"These people need to put up an argument of their own, rather than just badmouthing the people who are criticizing them. Let's hear their argument."
This reminds me of a child holding his ears screaming, "La la la la! I can't hear anything," when their parents are telling them to clean up their room. Later on, when they are asked why they didn't clean their room, they say, "Unless you tell me to clean up my room, i'm not going to know that i'm supposed to do it."
If this is the reality that Dawkins wants to present to his readers, as if ID'ers and Creationists haven't presented arguments "of their own," and instead are only "badmouthing," then Dawkins is living in a dream world. Dawkins is either completely oblivious or intentionally deceptive. I'm going to vote for the latter.
Its unfortunate that Dawkins has made a career out of atheism and evolution, but refuses to give a fair representation of his critics. Perhaps in Dawkins' ethical system he doesn't think its a problem to spend a lifetime arguing against his critics and then pretending they don't exist; but then again, i'm a Christian who thinks that men are made in the image of God and should be treated with dignity and respect.
"As you know, respectable theologians and bishops and vicars and people all believe in evolution anyway, so no religious person should have no quarrel with this, unless they are the truly ridiculous kind religious person who believes that the world is only 6,000 years old."
First off, they don't "all believe" in evolution. But even if they did, who cares? With the exception of Catholics, JW's, and Mormons, who are under obligation to believe whatever their organization tells them, theists generally don't reject or accept evolution solely based on what their leaders tell them. Some people actually think for themselves. But Dawkins doesn't want his readers to know that.
"There's no informed opposition. The opposition is all entirely from ignorant people who know nothing about it."
This is the epitome of ignorance. Are all evolution-deniers people who know nothing about it? Really? This is truly absurd and Dawkins should be ashamed of himself for presenting such a fabrication of reality.
"All living creatures are cousins of each other. That is a fact."
Gravity is a fact, Mr. Dawkins. It is something that we can measure or detect through repeatable experiments. This is contrary to the claim that my distant cousin is a banana tree.
(ht: RichardDawkins.net
Posts
4 comments:
Mike, have you ever watched the series on YouTube called "Why do people laugh at creationists"?
It should disabuse you of any belief that creationists have a leg to stand when it comes to science.
Mike wonders if " all evolution-deniers people who know nothing about it? Really?"
I think the answer to this is categorically "yes".
Mike displays his ignorance of science and in particular, gravity and evolution.
Gravity is indeed a fact and it is described with the theory of gravitation. We can indeed measure and detect its effects.
Evolution is absolutely a fact and its description can be found in the theory of evolution.
One fact within this theory is that of common ancestry. It is a fact, beyond all reasonable doubt, that we share a common ancestor with oak trees. This "claim", as Mike puts it, is backed up by reams of evidence.
I wonder if Mike has any evidence to suggest otherwise.
I wonder what reason Mike would give for scientists like Craig Ventnor who mapped out the human genome and has mapped many other organisms to want to lie to the public and pretend that humans are cousing to cabbages.
I wonder what evidence Mike has to be able to prove Ventnor wrong.
Thanks for your comments Galactor. I'll try to take a stab at some of them:
Yes, i've seen those YouTube videos but its been such a long time that I don't remember the specific content.
So, you'd say that all evolution deniers know "nothing" about evolution? Nothing at all? Really? Though you may think so of the average lay person who denies evolution, I find it very difficult to believe that you'd think this about an ID or creationist advocate with a Ph.D in biology who somehow made it through without knowing anything about evolution. Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch?
Even for me, I somehow made it through my college biology courses; even the tests that were solely based on evolution. Seems like I might at least know something about it?
As far as demonstrating that evolution is a fact like gravity; you can make that comparison all you want, but for me, it remains to be established.
I haven't looked into any of the details of Ventor's research, which probably would go way over my head anyway. So I can't really "prove Ventor wrong" without first looking into it and secondly, having the expertise to engage in such a technical subject.
As for evidence "against" common ancestry, i'm not so much interested in that as I am in the evidence for it. That is, until i'm shown good evidence for it, I have no reason for believing in common ancestry of all living things. It'd be like a theist asking an atheist for evidence against God's existence. Though some atheists might go that route, I think most atheists are content in saying that it boils down to a lack of belief as opposed to a dogmatic declaration.
Post a Comment