1. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174551 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 2, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Ascaphus,

I agree with your comment to an extent. Please notice however that just as I criticize reading something into this article that in reality simply isn't there for the purpose of bashing God, neither do I condone the tendency that some Christians have to over-spiritualize everything. And I do believe that it's quite a stretch to make the claim that the author of this article was somehow supporting the idea of miracles. It's called creative writing. Whether or not it is totally appropriate in a piece geared towards science is certainly debatable, but *please* tell me when the last time was that the BBC of all news networks supported supernaturalism?

I think you're being a bit oversensitive. The word miracle is only mentioned once in the body of the article. Not to mention, in the context of the title it is obvious that the writer was only trying to find a creative way to say that this was what many believe to be an amazing event. Honestly, what do you think the writer meant by "natural miracle"? That's a blatant contradiction, and if this person is a journalist for the BBC I'm sure they wouldn't have hired someone so incredibly stupid as to realize that it wasn't. It's just a play on words, nothing more.

2. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174539 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 2, 2008 at 3:56 pm

"Why do you YECs use this site? Don't you have some witnessing to do or some idoitic anti-evolution films to make or some small children to scare to death?"

I personally find it shameful that I am the only self-declared Christian I have ever seen comment on this website. Do you have any idea how many atheists challenge Christians on *Christian* forums? If atheists aren't scared to engage Christians in debate on their own websites, then why don't Christians have the guts to do the same on atheist sites?

I believe this unfortunate fact demonstrates a general lack of intellectual integrity within pop Christianity. Christians, and everyone else for that matter, need to know what they believe and why they believe it. If we aviod the arguments against our beliefs, I believe that speaks volumes not necessarily about the particular belief, but rather our committment to that belief.

Now please don't think that I believe myself to be a super-Christian or anything like that. I have my own flaws, but I believe that this particular area is one where the Church is failing miserably, and it is a situation that must be remedied if for no other reason than to attain a respectable level of intellectual honesty. As Elton Trueblood puts it, "the unexamined faith is not worth having".

3. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174453 by Bizarro Dawkins on May 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Is it possible that this "pixie dust" simply accelerates the fingertip regeneration?

Also, I find it absurdly boorish when some of the atheists on this site bash God on an article that is totally unrelated to the issue of His existence (or non-existence). It suggests an insecurity in their own beliefs since they find the need to twist any issue (relevant or not) to validate their belief that God must certainly not exist. Can't they just save it for the articles that are actually relevant to that topic?

4. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170580 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 27, 2008 at 8:45 pm

"I'd claim that Yahweh's behaviour is not consistent with "his nature", if his nature is all-loving, all-good etc. How can one go against one's nature?"

I don't think you understand, and your self-assured smiley's aren't helping your case. If God's nature is all-loving and He must be consistent with His nature to be defined as God, then any action perpetrated by God is a loving action. It doesn't matter if you think it is loving behavior; that is totally irrelevant. Likewise, if you perceived that God's actions were inconsistent with His nature, then either you do not fully understand His nature or you do not fully understand the nature of His action, regardless of what the action is. When you assume God's existence, you must also accept His defining characteristics. Your personal feelings towards His actions thereby become obsolete. You can certainly attack God's existence from other angles, but not this one.

"Thinking about it logically, doesn't it seem to you a bit like begging the question to conveniently define God = everything moral?"

Not at all. Nowhere have I left out a necessary middle premise. The Christian God is, by definition, the definition of morality. If His existence is to be assumed for the sake of argument, then it must be accepted that He is the definition of morality. If He is anything but perfectly moral, then He cannot by definition be the God of the Bible. Therefore, to call the God of the Bible immoral is a contradiction, plain and simple.

I don't disagree that it is certainly convenient to define God as such. I'm not the one who defined Him though; take that up with the authors of the Scripture. Now, you could certainly make up a god of your own. Call him Bob. You could say that Bob is defined as the essence of morality, even though Bob commands us to eat other, weaker people. Now, if I wanted to call Bob immoral I could not; I would be committing a contradiction (I imagine this is akin to your "Satan = everything moral" argument). If indeed Bob existed (which I must assume for the sake of my argument) and was defined as being the definition of morality, then I could not call him immoral or I would no longer be addressing Bob. It's rather abstract reasoning, but it is totally valid.

The point I am trying to convey is simply that God's character (and Bob's) have no significance regarding the probability of their existences. If they exist, then I could no more attack God's character than I could Bob's on a moral basis. So if Hitchens and Dawkins want to show how it is unreasonable to believe in God, they need to stop using such intellectually bankrupt arguments. Keep in mind that I am not trying to prove anything about God's existence. I am not claiming that this morality defining attribute of God makes His existence more probable. It really has no bearing on His existence at all.

Also, you really need to look out for the question begging (mixed with some ad populum) yourself. Consider the end of your comment:
"…the reason Dawkins suggest that the biblical God is immoral is that the bible paints a picture of God. And these characteristics of the biblical God would be considered immoral by even our lowest common denominator consensus of what's moral."

You said, in more straightforward terms, that Dawkins suggests God is immoral because even our lowest common denominator consensus thinks He is immoral (not even remotely true by the way). So God is immoral because people think that God is immoral? Watch out for this.

Welcome to the discussion.

-Ryan

5. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170400 by Bizarro Dawkins on April 27, 2008 at 6:04 pm

I found Hitchen's essay particularly incoherent. Although it is admittedly a bit off topic, he makes the rather sweeping statement that morality shudders at the idea of God (by "God" I assume he means all gods, including the Christian God). I've always been surprised and a little disappointed that some of the greatest minds in the atheist community attack God's character with the intention of somehow detracting from the reasonability of His existence. Those such as Hitchens and Dawkins call God evil and immoral, hoping that they can sway the minds of the ignorant into buying this counterfeit logic. For the sake of argument they assume God's existence, and then presumptuously claim that his design is faulty, or that His plan for salvation and redemption reflects a spirit of malevolence and cruelty. They have even gone so far as to call God "immoral", as is implied by Hitchen's above statement.

Apparent (or rather what should be apparent to any thinking person) amidst all of the faulty exegesis and de-contextualization of Biblical texts is one glaring deficiency in this argument: the God of the Bible cannot, by definition, be immoral. In order to attack God's character, one must first assume His existence (for the sake of argument of course). However, the God of the Bible is defined not simply as being perfect in the moral sense; rather, He is defined as the essence of morality itself. In the Biblical scheme, whatever is moral is whatever is consistent with God's nature. If a god is not moral then, it cannot be the God of the Bible. Therefore, to say that God is immoral or evil is to, in more precise terms, say that a being who by definition is the definition of morality is immoral. Obviously, if one says that God is immoral, then this individual cannot, by dictate of definitional logic, be addressing the God of the bible and is at this point merely attacking a deific construct of their own imagination.

This is certainly a convenient argument, but I believe it is nonetheless valid. If a person is going to attack the character of the God of the Bible, this individual cannot arbitrarily disregard one of the necessary and defining attributes that makes the god they are attacking the God of the Bible. If one must assume the existence of the Christian God for the sake of argument, then one must also accept every attribute that defines God's existence.

Hitchen's argument really boils down to a rather crude argument from personal incredulity, and it deserves nothing less than to be discounted as emotionally charged rubbish. While it is certainly convenient to twist God's words and actions to conflict with our own sense of morality, I'm sure there are other ways of going about the business of attacking God's existence that are not so intellectually lazy.

6. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112708 by Bizarro Dawkins on January 17, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Thanks for the sentiment. A kind word is always appreciated. I understand of course that when I post on sites like these I can expect plenty of not so pleasant rhetoric, but I take the good with the bad. I mainly post on this site with the purpose in mind to expose people's minds to ideas that they may not have considered, but there's so much to be learned through civil discourse as well. I've learned more through just discussing topics on this site with atheists than I have in any class I've ever taken. So understand that when I encounter those who are truly interested in having a normal discussion, minus the personal attacks and prejudices, it is always much appreciated.

7. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112248 by Bizarro Dawkins on January 16, 2008 at 4:14 pm

I sincerely hope and pray that your operation will be a success. Although we may have very different beliefs, Christ teaches that we love our neighbors and pray for those who may be on opposite sides of the fence. I also understand that this must be a difficult time for your family, so know that our thoughts are with them. Get well soon.

-Ryan

8. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #112240 by Bizarro Dawkins on January 16, 2008 at 4:01 pm

"but the way I read your post it appears you want to raise some general point about the site supporting "hateful speech" - do you really think that's appropriate?"

No, I don't. However, that was not the intended purpose of that statement. I wrote that statement only as a way to express that although I may oppose the militant atheist movement, I still share the common human identity that bonds everyone together despite race or creed. I believe that in the spirit of this common bond, sympathy and encouragement should not be extended only to those who believe as I do. This is exactly what Jesus taught.

9. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111513 by Bizarro Dawkins on January 14, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Wouldn't it be comforting to know that the thoughts of even those whom you may consider your enemies were with you in hard times? I know that if I were in Mr. Scales position I would welcome encouragement from anyone who desired to express it, whether they be atheist or not. I find it profoundly disrespectful to not allow Mr. Scales to read a respectfully written letter of encouragement. Although I may oppose what he stands for, I don't believe that I should be denied the right to express my feelings towards Mr. Scales, especially considering the manner in which I did so. If you think he can't handle a word of encouragement from a Christian, then that is just insulting.

While I cannot convince anyone that my motives are pure, I would ask you all to remember that not all Christians make hypocrisy and deceitfulness a way of life, although some certainly do. While I may fail from time to time, I try my best to live up to the standards that Christ set. I therefore request that the moderator reconsider their decision to remove my comment from the main thread. That's fine if you don't, but instead of considering your own distrust of Christians, however experientially justified it may be, consider what would be in the best interest of Mr. Scales.

10. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111423 by Bizarro Dawkins on January 14, 2008 at 2:41 pm

I sincerely hope and pray that your operation will be a success. Although I do not support hateful speech being directed at any people group, whether it be Christian or Atheist, Christ teaches that we love and pray for those who speak ill of us, quite unlike what the world teaches. I also understand that this must be a difficult time for your family, so know that our thoughts (and my prayers) are with them. Get well soon.

-Ryan

11. This Week's Flea

Comment #100536 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 18, 2007 at 8:44 pm

"Don't you think this is just...becasue the books you mention are the ones most common?"

Sure, but that's kind of irrelevant. He still targets a controversial piece of literature.

"I say this because on a theist blog, I read that RD attacks Christianity and appears to leave Muslims and Hindus in peace."

Dawkins does concentrate his straw men and overgeneralizations on Christianity for the most part, but he also attacks Islam (I can't say I'm a huge fan either).

As for my degree, I think I'll do just fine. Keep in mind that LU is a fully accredited school, and the biology department does some fine work. I can send you our final project for ecology if you want to see just how stupid us LU students are ;-)

12. This Week's Flea

Comment #100519 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 18, 2007 at 7:28 pm

"Thought religion happens despite the holy books..."

Sure, but Dawkins' targets of choice are certainly the Bible and the Koran as the God that he attacks is most often the God of the Bible.

And yeah, I know I haven't been around for a while. Ecology class is tough! It's an unholy matrimony of statistics and biology. One or the other is fine, but a class involving both is just a time killer. I know the RD forum is important, but I need my degree so I can add my name to the Discovery Institute's list of Darwin dissenters!

13. This Week's Flea

Comment #100505 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 18, 2007 at 6:43 pm

I don't see the problem with authors offering their responses to controversial popular literature. Think through it for a moment. The God Delusion is Dawkins' reply to religious literature. Without books such as the Bible and the Koran "The God Delusion" wouldn't exist. It's kind of funny to think about how many fleas the Bible has.

14. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #99466 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 16, 2007 at 5:51 pm

""Turning it around, why is Hitler's interpretation of evolution wrong while yours isn't?"

Besides your automatic loss by Internet law.. :P"

Hehe, yeah I wasn't meaning this in any way as an argument against evolution. I've never used that shoddy argument in that capacity and I never will. I only asked it to show Cartomancer that if he desires to question Christianity's credibility on the basis of how it has been used to justify evil, then he must also submit his own philosophy to the same level of scrutiny in order to be consistent. It was no more than that.

15. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #99461 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 16, 2007 at 5:47 pm

"Well, I do like having my views challenged in a respectful and mutually educational environment, but the only thing I am learning here, it seems, is quite how stubborn and ridiculous theists such as yourself generally are, and how futile and pathetic your oft-repeated "arguments" actually are."

Perhaps it is not my inability to construct a valid argument but rather your unwillingness to listen? I don't mean that as an insult in any way, but I have never so quickly and condescendingly disregarded an atheist's arguments. I believe I can claim open-mindedness with a clear conscience, but as long as you continue to dismiss me as a "troll" then I doubt that the same could be said of you.

"And why should what is written in the bible be the basis for deciding who counts as a christian and who does not??"

Ok, look at the name "Christian". It literally means a disciple of Christ. It means one who follows the commands and teachings of Christ and believes in His message of salvation. Therefore, if you do not believe the teachings of Christ or you reject His message, then you cannot by definition be a Christian. Merely claiming to be a follower of any given philosophy does not mean that you really are. I can claim to be an atheist to my heart's content, but as long as I reject the notion that God does not exist, then even though I may claim to be an atheist, I clearly am not.

"As for Hitler's take on natural selection, that is immaterial as far as natural selection is concerned."

My apologies, I should have specified. I meant natural selection in the context of Darwinism. I obviously accept natural selection in the capacity that it has actually been observed.

"Whatever the case, there is an important distinction to be drawn between the objective scientific fact of evolution by natural selection and the contents of subjective political programmes which have used it in their rhetoric."

I seriously question the objectivity of evolution (obviously). Regardless, I believe this distinction is quite irrelevant. The mere fact of the matter is that people will use whatever they can to justify morally reprehensible actions, whether it be a disputed scientific paradigm or a religion.

I believe that this distinction loses even more significance in the context of this discussion. Originally, you used the alleged result of Christian ideology (the murder) in an attempt to detract from the credibility of Christianity. Therefore, if you are going to use atrocities committed in the name of x against x in order to discredit x, then any perceptual distinctions between x's become irrelevant.

"I am fine with this - political ideology is just as subective as religious ideology."

I disagree. Religious ideals are built on the basis of what claim to be objective and timeless texts. Political constructs on the other hand are based on trial-and-error methods that must adapt to sociological variances. While there may some relatively insignificant interpretational discrepancies among certain religions, they pale in comparison to the huge spectrum of ideas seen in politics.

I think this is the last post I will write on this article. I need to get to some of the newer ones. I will certainly read your next comment though if you happen to write one. God bless.

16. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #99138 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 15, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Also, I really don't like being called a troll. It's a totally superfluous accusations as trolls are defined as those who comment on forums for the express purpose of causing disorder and strife. I don't think I've ever been mean or un-civil in any of the article discussions. If you don't like to have your views challenged in a respectful and mutually educational environment, that's not my problem.

17. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #99136 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 15, 2007 at 5:52 pm

"Why is Mr. York's interpretation of christianity phony and yours isn't?"

Well, probably because the Bible says "thou shalt not murder". You can't really be a Christian and condone murder. What you can do is manipulate, twist, and/or take passages from the Bible out of context in order to make it say what you want it to say, but this can be done with virtually any religious (or non-religious) document.

Turning it around, why is Hitler's interpretation of evolution wrong while yours isn't?

18. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98933 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 14, 2007 at 11:53 pm

CraigB,

"It comes as no surprise. The argument for evolution is clearly strong, which is why creationists have to resort to such desperate and primitive measures."

Doesn't it seem a little desperate to exploit an event that really has no relevance to the validity of Christianity in order to support your own belief? Atrocities have been committed in the name of just about every philosophy known to man (yes, that includes atheism). It makes no difference whether a person justifies his or her actions based on alleged theistic precepts or atheistic ones. The end result is exactly the same: evil. Hitler was compelled by his twisted understanding of natural selection. Charlemagne was driven by his warped view of theology. The end results were the same, except that one used gas and the other used a sword.

The fact that a so-called Christian killed an atheist really carries no significance to the legitimacy of Creationism. It was a tragedy involving a phony Christian, alcohol, and a human propensity towards evil. Using an event such as this to throw dirt on another belief is un-called for, fallacious, and seems to be a rather desperate measure in itself.

19. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #98929 by Bizarro Dawkins on December 14, 2007 at 11:27 pm

fdas

20. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86903 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Steve99,

Have STD's increased or decreased since the widespread usage of condoms within the past decade?

Among teens and college students, condoms foster the idea that kids are safe when they use them. Therefore, they have more sex. However, condoms are not effective in a good percentage of cases. Therefore, although the act may have become somewhat safer, you have a disproportionally higher rate of sexual activity that negates the protection of a condom.

So in reality, condoms have simply made the problem worse as they project the illusion that people are safe as long as they use them.

21. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86884 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 11:15 am

"Do you think kids should be punished for having sex by catching very unpleasant and potentially life-threatening diseases?"

What I think is irrelevant. The fact is that there are concequences for our actions, and when we try to mask or aviod them, our perceived solutions become problems in themselves.

22. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86837 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 9:22 am

"Bizzaro, I forgive you."

Hehe, thanks alot. I appreciate it. Spoken as a true Christian ;-)

23. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86836 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 9:21 am

"I am studying Freud in great detail at the moment, and it is certainly interesting when his theories on sex and religion are compared to what people like you say now."

I am sure you are aware that the vast majority of Freud's theories have been outright rejected by modern psychology. He was certaintly a pioneer in a field that had suffered much neglect in the past, but he was nowhere close to right on most of his ideas.

24. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86835 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 10, 2007 at 9:14 am

Windreaver,

My apologies. I had my response saved in a word document but I never sent it. Here it is (you probably won't like it anyways!).

"Bizarro, you call Roger Stanyard a liar for accusing you of not answering questions put to you about evolution. I note that you have not answered any of the questions he put to you in his post."

Um, ok, does this change the fact that Mr. Stanyard was untruthful? I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Let's break it down:

1. In response to your first comment, I said that I have dealt with those questions many times over and did not feel like taking the time to go through them again.

2. Mr. Stanyard alleged that I had never answered ANY ONE of the points brought up in the article in all of my previous comments on this site.

3. I proved quite the opposite without a shadow of a doubt.

Now the fact that I didn't answer any of his other questions is totally irrelevant to the issue of whether Mr. Stanyard lied or not. It has no pertinence to the situation whatsoever. You cannot deny that he either lied about checking through the comments, or he lied about the content (or rather the alleged lack of content) within the comments.

And yes, I did not answer any of his other questions. I never said I did. His comment (and yours) amount to nothing more than a form of elephant hurling. You are asking multiple, argumentative, open-ended questions that I simply don't have the time to answer sufficiently. I do tend to ignore such conduct. If you want to bring up a couple different points in a post that's fine, but you can't just expect me to take the time to adequately answer every point you can think of to throw at me.

25. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86671 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 9, 2007 at 11:50 pm

"First of all, people are going to have sex no matter how many times you tell them that abstinence is the best practice."

I have never had sex. I have plenty of friends who have never had sex. It is a simple matter of self-control. To be honest, I believe that the problem transcends sex education. It is a general cultural attitude that we have in America: I WANT it and I WANT IT NOW. The whole self-obsessed attitude that was once confined to California (hehe, kidding) has pervaded the media and therefore our society. We have no self-control as a nation anymore. This attitude manifests itself not just in the rampant extra-marital sex, but also in Americans' obsession with spending wads of money on things they don't need, and the exploding problem of obesity. It is this underlying attitude that truly lies at the heart of the problem.

"I hope that Bizarro Dawkins prays for forgiveness for writing statements he knows are lies."

Very unnecessary, and quite nasty. You are merely hurling baseless accusations at me in order to detract from my credibility. It is a very shameful way of trying to win an argument.

"Because the examples supporting Lori Lipman Brown's 'naked assertion' are legion, on the front pages of daily newspapers and television, I am forced to treat his request as seriously as someone asking for examples of gravity.

Perhaps Bizarro Dawkins can look at http://jcnot4me.com/Items/Misc%20Topics/atheists_in_america.htm and see some new data."

This is a poorly written article obviously written by someone who has been exposed to a rather biased sampling of Christianity. The author seems very angry, and provides little evidence for his or her accusations. So in reality, you have merely supported baseless accusations by supplying an article that hurls more baseless accusations without providing any concrete evidence of a widespread Christian terrorist movement. It just isn't getting you anywhere.

I am not denying that nasty things have been said about atheists, but are atheists really self-centered and close-minded enough to think that they are the only group who has suffered verbal abuse? Also, I fail to see how a few nasty verbal remarks towards atheism can even be remotely compared to the kind of extremism that resulted in 9/11. Let's keep it real shall we?

As for the percentages given in your article, I noticed two issues. First of all, within statistics it is very easy (especially for groups with agendas) to apply statistical analyses of data that will result in numbers that tend to support a given organization's view. It is very possible that the agency collecting the data either knowingly or unknowingly collected it from a biased sample or used tests that maybe weren't the best types of tests for the data. Secondly, please notice that the 14% did NOT describe themselves as Atheists, but merely as non-religious. It would indeed be intellectually dishonest to claim that not being religious automatically qualifies one as an atheist. I have known plenty of people who believe in God but would not consider themselves to be religious.

"However, I do demand that Bizarro Dawkins supply the proof (a pdf of pamphlets, documentation, course materials, etc. or a link to their website) that ANY official, federally funded sex education program ANYWHERE gives out documentation that says, as he claims:

"…since they are merely animals with no control over their bodies, they may as well have sex safely.""

Cut it out with the boorish strawmen please. In the context it's obvious what I meant. I never said that that statement is part of the official curriculum. It is however the attitude behind the curriculum. My brother attended a secular school before coming to Liberty, and this school has major problems with STD's. He was given a package of condoms at freshman orientation (which he promptly threw away). We are told in our science classes that we are animals, not just in the biological context, but in every other context. And then in school, students get free condoms. In nearly every article I've read in support of free contraceptives for students, one of the main arguments is "kids are going to have sex anyways". So what do you think all that implies?

"You don't seem very capable of making a family tree to figure this out -- which is strange for someone studying biology... Maybe you're not getting the highest quality education at your current institution. Perhaps less focus on jesus and more on science would steer you towards a better understanding of your subjects...

Oops, sorry, got snarky again."

Hm, now see, this is where getting snarky can be a little dangerous, because then when it's proven that you've jumped to a host of assumptions to construct your strawman, it can be a little embarrassing;-) Nowhere did I say that the Phelps were incestuous. I only asked if people could "see the problem". Can't that mean a variety of things? Regardless of whether the situation involved straight-up incest or marriage between 2nd cousins, both are considered socially unacceptable and carry negative cultural stigmas. I think what I meant to say was obvious.

Hehe, not trying to be snarky, but I do appreciate a little more respect as I don't believe I have ever been as nasty to an atheist as you have been to me :-)

26. When Congress Interferes With Science, Who You Gonna Call? (Hint: It's not Ghostbusters)

Comment #86256 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 8, 2007 at 9:01 pm

"First, the attacks of September 11, 2001, which could have been used as a lesson in the danger of religious extremism, was instead used to claim that Christian extremism was the antidote."

Eh, not quite. Respectfully, it is apparent that very little thought went into making this statement. It makes no difference whether a person justifies his or her actions based on alleged theistic precepts or atheistic ones. The end result is exactly the same: evil. Hitler was compelled by his twisted understanding of natural selection. Charlemagne was driven by his warped view of theology. The end results were the same, except that one used gas and the other used a sword.

Also, I imagine the author would be hard pressed to provide examples to support her rather naked assertion. Sure it's clever, but I can't even begin to think of examples where Christians have reacted in kind to those who decided to use passenger planes as deadly weapons. It just hasn't happened. On the contrary, right after this tragedy occurred I personally witnessed my friends (I was in high school at the time) circle up and pray for the terrorists. There are numerous "Facebook" groups that encourage Christians to remember to pray for terrorists, as it is written the Bible to pray for our enemies. Sure, there are certainly some nut-jobs who claim to be Christians (the Phelps clan for instance) that may bomb the occasional abortion clinic, but I totally fail how anyone can construe this as a wide-spread Christian response to militant Islam.

"We work with numerous other organizations in supporting fact-based (rather than theology driven) curriculum in federally funded sex education programs."

And this despite the fact that abstinence is hands down the best way to avoid teen pregnancies and STD's (for obvious reasons). As a college student, I find sex education in America repugnant. Students are given condoms and told that, since they are merely animals with no control over their bodies, they may as well have sex safely. It is degrading to society as a whole.

As for the percentage of atheists in America, I have seen some figures putting it at about 8% and other as low as 3%, but nowhere did I find 10%. I was actually surprised it wasn't higher, although I imagine that being a college student I am probably exposed to a biased sample seeing as how many college students tend to identify with atheism (something that I hope to change—drastically—upon graduating;-).

On a lighter note, when I Wiki'd Fred Phelps a couple weeks ago for a paper I was writing, I found this hilarious statement:

"The church at Westboro which he leads has 71 confirmed members, 60 of whom are related to Phelps through blood or marriage or both."

Anyone see the problem?

27. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84836 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 3, 2007 at 9:46 pm

Roger Stanyard,

"I've checked through all of Bizarro's postings – far from addressing them many times over, he appears to have addressed none of them at all – not once."

I am interested by your choice of words here. Keep in mind folks that this individual is claiming that I have addressed absolutely none of the claims presented in the article in question. He is not merely claiming that I have addressed them poorly, nor that I have only addressed some of them, but rather that I have addressed NONE of them, period. Now if you would all take 5 minutes to click on the link at the corner of this comment ("other comments by Bizarro Dawkins), you will find all of my previous posts on a list. I have provided the listing number of just a few comments that I was able to find within 3 minutes that contain information pertinent to at least two points in the article provided by Windreaver.

8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 20

I'm not just trying to be snarky here, but I don't appreciate totally false and damaging accusations with regard to my integrity. What frightens me is the fact that this individual is obviously in a position of power and influence, and if he is willing to flat out lie about my record on addressing issues regarding evolution and science, I am curious to know what else he is willing to lie about.

And just to make sure all my bases are covered, I did say that I have dealt with ALL of the issues in the article, and that is the truth. However, I do debate outside of this forum so you will not find that I have addressed every point presented in the article on this forum.

"The AiG reference he makes is totally irrelevant as none of them address the statements in the article on Gould."

And again, this is totally false. Notice that once again, the professor does not say that the Aig reference only contains a few of the points in the article; he says that NONE are contained in the article. Please see the below excerpt.

""Darwin recanted on his deathbed."
Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin's wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if it were true, so what? If Ken Ham renounced the Bible, would that disprove it? See Did Darwin recant? and Did Darwin Renounce Evolution on His Deathbed?""

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

28. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84631 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 3, 2007 at 1:25 am

Veronique,

I feel like I should apologize for my recent absence on the forum. Ecology is just a nasty class what with the 15 page lab reports every week ;-)

As for the troll allegations, according to Wikipedia I am no such thing. Trolls post on forums for the specific purpose of creating strife and discord. I don't believe I've ever been nasty or disagreeable; however I have been rather to the point on some occasions.

Also, if an atheist is supposed to be all open-minded and in constant search of knowledge, wouldn't he or she welcome civil discussion and intelligent discourse?

29. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84620 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 2, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Windreaver,

That article is very outdated and filled with strawmen and oversimplifications. Aig actually wrote an article called "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use" and I'm sure you'll find many of the points Gould makes in that article.

All of those arguments are old arguments that I've dealt with many times before. Since 97, with the rise of Aig, I believe most if not all of those arguments are irrelevant, and as senior bio major, I'm more than familiar with them.

While I'm not going to address each point as it would obviously take too much time to answer each one sufficiently, I would like to point out something I found to be very disturbing:

"As it happens, scientists have deduced the nature of an evolutionary path that a primitive blood-clotting mechanism could have followed to evolve the more complex cascade."

Notice the word "could". This means that, in plainer words, Gould's assertion is a mere speculation. The process has never been observed nor is it implied by any existing evidence. Is this Gould's idea of science?

Besides this, I believe that the question of God's existence transcends science and is something more of a philosophical endeavor. Is the science important? Absolutely. However, what many forget is that science is an institution founded by people and composed of people. "Science" will therefore invariably be the projection of various individuals' personal beliefs, at the least on the level of origins science. In other words, philosophy determines scientific conclusions to a monumental degree.

30. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84603 by Bizarro Dawkins on November 2, 2007 at 6:56 pm

I totally disagree with this author. I firmly believe that athiests should maintain, if not escalate, their openly hyper-dogmatic hostility towards those religious boobs. It makes my job so much easier ;-)

31. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71496 by Bizarro Dawkins on September 18, 2007 at 11:40 pm

"My own stock reply (Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?)"

I imagine that you expect the absurdity of such a proposition to compel the common reader to agree unquestionably with your argument, but after the smoke clears it becomes apparent that your argument leaves much to be desired. You are essentially claiming that one can claim intellectual reasons for disbelieving a concept of which they know little or nothing about. I could have chosen to remain ignorant about evolution, but then I could only conjure up short-sighted, sophomoric arguments against it such as the above statement.

If you knew only that Leprechauns were little men in green suits with pots of gold, you could not expect to reasonably argue against their existence. It is entirely possible that at some time in Ireland's history, there was class of wealthy midgets who wore green suits and kept their riches in large cauldrons. This is therefore not enough information to mount a successful case against Leprechauns. You would have to conduct further study to find out that they are actually fairy-folk and have magical powers. Maybe then you could begin to question their existence as there is obviously a lack of evidence to support magical green men who can appear at will.

God is no different. If you desire to argue successfully against an idea, you have to know what it is that you are arguing against. It's a rather simple concept. Intellectual laziness is no excuse for not believing in God. One of your own arguments against God's existence is the typical "well who created God?" argument. If you knew but a small fraction of basic theology then you would understand that part of what defines "God" as "God" is his self-existent nature. He is not a contingent being. The question is therefore absurd as it is really asking "who created a being who by definition requires no creator?". This is but one example of your rather meager knowledge of one of the most basic defining characteristics of God. To dismiss a concept that you happen to be afraid of exploring on the mere basis of a sense of a priori incredulity is just unscientific.

32. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65101 by Bizarro Dawkins on August 22, 2007 at 10:44 pm

"Maybe if he'd used condoms with the pros or her, aids wouldn't spread."

That's quite irrelevant. I am simply arguing that abstinence is much more effective at curbing the spread of STD's than condoms are. Is that true or isn't it?

"Just because we're human and not animal doesn't mean sex is bad."

And I never implied such. On the contrary, sex is encouraged in the Bible within the right context. Ever read Song of Solomon? For anyone, Christian or not, to say that sex is bad is a perversion of nature and a slap in the face to God.

"Sex outside of marriage between two consenting adults who aren't in other relationships, like college students out for a bang, is very healthy and fun."

I'm not sure about you, but getting herpes just doesn't sound like that much fun to me. Neither does the emotional tension that tends to follow one-night stands. In fact, every survey ever conducted on this issue clearly indicates that those who are in a monogamous, marriage relationship are the most satisfied with their sex lives.

"One of my friends stayed celibate till his wedding night, but it was drove him nuts."

Um, I think you're only telling one half of the story. Did you ever think to check up on him AFTER his honeymoon?

"If thats the way you want to live, fair enough, but dont tell others they are wrong."

More straw-men. I never went so far as to say that it sex outside of marriage was wrong, only that abstinence is much safer than sex with a condom.

"Maybe his name is a clue?"

Why would that be? "Bizzaro" world (I believe it originated in the "Superman" comic books) is where everything is opposite from this world. Now does it make sense?

"YEAH, because abstinence has been SUCH a success in the US, hasn't it?"

Er, neither have condoms. My brother used to go to a state university where the STD rate was about 50% of the student body. Perhaps the word "abstinence" would be vastly more meaningful if kids were taught that we can in fact control our bodies, and that we consist of more than wads of chemicals and hormones.

"Concrete example, please."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/suppression.asp#r36

And Ben Jennings' avatar perhaps?

"You presumptuous little twat. What qualifies you to assert that scientists who do not believe in a higher power lack a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science?"

And what qualifies you to assert otherwise? It is a mere difference in belief. You believe that the term "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. I do not. So if you choose to assert your belief just I have chosen to assert mine, then at the risk of being called out on your obvious double-standard I would suggest refraining from calling those whom you disagree with names that you wouldn't call yourself…

"What a useless demeaning existence!"

Is it? I find being called a child of God quite fulfilling, intellectually and spiritually. I believe that the epitome of a useless and demeaning existence consists of the very concept that our lives are naught but 80 or so year-long chemical reactions, especially when there is solid evidence to the contrary.

"There is a really big difference between nowadays' ruling paradigms and those from the Middle Ages."

Of course there is. But how can you know that there won't be equally as many differences 500 or so years from now? How can you know that our ideas about how the world works, however fantastic we may fancy them to be, won't be laughed at a few centuries from now?

"Responding to a continent-wide pandemic that has visited unspeakable, and unbelievable, death and suffering on well over one hundred million innocent people with "Aw hell, I kin keep it in m'pants! ;)" does not deserve to be called "illogical.""

Now where did I ever demonstrate such a callous attitude towards the suffering of others? Demonizing someone is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and it's just another way to dodge their argument. I only suggested a much more effective method for helping to retard the spread of AIDS than putting flimsy rubber hats on male genitalia. I find it highly insulting that the "safe" sex movement just assumes that I can't control my own body. How degrading! Isn't it much more dignifying to recognize the unique human ability to resist animal urges?

"Bizarro strikes again, and we ALL fall for the bait.."

I'm just trying to give you all a little excitement in the otherwise tepid world of the Dawkins forum. And of course if I'm going to start a Christian apologetics organization after I graduate, I'd better have some experience under my belt ;-D.

I apologize if I didn't address every little detail of every comment, but being a senior biology major and trying to answer 234234234 comments while trying desperately to maintain some semblance of a social life is quite a task. This is probably my last comment on this article. God bless.

33. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64939 by Bizarro Dawkins on August 22, 2007 at 12:51 pm

"To speak of the compatibility of science and Islam in 2007 is rather like speaking of the compatibility of science and Christianity in the year 1633, just as Galileo was being forced, under threat of death, to recant his understanding of the Earth's motion."

I'm not quite sure that Sam is safe using this argument, especially considering the numerous cases involving those who doubt certain other so-called "scientific" paradigms being forced, not under threat of death but rather of academic homicide, to keep quite about their intellectual convictions. Galileo dared to challenge the beliefs accepted by the experts of his day, and he faced persecution. The exact same situation exists today except that rather than being burned at the stake, those who doubt evolution are simply ridiculed into silence or risk losing their careers at the hands of bullies such as Dawkins and friends.

"What does the "mode of thought" displayed by Collins have in common with science?"

It's called "reasoning". It is when a human assimilates experiences into meaningful conclusions and beliefs. Granted, science is indeed restricted to the confines of nature and the physical laws, but it is my conviction that a truly comprehensive and accurate understanding of science ultimately leads one to the conclusion that the physical world is a contingent entity, and could not exist without the force of will of a higher power.

"…when the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS."

Punching the straw-man again are we? Mr. Harris should know better. Philosophers are supposed to be masters of logic and reason, but here we have someone committing one of the oldest and overused fallacies in the book! Yes, the Catholic Church, of which I am not a part, does preach the sinfulness of condom use. However, that is only one part of the story. The church also preaches abstinence, which is obviously many times more effective than condoms at reducing one's chance of getting the AIDS virus.

Now I've heard it argued that people will have sex either way, so it's better that they do it with a condom. Baloney. I'm a 20 year old guy, and I've had more than a few opportunities to let my hormones do the thinking. Thankfully, humans are not animals. We can choose to repress our instincts. I'm still a virgin. Sure, it hasn't been easy, but I've chosen to wait until I am married. And trust me, if a 20 year old male can do it, anyone can do it ;-).

34. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64380 by Bizarro Dawkins on August 19, 2007 at 9:43 pm

"Who said anything about randomness? Evolution isn't random."

And who said anything about evolution?

Laying that aside, I've always had a hard time swallowing this ill-conceived argument. Natural selection involves two main factors: the organism, and the environment. The environment, in effect, molds the organism into the necessary functional elements required to survive. However, the question remains: how did the environment come to exist? Was its creation not a purely random event? The Sahara desert is only a desert because certain perfectly random atmospheric factors dictated that a dry, hot spot will exist in X spot on Earth. Therefore, if the environmental factor of natural selection is built on purely random processes, then I fail to see how anything non-random could come to exist from it.

Now you could argue that within the context of the environment, natural selection is not random. Of course, any ninny with half a brain can figure this out. However, I believe that this argument merely manipulates simplistic concepts to make evolution seem like a more intuitive concept that it really is. Evolution, being built on purely random sequence of events, is still a random process in the larger sense.

"And abiogenesis posits self-replicating chemicals that undergo natural selection of the evolutionary nature."

Not quite. Natural selection involves the manipulation of a species genome; abiogenesis seeks to explain how that genome came to exist in the first place.

"I think the problem with your argument is in your initial assumption."

What do you think Dr. Bedau meant then? In the context, I think his statement can only imply that creating artificial life will solve the mystery of how life came to exist on Earth.

"But it certainly shows that non-living material can give rise to life given the right conditions…."

That's tantamount to saying that metal can give rise to Ferraris given the right conditions because we can create Ferraris in car factories. Baloney.

"…and that it does not take the intervention of a god in order to accomplish this."

That's not the argument. Notice how intelligent design isn't called supernatural design. I only argue that life reflects an intelligent force of will. I believe this Will to be the God of the Bible, but for the purposes of this argument, the above statement is irrelevant. This experiment still demonstrates the necessity of intelligent involvement in the creation of life.

35. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64368 by Bizarro Dawkins on August 19, 2007 at 8:07 pm

"This will remove one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role."

I assume the implication here is that once we have DESIGNED artificial life, then we have solved the mystery as to how life could have arisen in the first place. I find it hard to believe that anyone with a PhD could make such a short-sighted and assumptive statement. As ridiculous as I feel pointing this out, DESIGNING an artificial cell does not lend a shred of credibility to the notion that life arose RANDOMLY. Notice please the stark dichotomy between the two words in caps.

Assuming that we are able to create an artificial cell within the next 10 years or so, what scientific evidence is there to suggest that the first life was the result of the process used to create artificial life? How can we know? To use this experiment in support of abiogenesis is just bad science. Of course, abiogenesis is bad science anyway, so I imagine that atheists are in a pickle regardless.

36. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59363 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 28, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Eh, my job's already been done for me. I just don't see the point.

37. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #56037 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 13, 2007 at 12:18 pm

"I never once suggested that your life or the life of any other supernaturalist is one of futility and ignorance."

Yet you ridicule people of faith for holding what you deem to be irrational beliefs. The implication is obvious, undeniable, and totally rational. If you tell me that the God I have given my life to serve does not exist (in no uncertain terms), then what is the only reasonable conclusion? That I am leading a "life of futility" perhaps? I think the quote I included in my first comment says it all.

The fact that you were merely "highlighting the irony" of a previous comment is quite irrelevant. You obviously agree with the statement, and the context of your comment makes no difference given the autonomous nature of the content. If you complain that Christians tell people what to think about the utility and futility of their lives, then you obviously find this behavior disagreeable. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that atheists such as yourself and Dawkins are equally culpable of such behavior as it is a natural consequence of disagreement between different philosophies. If I believe that Christianity is the only valid belief system, then the obvious implication is that one must live a life in accordance with God's principles in order to lead a life of purpose. If I believe that there is no God, then one of the most obvious implications surrounding such a belief is that anyone serving a non-existent deity is leading a life of futility.

"By joining Liberty you have abandoned all hope of doing those things. Its motto is "Challenge your mind... Build your faith". These concepts are mutually exclusive."

First, your conclusion is only based on the assumption that God does not exist. Second, I don't believe that you have the sufficient experience with which to make such a judgment call. Have you ever attended Liberty University? I'm sure you have some stereotypical idea in mind of the students being flogged after failing to recite the book of Matthew from memory in their Bible class, but maybe you should come and visit the campus and find out for yourself. Let me know if or when you decide to do so, and maybe I could give you a tour around the campus after classes. I'm really not joking either. I don't post on this forum for fun, or to just throw rocks at a hornet's nest. I mean what I say, and I believe that the Christian faith is more than a blind adherence to out-dated traditions. So if you really want to be able to fairly evaluate my school, you just have to come and visit the campus.

I'll also extend this invitation to anyone else who wants to take me up on my offer.

"In common with many atheists I view religious belief as absurd and deserving of ridicule not respect."

And that's why the atheist movement has such a stellar PR record, right?

"If you respond by saying that you are a christian not a moslem, I say to you that they are as fervent in their belief as you are in yours. Both cannot be true!"

This is a very strange statement, and it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. While I may be as fervent in my faith as they were, my faith doesn't tell me to kill infidels in order to get my 70 virgins. Also, where have I ever indicated that I believe all religions to be true?

38. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55924 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 12, 2007 at 11:14 pm

"If I'm dying of cancer, don't tell me you'll pray for me -- how about donating to a cancer research organization? Or volunteering at a cancer ward? Or donating blood (or being an organ donor)?"

How insulting. I happen to be an organ donor. I also give blood every time the American Red Cross association comes to Liberty, which happens so often that sometimes I cannot donate because I am still within the 60 day mandatory waiting period between donations. I also donate to the American Red Cross association. But I will also pray, because I believe that when we have done all we possibly can, it is then up to God to do what we cannot.

I am not saying this to brag about my good deeds, but rather to inform you that Christians aren't all talk. The Bible explicitly commands Christians to use their resources without regard to ourselves in order to help others and demonstrate the love of Christ.

Your claim is assumptive and poorly informed. I would advise that you do some research in the area of different philosophical demographics and how much they donate annually to various charities. You might not like what you find, but at least perhaps you'll stop making presumptuous accusations.

39. Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

Comment #55921 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 12, 2007 at 10:15 pm

"Hmmm, let's see. What sort of person tries to "tell you what you should think about the utility or futility of your own life?" It's on the tip of my tongue....What was it?.....I know! I know! It's religious people, isn't it?! Am I right? Do I get a prize?"

How hypocritical. I must ask, do you believe my life to be one of futility and ignorance? I'll save you the trouble of condemning yourself with your own argument by just asking you to not bother answering the question.

"Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests"."

-RD

40. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55014 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 9, 2007 at 5:31 pm

100%

41. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #55009 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 9, 2007 at 5:15 pm

I believe that the gist of what Paul is arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) is simply that although the atheist may be able to produce an arbitrary set of rules or even a pseudo-objective moral code, there would still be no logical foundation for either. In other words, certain chemicals may cause a majority of people to look contemptibly on the act of murder, but there is no transcendent or objective standard by which to judge one set of chemicals as acting morally wrong.

42. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54750 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 8, 2007 at 8:38 pm

"So, if I understand this right, external stimuli causing mutations lead to a loss of genetic information?"

Not to be insulting, but you do not understand this right. Heritable mutations have a variety of different causes, the majority of which are internal. Some can be chemical or radiation induced, but most are the results of copying errors that may occur during the course of DNA replication. You could say that external stimuli are responsible for selecting for certain mutations (i.e., natural selection), but they are usually not the actual cause.

The vast majority of mutations actually have no significant effect on the organism (silent and neutral mutations), but on the rare occasion that a mutation is phenotypically noticeable, it is almost always harmful and often fatal. Very rarely they can confer a selective advantage as seen in the wingless Galapagos beetle, but the beneficial mutations we observe cannot be used to support common descent. If there were mutations known to have the ability to create genetic information resulting in a novel feature or structure then you would possibly have your magic bullet, but until then you just can't use destructive mutations that may happen to increase the survival rate of a species population in a certain environment to support common descent.

"Wouldn't a creator have taken this into context and maybe had some failsafe to guard against it? Or is this creator fallible?"

Creationists will argue that mutations are the result of the fall, and I am inclined to agree. It is my personal belief that our sin corrupted nature. However, regardless of this explanation your argument is still very assumptive and shallow. If God created mutations as just another aspect of biological life, then that would be His prerogative. We have no objective creation model with which to critique His design. It is tantamount to questioning God's decision to make grass green instead of blue. So regardless of whether or not you want to accept the Bible's explanation, your argument still fails against any Creator, whether it be God or Zeus.

"That implies purpose."

Only if you contort my argument into some silly strawman. In the context, I was obviously implying that the human body functions just as it is supposed to function if it was created by a Creator. The human body design is consistent with the theistic worldview regardless of what we may perceive as flaws. Hamsters only live for 4-6 years, but I'm not going to blame God for killing Mr. Giggles at the tender age of 5 and call it bad design. That's how hamsters work, and if the Creator intends their bodies to function as they do, then who are we to question why they function as they do?

"In fact the pax6 gene (which controls development of the eye) is interchangeable between mice and flies."

This is irrelevant. It can also support common design. GM used the LT1 engine for Camaros and Corvettes, but no one is going to argue that the Corvette evolved from the Camaro.

"Maybe you need to understand what evolution actually is: change over time - drop the straw man of information."

I utterly fail to see how mutations that result in an increase in genetic information are not necessary to prove common descent. I am only making a necessary distinction. Calling it all "evolution" and utilizing it in an attempt to prove common descent is just clouding the water.

"Tell me, why do chickens sometimes produce teeth or dolphins an extra set of flippers, of fruit flies an extra pair of wings?"

Nothing more than useless duplications of features that were already pre-existent in the organism. Copying two pages of Harry Potter doesn't add any new information to the book does it? Now I am not exactly well-read on the first two examples, but I am aware that the extra set of wings on the fruit flies are totally non-functional.

As for the rest of your comment, I would only be repeating myself if I attempted to answer it. You are commenting on the evolution that we observe, and I have no arguments there. What I find logically challenging is trying to support common descent with mutations that are either neutral or destructive. The Galapagos wingless beetle is a great example of evolution in action, but it cannot explain how the wings arose in the first place considering that the observed evolution is the exact opposite of what must occur in order for common descent to be a valid theory.

43. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54583 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 8, 2007 at 12:33 am

I apologize that it's taken this long to respond to some of your comments, but it has been a very busy week for me.

"Your chums at Liberty - do they know about your posting on this website? Or is it something that you keep very, very quiet?"

Why would that be something to hide? Dr. Dewitt (he writes numerous articles for AIG and one of my biology profs) has encouraged my involvement on this site, and he thinks it's great that I've taken the prerogative to engage those of different, er, philosophies in civil discussion.

"My eye is not as good as that of an eahle or "constructed" as well as that of a squid."

I don't quite understand what you're attempting to prove with this argument. The human body works just like the human body is supposed to work. What objective model to you have with which to critique the human design? That is not to say that we have not undergone substantial "devolution". I never argued that evolution doesn't occur; I only argued that the evolution we observe cannot be used to support common descent.

"The scickle cell mutant causes disease, yet is an evolutionary advantage"

This is akin to the wingless Galapagos beetle argument that has been dismantled by creationists time and time again. The physiological features that were eliminated by the mutations in both cases may have served to ensure higher survival rates in their respective environments, but these selective advantages were only achieved through a loss of genetic information.

"So, greyhounds are not faster than wolves then? Hmmm - try again. I'm sure some dog lovers could point out other "non degenerative" qualities of other breeds"

Just ask yourself this question: if you had to bet your life savings on how long a greyhound could survive in the wilderness compared to how long a wolf could survive in the wilderness, which would you choose? The greyhound may have one specific feature that is superior to a wolf, but it is lacking in other important areas such as jaw strength and intelligence, and it is still susceptible to many health problems that wolves are not.

"Our brains function in such a way as to give us at least the illusion of free choice. That in and of itself removes the entire basis of your argument."

So are you arguing that we should operate on the basis of what we know to be an illusion? Tell me, are illusions RATIONAL to believe? I am very interested in how you will choose to answer this.

"it would be very interesting to put a mix of pedigrees together in a controlled natural setting and see what becomes of them after say 20 generations. bizarro, so do organisms continulaly get less fit over the generations???"

I believe I covered most of your comment in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, but I will respond to this point by saying that in 20 generations you may have an organism that is healthier in general than any one of the 20 pure bred animals. In fact, we see this happen regularly, and the result is the mutt. I happen to own a pure bred border collie, but I also own a border collie mix. In my experience, the mix has had significantly fewer health problems, and is psychologically healthier than the pure bred. Of course, the result of the 20 pure bred animals combined would still inherit many of the negative traits from each breed, so it would still not be as healthy as, say, a wolf.

"Claiming sanctuary in the flow of naturalistic determinism won't spare you if others agree that something you or anything else is doing is wrong, or negative, or simply "not good"."
No, actually I am claiming sanctuary in the flow of the atheism's only logical moral implication. Also, I get the impression that you are arguing for the social consensus theory of morality, i.e., if society says it's bad then I shouldn't do it. Of course, needless to say this theory has so many disturbing implications I won't bother wasting the space to explain it.

"Although your actions are causally determined by your environment (and especially your environment during your initial development), your brain is such a complicated processing instrument that it would be next to impossible to isolate or rank the most direct external causes to your actions, be they people, artifacts of people, or other stimuli."

Robert, you're dodging the issue. This is totally irrelevant. Regardless of the fact that we will almost certainly never be able to determine precisely what external and internal stimuli prompt certain behavior or actions, the actuality remains that there is no logical reason for accepting any concept of free will.

"More importantly, the extremely advanced experiential agency enjoyed by human brains has led some of them to grant themselves and each other entitlements, usually called rights, to safeguard against rogue human brains,…"

Rogue brains, you mean, such as those possessed by the Nazis? Or the ones possessed by America while slavery was an accepted social institution? Your rather denigrating idea of morality, if you can call it morality, reduces to little more than a proposition that we call social practices accepted by the majority of chemical masses right and the social practices accepted by the minority of chemical masses wrong. Eh?

"Since when have humans been removed from nature and hence natural selection? What an arrogant view of our place in the universe!"

Come now, let's not engage in petty semantics. Technically, yes, we are certainly as much a part of the natural world as any other organism or rock or piece of clay, but human interference with other organisms in the context of breeding is termed artificial selection by the vast majority of scientists. Indeed, it is quite different from the sort of selection offered by the rest of nature. Now, I would like to point that you seem to contradict yourself here:

"We happen to be very successful in our particular niche and therefore have immense influence over our environment."

If you are admitting that we happen to be very successful in our particular niche (rather shamelessly understated—we have the capacity to destroy the entire world if we want to, as well as to restore it to a healthy environment), then, logically, we can be "arrogant", if you are defining arrogance as acknowledging control and superiority over our responsibilities. We do rule, literally. I just don't see the problem of recognizing man's dominance over nature. It can become an issue when we abuse our power, but realizing and accepting our place in the natural order can also remind us of our immense responsibility to take care of the Earth.

44. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54004 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 4, 2007 at 10:01 pm

"You really ought to read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" if you are worried about non-theistic ethics. Harris demonstrates that we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence in order to be ethical, or to understand ethics."

Actually, in a Godless world ethics have no meaning or relevance in that morality implies choice. If I murder a toddler, you would all deem it "bad" and say that I ought not kill innocent children. However, "ought" implies "can", and "can" implies free will, i.e., the ability to choose. However, if we are naught but chemical masses, then I fail to see how any such choice isn't anything less than a logical absurdity. My "choices" are merely complex chemical reactions that were inevitable since the beginning of the Universe. In light of the scientific challenge to free will, the concept of "choice" becomes silly, and with it, the idea of morality and ethics.

45. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #54003 by Bizarro Dawkins on July 4, 2007 at 9:45 pm

"Even if we accept that all dog breeds are still the same species, the less trivial point is that the huge differences among them have been achieved in a few centuries or, at most, millennia."

Dr. Dawkins, I believe you are setting up something of a strawman. What is disputed by creationists is not that these differences have occurred in a relatively short time-frame, but rather the nature of these differences. Morphological diversity within a species population, whether significant or minor, does not necessarily imply the sort of "productive" evolution required for large scale common descent. Chihuahuas are certainly not as healthy as wolves, nor are they better suited for survival in harsh environments. St. Bernards may be larger than wolves, but they are extremely susceptible to hip dysplasia as well as a host of other health issues. I believe you are oversimplifying the issue by crudely equivocating mere difference with positive change.

If anything, the different dog breeds are excellent examples of the often destructive power of mutations. Granted, domestic dogs may not be subject to natural selection given the obvious factor of human interference, but the above conclusion still seems reasonable considering that thus far we have not seen any novel features produced through mutations, nor has dog breeding ever resulted in a product that is more fit than its predecessor. Just think, how long do you believe a poodle could survive in the Appalachians? If I "extrapolate" from this, then I would hate to imagine what some of the poor creatures will look like in the coming centuries.

46. Richard Dawkins talks about Darwin and his visit to the Galapagos

Comment #52990 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 28, 2007 at 11:58 pm

I am surprised that the wildlife on the Galapagos (the finches in particular) is still so revered by evolutionists as evidence for common descent. I really have a hard time understanding how such demonstrably limited adaptation can be extrapolated to imply large scale evolutionary development. Sure, we can muddy the waters and call it all "evolution", but any intellectually honest and scientifically inclined individual understands that the "evolutionary" processes we observe today and what scientists extraneously fabricate from those observations are two very different animals.

We can also bring time into it; massive amounts of time, millions and billions of years. I still don't see how this can solve the problem. We don't observe evolutionary processes adding novel genetic code to species populations. There is little if any evidence to imply that it has ever occurred, save for a handful of disputed fossils that most evolutionary paleantologists are constantly arguing over. And as I've said before, it is only rational to believe what is most reasonable based on our experiences. Keep in mind that reason simply assimilates experiences to form logical conclusions and make sense of them. It is therefore not rational to believe in an elusive process that has never been observed, nor can be clearly inferred from the evidence.

Of course, I'm sure it was a spectacular trip. Being an avid birdwatcher (that's how I became interested in biology; I know, I'm a major geek), the Galapagos islands is on my list of places to visit before I die.

47. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51204 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 22, 2007 at 12:25 am

"If you bothered to look, you'd see that there are plausible explanations, such as quantum vacuum fluctuations that explain the beginning."

Nonsense. The vast majority of respectable physicists have rejected this as a possible explanation as to the origin of the Universe. There are far too many problems, such as the time-frame of quantum events being too short, and of course the problem that quantum events can only occur on the subatomic level. As the system becomes larger, the relative uncertainty inherent within the system approaches 0. There is also the problem of the origin of time. If the creation of time is coincident with the creation of matter, then it would be impossible for a quantum event, which exists within time, to be responsible for creating time itself. These are only a few of many problems with the quantum event explanation.

"Your first cause argument, still leads to the question, who caused the first cause?"

This question, for all practical purposes, is totally irrational. To ask who created God is to ask who created an entity that by definition must possess aseity, or the property of non-contingency. The question makes no sense.

"If you say god doesn't need a cause, then you have to admit that the universe doesn't need a cause"

I'm not quite sure how you came to this conclusion, but it certainly does not follow from the premise. The Universe and God have very different properties. Based on our experience regarding causal relationships, it follows that the Universe itself must have been caused. Causes in the natural realm do not cause themselves. If the Universe caused itself, then it must have existed for eternity. This however is logically absurd, for if the Universe has existed for eternity, then it must have traversed eternity to exist at this point in time. However, eternity unfortunately cannot be traversed because eternity by definition never ends.

You also run into problems regarding the 2nd law. If the Universe has somehow defied logic and existed for eternity past, then it seems that, based on the 2nd law's implications, stars would no longer exist, nor would any organized energy and matter. The Universe would have reached the state of heat death an eternity ago, but this is obviously not the case as I am writing you right now as an organized mass of matter and energy.

God of course doesn't necessitate a cause. Sure, He cheats. But then, that's what God does isn't it?

48. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51191 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 21, 2007 at 10:36 pm

Very well written, and quite clever. I believe the author makes a valid comparison, although there is some element of exaggeration. However, considering some comments made by prominent atheists, the author was unfortunately not too far off. While I enjoyed the article, there was one statement that I disagreed with.

"For example, does not Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith) display disturbing signs of the inquisitorial temperament that would deny freedom of conscience and expression to those whose positions cannot be scientifically tested and validated?"

The author is implying here that atheist dogma is supported by good science whereas other religious doctrines are not. I disagree (naturally). Atheism is little more than a shallow interpretation of the natural world: an exclusive belief in sensory experiences. It is my conclusion however that our experiences ultimately lead to the conclusion that there is a world beyond what our sensory faculties can detect. Our basic understanding of the Universe is laid on the foundation of causal relationships. In fact, that is precisely what science is intended to examine. It therefore seems contradictory that science, which is the study of causal relationships, could imply that the Universe itself, existing within the natural laws and principles, is itself un-caused. Atheism's claims are tantamount to observing a baseball flying through a window and claiming that, because you can't see the individual outside who threw the ball, it must have hurled itself through the window. I therefore cannot bring myself to accept the common myth that atheism is the only religion supported by science.

49. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48113 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 6, 2007 at 4:16 pm

"Biz

You Liar

I was looking forward to not seeing any thing from you for a couple of days and there you are"

Eh?

C'mon, without me this would be the most boring forum on the internet. At least I'm not a jerk, right (well, most of the time)?

50. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #48112 by Bizarro Dawkins on June 6, 2007 at 4:13 pm

"P.S. Yes I have heard of smeg and without wishing to be crude in reply… have you ever heard of soap?"

I don't know man, come 4, 5 o'clock in the afternoon...well, never mind.