1. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75231 by ZaphodBB84 on October 2, 2007 at 4:57 am

I noticed in the Independent that they posted this article with a rather pleasant looking picture of Professor Dawkins. I'm finding that most papers tend to use a more 'grumpy curmudgeon' style picture for Dawkins articles.

2. The Only One in Step

Comment #14796 by ZaphodBB84 on December 25, 2006 at 6:03 am

Hello, thought I'd add my bit, and a merry Newtonmas to all.

I've met Burgess during a lecture he gave in Sheffield. He was guilty then of omitting the "in a closed system" element of his definition of the 2nd law for which he was soundly chastised. He was actually quite an interesting talker if you don't mind being dangerously close to hypertension. He gave an in depth look at the feather and the knee and basically tried to suggest they were evidence of ID (wastefully beautiful and irreducibly complex respectively).

He seems to be a creationist of a new sort. I call his argument 'The argument from professional arrogance'. He seems to claim that if he finds something that he, and all his students at Bristol University cannot possibly have designed, then it must be too complex for anything other then God. It reminded me of DeGrasse Tyson's idea of God existing on the edge of understanding; Burgess can't understand it, therefore it's explained by The Great Cop Out In The Sky.

Most of Burgess' arguments come from, as others have said, his awe at the beauty of creation. In the Q&A I asked Burgess what the beauty in things like the appendix and faulty spines and knees. His only real answer was that this was evidence of the curse of Humanity. Burgess is a very competent engineer and has worked on some amazing projects, but I think he is almost too much of an engineer and seems to think about nature as working from a blueprint, unchangeable and designed from the top down. I wouldn't call him any more insane then others of his ilk but he is certainly a very misguided gentleman.

3. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #13663 by ZaphodBB84 on December 19, 2006 at 3:59 am

Only rarely has a program made me squirm like this. Straw men and shallow speculation to camera do not a thesis make. He seems to accept the scientific method when it suits, and resort to vague speculation and assertion the rest of the time.

Anger making TV