Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Science : Commentary | print version Print | Comments |

Document [UPDATE] - Tuesday's Connector of the Day – Richard Dawkins

by Connect the World

Thanks to Bala for the link.
http://connecttheworld.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/23/tuesdays-connector-of-the-day-richard-dawkins/

Interview will be posted here
http://edition.cnn.com/

and here
http://www.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/connect.the.world/

---Fervent atheist and anti-creationist, Richard Dawkins is often referred to as "Charles Darwin's rottweiler." He has torn into the religious establishment with his claim that God is a delusion. It seems the British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author will stop at nothing to provoke intelligent and honest debate about the truth of our existence.

His writings have inspired and angered many a reader – and now he's back with more.

Dawkins’ latest book “The Greatest Show on Earth" offers scientific evidence as proof to back-up his own theory of evolution. Like his other writings, he has provoked a mass of rebuttals. The Christian-evangelical group, Living Waters, has recently countered Dawkins’ book with an unlikely source of its own. It has re-released Darwin’s manuscript with a new 54 page foreword penned by the group’s president Ray Comfort that refutes Darwin’s theory of evolution.

This Tuesday marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species.” Dawkins joins us again as our Connector of the Day – so don't miss the opportunity to ask him about Darwin’s most celebrated and much-debated manuscript.
...
Continue reading and to comments
http://connecttheworld.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/23/tuesdays-connector-of-the-day-richard-dawkins/
____________________________________________________________
[UPDATE]
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/25/darwin.dawkins.evolution/index.html

London, England (CNN) -- A Christian evangelist branded an idiot by atheist biologist Richard Dawkins for trying to refute Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has brushed off the criticism.

Speaking to CNN on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's seminal work "On the Origin of Species," Dawkins said the evidence to support the theory that life on earth came about through natural selection, and not design by God, was "now massively buttressed by molecular evidence."

And referring to U.S.-based evangelist Ray Comfort, who argues that the universe and life is the result of an intelligent creator, Dawkins said: "There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot.
...
Continue reading
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/25/darwin.dawkins.evolution/index.html



___________________________
Thanks to Laith for the YouTube link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZWBHMv7t30
___________________________
Posted to the Forum by InYourFaceNewYorker
See discussion on the Forum for more comments
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=100835
Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 17 of 17 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #434470 by Jos Gibbons on November 24, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Boy, this interview is going to be dumb.
his own theory
It's every biologist's theory, not his. Insofar as any ideas on evolution are unique to RD, these are ideas such as the gene-centric view he has previously defended. This author is clearly trying to downplay the unanimity in favour of evolution amongst those who have examined the evidence.
[TGSOE has been countered by] a new 54 page foreword penned by the group's president Ray Comfort that refutes Darwin's theory
(1) That's not a response to the TGSOE, although like the TGSOE it is anniversary-inspired. (2) Refutes the theory? It barely even tries to refute anything, just to smear Darwin. What little it chooses to argue against is a straw man no-one has believed, Darwin or anyone subsequently. (3) Darwin's theory is not the modern one, just as atomic theory has progressed since Dalton.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

2. Comment #434489 by aquilacane on November 24, 2009 at 2:16 pm

avatar"will stop at nothing to provoke intelligent and honest debate"

That was nice. Didn't even use strident.

P.S. PCs suck

Other Comments by aquilacane

3. Comment #434521 by Enlightenme.. on November 24, 2009 at 3:47 pm

avatarRefutes..
DUH!

I suppose we've gotta comment on the questions the contributors want put to RD.

Alan Perlman's has got a funny in just about every sentence, including that he thinks Scientific American "acknowledged that there just was not enough time for evolution as Dawin proposed"

..due to The Big Bang it seems!
He also draws comfort from QM and the 2nd law.

I'm beginning to think we should re-introduce NOMA
in a limited form for 'refuseniks'.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

4. Comment #434529 by Graeme on November 24, 2009 at 4:05 pm

I uploaded a question over an hour ago, but its still saying "Your comment is awaiting moderation"
Has any one else had this problem?

Other Comments by Graeme

5. Comment #434537 by SaintStephen on November 24, 2009 at 4:26 pm

avatarThe long stream of comments following this article is a stunning snapshot of our world. So many people, so much ignorance... for example:

You walk and see a cellular phone on the street. Do you think that it was created by wind and water thru ages? No. And a moment later you see a dog, incredibly more sophisticated thing than a phone. Do you think that dogs were created by winds, waters, electricity thru the ages?

This person could be handed a copy of The Blind Watchmaker or Climbing Mount Improbable and be sent on his way.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

6. Comment #434564 by crookedshoes on November 24, 2009 at 5:39 pm

avatarSaint Stephen, I agree. I couldn't be more stunned by the string of comments after this article. It is depressing to feel the import of a total dearth of reason and logic. The implications are depressing, the comments themselves are depressing, depressing, depressing, depressing.

Other Comments by crookedshoes

7. Comment #434567 by Sally Luxmoore on November 24, 2009 at 5:46 pm

avatarIs Richard having to spend all day writing reasoned responses to all this?

Couldn't they at least group the questions into similar areas, so that he can do a 'group' answer aimed at all relevant questions?

Do we get to see his answers?

Poor Richard - what a thankless task!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

8. Comment #434603 by Mike D on November 24, 2009 at 7:16 pm

avatarI couldn't hardly stomach reading the list of questions. Shocking, ignorant and depressing barely describe many of them. Some cross the line into insanity or mental retardation. I mean, it's like argueing with a person that insists the sky is below us and earth above. Some of the posts are absolutely incoherent. I'd rather have my teeth pulled than have to answer this brain-washed idiocy.

Other Comments by Mike D

9. Comment #434747 by RMIV on November 25, 2009 at 3:09 am

avatarCrookedshoes and Mike D...I feel the same about the comments on the page. I wish these people would put the time and effort into developing their intelligence.

One of my favorite quotes I heard is from Brian Cox say on a Cern Podcast "Knowledge of the Universe is not a luxary".

I think this is why we have to fight so hard, Eductaion is not optional. We have to do it for the survival of our species.

Other Comments by RMIV

10. Comment #434753 by Sonic on November 25, 2009 at 3:48 am

avatarMy favorite comment -
To think that all creation evolved to its current state without God overseeing the building process is pretty stupid. Just look at the structure of the atom, the way the universe is structured, the way the earth is tilted at 23 degrees axis, I could go on on on. Yet you would say that all of this has come about by mere luck.
If someone sees 23 degrees of tilt as evidence in favor of a designer, then what amount of tilt would they see as evidence against a designer?

This is the fine-tuning argument, but without the fine-tuning or the argument.

Other Comments by Sonic

11. Comment #434761 by seabala on November 25, 2009 at 6:33 am

avatarDid Dawkins ever ask students to rip the 50 pages out of the Ray comfort book? Seems unlikely!. Looks like Ray not only proved himself an idiot, but a liar too!

Other Comments by seabala

12. Comment #434787 by Ewald on November 25, 2009 at 10:12 am

avatarDirect link to the video:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/11/24/ctw.connector.richard.dawkins.cnn

Either way, is there any chance of a response, here on RD.net or elsewhere, by Richard Dawkins, concerning Ray Comfort's last remark? Did Dawkins indeed encourage ripping Comfort's introduction out of the book and if so, what reasoning was there behind that?

By the way, I fear Ray Comfort's campaign has not chosen the first edition of On the Origin of Species to reprint, as that comes with the lack of 'by a creator'..

Other Comments by Ewald

13. Comment #434809 by keddaw on November 25, 2009 at 11:54 am

avatarIf Richard can be called an anti-creationist then surely 'refutes' can be replaced with 'denies'.
a new 54 page foreword penned by the group’s president Ray Comfort that refutes Darwin’s theory of evolution.


Other Comments by keddaw

14. Comment #435223 by wbreim on November 25, 2009 at 10:09 pm

wow the caliber of questions was just APPALLING! it's almost as if rhe interviewer picked the most absurd, ridiculous joke-questions to throw at dawkins. what a waste of time with dr. dawkins!

Other Comments by wbreim

15. Comment #435464 by Sally Luxmoore on November 26, 2009 at 2:50 pm

avatarOK, so they left out the vast majority of the most idiotic and crazy of the questions, leaving an interview that broke no new ground, but which was probably still informative for many viewers.

But why spoil the whole thing by feeling the need to end it with a quote from Ray bloody Comfort?!

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

16. Comment #435556 by the great teapot on November 26, 2009 at 8:59 pm

wbreim,
You're joking, right?
You did read the question which weren't read out? He spared a lot of people a lot of embarrasement. Not that they would realise it.

Other Comments by the great teapot

17. Comment #435833 by aquilacane on November 27, 2009 at 5:09 pm

avatarIt would come from a scientist not an idiot. Love that.

Other Comments by aquilacane
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE