Dawkins, Atheism, & Intelligent Design

DAWKINS, ATHEISM, and INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins, the world’s most well known atheist, hates organized religion so much that he appears to have lost his mind. In his zealous crusade to denounce organized religion and the uneducated idiots who have faith in God, the animal behaviorist and biologist claims that NO INTELLIGENCE, of any kind, was necessary in the formation of life and nature as we know it.

When asked how the millions of Nature’s complex systems and processes came into being, without the involvement of any form of intelligence, Dawkins teaches that everything just occurred “naturally” through some non-intelligent, mindless and presently unknown random process of cosmic good fortune. Then Dawkins claims, from the other side of his mouth, that “natural selection”, clearly a product of intelligence in action, explains it all.

Of course, while Dawkins loves to emphasize, with parrot-like repetition, the idea that NO INTELLIGENCE was necessary in the establishment of complex life forms, he reverently refers to the process of “natural selection” as being the key to evolution and the reason for all the orderliness in nature. He conveniently ignores the fact that natural selection, an intelligently designed process, takes place “after” a complex life form already exists.

Atheists like Dawkins can not explain, scientifically, how some Intelligent Designer originated, so they classify such an idea as religion or fantasy, not science, for the purpose of both arrogantly ridiculing and hopefully avoiding all discussion of the subject. Dawkins and his sheep-like followers hate the word “intelligence”, preferring the word “natural”, which they feel doesn’t require intelligence and is therefore free from the need for explanation.

Since the concept of Intelligent Design implies the existence of some form of God-like intelligence, Dawkins, like an Ostrich, puts his head in a hole and believes nobody can see his body. He currently hides from microbiologists, avoiding debates with them because they can so easily debunk Darwin’s false theory. A close inspection of DNA makes both Darwin and Dawkins look like dunces.

Dawkins just hopes and prays that his sheep-like followers will not be intelligent enough to question his ridiculous theory that NO INTELLIGENCE, of any kind, was necessary in the establishment of complex life forms. Apparently Dawkins’ reasoning faculty has been disabled by his hatred for organized religion.

Dawkins intense hatred for organized religion, along with his almost ghoulish desire to deny any form of God-like intelligence has apparently made him ignore both fact and reason. Dawkins’ belief that complex forms of life, like a Dolphin’s Sonar, just happened to come together through mindless luck or some random non-intelligent form of cosmic good fortune is utterly impossible, therefore false.

Personally, I believe Dawkins is too smart to believe this hogwash himself, but since he has an agenda of destroying organized religion, coupled with the fact that he has so many mindless sheep drooling over his every word, he can continue selling his false ideas and make millions of dollars at the same time. Since he is either totally lacking in integrity or can successfully employ the insanity defense, why not?

Some believe he may be working with the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations for the express purpose of promoting the Atheist/Darwin agenda. With millions of books sold, clearly he has done a wonderful job of selling his false doctrine. Darwinism serves as “scientific” justification for atheism. While Darwinism and its concept of a “mindless” creation of complex life forms is false, the vast majority still have no clue. It has been so easy for Dawkins to trick the woefully ignorant sheeple.

Always remember the “original” title of Charles Darwin’s most famous book, which was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Charles Darwin was a racist who strongly influenced Hitler. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has served as the inspiration for slavery, war, imperialism, racism, genocide, the Holocaust, Fascism, and many other forms of unloving behavior. Always remember, DAWKINS LOVES DARWIN and Darwin was both wrong and a racist!


In order to believe Dawkins and his sheep-like followers, you would have to believe a tornado could pass through a junkyard, assembling and leaving behind a brand new car in its wake. Or, you would have to believe that by giving enough monkeys a brand new lap top computer, at least one of them would write a Shakespearean play.

Dawkins belief that NO INTELLIGENCE, of any kind, was necessary in the establishment of complex life forms is absolutely ridiculous because it ignores both fact and reason. The old Watchmaker story is all that is necessary for a reasonable person to know that some form of intelligence “had” to have been involved in the establishment (design and manufacture) of complex life forms.

The watchmaker story is simple. You take all the separated parts of a watch, place them in a bag, attach the bag to a mechanical arm or leave it sitting peacefully on a table, then leave the room. Nobody can or will touch this bag or its contents. Next, after some period of time, maybe a week, a month, a year, or a decade, you return to the bag, open it up, and look in. Will the watch be totally assembled and working perfectly?

If you answer “yes”, then you believe like Dawkins. If you answer “no” then you believe in Intelligent Design. In many cases Dawkins is totally justified for feeling contempt for organized religion. Throughout history, organized religion has been responsible for countless wars, millions of murders, and untold suffering.

However, Dawkins and his sheep like followers are being either dishonest or insane
when they actively promote the idea of complex life forms through mindlessness or non-intelligence. This is quite simply the most utterly ridiculous idea imaginable because it totally rejects fact and reason.

Beware! Dawkins is self-proclaimed Anti-Christ and Anti-God. Just like his false belief in the non-intelligent or Mind-Less establishment of life, most of what he teaches is the product of non-intelligence or mindlessness.

Personally, I believe he is serving a much more insidious agenda which is to intentionally deceive people on a massive scale. I believe his zealous efforts to recruit more people into his Army of Anti-Religious Atheists serves the ruling plutocrats by increasing the global level of conflict between people. Dividing groups of people through conflict makes it easier for each group to be manipulated.

The ruling Plutocracy, led by Adolfo Nicolas, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Windsors, and a few other super wealthy families want to keep us in a constant state of fear and conflict to further their private agenda. Currently, this Ruling Plutocracy has intentionally bankrupted America and most of the world. Why?

I am not sure what their specific plans are but, in my opinion, Dawkins is working for them to assist in their plans to control and enslave us. Dawkins appears to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. BEWARE!



Removed 'All Caps' from title

[edit on 18/8/09 by masqua]

Is this the same Dawkins ??

Ichthus Films - the controversy is finally put to rest. Was Dawkins REALLY stumped when asked the question about evidence for genetic mutations ADDING information to the the genome? He answers it - IN HIS OWN WORDS. Be prepared for a shock!


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From YT user Jjjayco's film - Below is his comment:
Richard Dawkins is dumbfounded after being asked to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome" - quite a reasonable question that one would expect Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science - so adamant in his belief in evolution - could and would provide an answer for.

He then responds but DOES NOT answer the question that was asked of him. Why? Because he has no idea when it comes to processes that add information to the genome - the very premise of what he proclaims!! His writings claiming that he was not stumped are a desperate endeavour to cover his cowardly tracks (and on a further note, his writings don't cover any of these "information adding" processes either).


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mr. EVOHEAD - I am "begging" you! Please read Dawkins' answer at this site...it will embarrass you in the final analysis - that is if you haven't drunk too much of the Koolaide yet! By Richard Dawkins

reply to post by bwinwright


Let me preface this whole post by saying I do believe in an intelligent interception in the evolution of life on this planet. I do not necessarily believe it was a prerequisite, but that it did indeed happen.

However, I find your post as closed minded as Dawkins statements tend to be. You state that the idea that complex systems coming to fruition via chance circumstances is totally impossible and therefor the premise is false. You do not claim to have any proof about this statement, you just spout off that Dawkins is wrong.

Honestly, that's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I personally don't like what I have seen of the man, either, but this one man does not discredit the entire notion that complex systems can arise from simple systems when given enough time and energy. I think it can and does happen all the time. People just fail to grasp the sheer volume of mutations and changes that happen over time. 4.5 billion years of existance for this planet coupled with the possibility of a jump start from an external source (comets, aliens, whatever) and the speed at which RNA molecules process just reduces the odds of a successful pairing to almost a certainty.

Also, the watchmaker story as you quoted it is disinginuine at best. To make it a good representation of reality, that bag would have to be filled with a lubricant and shaken, not just left sitting on a table. The creation of complex systems does not hapen in a vaccuum -- it requires the input of energy. I think if you tried that experiment in real life, you might find that after a period of time, pieces of the watch *would* start to fall in place. The balance of it doesn't fit the allegory, though, since the concept of a watch doesn't necessarilly match the concept of a self-replicating, self-regulating adaptive system that responds to its environment.

Anyway, like I said, I can respect your opinion of this man and his actions. I just wanted to point out the tendancy of people on both sides of the camp to be absolutists. No one is 100% right.

reply to post by bwinwright


I’ve never heard Richard Dawkins say that life BEGAN through natural selection only that life is in its current state because of natural selection and the wider process of evolution.

Also how is natural selection an intelligent or intelligently designed process? There is no intelligence required.

Atheists like Dawkins can not explain, scientifically, how some Intelligent Designer originated,

No, there is no reason to believe that an intelligent designer exists therefore they don’t believe in one. That’s it.

The question “how can a creator exist” is biased towards the conclusion that a creator exists. The non biased question is “how did the universe and its contents come to be”; the answer to that question does not require an intelligent creator therefore one must not be evoked.

Dawkins’ belief that complex forms of life, like a Dolphin’s Sonar, just happened to come together through mindless luck or some random non-intelligent form of cosmic good fortune is utterly impossible, therefore false.

It is utterly false but it is also not what Richard Dawkins or the theory of evolution says.

Evolution is, in a nutshell, random mutation plus natural selection; that does not equate to luck. It’s not lucky that a light receptive cell came about; what happened was a very, very large number of mutations occurred and one was beneficial. Because it was beneficial the creature that had this mutation was better adapted to its surroundings thus it survived and spread its genes, along with the mutation.

Charles Darwin was a racist who strongly influenced Hitler. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has served as the inspiration for slavery, war, imperialism, racism, genocide, the Holocaust, Fascism, and many other forms of unloving behavior.

Aside from this being untrue it is the case that belief in an intelligent creator has inspired all of these same things. Does that then make the idea of an intelligent creator false?

Whether someone is good or bad has no bearing on whether it is true.

Always remember, DAWKINS LOVES DARWIN and Darwin was both wrong and a racist!

That sounds like a logical fallacy, two in fact, argument ad hominem and affirming the consequent. If P then Q, Q therefore P.

In order to believe Dawkins and his sheep-like followers, you would have to believe a tornado could pass through a junkyard, assembling and leaving behind a brand new car in its wake.

Why?

This and the watchmaker argument are false analogies. Evolution doesn’t say that if you take something apart it’ll reassemble itself in a month. They also presuppose an end result which evolution doesn’t have; in evolution whatever works is fine. Further more the make up of the watch isn’t capable of the processes associated with evolution where the basic building blocks of life are.

If however you took a mass of the requisite basic blocks (carbon, oxygen, amino acids etc) and give it the requisite amount of time (billions of years) then the result may very well be a functioning watch though it might not look like a pocket watch because a pocket watch wouldn’t survive to pass on its gene. This has in fact already happened, your internal body clock for example.

Obviously maths is designed by a higher beeing. Look how perfect it is. 4+4 is exactly 8. The order and complexity is incredible. Such ordered complexity could not have arisen by accident.

***** Public Service Announcement For Humanity *****

Let's all stop pretending we know our origins or even have a clue of how the tiniest thing works in this life or on this planet. We don't know anything, and arguing about is a paradox in itself.

***** End Of Service Announcement *****

That's pretty much all that has to be said on this subject.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Well you might be happy to wallow in perpetual ignorance but some members of humanity like to learn.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and understand that you haven’t a clue what other people do and do not know. So please don’t pretend you have the wisdom and insight to negate, with a miniscule 38 word paragraph, the mountain of work and accumulated evidence that countless scientists and general thinkers have struggled through centuries to provide us with.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Mike_A


Rant aside, I tend to agree with TTT only because of my fondness for the Socratic quote "The only thing I know is that I know nothing".

BTW, did you actually take the time to count the words in TTT's post? I dunno whether to be impressed by your attention to details or call you anal. lol

cheers!

reply to post by rogerstigers


The polite term would be obsessive compulsive

But still Socrates wasn't being literal, TTT's sentiments were pretty literal. We do know a lot about how much of the these things work, we can see, we can test and we can predict. I just can’t stand people who sweep all of this to one side just so their own beliefs don’t have to contend with counter observations and evidence.

reply to post by bwinwright

Dawkins belief that NO INTELLIGENCE, of any kind, was necessary in the establishment of complex life forms is absolutely ridiculous because it ignores both fact and reason

Can you please provide a link to your 'facts' regarding intelligent design

reply to post by holywar


Um, yeah, we get it. Christians believe in an intelligent designer. Thank you for that informative movie.

So aside from that, is there anything you might want to add to the discussion that would be useful?

reply to post by holywar


In response to that video, with zero evidence for its claims, I submit the following two.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Sorry, no idea how to embed them.



[edit on 21-8-2009 by Mike_A]