Print
Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda
by Richard Dawkins
On 18th April, the day Ben Stein's infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew (referencing a past article that Shermer had written debunking the Holocaust deniers) whose identity I shall conceal as "David J".
Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:
It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.
Richard
Dear Mr J
Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.
1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?
4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.
5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).
6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.
7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.
With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!
Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:
Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit.
It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.
Richard
Dear Mr J
Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.
1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.
2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.
3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?
4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.
5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).
6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.
7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.
8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.
With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.
Yours sincerely
Richard Dawkins
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, April 20, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1551 - 1600 of 1953 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers1552. Comment #170697 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Nite Adam. Was fun conversing with you. :)Other Comments by Brian English
1553. Comment #170698 by Quine on April 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Adam, there are two different concepts, here, you need to follow. The first one is about the line of ancestry of living things. The second is the mechanism that drives the diversity of living things. In the first case, the fossil record and the backtracking through DNA shows that all living things are on branches of a tree structure of ancestry going back to simple single celled life. That is what we mean when we say life evolved. Parts of the ancestor picture were known before Darwin, but how that could work was not known.The second part is about how it works: natural selection of those who can better pass on the results of random mutation, Darwin's great observation. The last 150 years have been about finding the details of this.
When people on the creationist side talk about "holes in evolution" the best they have are debates among scientists about the details of the second part. However, in the public debate, these 'holes' are redirected to sound as if they are in the first part, common ancestry. If you look carefully, you will see that ID folks do not have any case against common ancestry; the best they can do is to try to argue about the origin of life, abiogenesis. You can see that it is harder to get the public excited about the start of microbes, so they frame it as if it is about humans descending from apes, which does get to some folks.
The bottom line is that, regardless of the start of microorganisms, or some of details of the molecular mechanics of the theory, the evidence is conclusive that we did decend from ancient apes (who are now extinct) by a series of very small changes happening in each generation over a few million years.
Other Comments by Quine
1554. Comment #170701 by willlllllllll on April 27, 2008 at 10:30 pm
TheTruthID: No, I'm not trying to waste your time. I'm trying to make sense of it all.
OK then, here goes evolution:
1) resources are limited
2) the environment is hostile
3) there is variation among an organism's offspring
4) variations can be inherited by an organism's offspring
5) some variations affect how an organism copes with the hostile environment, or how well the organism competes with other organisms for the limited resources, and therefore affect the success of an organism at producing offspring
And that is it. If those axioms are true then evolution will occur. As Dawkins has said, Darwinism is universal, not just on Earth but throughout space and time, wherever those axioms are met.
ID basically says "yes but... this thing here is so complex/unlikely that evolution can't have produced it". Which is just a way to appeal to ignorance in order to raise an authority figure.
Other Comments by willlllllllll
1555. Comment #170702 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Nite Adam. People will read it as they do. If someone refers to you from the "angry" years, one of us should put in a good word for you. Other Comments by riandouglas
1556. Comment #170707 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Speaking of evolution. Does anyone know what convinced Popper that evolution was falsifiable, instead of the position he originally took (difficult but falsifiable in principle or something)? Other Comments by riandouglas
1557. Comment #170709 by Greybishop on April 27, 2008 at 10:39 pm
TheTruthID -Once again, it's been a pleasure to talk to someone from the ID side that is calm and reasonable.
I look forward to this discussion continuing.
I would be interested in seeing other ID supporters reactions to your words and frank admissions. Perhaps that will happen, but even if it doesn't, you seem prepared to discuss and reason with an open mind, and for now that's enough.
Other Comments by Greybishop
1558. Comment #170711 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Any idea what convinced Popper that evolution was falsifiable, instead of the position he originally took?
Bunnies in the Cambrian strata. :D
Other Comments by Brian English
1559. Comment #170712 by Roland_F on April 27, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I just watched this RD movie about the eye.The Mount improbable is far too steep and might be misleading. A very moderate gentle 1% angle of slowly rising uphill would be more fitting the picture but would not fit onto the studio table.
So first the plain skin covering of Nautilus type eye is preventing some small sand piece is getting stuck inside the hole blinding it. Then a small 1% thicker skin randomize mutated have a very tiny advantage of slightly better eyesight and is increase the advantage of survival, no mutation e.g. 0% keeps the level; and a thinner or not transparent opaque skin reduces the eyesight and therefore limit the chances of survival compared to the plus 1% mutations. Then the next round another plus 1% is increasing the eyesight a little more, whereas mutations downhill decreasing the eye sight and survival chances. And so on and on. So the climbing Mount Improbable are some small steps uphill, not every generation makes a step forward but many keep the level for some generations before making the next small uphill improvements.
So mutation is random but the selection is always uphill e.g. NON random. Whoever has the bad luck of mutation in the wrong direction (downhill) is left behind and might be replaced by better fitting competitors in the struggle for limited resources. And this description of selection advantage of better fitted individuals e.g. evolution via natural selection written about by Darwin. So again it's not random the selection pressure ensures it goes uphill, even when it's reaching a suboptimum smaller peak and not the top of Mount Improbable, it's stuck on the sub-optimal peak like Nautilus or the compound facet eye.
Other Comments by Roland_F
1560. Comment #170713 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Brian English: Bunnies in the Cambrian strata. :D
He found them? But, doesn't that mean...Shhh, nobody mention this to anyone. :-)
Other Comments by riandouglas
1561. Comment #170714 by Quine on April 27, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Adam, you will probably see this tomorrow, but on your 1% question, there is a good change the single organism that got the mutation will not make it even though it is 1% better. But with the kind of time frames in the geologic record, that same mutation will come around and other individuals will get a chance. Statically, that is all that is needed, as evolution not only works on long time intervals, but usually (especially in tiny life forms) also with numerous populations. Steve has pointed to cases when single changes in single individuals have won the day, so yes, that can happen as well. Other Comments by Quine
1562. Comment #170715 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Well, if someone were to find them, that would falsify evolution wouldn't it? It is falsifiable.Other Comments by Brian English
1563. Comment #170723 by Quine on April 27, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Remember that when Prof. Dawkins says that no species can go back down hill to get out of a local sticking point, this assumes we are talking about a constant environment or ecological niche. If you are stuck on a bad eye design, and then the environment changes (such as having your descendants swim down a cave where there is no light), down hill moves on your eye won't hurt you, so they may happen. If yet further descendants swim into a part of the cave where there is some light (and get a chance before being eaten) they will start going back up the hill and may end up on a different path. Other Comments by Quine
1564. Comment #170724 by willlllllllll on April 27, 2008 at 10:57 pm
And if ID is a viable theory, why is my gullet behind my windpipe? That's only 'intelligent' in the same way as Vista is 'secure'. Joining the nasal and oral cavities seems to be a pretty big design flaw.And lungs; I'd love lungs that worked as well as a bird's. Chickens get them, but humans don't - why? Having said that, IDers also like 'the feather' as an example. And birds have more colour receptor types in their IDed eyes. Hey - I've just discovered the First Law of ID: the Designer Really Likes Birds.
Other Comments by willlllllllll
1565. Comment #170729 by Quine on April 27, 2008 at 11:10 pm
My favorite evolution example is Bar-headed Geese. They evolved the ability to fly at over 30,000 ft because the northern drift of the Indian subcontinent pushed the Himalayan mountain range up under their migration path. This slowly selected the highest, toughest fliers each generation for thousands, if not millions, of generations. Other Comments by Quine
1566. Comment #170735 by ofir on April 27, 2008 at 11:17 pm
As I said much earlier - the only way to replace a scientific theory is to come up with a better one. It's useful to know what a scientific theory is before embarking on such a project.Evolution, unlike religion, is not a mind set - it's a scientific explanation of the evidence we have. So far, evidence suggests that evolution by natural selection works.
Other Comments by ofir
1567. Comment #170740 by mmurray on April 27, 2008 at 11:38 pm
And if ID is a viable theory, why is my gullet behind my windpipe? That's only 'intelligent' in the same way as Vista is 'secure'. Joining the nasal and oral cavities seems to be a pretty big design flaw.
Yep and the testicles outside the body, eye-ball wired backwards, the lower back which isn't strong enough, female pelvis too small, auto-immune diseases, male urinary tract through the middle of the prostate gland and the old joke about the effluent outlet in the recreation area which, of course, isn't funny if you are a female with a urinary tract infection.
I think the simplest thing to say to ID is `balls'.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
1568. Comment #170747 by riandouglas on April 27, 2008 at 11:53 pm
mmurray: Yep and the testicles outside the body, the lower back which isn't strong enough, female pelvis too small, auto-immune diseases, male urinary tract through the middle of the prostate gland and the old joke about the effluent outlet in the recreation area which, of course, isn't funny if you are a female with a urinary tract infection.
The fall?
Sorry, I'll leave now
Other Comments by riandouglas
1569. Comment #170750 by riandouglas on April 28, 2008 at 12:04 am
presentation from Vic Stenger concering science and the supernatural.http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Super.pdf
Other Comments by riandouglas
1570. Comment #170808 by Geoff on April 28, 2008 at 3:32 am
Wow, this has moved on overnight!Haven't got long; posting from work!
Adam, thanks for your apology, unexpected, but very welcome.
I'll just pick on Brian, for now - more considered responses later tonight.
1455. Comment #170537 by Brian English on April 27, 2008 at 8:18 pm
For example, Mark Twain was a pseudonym of Samuel Clements I believe. :)
Your belief is not suppported by the evidence...
;)
Other Comments by Geoff
1571. Comment #170825 by Tyler Durden on April 28, 2008 at 4:16 am
Adam,
Many thanks for your apology. Stick around, you'll find some of the topics discussed here very interesting. If in doubt, ask questions, there are more than enough people here eager and able to help with any of your enquiries.
On a side note, can you have a quick word with our friend Remnant :-)
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
1572. Comment #170841 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 5:04 am
And lungs; I'd love lungs that worked as well as a bird's. Chickens get them, but humans don't - why? Having said that, IDers also like 'the feather' as an example. And birds have more colour receptor types in their IDed eyes. Hey - I've just discovered the First Law of ID: the Designer Really Likes Birds.
I was thinking the same, i was running with my dog the other day and wishing i didnt have blind ended air sacs, i could almost feel how crap they work!! my dogs seem to be better though! still blind ended, the birds flying overhead showed them selves to be of superior 'design'.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
1573. Comment #170857 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 5:28 am
truthID
You mentioned the eye. The ID scientist rebutt this with that the cambrian explosion has fossils of all phyla represented today. Which therefore implies that the eyes of humans, octopuses, and others would have to of evolved each separately. The chances?
the eye seems to have evolved many times and each time differently, that actually makes sense from a non design point of view. if the eye appeared in several lineages from non seeing ancestors and they eyes were all exactly the same that would be a far more difficult thing to explain, assuming that they did evolve from a non seeing ancestor independently then the chances of having the SAME eye design would be VERY slim indeed.
it would be a bit like giving 50 groups of kids a huge set of lego each and saying 'ok, kids, we need to make something that looks like a car' what would you expect if there was no guiding intelligence overwatching them all??? youd get 50 cars all very differntly put together. if the 50 groups all produced the same lego car detail by detail you would righly say 'somebody is playing with us here'. (now dont confuse teh kids being the 'intelligence' here, they are analogous to evolution but as they are intelligent they can come up with a 'car' in minutes from scratch, not over billions of years of cumulative change).
seeing is such a massively useful thing for an organism that eyes invariably evolve just like locomotary structures and hard toothy jaws. the eyes are only similar in as much as they have to be, a clear area to allow light in but protect the inside, maybe some focusing device, and then cells to detect the light.
adam, notice that what ive said is from teh top of my head, its nothing ive read but its something that is sat within the framework of evolution as a possible way of understanding eye diversity, the fact that it offers a way of understanding and one that can be tested potentially makes it seem a very useful device to me. notice teh differnce here between what i just said and the creationist saying 'but it just couldnt have happened by chance' what they are saying is 'I cant personally imagine it and i personally dont WANT to imagine it'.
its important to notice that I and other accepters of evolutionary theory dont WANT it to be true, theres no reason for that, it just so happens that nature shows evidence of it happening.
I feel that the biggest misconception from many creationists esp with regard to the whole big science conspiracies is that they simply mirror their want of a designers 'truth' onto those who simply follow evidence and say we WANT evo to be true. thats is a massive fallacy and needs to be addressed at every opportunity.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
1574. Comment #170885 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 5:52 am
adam. heres something to consider. If man was gods ultimate design and man had a specific, special place in his plan, indeed if man was the sole reason god did aything then there are some things that dont make sense.
when people looked at anatomy in the past they saw that we hav the graetest similarity to chimps than any other living creature. now that of course could be pure 'chance' so to speak but as chimps are not man they would have no more significance than a slime mould or pill bug. when the genome become accessible we also saw that the human/chimp similarity wasnt just superficial but it was also there in the DNA, we are genetically very, very close to chimps, more so than either is to the next most similar animal, the gorilla.
Now heres the crunch. how can that be explained from a creationist viewpoint? surely chimps and gorillas should be closer genetically than chimps to humans, would you not expect man to have a totally seperate and maybe different genome from all other creatures on the planet?? if indeed the human genome was unique in many ways from all others then it would indeed make you think about some specuial position for us, but thats not the case, but we are no more unique genetically than is any creature from its nears living cousins.
the question creationsists have to ask and try to find a good answer for is 'why do humans share more DNA with chimps than either does with gorillas'. Now there a billion possible answers, none of which are actually testable, i'll start with a few (imagine im donning the creationist cap for amoment)
1)god did it to test our faith, to make it look like we dont have a special place when we KNOW we do.
2)chimps were the prototye human but god didnt like the designs so tweaked the DNA (a perfect god made a mistake?)
3)chimps were humans that commited particularly bad sins years ago and god punished them with deformity.
4)evolution did happen but god simply guided it.
5) god works in mysterious ways that we cannot know.
OK, cap off. Adam, you might think im being facetious but im being very serious, you will notice that in affect im parodying the creationist and it sounds like im being a smarmy sod but importantly its the type of thing ive heard, #4 is the most 'reasonable' in that I suppose its the most parsimonious one but again its totally untestable, insert 'the wobbling walnut embryo deity of mango galaxy' instead of god and its on a level playing field. maybe you will agree.
the notion of common descent (chimps and humans from the same ancestor about 5mya)is totally open to falsification and testing, its just that nobody has falsified it yet.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
1575. Comment #170916 by phatbat on April 28, 2008 at 6:26 am
Hi Truthid
Glad to see you have had a change of heart.
Now here's something i have always wondered about. If you find it difficult to comprehend the evolution of the eye, how do you comprehend the alternative of all the different animals being designed and just put there.
I don't know if there is a standard ID response to this but if you say that all life didn't evolve from a single celled life form then you have to account for what it would have actualy looked like when each animal of each 'kind' first appeared.
Lets say for bird 'kind':
Did an egg just appear on the ground? If so, then what? did it hatch and immediately fetch it's own food? or was there also a huge pile of live worms put next to the egg and somehow contained so that when the chick hatched it would have a constant supply of food? Or did it hatch out as a fully grown bird just this once?
Or did a fully grown bird just appear on the ground in one second and go about it's business?
Or maybe it grew from the feet upwards, first the feet and legs, then the body and then the wings and head? and if so, was it alive while it was appearing from the bottom up or was is static until the last feather was in place?
What about a mammal?
Did an embryo just sit on the ground all exposed to the elements and grow like that through first to childhood and then to adulthood all by itself with nothing to feed it and look after it? Or do you picture it just appearing all of a sudden like special effects on a film? or from the bottom up like in the bird example?
This is what you have to thinkn about if you think evolution didn't happen. However if you accept evolution then you never have this problem as everything always had a parent right back to single celled life.
I think i posed this to you before or maybe it was another IDist but i never saw a reply.
what are your thoughts?
Other Comments by phatbat
1576. Comment #170956 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 7:23 am
Comment #168688 by Steve ZaraIt is not just a hybrid (even though hybridisation is a perfectly good way of generating new species). It also has an increased chromosome number. The hybrid species was Spartina x townsendii.
If you want to classify new species combined with increased information combined with significant structural differences as macromutation, then this is a perfect example.
This is change beyond the limits specified by ID.
One of the best [and simplest] definitions for species is that of the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr:
A species is an actually or potentially interbreeding population that does not interbreed with other such populations when there is opportunity to do so.
Did we determine that this hybrid can reproduce with both source 'parents?'
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1577. Comment #170969 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 7:38 am
Comment #168750 by QuetzalcoatlSo is it your assertion that human eyes did not initially have saccades, but rather that this is something that has happened over time?
Another question is that if humans were Intelligently Designed, then why would they have bodies that are vulnerable to such changes? Surely the designer should have accounted for that?
First off let's get it straight that my position is neither ID or Neo-Darwinian evolution. I am spending more time defining ID as it seems more misunderstood on this site [as ID was presented to me] and I am a proponent of fairness of representation independent of the overall validity of a theory.
ID claims that the design of adaptation responds quickly to environmental challenges and if this were not the case, there would be little life left on earth as we know it. Conversely, waiting for macro-evolutionary mutations to keep up environmental demands would doom most species if the new demands were sudden.
The recent story of the Pod Kopiste lizards are a perfect example of this micro-evolutionary principle in action.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1578. Comment #170972 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 7:43 am
Did we determine that this hybrid can reproduce with both source 'parents?'
It is not a hybrid. It is the result of hybridization followed by polyploidy. It cannot reproduce with "parent" species.
Conversely, waiting for macro-evolutionary mutations to keep up environmental demands would doom most species if the new demands were sudden.
If demands are sudden enough (asteroid strikes), this is what happens. If not, species can adapt very fast (as with Darwin's finches) as they have sufficient variability.
As I have discussed before, ID is not a theory. An apparently irreducible design can never be shown to irreducible.
If you don't respond to this point, I will have to suggest that we follow Dr Benway's rule. I personally consider the definition of ID and its validity as a scientific theory to be the main point here. I hope others agree.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
1579. Comment #170974 by al-rawandi on April 28, 2008 at 7:49 am
seeker_of_truth,
So in your estimation, ID could well have been magical leprechauns or unicorns as it could have been a "god" in the Abrahamic sense, right? If you want to ponder ID, while being reason based, then if you accept ID, and you weigh evidence, the evidence of an Abrahamic god doing it is the same as a unicorn or leprechaun.
You can admit this much, unless you have some evidence that it was an Abrahamic God. And if you have such evidence, please let me know, as I obviously would like to know about it.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
1580. Comment #170976 by Quetzalcoatl on April 28, 2008 at 7:51 am
Seeker_of_truth-
you didn't really answer my question. What kind of environmental changes would make saccades an advantageous trait?
First off let's get it straight that my position is neither ID or Neo-Darwinian evolution
Then what is your position?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
1581. Comment #170984 by Geoff on April 28, 2008 at 8:04 am
1541. Comment #170667 by TheTruthID on April 27, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Regarding Dawkins eye lecture. Let's say there was a population of a certain type of pin-eyed creatures. In breeding, a speciman was born with a mutation in which the skin around it's eye protruded by 1%. Now, this one speciman would need to survive in order to reproduce. The mutation was so small that it really did not give much of an advantage over the other like specimans.
It's important to realise that even a very slight, almost unnoticeable, improvement can still be selected for. Imagine, say, in very dim light, there are two prey (or predator) animals, one that sees slightly better than the other. It's easy then to imagine that the better one will see a predator (or prey) slightly sooner than the other, and escape (or feed), at the expense of the other.
There would then be a period of time where the offspring, generations down the line, of this one speciman resulted in an identical mutation on the same exact gene resulting in a little bigger protrusion.
Amongst lots of other mutations elsewhere in the genome, yes, although it's misleading to think of one single gene in this case. I'll have to obversimplify a little here, but for example, it could be a gene that increases the number of rods or cones in the retina, or improves the lens, or the focussing ability of the muscles, or the size of the eye...lots of factors involved, including Pax "control genes" (gets complicated if we go into too much detail).
Over many years the result would be a population of specimans/creatures with a more complex and developed eye. The result of many exactly the same mutations on the same exact genes utilizing natural selection for a now fully involved eye for survival. Please clarify, correct or confirm.
Not the same exact genes, as I've shown above.
A more detailed explanation would run to pages and pages, but there are lots of websites you can find if you want a truly detailed description.
PZ Meyers has a good article, but it can be quite heavy going in places:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php
Other Comments by Geoff
1582. Comment #170998 by kaiserkriss on April 28, 2008 at 8:15 am
Even though I only suggested for TruthID to watch a rather cryptic video with a vulgar message, I too wish to apologize to ADAM for my behavior.
Adam, I sort of knew it before, however to reiterate, not all iders are nut cases, as you have demonstrated with your willingness to move forward with a reasonable discussion, and actually listed to what is suggested to you rather than ignore it.
This small step alone will contribute to making you the better person you strive to be. Keep it up, and I sincerely look forward to your questions and the answers provided by the contributors of this forum. jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
1583. Comment #171057 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 9:26 am
It is not a hybrid. It is the result of hybridization followed by polyploidy. It cannot reproduce with "parent" species.
This is a slippery little devil to be sure. I'm attempting to analyze it through the lens of micro vs. marco evolution as I understand it.
I see the main issue as one of qualification, or lack thereof, for Epigenetics (micro-evolution if you will), from Wiki;
"Epigenetics is a term in biology used today to refer to changes in gene expression that are stable over rounds of cell division, and sometimes between generations, but do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism. The molecular basis of epigenetics involves modifications to DNA and the chromatin proteins that associate with it. Epigenetics is a fundamental part of eukaryotic biology, and is perhaps most elegantly illustrated in the process of cellular differentiation, which allows cells to stably maintain different characteristics despite containing the same genomic material."
From here I waded through; fluorescent in situ hybridization, allotetraploid species, cladistics, and a dozen other new [or fairly new] concepts to me. I see nothing simple about this hybrid grass to throw it out as strong evidence for either camp in an off-handed manner.
Interestingly enough, polyploidy is pervasive in plants and some estimates suggest that 30-80% of living plant species are polyploidy so Spartina x townsendii is nothing unique to this study.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1584. Comment #171062 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 9:32 am
Comment #170974 by al-rawandiSo in your estimation, ID could well have been magical leprechauns or unicorns as it could have been a "god" in the Abrahamic sense, right? If you want to ponder ID, while being reason based, then if you accept ID, and you weigh evidence, the evidence of an Abrahamic god doing it is the same as a unicorn or leprechaun.
Now suppose you were the leader of a team that farmed life on the planet of a nearby solar system - risking life and limb in the process. Regardless of the reasons or success for your intelligent designs for this planet, how would you feel if the life on that planet talked about you that way?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1585. Comment #171064 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 9:34 am
I see nothing simple about this hybrid grass to throw it out as strong evidence for either camp in an off-handed manner.
It's not a hybrid. It is a new polyploid species derived from a hybrid.
It is a clear example of what some people call "macromutation". It is a new species, with structural differences, arising in a single generation.
We have been over this.
Interestingly enough, polyploidy is pervasive in plants and some estimates suggest that 30-80% of living plant species are polyploidy so Spartina x townsendii is nothing unique to this study.
It's not Spartina x townsendii
I have told you before. It is Spartina anglica, the polyploid version.
The fact that this is unique is even more evidence that what you consider "macromutation" is very common.
Now, I refer you again to the question I asked:
As I have discussed before, ID is not a theory. An apparently irreducible design can never be shown to irreducible.
If you don't respond to this point, I will have to suggest that we follow Dr Benway's rule. I personally consider the definition of ID and its validity as a scientific theory to be the main point here. I hope others agree.
I hope no-one minds if I call "Strike one". This means you get two more chances, and if you don't respond to this point, you will get no further responses (if everyone follows this plan).
Other Comments by Steve Zara
1586. Comment #171067 by al-rawandi on April 28, 2008 at 9:39 am
seeker_of_truth,
Well whoever did it is free to smite me at their leisure.
But the likelyhood of it being aliens, gods, unicorns, space donkeys, fairies are all about equal based on the evidence, am I correct? Or do you have some other evidence you have yet to present?
So instead of insinuating that I am insulting God, perhaps you could answer my question?
Thanks.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
1587. Comment #171087 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 9:57 am
As I have discussed before, ID is not a theory. An apparently irreducible design can never be shown to irreducible.
I am not as familiar with irreducible complexity as I am with the comparative evidence based on the likelihood of genetic mutations explaining the diversity that we see today (macro-evolution). I see IC as the reverse path of logic which questions whether macro-evolution could provide all that exists today from substantially less complex forms of life (e.g. single-cell organisms). I prefer direct, head-to-head comparison of macro vs. micro probabilities for any evidence in question.
Maybe somewhere else here has spent more time on the theory of IC that can give more information on it?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1588. Comment #171094 by al-rawandi on April 28, 2008 at 10:02 am
seeker_of _truth,
Any response?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
1589. Comment #171115 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 10:17 am
But the likelyhood of it being aliens, gods, unicorns, space donkeys, fairies are all about equal based on the evidence, am I correct? Or do you have some other evidence you have yet to present?
So instead of insinuating that I am insulting God, perhaps you could answer my question?
I would call your list speculation at best. If ID were proven, the designer would have to step forward in some tangible way for us to know any specific details of his/her/its nature. Until then, ridicule may be a premature, default position.
And my insinuation had nothing to do with the 'God' you insinuate I might have had in mind. It was an attempt to draw this discussion away from what appears to be scientifically unattainable at this time.
The other night someone proposed the supernatural as a theory for the origin of life and I laughed. I responded, "Call it anything but a 'theory' please and just how do you plan on testing this?" He went on to say that if life can not be recreated by natural means without intelligent manipulations, then the only other explanation is the supernatural - defined as; pertaining to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world.
That's about the closest thing I can give as validity to the concept of the supernatural.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1590. Comment #171122 by al-rawandi on April 28, 2008 at 10:21 am
seeker_of_truth,
All of the things on my list were "supernatural".
And I was not ridiculing. I was simply asking, that if one wants to base things on evidence and reason. The things I listed all have equal likelyhood, correct?
I have asked that 3 times and still have not received an answer. The issue is that I would like to see if anyone even interested in ID, is reasonable enough to admit that such a position leads to the potential for any kind of designer, based on evidence.
And I don't think you answered when asked about your personal religion. And if you did answer I was absent.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
1591. Comment #171138 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 10:30 am
I have told you before. It is Spartina anglica, the polyploid version.
The fact that this is unique is even more evidence that what you consider "macromutation" is very common.
Sorry I missed by one generation on the Latin. However, polyploids are not rare occurrences, at least not in plants. And macromutation needs to be viewed through the lens of an epigenetic explanation. Again, I don't see a clear conclusion myself.
Macromutation from Wiki;
"While macromutations appear to be the only explanation for differences such as the number of body segments among arthropods, at the genetic level where the original change occurs, very few changes to genes may actually be necessary to result in the large physical change. Some genes control other genes and the higher the level of control, the larger the change it can make. Biologists make a distinction between changes to the genotype, and the resulting body structure resulting from those genes phenotype."
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1592. Comment #171149 by raghu_mani on April 28, 2008 at 10:37 am
1410. Comment #170485 by TheTruthID
Evolutionary Theorists (please correct if I'm wrong with the title) claim that ID proponents strategy is to merely attempt to poke holes and show weaknesses in Evolution. This is absolutely true. We have nothing else. Many times things become accepted, through the process of elimination.
Two responses to this.
1. How do you know you have eliminated everything else? Remember, for the vast majority of our existence here on earth (as a species) we knew very little of how things worked. We didn't have a clue as to what caused lightning, how the planets moved etc etc. Would it have been correct to say that these things required God's personal intervention to happen? There is a name for such reasoning - it's called "the God of the gaps" and it is fundamentally illogical. It isn't just me, the atheist, saying this. Ask any theologian and they'll tell you the same thing.
2. There is plenty of possible evidence which, if found, would disprove evolution. No one - creationist or otherwise - has found any yet. The best they've been able to do is to point out things that evolution cannot yet explain. That isn't something that is unique to evolution. All science has gaps/holes and the prospect of plugging these holes is what motivates people to take up research in science as a career.
One word regarding your treatment here. You've been rude and some people here have been rude to you but at least we've been talking. You weren't banned and all your earlier posts are there for everyone to see. Try the following experiment - go to a pro-ID board like uncommondescent.org and post pro-evolution messages there. Try telling them, in a sober, polite fashion, that they are wrong. I can assure you that within 24 hours at the most, you will be banned and your posts deleted. Then you will get an idea as to who is trying to expel whom.
After seeing the movie "Expelled", I realize any discussion between the two parties is futile.
I wouldn't go as far as that. One thing that you don't get from Expelled is that there are plenty of religious scientists who believe in evolution. Check out books by Ken Miller, Simon Conway-Morris and Francis Collins. All of them are prominent scientists who accept both evolution as well as the Christian faith. An honest documentary would have interviewed these people and found out how they reconciled evolution and their faith. Each of them has written a book about this - check them out on amazon.
- RM
Other Comments by raghu_mani
1593. Comment #171200 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 11:11 am
I have asked that 3 times and still have not received an answer.
You are mistaking the reception of an answer with receiving the type of answer you expected.
And I don't think you answered when asked about your personal religion. And if you did answer I was absent.
My official, religious position is open-minded. I don't eliminate my options without a through wrestling of all evidence.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1594. Comment #171213 by al-rawandi on April 28, 2008 at 11:21 am
seeker_of_truth,
I asked if a belief in ID, claiming based on evidence meant to you that any "designer" theory would be equal, based on an "evidence" approach.
Is God any more likely than space aliens, or any more likely than a magical unicorn type creature? You didn't answer this at all. You said it must be "supernatural", all of these are supernatural, although not the aliens, but that proves my point. Aliens would be a natural cause of human life. So your suppostion "it must be supernatural" doesn't hold water.
But the evasion tactics are well worn on this site. No one really expects an answer from anyone pushing ID, at this point. Being no one has ever provided a straight answer.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
1595. Comment #171224 by al-rawandi on April 28, 2008 at 11:26 am
seeker_of_truth
?He went on to say that if life can not be recreated by natural means without intelligent manipulations, then the only other explanation is the supernatural - defined as; pertaining to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world.
THis is so fatally flawed. You say that if it cannot be reproduced naturally. Here is the problem to that anti-logic.
1) The natural process took billions of years, through natural selection. Recreating this would take, yes you guessed it, billions of years.
2) Simply being unable to reproduce something (for lack of available time or material) does not mean the current account is wrong. It simply means we do not yet have the technology.
3) We would need conditions much like that of the early earth, which can only be identically replicated, in you guessed it again, an early earth.
Your eplanation is an attempt at a round about theistic position, simply glossing the fatal flaws in the idea of the "super-natural".
Focus on this next part it contains something for you to answer
But since you accept the supernatural... this may not be a traditional Abrahamic God, correct? It may be some other form of being, energy, life form, cartoon character, correct? All these being equally likely, based on the evidence, correct?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
1596. Comment #171260 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 11:54 am
He went on to say that if life can not be recreated by natural means without intelligent manipulations, then the only other explanation is the supernatural...
Well good thing my friend said 'if'... eh? I'd hate to see you upset over nothing.
And if you can't yet tell, I have no plans to answer you 'silly list' question other than in the manner I already have.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1597. Comment #171261 by Steve Zara on April 28, 2008 at 11:54 am
Comment #171138 by seeker_of_truthWhat creationists and IDers claim is that micromutation (within species adapatation) occurs, but macromutation (generation new species) can't happen. I have shown it can, and within a single generation
And you still haven't answered my question about why ID should be considered science when it provides no predictions and so is not testable.
You don't get to define the kind of answers you can give, at least not to me.
Strike two.
One more chance to respond.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
1598. Comment #171268 by al-rawandi on April 28, 2008 at 11:57 am
seeker_of_truth,
Well explain why it is "silly" then. Thanks.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
1599. Comment #171277 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Maybe ask an elementary age child this question, "I'm going to read you a list of possible characters that may have created the world. Tell me if you think this list is serious or silly please?"See what the obvious, simple interpretation is from a largely unbiased source.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
1600. Comment #171292 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Strike two.
When I read this I didn't know whether to laugh or tell you to shove both strikes 1 & 2 up your ass. I'll laugh for now.
And you still haven't answered my question about why ID should be considered science when it provides no predictions and so is not testable.
Does it not predict that all species in existence today are a result of micro-evolution? Once all extant fossils and living things have their respective genome mapped, we should know beyond the shadow of a doubt if this is true or false. Is this testable, albeit still off in the future a ways?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
More Comments: First | Previous | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 | Next | Last
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:
"What have been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
James Madison
Other Recommended Reading
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
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
1551. Comment #170695 by TheTruthID on April 27, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I think it's time to hit the sack. I am truly grateful for your acceptance of my apology. The discussion we had tonight was much more in the way we should treat all discussions. If there is anyway any of you can relay my apology to the people my letter was intended for, I would appreciate it. Looking forward to continue.Your Friend,
Adam
Other Comments by TheTruthID