Richard Dawkins

[JohnR7]

Dawkin's new book according to the review is "full of scorn for religion and those who believe". What I realize from Dawkin's is that he seems to be very honest in telling us he believes that religion and darwinism can not both be true. Of course his reaction to this is going to be that one or the other is wrong. Dawkin's just has not come to the realization yet that it was darwin that was wrong. But sooner or later everyone will figure that out.

Oh, I am not saying that there are not religious people out there that are wrong in what they believe. But God is true, the Bible is true and there is no error in any of that. There are people who do represent God. We know that God makes it plan and clear who represents Him and who does not represent Him.

You are either in or out with God and Dawkins shows us just that. There is no middle ground. On a great divide, the water will go one way or the other.

 

[Mallon]

I'm in.

 

[mark kennedy]

Dawkin's new book according to the review is "full of scorn for religion and those who believe". What I realize from Dawkin's is that he seems to be very honest in telling us he believes that religion and darwinism can not both be true. Of course his reaction to this is going to be that one or the other is wrong. Dawkin's just has not come to the realization yet that it was darwin that was wrong. But sooner or later everyone will figure that out.

People don't seem to realize that Darwinism is religiously biased. They have a social agenda and if you are not adamantly opposed to everything religious and theistic they will dispise you. What is really cool about these Darwinian big mouths is that they are so profoundly wrong about things.

"The intenerat selfish gene, says many a body I've seen.
You think your so cleaver but I'll liver forever,
You just a survival machine." (The Selfish Gene)

Selfish genes don't explain squat, Darwinism is very different from real world science. The guy is just a stuffed shirt, nothing he does or Danial Dennet or any of the others impress me as having any genuine interest in science.

 

[Mallon]

The guy is just a stuffed shirt, nothing he does or Danial Dennet or any of the others impress me as having any genuine interest in science.

And creation scientists do?

 

[random_guy]

Dawkin's new book according to the review is "full of scorn for religion and those who believe". What I realize from Dawkin's is that he seems to be very honest in telling us he believes that religion and darwinism can not both be true. Of course his reaction to this is going to be that one or the other is wrong. Dawkin's just has not come to the realization yet that it was darwin that was wrong. But sooner or later everyone will figure that out.

Oh, I am not saying that there are not religious people out there that are wrong in what they believe. But God is true, the Bible is true and there is no error in any of that. There are people who do represent God. We know that God makes it plan and clear who represents Him and who does not represent Him.

You are either in or out with God and Dawkins shows us just that. There is no middle ground. On a great divide, the water will go one way or the other.

Yeah, because the word of one scientist is evidence of that, not the millions of Christians that accept evolution. So according to your same logic, you're either in God or out with Him and in with old Earth. HisWordIsMyWord is evidence of that. Also, according to the same logic, you're either with the Republicans or you're a terrorist, according to Coulter. Yeah for logical fallacies and living in a black and white world!

 

[Mallon]

Agree that you're either with God or you're not. But the dividing line isn't creationism.

 

[random_guy]

Agree that you're either with God or you're not. But the dividing line isn't creationism.

Exactly. Either accept Creationism and God or accept science, you can't have both. I'm sure this will really help win souls over.

 

[notto]

People don't seem to realize that Darwinism is religiously biased. They have a social agenda and if you are not adamantly opposed to everything religious and theistic they will dispise you. What is really cool about these Darwinian big mouths is that they are so profoundly wrong about things.

This is of course slander against those Christians who study, accept, and teach evolution based on independent line of evidence and years of study and discerning.

Why you would say this about those Christians is beyond me. It is demonstratably wrong and I believe you know this.

Why is evoltuion taught at the heart of biology in Christian universities? Do those Christian professors at those Christian universities hava a social agenda? What is that social agenda?

You are as bad as Dawkins in your confusioin of evolution and atheism. Your words are as misguided as his.

That shouldn't make you feel good about what you have said. If anything, you should question your own motives and realize that they are religiously biased and based on a social agenda.

You have become what you rail against. Good show.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

People don't seem to realize that Darwinism is religiously biased. They have a social agenda and if you are not adamantly opposed to everything religious and theistic they will dispise you. What is really cool about these Darwinian big mouths is that they are so profoundly wrong about things.

snip snip to address a single point

yes, people do use evolution to build their worldviews. not no it is not science, it is metaphysics. you have bought into the atheist lie that methodological naturalism implies philosophic naturalism. Essentially YECists and atheists both look at science in much the same way, evolution says man is an animal, atheists say that man is nothing but an animal and that this statement is scientific and the YECists all agree.

The problem is that "man is nothing but an animal" is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophic one, in particular it claims a sufficiency argument, something science doesn't do. Nothing but, there are no other options, it is only logical that, these are hints that the person is moving from science to metaphysics and trying to fool you into thinking he is still talking science.

Dawkins is not, he is primarily a metaphysican and a creator of worldviews. his ideas on philosophy are no more valid than anyone elses, he claims the mantle of science for them but he is borrowing it unrightfully from science,it is not his. science doesn't make claims for the philosophic ideas drawn out of it. social darwinianism is no more scientific than was phrenology.

 

[mark kennedy]

yes, people do use evolution to build their worldviews. not no it is not science, it is metaphysics. you have bought into the atheist lie that methodological naturalism implies philosophic naturalism. Essentially YECists and atheists both look at science in much the same way, evolution says man is an animal, atheists say that man is nothing but an animal and that this statement is scientific and the YECists all agree.

The metaphysics of Darwinism are not limited to the atheists, agnostics are not immune and religion is not even a safe harbor. It is a substantive element that transends reality, the reality of living systems that Darwinian metaphysics trace back to primordial ancestry. There are no alternative views in natural science to this except for the various creationist ideologies. There is a clear line of demarkation and Dawkins chooses to take Darwinism to it's logical conclusion, either evolution is exclusivly naturalistic or creationism has scientific merit at some level.

The problem is that "man is nothing but an animal" is not a scientific statement, it is a philosophic one, in particular it claims a sufficiency argument, something science doesn't do. Nothing but, there are no other options, it is only logical that, these are hints that the person is moving from science to metaphysics and trying to fool you into thinking he is still talking science.

Man is animal because he is composed of animalia cells. It simply means he is animated as opposed to none animated plants. Especially vicious people are sometimes characterized like animals but nothing in nature kills like humans. With weapons, systems cunning and systematic precision, nothing in our world is as red in tooth and claw as humans.

Dawkins is a religious zealot and his religion is atheistic Darwinism. The only antithesis to Darwinism is creationism, Darwin knew this, Dawkins knows this and Christians should realize it.

Dawkins is not, he is primarily a metaphysican and a creator of worldviews. his ideas on philosophy are no more valid than anyone elses, he claims the mantle of science for them but he is borrowing it unrightfully from science,it is not his. science doesn't make claims for the philosophic ideas drawn out of it. social darwinianism is no more scientific than was phrenology.

Dawkins is a classically trained Oxford scholar, his views are not outside the mainstream views. There is not another religious view in the world that he dispises more then creationism. I didn't come to creationism because of it's advocates, I never paid them much mind at all. I was driven to creationism by the intensity of Darwinism, I didn't make TOE and Christian theism mutually exclusive, Darwinians did.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is of course slander against those Christians who study, accept, and teach evolution based on independent line of evidence and years of study and discerning.

I accept evolution as defined in science just not as history. Many Christians accept the Bible as religious canon and a moral standard but not as history and that is the difference. I don't judge other professing Christians for their distaste for Creationism but I am opposed to any compromise with worldly wisdom that will differ to naturalistic elementals what is rightfully attributed to God.

Why you would say this about those Christians is beyond me. It is demonstratably wrong and I believe you know this.

I know where the burden of proof for demonstrative evidence is and TOE falls short at crucial points. They lack a genetic mechanism for human evolution from apes and I believe they know it. I know they are aware of it because I have caught them lying about it.

Why is evoltuion taught at the heart of biology in Christian universities? Do those Christian professors at those Christian universities hava a social agenda? What is that social agenda?

Evolution defined as what because universal common ancestry has absolutly nothing to do with it. You use that word like it has some meaning for you but I have learned to discern mulitple meanings, some precise and substantive, others presumptive. You have to define a term like that for it to have any meaning at all.

You are as bad as Dawkins in your confusioin of evolution and atheism. Your words are as misguided as his.

And your views are no different, if there is a hint of Christian theism in TE philosophy I can't find it except in the most vauge sense. I don't see any difference in the mentality, the proofs or the assumption of exclusivly naturalistic mechanisms. God may be believed in as long as he doesn't do anything supernatural.

That shouldn't make you feel good about what you have said. If anything, you should question your own motives and realize that they are religiously biased and based on a social agenda.

The Bible as history was the first thing I wondered about when I became a Christian. Despite the emphasis on redemptive history in the New Testament it is absent from the arguments of TEs in the common forum. In the C&E I couldn't tell the difference between a TE arguement and an athesitic materialist. In fact, the only truely Darwinian arguements I have encountered were from TEs.

Maybe I am strongly biased, maybe I like that better then having a worldview that is not discernably different from a worldly one.

You have become what you rail against. Good show.

And I can't tell the difference between yours and theirs.

 

[notto]

I didn't make TOE and Christian theism mutually exclusive, Darwinians did.

Why is the theory of evolution taught at the core of biology classes in all Christian universities that are acredited in the sciences?

Do you think that it is 'Darwinians' (whatever that is) who are atheists who are teaching it there?

Maybe you were listening to the wrong 'Darwinians'. You seem to have a poor understanding of just how many Christians are out there every day teaching, using, and accepting the theory of evolution.

Can you name a scientist working in the area of biology that you don't think is motivated by religion or a social agenda? Where do they work? What biology research do they publish? How did you determine that they are not movitvated by religion or a social agenda? Do they have a genuine interest in science?

 

[mark kennedy]

Why is the theory of evolution taught at the core of biology classes in all Christian universities that are acredited in the sciences?

Evolution defined as what, define your central term because biologists do.

Do you think that it is 'Darwinians' (whatever that is) who are atheists who are teaching it there?

Like I would have no idea what goes on in a college right? I took a Biology 101 class and guess what, evolution did not come up once. It's a load of baloney that evolution is the core of biology. Again you have failed to define your central term.

Maybe you were listening to the wrong 'Darwinians'. You seem to have a poor understanding of just how many Christians are out there every day teaching, using, and accepting the theory of evolution.

What exactly is that theory anyway because I have yet to see it stated formally. The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and Newton's theory of light. I have yet to see the theory of evolution defined scientifically, if it's so scientific show me the mathematical forumula for it. I know there is one for natural selection, what is the theory of which you speak?

Can you name a scientist working in the area of biology that you don't think is motivated by religion or a social agenda? Where do they work? What biology research do they publish? How did you determine that they are not movitvated by religion or a social agenda? Do they have a genuine interest in science?

Newsflash! There isn't a Christian one that has a problem with Mendelian genetics the fuss is over Darwinism and that is something evolutionists don't want to talk about. Show me the science of evolution, show me the difference between TE and Darwinism, show me the theology in your worldview because I can't find it in your posts.

 

[notto]

Evolution defined as what, define your central term because biologists do.

Heritable change due to mutation and natural selection that leads to speciation and biodiversity. Common ancestry as an explaination to what we find in the independent lines of evidence of the fossil record and genetics.

Like I would have no idea what goes on in a college right? I took a Biology 101 class and guess what, evolution did not come up once. It's a load of baloney that evolution is the core of biology. Again you have failed to define your central term.

Are you suggesting that speciation, heritable change, and genetic and physical comparison or organisms based on common ancestry is not central to higher biology studies? That is laughable. What book did you use in Biology 101 and where did you take it? If find it hard to believe that evolution or the concepts of speciation and common descent didn't come up. Can you share?

What exactly is that theory anyway because I have yet to see it stated formally. The theory of gravity, the theory of relativity and Newton's theory of light. I have yet to see the theory of evolution defined scientifically, if it's so scientific show me the mathematical forumula for it. I know there is one for natural selection, what is the theory of which you speak?

What causes gravity?

Mathematical formulas are not the basis of theories. Mechanisms and physical interations are. You seem to be lacking in a basic understanding of what a good scientific theory addresses and what the theory of relativity, gravity, and light address. They certainly address more than math - just like evolution.

The theory of evolution uses observable mechanisms to explain the independent lines of evidene for common ancestry. Life in the past was much different than life today. They theory of evolution explains why this is using observable mechanisms and falsifiable claims. You know - science.

Newsflash! There isn't a Christian one that has a problem with Mendelian genetics the fuss is over Darwinism and that is something evolutionists don't want to talk about. Show me the science of evolution, show me the difference between TE and Darwinism, show me the theology in your worldview because I can't find it in your posts.

I can't really make much sense of this paragraph. The science of evolution is there for everybody to see in reams and reams of peer reviewed research. I accept that research just like I accept relativity research or medical research. The theology of my worldview is based on the scriptures, particularly the New Testament - I am after all Christian.

I just accept one more mainstream scientific theory than you do based on the evidence and the study I have done. I'm in good company with a great many Christians who teach it, accept it, use it in their research, and yet somehow live fantastic and faithful lives as Christians - just like those that accept relativity.

 

[notto]

http://www.stnews.org/news-2807.htm

This is a good article on Christian Universities teaching evolution in their biology curriculums (even introductory biology).

They dont' shy away from it because the understand it is science, it is supported, and it is important to a biology curriculum and any student who has a genuine interest in science (as opposed to a politically motivated social agenda).

 

[Mallon]

Mathematical formulae for evolution:
Heritability...

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium...

Game theory...

.

Shoulda stayed in school. At least until Biol 201.

 

[Deamiter]

Wow, let's take a militant atheist's metaphysical conclusions on evolution, and jump to claiming that it's a logical conclusion...

We know survival of the fittest happens in nature. It's observed (call it what you like -- the fittest survive). So isn't it "logical" to extend it and develop ruthless employment practices? OF COURSE NOT!

Metaphysical conclusions can be based on science, but they are not "the only logical conclusion." To say that because it happens in nature means it is morally right is based on the assumption that morals are based on nature, not at ALL on nature itself. Don't they still teach this important difference in philosophy of science classes (or did you skip that one).

 

[random_guy]

Like I would have no idea what goes on in a college right? I took a Biology 101 class and guess what, evolution did not come up once. It's a load of baloney that evolution is the core of biology. Again you have failed to define your central term.

"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

Hmmm, who to trust, Baylor's Biology Department, or Mark. Who do you think would be in a better position to say that evolution plays a fundamental role in biology, a department that specializes in teaching biology, or Mark? The department who's statement is supported by nearly every other biology department, nearly every single scientific organization, and nearly every single biology journal, or Mark, who's supported by Creationists, most of which who do not study biology or do biological research?

 

[theFijian]

And I can't tell the difference between yours and theirs.

What a shame that YECs are avowedly committed to the gospel of Creationism rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ. At least they are less wrong than the atheists.

 

[notto]

http://www.lima.ohio-state.edu/academics/biology/course descriptions.htm
Biology 101 Introductory Biology U 5 - Basic principles of biology; topics include nature of science, organismal diversity, evolution, ecology, genetics, reproduction, cell structure and function. Prereq: Math 075 or 076 or 104 or Mathematics Placement Level R. Not open to students with credit for 113 or H115, or Entomol 101, or PCMB 101. Not intended for the student pursuing an undergraduate major in one of the biological sciences. This course is available for EM credit. GEC bio sci course. Offered at Lima Autumn and Winter Quarters, every year.

http://www.montana.edu/wwwbi/staff/kerans/bio101/bio101.html
http://www.onlinecourse.com/courses/Biology.htm
http://kalama.doe.hawaii.edu/hern95/pt009/Ann/biol101.html
http://www.sru.edu/pages/8732.asp
http://clab.cecilcc.edu/bolsen/intro.htm

I would certainly be interested in seeing a Biology 101 syllabus from an accredited university that does not include evolution in what it covers.