Print
Gods and earthlings
by Richard Dawkins
Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dawkins18apr18,0,2798612.story
If we were visited by aliens from a distant planet, would we fall on our knees and worship them as gods? The difficulty of getting here from even our nearest neighbor, the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, constitutes a filter through which only beings with a technology so advanced as to be god-like (from our point of view) could pass. The capabilities and powers of our interstellar visitors would seem more magical to us than all the miracles of all the gods that have ever been imagined by priests or theologians, mullahs or rabbis, shamans or witch doctors.
Arthur C. Clarke, who died last month, said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods? The technology of interstellar travel, and the scientific knowledge on which it would be based, are as far beyond us as our present-day knowledge surpasses that of Dark Age peasants. Parting the Red Sea -- or splitting the moon in two as Muhammad is alleged to have done -- would be child's play to those who command forces powerful enough to propel them from star to star.
But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable. And statistically improbable things don't just happen spontaneously by chance without an explanation trail. That is what "improbable" means, as creationists never tire of assuring us (they wrongly think Darwinian natural selection is a matter of chance).
In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things. Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents -- so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything. No matter how god-like our interstellar aliens may be, and no matter how vast and wonderful their starships, they cannot have designed the universe because, like human engineers and all complex things, they are late arrivals in it.
Intelligent design "theorists" (a misnomer, for they have no theory) often use the alien scenario to distance themselves from old-style creationists: "For all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space." This attempt to fend off accusations of unconstitutionally importing religion into science classes is lame and disingenuous. All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are.
Nevertheless, despite their notorious dishonesty, I sometimes hand an olive branch to these people by pretending to take their "space aliens" political ploy seriously. Unrealistic as the space alien theory is, it constitutes intelligent design's best shot.
The distinguished molecular biologists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel advanced a version of the notion, probably tongue in cheek, called "Directed Panspermia." Life, they argued, could have been "seeded" on the early Earth by a spacecraft packed with bacteria. Maybe little cellular machines like the bacterial flagellar motor were designed by ingenious nano-technologists from Betelgeuse. But you still have to explain the prior existence of the Betelgeusians and how they became so advanced and god-like. Even if Betelgeusian life was, in turn, seeded by another rocket from Aldebaran 4 billion years earlier, eventually we have to terminate the regress.
We need a better explanation, such as evolution by natural selection or an equally workable account of the painstaking R&D that must underlie complex, statistically improbable things. Gods, if they are complex enough to be capable of designing anything, are, by virtue of their very complexity, not in a position to design themselves.
Theologians attempt two (mutually incompatible and pathetically inadequate) answers to this unanswerable point. Some say their God is not complex but simple. This obviously won't wash. No simple god could design bacterial flagellar motors or universes, let alone forgive sins or impregnate virgins. Presumably recognizing the justice of that, other theologians go to the opposite extreme. They admit that their god is complex but assert that he had no beginning: He was always there and always complex. But if you are going to resort to that facile cop-out, you might as well say flagellar motors were always there. You cannot have it both ways. Visitations from distant star systems are improbable enough to attract ridicule, not least from the advocates of intelligent design themselves. A creator god who had always existed would be far more improbable still.
This technique of arguing against a theory by setting up its most plausible version and dismissing it is commonly used in science and philosophy. The late, great evolutionist John Maynard Smith used it in his 1964 attack on the then-popular theory of "group selection." He set himself the task of devising the best possible argument for group selection. The details don't matter; he called it the Haystack Model. He then proceeded to show that the assumptions that the Haystack Model needed to make were highly unrealistic.
Everybody understood that this was an argument against group selection. Nobody twisted it to trumpet to the world, "See? Maynard Smith believes in Group Selection after all, and he thinks it happens in Haystacks, ho ho ho!" Creationists, by contrast, never miss a trick. When I have raised the science-fiction olive branch to try to argue against them, they have twisted it -- most recently in a movie scheduled to open this week -- in order to proclaim loudly, "Dawkins believes in intelligent design after all." Or "Dawkins believes in little green men in flying saucers." Or "Dawkins is a Raelian." It's called "lying for Jesus," and they are completely shameless.
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is a professor at Oxford University. His most recent book is "The God Delusion."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dawkins18apr18,0,2798612.story
If we were visited by aliens from a distant planet, would we fall on our knees and worship them as gods? The difficulty of getting here from even our nearest neighbor, the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, constitutes a filter through which only beings with a technology so advanced as to be god-like (from our point of view) could pass. The capabilities and powers of our interstellar visitors would seem more magical to us than all the miracles of all the gods that have ever been imagined by priests or theologians, mullahs or rabbis, shamans or witch doctors.
Arthur C. Clarke, who died last month, said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods? The technology of interstellar travel, and the scientific knowledge on which it would be based, are as far beyond us as our present-day knowledge surpasses that of Dark Age peasants. Parting the Red Sea -- or splitting the moon in two as Muhammad is alleged to have done -- would be child's play to those who command forces powerful enough to propel them from star to star.
But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable. And statistically improbable things don't just happen spontaneously by chance without an explanation trail. That is what "improbable" means, as creationists never tire of assuring us (they wrongly think Darwinian natural selection is a matter of chance).
In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things. Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents -- so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything. No matter how god-like our interstellar aliens may be, and no matter how vast and wonderful their starships, they cannot have designed the universe because, like human engineers and all complex things, they are late arrivals in it.
Intelligent design "theorists" (a misnomer, for they have no theory) often use the alien scenario to distance themselves from old-style creationists: "For all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space." This attempt to fend off accusations of unconstitutionally importing religion into science classes is lame and disingenuous. All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are.
Nevertheless, despite their notorious dishonesty, I sometimes hand an olive branch to these people by pretending to take their "space aliens" political ploy seriously. Unrealistic as the space alien theory is, it constitutes intelligent design's best shot.
The distinguished molecular biologists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel advanced a version of the notion, probably tongue in cheek, called "Directed Panspermia." Life, they argued, could have been "seeded" on the early Earth by a spacecraft packed with bacteria. Maybe little cellular machines like the bacterial flagellar motor were designed by ingenious nano-technologists from Betelgeuse. But you still have to explain the prior existence of the Betelgeusians and how they became so advanced and god-like. Even if Betelgeusian life was, in turn, seeded by another rocket from Aldebaran 4 billion years earlier, eventually we have to terminate the regress.
We need a better explanation, such as evolution by natural selection or an equally workable account of the painstaking R&D that must underlie complex, statistically improbable things. Gods, if they are complex enough to be capable of designing anything, are, by virtue of their very complexity, not in a position to design themselves.
Theologians attempt two (mutually incompatible and pathetically inadequate) answers to this unanswerable point. Some say their God is not complex but simple. This obviously won't wash. No simple god could design bacterial flagellar motors or universes, let alone forgive sins or impregnate virgins. Presumably recognizing the justice of that, other theologians go to the opposite extreme. They admit that their god is complex but assert that he had no beginning: He was always there and always complex. But if you are going to resort to that facile cop-out, you might as well say flagellar motors were always there. You cannot have it both ways. Visitations from distant star systems are improbable enough to attract ridicule, not least from the advocates of intelligent design themselves. A creator god who had always existed would be far more improbable still.
This technique of arguing against a theory by setting up its most plausible version and dismissing it is commonly used in science and philosophy. The late, great evolutionist John Maynard Smith used it in his 1964 attack on the then-popular theory of "group selection." He set himself the task of devising the best possible argument for group selection. The details don't matter; he called it the Haystack Model. He then proceeded to show that the assumptions that the Haystack Model needed to make were highly unrealistic.
Everybody understood that this was an argument against group selection. Nobody twisted it to trumpet to the world, "See? Maynard Smith believes in Group Selection after all, and he thinks it happens in Haystacks, ho ho ho!" Creationists, by contrast, never miss a trick. When I have raised the science-fiction olive branch to try to argue against them, they have twisted it -- most recently in a movie scheduled to open this week -- in order to proclaim loudly, "Dawkins believes in intelligent design after all." Or "Dawkins believes in little green men in flying saucers." Or "Dawkins is a Raelian." It's called "lying for Jesus," and they are completely shameless.
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is a professor at Oxford University. His most recent book is "The God Delusion."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 | PermalinkComments 151 - 200 of 208 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers152. Comment #164492 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 10:25 am
moderationsmuseYou seem to be advocating the scientific method and then you don't apply it to yourself. You've read one book, poorly remembered it, not even being able to recall the title, and from this very shaky evidence base you come to the sweeping conclusion that Dawkins is not a science writer. Ironic no?
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
153. Comment #164493 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 20, 2008 at 10:28 am
I find all the freting about what "other people are thinking" kind of petty.
If only that were the case. I sniff a dogmatic libertarian.
American culture has been a vibrant, active thing in modern time largely because of its crazy quilt of cultural mixtures. We like our diversity. Muslims are part of that too, so perhaps they'll be taking a lead in defusing Islamism (one can hope).
How oft is the american mind corrupted by an insane notion of freedom. (N.B Sorry for the sweeping slur)
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
154. Comment #164494 by moderationsmuse on April 20, 2008 at 10:34 am
To several,I admit to not reading Dawkins corpus. But I note that you, who have, are not commenting on his ideas as ideas. You're just pointing to the books (read the books) as though all the ideas are self-evident. Hmmm.
Yes, I only read one book. As I already commented, I could find very little science in it. Given my interest in science, why (pray tell) would I have had any motive for continuing to read the man's works?
Other example besides du Sautoy of great general science reads: Our Cosmic Habitat by Martin Rees, Letters to a Young Mathematician by Ian Stewart, T Rex and the Crater of Doom by Walter Alvarez, and why not Brief History of Time? The last is a harder read, but doesn't that in itself start training the reader for the real thing.
Dawkins's writing just doesn't compare with any of these or with similar books that promote science from a thoroughly positive foundation and which are not involved in trying to tell readers what to believe, think, etc.
Other Comments by moderationsmuse
155. Comment #164498 by Geoff on April 20, 2008 at 10:40 am
You seem to be saying that biology is not science. Can you elaborate?Even TGD, probably his least "scientific" book, contains much good science, as Steve Zara and others have already pointed out.
Other Comments by Geoff
156. Comment #164499 by Peacebeuponme on April 20, 2008 at 10:40 am
moderationsmuseI was specifically referring to your comment that you would "not be around for long", so not sure where all that stuffto me about Dawkins came from.
I think you are making yourself look a bit silly here with your comments about Dawkins. As others have said, probably best to bone up a bit on the subject matter before making contrary statements.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
157. Comment #164503 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 10:42 am
Dawkins's writing just doesn't compare with any of these or with similar books that promote science from a thoroughly positive foundation and which are not involved in trying to tell readers what to believe, think, etc.
If even a significant group in the USA still believes in some vague way that the Earth is only a few thousand years only (and they say they do), then we are in deep trouble. Check out the AnswersInGenesis site. The anti-science attitude is about more than just evolution. It is combined with global warming denial as well. I don't care if people only disbelieve in global warming in a moderate way if they are still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Those nice and cosy science books you referred to don't help. We need many more people like Dawkins going on the attack.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
158. Comment #164504 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 10:45 am
Sorry, had to do some housework...Just wanted to drop by and say
thank you for the update, Steve!
Other Comments by MPhil
159. Comment #164506 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 10:49 am
Speaking as an ex-physicist with little exposure to biology I found "The Blind Watchmaker" to be fascinating. Different in style to, say, Richard Penrose's "The Road to Reality" and Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach" but all of them enjoyable.I have also found Hofstadter's "Le Ton beau de Marot" to be interesting too.
Things this site has led me to have included Susan Haak's "Philosophy of Logics", Mackie's "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong". I also intend to read "Knowledge - Readings in contemporary epistemology" edited by Bernecker and Dretske and Paul Churchland's "A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science".
For me at least this site has led to an expansion of my scientific awareness.
Other Comments by epeeist
160. Comment #164509 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 10:53 am
Comment #164491 by moderationsmuseI didn't. I was pointed at the data by an anthropologist who happens to have an American boyfriend. He now lives in Boston, but was born and raised in Arkansas where all his relatives still live.
As you're in the UK, I respectfully don't think you could have acquaintance with American churches to make good use of whatever poll stats you've found.
Other Comments by epeeist
161. Comment #164519 by moderationsmuse on April 20, 2008 at 11:05 am
Steve and EpeeistMy reply to you will have to be my last. As someone points out, I had said I was only visiting for a while and I think they've handed me my hat!
Steve --"Cozy," certainly these books I listed don't touch a nerve, do they? They are straightforward narratives about different scientific fields or questions, each addressed to general audiences. A youngster reading "T Rex and the Crater of Doom," for instance, has got to find geology to be more exciting than previously advertized.
Science is neither cozy nor edgy -- it's just science, the description of what is.
The problem of science getting mixed up with advocacy is that when it does, it stops being science. I "seem" to be alone here as an advocate of science for science's sake. (Hopefully not!)
Epeeist -- I'm glad the site has led to an expansion of your scientific awareness -- in fields outside your own discipline. I was criticizing Dawkins's book but certainly I would not have my comments extend universally to his various admirers. Intelligent people can like all sorts of things and that you've found a venue for extending your interests here is fantastic.
Well, it's been interesting participating in this debate. I've enjoyed visiting the site. Sorry, again, to those Dawkins fans that I have inadvertently offended by shaking the pedestal of your hero.
But, I am only a visitor and have to be going now.
Best wishes to all.
And farewell.
Other Comments by moderationsmuse
162. Comment #164520 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 11:05 am
epeeist, ah thank you... I've been meaning to ask what you thought of my list :)
Once you're through with the Knowledge compendium (only took me a year :) there's an interesting new development in epistemology... until now, everyone has always tried to analyze knowledge as "true belief X"... Timothy Williamson has written a book where he lays out a completely new approach... taking knowledge as basic, and analyzing the concepts of belief, evidence and justification through knowledge, not the other way round. Once this semester is over - I'll tell you if it is indeed as revolutionary as the approach suggests.
I do hope you'll find these books as fascinating as I (and thousands of others) did... come to think of it, I'm pretty much positive that you will...
Anyway - if you're interested in discussing any of these once you've read them - I would be happy to.
Best,
-Mike
Other Comments by MPhil
163. Comment #164523 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 11:11 am
Science is neither cozy nor edgy -- it's just science, the description of what is.
The problem of science getting mixed up with advocacy is that when it does, it stops being science. I "seem" to be alone here as an advocate of science for science's sake. (Hopefully not!)
I am an advocate of science for humanity's sake. We are at a time when national and international policies need to be based on a sound understanding of science. Your NOMA attitude would prevent this.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
164. Comment #164527 by epeeist on April 20, 2008 at 11:18 am
Comment #164520 by MPhil Once you're through with the Knowledge compendium (only took me a year :)I suspect it will take me a little longer. Got to keep well in with SWMBO and make sure that I don't have too much month at the end of the money.
I presume that you would disagree with moderationsmuse who seems to want science to be the realm of philosopher-kings. Science definitely is not cosy and can definitely be edgy. My supervisor held up my thesis for some considerable time because the mathematics I used did not follow the standard (but outdated) text book on the subject.
Other Comments by epeeist
165. Comment #164534 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 11:42 am
epeeist,Too much month at the end of the money... tell me about it :)
Indeed I do disagree with moderationsmuse. I agree that even if science had no bearing on anything, and would just be the seeking and providing of knowledge (interestingly, the German word for science is "Wissenschaft", literally the creation/development of knowledge) - it would still be extremely worthwhile.
But it does have a bearing on so many things - myths, everyday beliefs, the quality of life through medicine and technology etc.
For a complete rationalist, I can see science being "cosy" in the sense of not triggering mental discomfort when one holds beliefs that are incompatible with science and also being provided with a corpus of fascinating hypotheses, theories and data. It certainly is not and ought not to be (IMO) an ivory tower discipline... I am a rationalist, and an advocate of enlightenment - and as such think enlightening people is practically a duty of the already enlightened.
Enlightenment, as Kant famously said, is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.
The German word for "disappointment" is "Enttäuschung", literally "dis-deceivement" or "dis-'illusionment'"- and that's what enlightenment is in a positive sense. Taking away elements of self-(illusion) and self-(deception) from people. What could do this better than education in science and philosophy?
When science shatters illusions, some of them held dear that is IMO a good, worthwhile and partially necessary thing in the end.
There might be, as Nietzsche suggested, necessary (self-)deceptions... but I'm not entirely sure, and don't think that this is really a problem. We can go about our lifes with the background knowledge that many of our everyday preconceptions (that the future will resemble the past, that there is a material world around us etc) are not completely beyond any doubt, but still hold these conceptions as pragmatic necessities. That does not mean one should not seek enlightenment.
It is enlightenment that will in the end be the only way to save our lives, our species, other species, maybe the planet...
if it takes "robbing" (by education, not by force and coercion) some people of their comfortable
superstitions and misconceptions - that seems to me to be worth it.
Other Comments by MPhil
166. Comment #164571 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Addendum: what I was alluding to by saying "it is enlightenment that will in the end[...]" was that only through science and rationality in general did we and can we find out what really threatens our lives, develop means to avert the disaster and employ them - irrationality will be detrimental to that, even if it only takes up resources of time and energy - but that is by far not the only way in which it impedes the above.Enlightenment is of tantamount importance.
Other Comments by MPhil
167. Comment #164651 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Of course science alone can also increase our potential for self-destruction - but reason, rationalism, enlightenment is more than that - and would see to it that this doesn't happen. Other Comments by MPhil
168. Comment #164669 by robotaholic on April 20, 2008 at 1:55 pm
why do you come to this site?cuz im attracted to Steve Z
Other Comments by robotaholic
169. Comment #164708 by robotaholic on April 20, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I'm joking! Other Comments by robotaholic
170. Comment #165012 by coolasice on April 20, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Richard is the man.Really speak out what i feel about religion and god.
My ex gf family was a totally devoted Christian and its really disturbing. They dont believed in evolution and even trying to reason with them "nothing seems to work". Eventually they will use if u want to be with my daughter u have to become Christian.
Man I cant believed religion is abusing relationship to increase its number. Even more funny is that with the huge pile of evidence showing that earth is not created 15,000 years ago. They will say they believed it.
And Worst still, my Ex-GF parents are very well educated father is a professor and mother is a master. OMG cant believed it.
Please richard do me a favour go South Korea and Wake those silly people up.
Other Comments by coolasice
171. Comment #165093 by clearmind on April 21, 2008 at 3:55 am
flying goose(But why should apparent design imply a designer? Any way why would God be a designer?)
So you are saying that a watch and a solar system, both of which are designed with specific calculations â€" tilting of the earth, the sun's perfect distance to the earth, earth's spinning around itself and around the sun to make us days and nights, do not need a designer? Or do not imply a designer?
This is where atheists or evolinn get stuck. They do not want to deal with logic or reason while they put their evolution idea forward, or they go with Dawkins' UNEXPLAINED DODGING.
Dodging logic is not a way to prove something which one claims that it is logical
Other Comments by clearmind
172. Comment #165096 by clearmind on April 21, 2008 at 4:00 am
(ModerationmuseAnd farewell.)
No intelligence allowed.
Other Comments by clearmind
173. Comment #165097 by Quetzalcoatl on April 21, 2008 at 4:00 am
Excellent, Clearmind has posted. That gives me an opportunity to use this:
I think it says all that is needed to be said.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
175. Comment #165102 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 4:06 am
solar system, both of which are designed with specific calculations â€" tilting of the earth, the sun's perfect distance to the earth, earth's spinning around itself and around the sun to make us days and nights, do not need a designer? Or do not imply a designer?
And what's more if you divide the time it takes the earth to revolve into the time it takes for it to rotate around the sun you get 365.24219. A number like that can't have been an accident there must have been an intelligent designer.
By the way why did this intelligent designer make testicles hang outside the body at such risk of injury? I guess this proves God doesn't ride a bicycle ?
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
176. Comment #165107 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 4:21 am
Comment #165093 by clearmind This is where atheists or evolinn get stuck. They do not want to deal with logic or reason while they put their evolution idea forward, or they go with Dawkins' UNEXPLAINED DODGING.Clearmind (sic). You are very active in shouting about the problems of evolution.
What you have never provided is an alternative theory. Now when I say theory I mean something that actually predicts something. I also want something that can be tested and falsified if it is wrong.
Here for example is an article in the Washington Post that gives some information on how Darwins theory can predict things - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html
You will note that the predictions are testable
So give it your best shot, use "Intelligent Design" if you like since you appear to think it trashes the theory of evolution. What predictions does ID make, how can these predictions be tested and falsified? If they have been tested then what were the results?
Other Comments by epeeist
177. Comment #165146 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 5:59 am
I only just discovered that Answers in Genesis has a nice (long!) list of arguments not to use in favour of creationism. Maybe we should point some of our regulars at thesehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
They include the old favourites: `why are there still apes', `evolution is just a theory' and `there are no transitional forms'. These are apparently no longer a good thing.
Michael
I love their banner motto: believing it. defending it. proclaiming it.
What about testing it. improving it. understanding it ...
Other Comments by mmurray
178. Comment #165150 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 6:10 am
Comment #165146 by mmurrayFrom that site:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use
"think"...
"creationists"... "think"
No, I can't deal with those words together.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
179. Comment #165151 by clearmind on April 21, 2008 at 6:10 am
(by Quetzalcoatl on April 21, 2008 at 4:00 amExcellent, Clearmind has posted. That gives me an opportunity to use this: )
wOW THE PICTURE IS THE EVOLUTION OR BEFORE MONKEY OR AFTER MONKEY,. MAN. RVOLUTION HAS GOT A LOT OF PROBLEMS ON EVOLTION TREE. WE CANNOT FIND THE SPOTS FOR THE MONSTERS ALREADY, NOW YOU ARE SENDING ANOTHER MONSTER LIKE HUMAN OR MONKEY OR DNA ACCIDENT OR SELFISH GENE IS NOT SELFISH ENOUGH, MUTATION IS NOT COMPLETE OR MENOTTHINKING FAILED AGAIN. nOW TELL ME WHAT WE ARE GOING TO TIS EVOLUTION PICTURE? sEND IT TO BEN STEIN TO MOCK EVOLUTION. oH MAN
Other Comments by clearmind
180. Comment #165154 by irate_atheist on April 21, 2008 at 6:12 am
177. Comment #165146 by mmurray -
I will confess I've not visited the site before. But having done so, I am happy to denounce them as a bunch of lying, ignorant, self-deceiving fucktards.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
181. Comment #165155 by Quetzalcoatl on April 21, 2008 at 6:17 am
-Head hits desk-
-Straightens up-
Clearmind-
clearly the picture was too subtle for you. Try this. Hold your cursor over the picture, read the little word that appears. Put the pieces together. This isn't a difficult puzzle.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
182. Comment #165156 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 6:18 am
Comment #165151 by clearmind wOW THE PICTURE IS THE EVOLUTION OR BEFORE MONKEY OR AFTER MONKEYYour caps lock is stuck.
Are you going to make an attempt at answering my post #165107?
Other Comments by epeeist
183. Comment #165302 by The Reverend Dark on April 21, 2008 at 10:09 am
Wooter tries for coherence using capital letters and fails utterly.
wOW THE PICTURE IS THE EVOLUTION OR BEFORE MONKEY OR AFTER MONKEY,.
Neither. It is a mythical creature. Imaginary. You know, like god; or the hope that you will one day put forth a coherent, logical argument.
MAN. RVOLUTION HAS GOT A LOT OF PROBLEMS ON EVOLTION TREE.
Wow... that was incoherent, even for you, who have set the bar so high.
WE CANNOT FIND THE SPOTS FOR THE MONSTERS ALREADY, NOW YOU ARE SENDING ANOTHER MONSTER LIKE HUMAN OR MONKEY OR DNA ACCIDENT OR SELFISH GENE IS NOT SELFISH ENOUGH, MUTATION IS NOT COMPLETE OR MENOTTHINKING FAILED AGAIN.
I stand corrected. That is even more incoherent.
nOW TELL ME WHAT WE ARE GOING TO TIS EVOLUTION PICTURE? sEND IT TO BEN STEIN TO MOCK EVOLUTION. oH MAN
Wooter, you festering feruncle within the carbuncle of creationist arsewipery; I worry about you.
You used to post shite demonstrating your complete and utter inability to grasp even the most basic concepts in science and logic; now you don't even do that. Instead you just rave. Badly.
Of course, given that every time you do attempt to discuss science you take an utter bollocking, and have to stage a virtual repeat, parroting the word 'logic' in a vain attempt to bring legitimacy to the inane trip you regurgitate upon the keyboard. Check yours caps lock key, I think a particularly chunky nugget has lodged it in the on position, and your tiny, ill-educated little mind has not yet managed to figure out why all the letters look taller than they normally do. Caps Lock light is on, but you really are not home.
Git.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
184. Comment #165543 by trekkiefromhell06 on April 21, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Dawkins, you are hilarious. I love it when you ridicule them. It really makes my day.Other Comments by trekkiefromhell06
185. Comment #165549 by Frankus1122 on April 21, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Hey! Leave poor old wooter alone.What has he ever done to you?
He provides you with a rich pile of compost out of which you grow wonderfully magnificent barbed flowers of derision.
There, there wooter. bad LOGIC men are not so evolution as clearmind who knows ID.
More ID clearmind. Tell us how God and Jesus did it.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
186. Comment #165689 by clearmind on April 22, 2008 at 3:38 am
Let's see what we have in evolution menu today:(This isn't a difficult puzzle.)
I got one puzzle already. Please help me out which one is which? Which came from which and How?
http://www.google.com.hk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/trevol.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/evol.htm&h=150&w=104&sz=784&tbnid=WK3hQdYPAFsJ:&tbnh=150&tbnw=104&prev=/images?q=evolution tree&hl=en&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1
Sorry about the length. You know when the topic is evolution tree, the related web page is even getting complicated.
And please tell us where that picture, half human and half monster that describes evolution best takes place in the evolution â€" I donna wanna say tree since tree is something that is in order, let's say it CREEPER EVOLUTION/ evolution creeper.
EEPIST
How do explain the earth and other planets' rotation and spinning around themselves, their relation between them and the creatures on the earth by sky evolution? (Sky evolution ?) Or again unexplained CHANCES?
Reverend;
I am worried about you, man long time no reverend;
I am so sorry about uppercase. Speaking of coherence and coherent, how do you interpret these two concepts in terms of evolution? Is there any coherence and consistence in evolution creeper? Very lately, some guys keep saying mountain of evidence for evolution? I guess they mean ALIENS OR EARTHLINGS OR SOEMTHING ON DELUSION ISLAND?
As for logic, Logic has done its job already with Stein's movie. And there will be more. Even if Dawkins write millions books or keep insulting or write dozen of articles a day, he is unable to wipe out the refuting of evolution because we human being think and act reasonably and rationally and this is what Ben Stein movie did it openly; no intelligence allowed in evolution.
Take care reverend, please think and think about what evolution brings to your logic!
Frankus1122
Tell us how God and Jesus did it.
Indeed, the existed things cannot be questioned how they are made since they are already existed. It is more important to ask WHY RATHER THAN HOW? You are already given a lot of blessings and you want to see how and if you don't want to see how you are created, then you deny it because you did not see God in a lab creating entire university. Does it make sense to you? If you watch an unborn baby's phases to happen, you see the miracle of God openly.
Other Comments by clearmind
187. Comment #165692 by epeeist on April 22, 2008 at 3:46 am
Comment #165689 by clearmindEEPISTNo, this isn't how dialogue works. You have asked some questions, we gave you some answers. Now it is time for you to give us some answers to our questions.
How do explain the earth and other planets' rotation and spinning around themselves, their relation between them and the creatures on the earth by sky evolution? (Sky evolution ?) Or again unexplained CHANCES?
Here are mine
- why is "Intelligent Design" science?
- What are its basic hypotheses?
- hat predictions does it make?
- How can these be tested?
- How can it be falsified?
- What tests have been made and what were the results?
Oh, and I want rather better answers than you gave to Frankus "things cannot be questioned" is to admit your ignorance and bigotry.
Other Comments by epeeist
188. Comment #165693 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 3:46 am
Comment #165689 by clearmindIt is more important to ask WHY RATHER THAN HOW?
No.
It is part of the way the human mind has developed that it tends to see agency where there is none. It is safer to be slightly paranoid about Nature. But, this is a mental illusion.
If you watch an unborn baby's phases to happen, you see the miracle of God openly.
Tell that to my friend who has had three miscarriages you moron.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
189. Comment #165695 by Quetzalcoatl on April 22, 2008 at 3:52 am
Clearmind-
And please tell us where that picture, half human and half monster that describes evolution best takes place in the evolution
I have now officially run out of patience. It is at times like these that I wonder whether you are indeed as ignorant as you appear to be, or whether this is a cunning act by someone having a laugh at our expense. However, having read far too many of your rambling, drivel-laden steaming green splurges that barely deserve the description of posts, I have decided that the former option is most likely to be true.
With that in mind I have decided to spell out for you what the average four-year-old would have been able to grasp with minimal difficulty.
Obviously you did not follow my suggestion of holding the mouse arrow over the picture. Perhaps this was too difficult for you, or perhaps my suggestion could not penetrate the thick fog of methane-laden ignorance surrounding the mouldy grey walnut that you use as a brain.
Let me spell it out. The picture is of a TROLL. You are a TROLL. Your contributions are of less value than the greenish residue in my handkerchief following a particularly vehement nose-blowing.
No doubt you will use this as an opportunity to complain about being insulted and indulge in OVERRUSE OF THE CAPS LOCK FOR NO APPARENT REASon. Perhaps a better idea might be for you to save yourself the trouble, and instead do something more productive, such as mastering your times tables.
Yours sarcastically,
Quetzalcoatl.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
190. Comment #165696 by Geoff on April 22, 2008 at 3:57 am
Thanks again, Shayne, your posts are always a delight to read.
You've expanded my vocabulary again, too. "Feruncle" indeed!
Oh, and wooter: what epeeist said in #187.
Other Comments by Geoff
191. Comment #165700 by irate_atheist on April 22, 2008 at 4:08 am
Comment #165689 by clearmind -If you watch an unborn baby's phases to happen, you see the miracle of God openly.Indeed. And if your wife loses a third of her blood and - were it not for 21st Century medical intervention - potentially her life - you'll also understand how well 'designed' it all is.
Once again, for the record:
Fucktard
Other Comments by irate_atheist
192. Comment #166071 by ivellios on April 22, 2008 at 5:48 pm
tilting of the earth, the sun's perfect distance to the earth, earth's spinning around itself and around the sun to make us days and nights, do not need a designer
Or perhaps that the earth is not exactly perfectly distanced from the sun. Ellipse
Or perhaps, the days and nights not exactly staying in time. IE. leap years, minutes, days, seconds.
Or the fact that the earth used to spin faster and the moon was closer and gets further and further every year until it'll zoom off.
Take some time and watch the discovery channel.
Other Comments by ivellios
193. Comment #166269 by coolwainy on April 23, 2008 at 4:25 am
I don't see how Dawkins' argument adds up: 'Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex - and therefore, statistically improbable.'Surely in order for something to be created, its creator must be more probable than the thing it created otherwise it could not have created it in the first place? The more improbable and complex something is, the more probable it must be that it was created by something.
And even if we are improbable, WE'RE HERE, so surely there is far more of a probability of a God existing than Dawkins gives credit for - I don't see how he can assert that God 'almost certainly doesn't exist', yet at the same time claim that it is religious people who claim to know everything. In order to disprove God you would need to know everything, so there's no way Dawkins could be almost certain that God doesn't exist.
Other Comments by coolwainy
194. Comment #166275 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 4:35 am
coolwainy - You've missed the point.If things are designed, then the statistical probability is that the designer is more complex than the designed. If humans are designed, then their designer (aka God) is more complex than them. But this leaves you with the problem of who designed God. Saying that God is the ultimate cause doesn't actually answer any questions, it's just a linguistic attempt to say "I don't know but I'll pretend that I do".
On the other hand, if complexity arises spontaneously from (certain kinds of) simplicity, then you don't need a designer. You just need something simple to get the whole thing going. Since this is demonstrably the case, it makes a creator-god very unlikely, and Dawkins has been very careful not to say "certainly non-existent".
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
195. Comment #166277 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 4:37 am
Coolwainy-
In order to disprove God you would need to know everything, so there's no way Dawkins could be almost certain that God doesn't exist.
That's why he said ALMOST certain.
Surely in order for something to be created, its creator must be more probable than the thing it created otherwise it could not have created it in the first place?
Which leaves us with a complex God, raising the question of where such a complex being came from. Saying God has always existed isn't an answer, neither is saying God is actually simple, since that goes against your argument.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
196. Comment #166304 by AntonAAK on April 23, 2008 at 5:37 am
Comment #166269 by coolwainySurely in order for something to be created, its creator must be more probable than the thing it created otherwise it could not have created it in the first place?
This statement is a tautology. In essence you are saying that 'if something has been created by an intelligent agent then that agent must exist (or have existed in the past)'. It is self evidently correct.
It is not, however, the same as saying that 'if something exists it must have been created by an intelligent agent'.
Other Comments by AntonAAK
197. Comment #166311 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 5:49 am
And even if we are improbable, WE'RE HERE, so surely there is far more of a probability of a God existing than Dawkins gives credit for - I don't see how he can assert that God 'almost certainly doesn't exist', yet at the same time claim that it is religious people who claim to know everything. In order to disprove God you would need to know everything, so there's no way Dawkins could be almost certain that God doesn't exist.
I'd like to add a bit to what previous posters have said.
What we are after here is explanations. We say "look at this complex universe around us", and we think it needs explaining. It does. But fortunately, physics and biology does just about all of that for us. We know that complexity can arise from very little, unaided. We can explain the universe down to the tiniest fraction of a second after its origin. The universe at that point was very simple indeed. Some people believe that the universe at that point was in a very unlikely state. However, how to explain that unlikely state? A God isn't a good answer. The reason is that Gods have minds, and minds when packed full of thoughts and memories are very complex things indeed - so complex, it took billions of years of evolution to make them within our universe.
Providing explanations which are more complex than the thing you are trying to explain is not very satisfying. It is as if someone threw a dice and got 10 sixes in a row, and tried to explain it as the result of interstellar force beams from proxima centaurii.
I would also argue that the modern understanding of the Abrahamic God is infinitely complex, so is sliced to bits by Occam's Razor if it is used as an explanation for anything.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
198. Comment #166321 by annabanana on April 23, 2008 at 6:15 am
And even if we are improbable, WE'RE HERE, so surely there is far more of a probability of a God existing than Dawkins gives credit for
Yes, we're here today, but being that evolution is a continuous process, there is no reason to think that we are the endpoint. Organisms everywhere are still evolving today, including us. So if we are not an endpoint, then what reason is there to believe that we were explicitly created any more than any of the other organisms surrounding us?
Other Comments by annabanana
199. Comment #166516 by clearmind on April 23, 2008 at 9:33 am
Quetzalcoatl(Let me spell it out. The picture is of a TROLL. You are a TROLL. Your contributions are of less value than the greenish residue in my handkerchief following a particularly vehement nose-blowing.)
1. Bad words belong to the mouth it pops up. So Nice to meet you Mr TROLL, t_r-o-l-l right? MY NAME IS CLEARMIND.
2. Insulting will not help evolution come true. And insulting is a bad sign of losing the battle
3. Just give up insulting but if it will relax you or give the impression that you are saving your hurt pride, then, continue, but it is not good advertisement for you while Irate is setting a bad example for evolins and leaving his name card in the end with capital letters.
Other Comments by clearmind
200. Comment #166587 by ghostbuster on April 23, 2008 at 10:18 am
God is a very bad explanation for anything....and more so now that we know a few more things. That being said, we don't know very much about the universe (or universes), quantum mechanics, branes and perhaps a million things not even thought of. Arguing about aliens and alien life is pretty much in that category...who knows how far intelligence can evolve and what will define our reality a million years from now if we are even still here? Certainly in the 12th century, jumbo jets were not a part of human consciousness.I am sure there's much more that isn't in ours at present...we can't even lift ourselves out primitive warfare yet, an attribute the sponge evolved millions of years ago and we, like the sponge, can't yet shake off. Science is the best we have because it doesn't claim to have the truth so much as it continues to search for it.....only religion claims to know it all and by closer examination, ends up knowing very little. I hope science doesn't fall into the same trap filling in the so-called gaps with pseudoscience..prentending to know something, using scienific jargon to explain it and NOT having the evidence (at least non-biased evidence) to support it. As to the future? Well, there's evidence that the butterfly remembers being a caterpillar but no evidence that a caterpillar knows it's going to be a butterfly. We can't "know" until we do "know". By the way, if one thinks that life is "fuzzy", consciousness is even more so.....even caterpillar consciousness!
Other Comments by ghostbuster
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
Pale Blue Dot
Carl Sagan
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
151. Comment #164491 by moderationsmuse on April 20, 2008 at 10:24 am
epeeistAs you're in the UK, I respectfully don't think you could have acquaintance with American churches to make good use of whatever poll stats you've found. As an American -- well, of course there's plenty of diversity of opinion about religion and its influence -- but it's not the nefarious political force Dawkins portrays. It would be more accurate to Christians (of various types) as members of different cultures -- and it's in constant flux, too. American churches are changing rapidly in response to immigration. "Fundamentalism" is a soft term. Hispanic Christians certainly have a strong tradition that is different from that of other American Christians.
I find all the freting about what "other people are thinking" kind of petty. American culture has been a vibrant, active thing in modern time largely because of its crazy quilt of cultural mixtures. We like our diversity. Muslims are part of that too, so perhaps they'll be taking a lead in defusing Islamism (one can hope). Obviously Muslims who came here, came here to get away from something else. But religious groups are assimilated into American culture more quickly than, evidently, they are in Europe. You tell me. My commenting on European diversity is, like yours, dependant upon outside polls and whatnot.
Other Comments by moderationsmuse