There is so much evidence for evolution, you'd have to be uninformed or blind to dispute it.

The problem is, that most people choose to take certain parts of the bible literally (while choosing to take the bad bits metaphorically).

Dawkins was obviously saying that you can never disprove the hypothesis that A god made the universe as there is no way to test it. Science doesn't speculate on what CAUSED the big bang; only that it happened. If you have a single experiment that can show the theory is wrong, you will win a nobel prize.

Why don't you christians simply accept god on faith alone, REGARDLESS of the evidence, because its the whole point of FAITH. Accept that the best model for our creation, outside of your beliefs, IS evolution, the best model for our beginning WAS the big bang, and while you disagree, you respect each others opinions.

Personally, I don't believe we can make a call given how much language changes about what the bible meant. Wouldn't it be all the more amazing IF a "god" had created us all with the snap of his fingers, billions of years ago, knowing we would evolve to where we are now?

I don't believe it for a second, but it's a much easier position than 'the world is flat' view.

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by AlexG141989
But I do not for one minute take anything said in the bible, or any holy book as truth.

Indeed. You have numerous 'Holy Books' of respective faiths all claiming that they are the only truth and that the others are wrong. They can't all be right so logic tells us that they are all wrong, at least for the most part.

Not only logic, but common sense as well.

Originally posted by benjiskylar
H
The problem is, that most people choose to take certain parts of the bible literally (while choosing to take the bad bits metaphorically).

I know what you mean, its just like that croc where if something good happens its gods doing or something like that, but when the boots on the other foot "God works in mysterious ways" Its a massive load of but i guess thats why they call it "Faith", However blind .

Omega




[edit on 27/10/2008 by Omega85]

Originally posted by Omega85
Its a massive load of

but i guess thats why they call it "Faith", However blind .

Omega

Usually blind from what I remember of most christians from when I was one too.