“The notion of modern evolution theory depicting humans as cynical bastards is being spread not by us evil scientists, but instead by vacuous think-tanks with no idea of comparing evidence, purely for petty point-scoring. Well played, folks.”

It’s aimed at people who’ve never read Dawkins or other such writers to discourage them from doing so.

They may not like what evolutionary psychology has to say about morality, but it is a scientific inquiry nonetheless. I can’t imagine it a good strategy to reach out to evangelicals with the claim that we can pick and choose what we like from scientific findings. They already believe that; it would be fuel on the fire.

The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution just shows/proves that the biblical first humans never existed! End of story!

Darwin’s insight was devastating to the religions based on the bible!

Supernatural beings may not be able to be scientifically tested but real humans can and so far the one’s described in the bible on which the whole thing is based have failed to materialize in The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution.

Big problem.

To be fair the Creationists know this and are doing their best to prove Darwin wrong. The RC church is more devious and going in for ’souls’ which can’t be tested! Unfortunately you need the first human’s who committed the sin first so you can have their ‘ souls’ and thte first humans can be scientifically tested. Good try though and will brun for a few more years!

Even if these biblical humans show up sometime in the future they are not the grandparents of us as the Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution shows all so no need to worry! Not us!

The bible as the infallible truth is over! Any educated person can see this! Two generations of good secular education will suffice if we have not all succumbed to a fundamentalist bomb.

Many persons think that it must be either religion or science: the two cannot co-exist. But that otherwise great bastion of conservativism, the Roman Catholic Church, has never had a problem with Darwin.Neither does the Anglican Communion, or the Lutheran churches, or any other number of Christian communities. That evolution is anti-christian is largely a construction of small but powerful churches of a fundamentalist bent. These insist on the literal translation of the Pentateuch. But as far back as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas Christian scholars argued that Genesis was a text written by Semitic goatherders attempting to express the mystery of creation in words and symbols readily comprehended by uneducated persons. We really need to stop pretending that there must be a conflict between Science and Religious Faith.

Please slow down, you’re insinuating that Darwinism is a valid piece of scientific work which it isn’t. It is a social creed embraced by modern atheists and the argument is not about religious people and Darwinists but about people within the scientific community who are either signed up to the social creed of Darwinism and those who are not.

Religious people are not involved in this argument as their beliefs are not based on science but rather on mystical relevation, faith, spirituality, prayer, personal experience etc. The debate should be among scientic researchers as this is a science issue not a religious issue. The Darwinists (who belong to a social cult antagonistic to religious people and very much in touch with the modern trends of nihilism, athetism and hedonism) are setting ttheir own agenda which constructs a false premise, namely, that this is an argument between science and religion. It most certainly isn’t. Read the recent science research and decide yourself. Darwinist theory can only be dispproved and discredited by science itself and that is happening every day of the week.

Dear Euphobia1,

The Bible’s infallible truth is over? Does that mean God as a supreme authority is too? So, are the three great religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam made up of masses of the uneducated? Are there no university professors, surgeons, lawyers, politicians, scientists, mathematicians, journalists nor Rhode Scholars in any of the three aforementioned groups.
With numbers like these, it’s hard to imagine that education, specifically science, and religion cannot find common ground– even reconcile a common source.
Christian 2,199,817,400
Muslims 1,387,454,500
Jews 14,956,00

I must admit that until two months ago my only understanding of Dawkins was from snatches of the God Delusion. While I still believe the God Delusion is flawed on a number of points, my admiration and respect for Dawkins soared when I read The Ancestor’s Tale. I saw a great mind, a gentle soul and a noble spirit in that book. Hardly soulless! In that book he uses evolution to decry racism and other forms of discrimination and intolerance! He made me think. Evolution means the opposite of selfishness and competition. The selfish individual will eventually die, and if a species is composed of such selfish individuals, so will the species!

“The notion of modern evolution theory depicting humans as cynical bastards is being spread not by us evil scientists, but instead by vacuous think-tanks with no idea of comparing evidence, purely for petty point-scoring. Well played, folks.”

It’s aimed at people who’ve never read Dawkins or other such writers to discourage them from doing so.

They may not like what evolutionary psychology has to say about morality, but it is a scientific inquiry nonetheless. I can’t imagine it a good strategy to reach out to evangelicals with the claim that we can pick and choose what we like from scientific findings. They already believe that; it would be fuel on the fire.

The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution just shows/proves that the biblical first humans never existed! End of story!

Darwin’s insight was devastating to the religions based on the bible!

Supernatural beings may not be able to be scientifically tested but real humans can and so far the one’s described in the bible on which the whole thing is based have failed to materialize in The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution.

Big problem.

To be fair the Creationists know this and are doing their best to prove Darwin wrong. The RC church is more devious and going in for ’souls’ which can’t be tested! Unfortunately you need the first human’s who committed the sin first so you can have their ‘ souls’ and thte first humans can be scientifically tested. Good try though and will brun for a few more years!

Even if these biblical humans show up sometime in the future they are not the grandparents of us as the Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution shows all so no need to worry! Not us!

The bible as the infallible truth is over! Any educated person can see this! Two generations of good secular education will suffice if we have not all succumbed to a fundamentalist bomb.

Many persons think that it must be either religion or science: the two cannot co-exist. But that otherwise great bastion of conservativism, the Roman Catholic Church, has never had a problem with Darwin.Neither does the Anglican Communion, or the Lutheran churches, or any other number of Christian communities. That evolution is anti-christian is largely a construction of small but powerful churches of a fundamentalist bent. These insist on the literal translation of the Pentateuch. But as far back as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas Christian scholars argued that Genesis was a text written by Semitic goatherders attempting to express the mystery of creation in words and symbols readily comprehended by uneducated persons. We really need to stop pretending that there must be a conflict between Science and Religious Faith.

Please slow down, you’re insinuating that Darwinism is a valid piece of scientific work which it isn’t. It is a social creed embraced by modern atheists and the argument is not about religious people and Darwinists but about people within the scientific community who are either signed up to the social creed of Darwinism and those who are not.

Religious people are not involved in this argument as their beliefs are not based on science but rather on mystical relevation, faith, spirituality, prayer, personal experience etc. The debate should be among scientic researchers as this is a science issue not a religious issue. The Darwinists (who belong to a social cult antagonistic to religious people and very much in touch with the modern trends of nihilism, athetism and hedonism) are setting ttheir own agenda which constructs a false premise, namely, that this is an argument between science and religion. It most certainly isn’t. Read the recent science research and decide yourself. Darwinist theory can only be dispproved and discredited by science itself and that is happening every day of the week.

Dear Euphobia1,

The Bible’s infallible truth is over? Does that mean God as a supreme authority is too? So, are the three great religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam made up of masses of the uneducated? Are there no university professors, surgeons, lawyers, politicians, scientists, mathematicians, journalists nor Rhode Scholars in any of the three aforementioned groups.
With numbers like these, it’s hard to imagine that education, specifically science, and religion cannot find common ground– even reconcile a common source.
Christian 2,199,817,400
Muslims 1,387,454,500
Jews 14,956,00

I must admit that until two months ago my only understanding of Dawkins was from snatches of the God Delusion. While I still believe the God Delusion is flawed on a number of points, my admiration and respect for Dawkins soared when I read The Ancestor’s Tale. I saw a great mind, a gentle soul and a noble spirit in that book. Hardly soulless! In that book he uses evolution to decry racism and other forms of discrimination and intolerance! He made me think. Evolution means the opposite of selfishness and competition. The selfish individual will eventually die, and if a species is composed of such selfish individuals, so will the species!

This is an absolute disgrace, and only goes to reinforce the blinkered, ignorant and uncompromising image of the fundies. Sir Attenborough has always carried himself with a quiet dignity that a large portion of religious adherents could learn from.

Not surprising. It’s the same with 9/11 “truthers”, holocaust deniers, or any other deranged cult existing free of reason and evidence. Since they don’t have reason or evidence on their side, all they can do is make vicious, petty attacks.

There is another theory to Darwinism & Creationism.
The Rise & Fall of Atlantis by J.S, Gordon is an excellent read.
Our pre history has been made from theories and assumptions generated in the past 200 years. Further scientific and arcealogical examination needs to be done before we can truly say where we came from.
http://freeyourmind-hiddentruths.blogspot.com

All Sir David is doing is helping people – with his contagious, genuine enthusiasm – appreciate the beauty of this wonderful planet and life forms inhabiting it (with the exception of often ugly homo sapiens)
These people are disgusting. And hypocritical. Are the calling for ‘Made by God’ credits for ugly things? No, nature is on her own there! Picture the Creationist Auction. Volcanic eruptions that wipe out entire civilisations anyone? No takers on those eyeball-burrowing worms in living human hosts? Surely the adorable features of Naked Mole-Rat? Nope, just the Beautiful Things Lot please.

Well, these (hopefully) few fundamentalist have been a bit remiss in their Bible reading:

‘Judge not, lest you be judged. For with what judgement you judge, you shall also be judged’.
‘Love thine enemies’
‘For insofar as you did not do it (loving your neighbour) to the least of your brethren, you did not do it unto me’.
‘Prostitutes and tax-collectors shall enter the kingdom of heaven before you’.
‘Father, forgive them’

I should hope most Christians are more gracious.

Sending anyone hate-mail couldn’t be right but unfortunately the whole debate with respect to Darwinist theory is so prejudiced and unscientific that frustration is inevitable. Firstly, Darwinism is a theory, not a scientific fact, insofar that it is not proven, it is speculative and based on very poor science. If someone was to tell you that,’first there was nothing and then nothing exploded, causing the molecular origin for our life systems’ what would you think? Well that basically is the outline of The Big Bang Theory. Honestly it makes the literal story of Adam and Eve sound like an established fact of euclid.

Likewise with Darwinism, it defies all the established research in science from the second law of thermodynamics to the more cutting edge of recent research in geology and pure mathematics. Yet we have fanatics forcing their opinions down out throats and never do we hear the other side of the argument; by that I don’t mean people not schooled in science who are expressing religious views but actual sciencists who are not deluded by bad science. No wonder ordinary people are frustrated …

Most esteemed scienists who are not signed up to the social creed of Darwinism (it is a belief system remember, based on highly contested aspects of science, and not an established scientific formula) concur that with respect to the nature of the origin of time and matter all is speculation. Yet these voices are silenced and all we hear are Darwinist theorists as the voices of reason and science whereas in truth they are the voices of a minority with a prejudiced and unproven perspective.

Maybe if some truth and a balanced debatewere offered people wouldn’t get so frustrated and wouldn’t feel the only way they could express themselves is by emotional letters.

onwards to truth and enlightenment

SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH, HAS GIVEN US GREAT ” TV” , BRINGING ALL THE ” WONDER’S” OF THE WORLD STRAIGHT TO OUR HOME’S WHAT A FANTASTIC WAY TO SEE THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. THANK YOU AND WELL DONE TO ” SIR DAVID.

This is an absolute disgrace, and only goes to reinforce the blinkered, ignorant and uncompromising image of the fundies. Sir Attenborough has always carried himself with a quiet dignity that a large portion of religious adherents could learn from.

Not surprising. It’s the same with 9/11 “truthers”, holocaust deniers, or any other deranged cult existing free of reason and evidence. Since they don’t have reason or evidence on their side, all they can do is make vicious, petty attacks.

There is another theory to Darwinism & Creationism.
The Rise & Fall of Atlantis by J.S, Gordon is an excellent read.
Our pre history has been made from theories and assumptions generated in the past 200 years. Further scientific and arcealogical examination needs to be done before we can truly say where we came from.
http://freeyourmind-hiddentruths.blogspot.com

All Sir David is doing is helping people – with his contagious, genuine enthusiasm – appreciate the beauty of this wonderful planet and life forms inhabiting it (with the exception of often ugly homo sapiens)
These people are disgusting. And hypocritical. Are the calling for ‘Made by God’ credits for ugly things? No, nature is on her own there! Picture the Creationist Auction. Volcanic eruptions that wipe out entire civilisations anyone? No takers on those eyeball-burrowing worms in living human hosts? Surely the adorable features of Naked Mole-Rat? Nope, just the Beautiful Things Lot please.

Well, these (hopefully) few fundamentalist have been a bit remiss in their Bible reading:

‘Judge not, lest you be judged. For with what judgement you judge, you shall also be judged’.
‘Love thine enemies’
‘For insofar as you did not do it (loving your neighbour) to the least of your brethren, you did not do it unto me’.
‘Prostitutes and tax-collectors shall enter the kingdom of heaven before you’.
‘Father, forgive them’

I should hope most Christians are more gracious.

Sending anyone hate-mail couldn’t be right but unfortunately the whole debate with respect to Darwinist theory is so prejudiced and unscientific that frustration is inevitable. Firstly, Darwinism is a theory, not a scientific fact, insofar that it is not proven, it is speculative and based on very poor science. If someone was to tell you that,’first there was nothing and then nothing exploded, causing the molecular origin for our life systems’ what would you think? Well that basically is the outline of The Big Bang Theory. Honestly it makes the literal story of Adam and Eve sound like an established fact of euclid.

Likewise with Darwinism, it defies all the established research in science from the second law of thermodynamics to the more cutting edge of recent research in geology and pure mathematics. Yet we have fanatics forcing their opinions down out throats and never do we hear the other side of the argument; by that I don’t mean people not schooled in science who are expressing religious views but actual sciencists who are not deluded by bad science. No wonder ordinary people are frustrated …

Most esteemed scienists who are not signed up to the social creed of Darwinism (it is a belief system remember, based on highly contested aspects of science, and not an established scientific formula) concur that with respect to the nature of the origin of time and matter all is speculation. Yet these voices are silenced and all we hear are Darwinist theorists as the voices of reason and science whereas in truth they are the voices of a minority with a prejudiced and unproven perspective.

Maybe if some truth and a balanced debatewere offered people wouldn’t get so frustrated and wouldn’t feel the only way they could express themselves is by emotional letters.

onwards to truth and enlightenment

SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH, HAS GIVEN US GREAT ” TV” , BRINGING ALL THE ” WONDER’S” OF THE WORLD STRAIGHT TO OUR HOME’S WHAT A FANTASTIC WAY TO SEE THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. THANK YOU AND WELL DONE TO ” SIR DAVID.

I don’t get why anyone would think it was bad that “73% of science specialists agreed that creationism should be ‘discussed’ in schools”?

When I was in high school, we ‘discussed’ the theory that the earth was flat. We ‘discussed’ the view that everything is composed of four elements. We ‘discussed’ the view that lead could be turned into gold.

I know this is the point that was made in the article (there is a difference between discussing and advocating); but I guess I’m just expressing my own bafflement that people would take it any other way.

Indeed. But when reading comments about this story most of them were simply “Why are people even in favour of discussing this? Gah!” and something similar.

So the alternative to “creationism” is what? A “random quantum fluctuation of nothing”? How does science distinguish “nothing” from “something”? Or are you claiming that at some sub-atomic level matter is eternal? That still fails to answer the question “Whence (does it come)?”.

“Creation” is simply the traditional term used to describe the relationship between that which self-exists and that whose existence is contingent. What Richard Dawkins seems incapable of comprehending is that the existence of a self-existent being is inferred. It is not asserted as axiomatic.

Kevin, I’m sure you can find all sorts of definitions of “Creation” that maybe me, Richard Dawkins, or American Musician Sean Combs aka P. Diddy would not understand. What point are you trying to make?

The definition of Creationism in this article, as its relationship to a popular and well known ‘opposing theory’ to Evolution is that all living creatures, fully formed, fully adapted to their habitat, unchanging, and without any biological ability to change in the future, poofed into existence, that there was no biological process that involved mutation and natural selection.

Science doesn’t care about the big philosophical question you’re posing because it doesn’t work by first determining the solution to existence and life and working backwards. It assumes only that something that is observable is meaningful, and that something that isn’t, can’t, and won’t be observed, directly or indirectly, having any measurable consequence other than hand waving and games of semantic non sense are not meaningful. From there, Evolution becomes evident by simply examining what we observe.

Kevin: The problem with your argument is that you are conflating two components of Creationism that are separable.

component 1: the aspect of Creationism that explains the First Cause of existence in general.

component 2: ALL THE OTHER assumptions about the way that things have progressed since that first cause happened.

I constantly hear creationists that are thinly-veiled permutations of this argument:

1) You cannot explain how the first something came out of nothing
2) Therefore, God created the heaven and the earth in six days and every animal was perfect and unchanging in its form.

It’s truly the most bizarre non-sequitur.

I don’t know if any of the above are science teachers but I am and have been confronted by a number of creationist and ID questions over the last twenty years. The first I remember is a boy asking me what caused the Big Bang and when I gave my answer he sniffily said that he believed in God and that God created the Universe. When I asked what caused God, he was bemused, especially when I said that his question and my question were in effect identical.

I was once confronted by an entire clas that had come straight from an RE lesson where they had been taught about intelligent design (very badly so far as I could tell). They were buzzing about flagella and “evolution is only a theory” until I took them through the science of what they were talking about and the meaning of the word theory in science.

More recently, a girl told me that she would never change her mind, no matter what I told her, and that God created the Earth, etc. I said that I had no intention of changing her mind on that, but I would suggest that before she dismissed evolution out of hand that she educated herself and looked at the evidence. She suggested that I do the same and find out about the creation. Which one would you like me to find out about first? I asked. Should I begin with Judeo-Christian creation or should I go for one of the major Eastern religions? Or perhaps Mayan? Polynesian? African?

The problem with “teaching” in any shape or form creation in a science lesson is that one has so much choice. Luckily, evolution is much less split on what the likely truth is.

“poofed into existence”

– that’s precisely the premiss on which evolutionism is founded. Or do you have another starting point?

“It’s truly the most bizarre non-sequitar.”

– and that’s a straw man argument.

It is intellectually dishonest to intentionally conflate the writings of William Dembski, for example, with what you are defining as “creationism” here.

I have a Master’s in Microbiology from Thomas Jefferson University in the States, and I am a Roman Catholic. With that being said, I think it is inappropriate to NOT discuss creationism in class. Humans can’t disprove anything, that is a basic tenet of Science. Unfortunately, Science is taught as if we know something and the “case is closed”, that is not the case. Especially in the case of “evolution”, scientists are continually ad hoc-ing Darwinian Evolution, its a fledgling science.

Its tyranny.

Creationism is not science; it’s religion and, therefore, not something that should be discussed in science lessons. Most Creationists proffer the O T as a science text book.

To discuss Creationism in science lessons is to given it a status which it hasn’t earned.

As the researcher who published this research, can I please make a small correction to your article? A couple of key words dropped out of your quote from our technical note. The survey IS representative of all primary and secondary school teachers by phase of teaching, sex, age and Government Office Region. It ISN’T representative by subject specialism (e.g. English versus maths versus science) or of particular subject practitioners (e.g. all science teachers).
I hope this is helpful.

Hi Fiona, thanks for the comments. I tried to discuss the fact that ’science teachers’ is a vague definition which cannot be readily applied to any poll results in this case (see the paragraph starting “More importantly though…”), but it’s good to have more details on this particular point.

Kevin,

Evolution is NOT founded on the idea that something “poofed into existence.” In fact, evolution doesn’t concern itself with when, where, how, or why life began. That’s abiogenesis and another field of science. Evolution is merely the scientific theory of descent with modification. Life must already exist for evolution to take over. That’s why comparing “creationism” to evolution is like comparing apples to oranges.

Stephen –

There is one point in your comment that actually has some truth to it, which is that science (along with history and mathematics and just about every other field of learning) tends to be taught as if “the case is closed”, as if the current state of knowledge is guaranteed to be a lasting state. In actuality, of course, the answers we think we know today may well be replaced tomorrow by better answers.

On every other point, however, you are depressingly wrong. In particular, to claim that it is a “basic tenet of Science” that “humans can’t disprove anything” is so incredibly wrong that the mind boggles trying to imagine how you could have ever passed a science course, let alone (supposedly) achieved a Master’s degree in a scientific field. It is a basic tenet of science that humans are capable of disproving certain hypotheses to the point that, as practical possibilities, they can be dismissed. If someone wishes for one of those disproved possibilities to be taken seriously again, the burden of proof is squarely upon them to come up with a reason WHY it should be, and support that reason with evidence. This is the BASIS of science. How could someone trying to get it right get it so 100% wrong? Are you, in fact, trying to get science right — or just to steal its authority?

Why are people so opposed to the idea of a creator?
Has anyone disproved the existence of God yet?
Why can’t creationism be discussed as an option? or do we live in a police state where people aren’t allowed to make up their own damn minds even if that seems irrational to someone else who prefers evolutioniaty / evolutionism.

For Dan: I for myself believe in the flying spaghetti monster . It’s living between Mars and Jupiter. It’s invisible though it is a duplicity, i.e. the holy pan and the holy noodle. Can you disprove it ?
The question you ask sounds awkward to me. Think the other way around : why, in fact, should anybody NEED the idea of a creator ? Besides who created the creator ? And finally: do you know any atheist who ever thought of bombing believers to change their mind ?

I don’t get why anyone would think it was bad that “73% of science specialists agreed that creationism should be ‘discussed’ in schools”?

When I was in high school, we ‘discussed’ the theory that the earth was flat. We ‘discussed’ the view that everything is composed of four elements. We ‘discussed’ the view that lead could be turned into gold.

I know this is the point that was made in the article (there is a difference between discussing and advocating); but I guess I’m just expressing my own bafflement that people would take it any other way.

Indeed. But when reading comments about this story most of them were simply “Why are people even in favour of discussing this? Gah!” and something similar.

So the alternative to “creationism” is what? A “random quantum fluctuation of nothing”? How does science distinguish “nothing” from “something”? Or are you claiming that at some sub-atomic level matter is eternal? That still fails to answer the question “Whence (does it come)?”.

“Creation” is simply the traditional term used to describe the relationship between that which self-exists and that whose existence is contingent. What Richard Dawkins seems incapable of comprehending is that the existence of a self-existent being is inferred. It is not asserted as axiomatic.

Kevin, I’m sure you can find all sorts of definitions of “Creation” that maybe me, Richard Dawkins, or American Musician Sean Combs aka P. Diddy would not understand. What point are you trying to make?

The definition of Creationism in this article, as its relationship to a popular and well known ‘opposing theory’ to Evolution is that all living creatures, fully formed, fully adapted to their habitat, unchanging, and without any biological ability to change in the future, poofed into existence, that there was no biological process that involved mutation and natural selection.

Science doesn’t care about the big philosophical question you’re posing because it doesn’t work by first determining the solution to existence and life and working backwards. It assumes only that something that is observable is meaningful, and that something that isn’t, can’t, and won’t be observed, directly or indirectly, having any measurable consequence other than hand waving and games of semantic non sense are not meaningful. From there, Evolution becomes evident by simply examining what we observe.

Kevin: The problem with your argument is that you are conflating two components of Creationism that are separable.

component 1: the aspect of Creationism that explains the First Cause of existence in general.

component 2: ALL THE OTHER assumptions about the way that things have progressed since that first cause happened.

I constantly hear creationists that are thinly-veiled permutations of this argument:

1) You cannot explain how the first something came out of nothing
2) Therefore, God created the heaven and the earth in six days and every animal was perfect and unchanging in its form.

It’s truly the most bizarre non-sequitur.

I don’t know if any of the above are science teachers but I am and have been confronted by a number of creationist and ID questions over the last twenty years. The first I remember is a boy asking me what caused the Big Bang and when I gave my answer he sniffily said that he believed in God and that God created the Universe. When I asked what caused God, he was bemused, especially when I said that his question and my question were in effect identical.

I was once confronted by an entire clas that had come straight from an RE lesson where they had been taught about intelligent design (very badly so far as I could tell). They were buzzing about flagella and “evolution is only a theory” until I took them through the science of what they were talking about and the meaning of the word theory in science.

More recently, a girl told me that she would never change her mind, no matter what I told her, and that God created the Earth, etc. I said that I had no intention of changing her mind on that, but I would suggest that before she dismissed evolution out of hand that she educated herself and looked at the evidence. She suggested that I do the same and find out about the creation. Which one would you like me to find out about first? I asked. Should I begin with Judeo-Christian creation or should I go for one of the major Eastern religions? Or perhaps Mayan? Polynesian? African?

The problem with “teaching” in any shape or form creation in a science lesson is that one has so much choice. Luckily, evolution is much less split on what the likely truth is.

“poofed into existence”

– that’s precisely the premiss on which evolutionism is founded. Or do you have another starting point?

“It’s truly the most bizarre non-sequitar.”

– and that’s a straw man argument.

It is intellectually dishonest to intentionally conflate the writings of William Dembski, for example, with what you are defining as “creationism” here.

I have a Master’s in Microbiology from Thomas Jefferson University in the States, and I am a Roman Catholic. With that being said, I think it is inappropriate to NOT discuss creationism in class. Humans can’t disprove anything, that is a basic tenet of Science. Unfortunately, Science is taught as if we know something and the “case is closed”, that is not the case. Especially in the case of “evolution”, scientists are continually ad hoc-ing Darwinian Evolution, its a fledgling science.

Its tyranny.

Creationism is not science; it’s religion and, therefore, not something that should be discussed in science lessons. Most Creationists proffer the O T as a science text book.

To discuss Creationism in science lessons is to given it a status which it hasn’t earned.

As the researcher who published this research, can I please make a small correction to your article? A couple of key words dropped out of your quote from our technical note. The survey IS representative of all primary and secondary school teachers by phase of teaching, sex, age and Government Office Region. It ISN’T representative by subject specialism (e.g. English versus maths versus science) or of particular subject practitioners (e.g. all science teachers).
I hope this is helpful.

Hi Fiona, thanks for the comments. I tried to discuss the fact that ’science teachers’ is a vague definition which cannot be readily applied to any poll results in this case (see the paragraph starting “More importantly though…”), but it’s good to have more details on this particular point.

Kevin,

Evolution is NOT founded on the idea that something “poofed into existence.” In fact, evolution doesn’t concern itself with when, where, how, or why life began. That’s abiogenesis and another field of science. Evolution is merely the scientific theory of descent with modification. Life must already exist for evolution to take over. That’s why comparing “creationism” to evolution is like comparing apples to oranges.

Stephen –

There is one point in your comment that actually has some truth to it, which is that science (along with history and mathematics and just about every other field of learning) tends to be taught as if “the case is closed”, as if the current state of knowledge is guaranteed to be a lasting state. In actuality, of course, the answers we think we know today may well be replaced tomorrow by better answers.

On every other point, however, you are depressingly wrong. In particular, to claim that it is a “basic tenet of Science” that “humans can’t disprove anything” is so incredibly wrong that the mind boggles trying to imagine how you could have ever passed a science course, let alone (supposedly) achieved a Master’s degree in a scientific field. It is a basic tenet of science that humans are capable of disproving certain hypotheses to the point that, as practical possibilities, they can be dismissed. If someone wishes for one of those disproved possibilities to be taken seriously again, the burden of proof is squarely upon them to come up with a reason WHY it should be, and support that reason with evidence. This is the BASIS of science. How could someone trying to get it right get it so 100% wrong? Are you, in fact, trying to get science right — or just to steal its authority?

Why are people so opposed to the idea of a creator?
Has anyone disproved the existence of God yet?
Why can’t creationism be discussed as an option? or do we live in a police state where people aren’t allowed to make up their own damn minds even if that seems irrational to someone else who prefers evolutioniaty / evolutionism.

For Dan: I for myself believe in the flying spaghetti monster . It’s living between Mars and Jupiter. It’s invisible though it is a duplicity, i.e. the holy pan and the holy noodle. Can you disprove it ?
The question you ask sounds awkward to me. Think the other way around : why, in fact, should anybody NEED the idea of a creator ? Besides who created the creator ? And finally: do you know any atheist who ever thought of bombing believers to change their mind ?

Its easy to put down creationism to ignorance in the Muslim world and i am sure there are other primitive societies who would reject Darwinism also.
However it is far more likely in the case of the former that they will use creationism to attack western scientific values in a form of stealth Jihad as Robert Spencer coined the term for gradual destabilisation of western values
And i would not bet against finance being made available to American creationist propagandist by oil rich islamists.
perhaps that is why it has mushroomed recently in the corridors of pseudoscience in the west..

@davidka

“… I would not bet against finance being made available to American creationist propagandist by oil rich islamists.”

Are you suggesting a creationist coalition, with Islamists fighting side by side with Christian fundamentalists? Nice idea, davidka, but I’m not sure they would get along. Any evidence?

I would like to see what that graph would look like with the addition of a bar for the U.S. …. just for comparison purposes.

The sample size is pittiful. Regardless how well you think the respondants have been selected 527, even 1472 is just too small

38% of the population of Kazakhstan is Russian Orthodox. The country’s culture has much to do with the old Soviet state, and it sends many athletes with Russian names to succeed in the Olympics, the world athletics championships, and so on. Given that a majority of the population is Muslim, the impact of Russian and Soviet ways will decline in time, but at present it is a most untypical “Muslim” country. The others are much more typical; Malaya, in particular, which has massive non-Muslim minorities and an originally British political culture, is a fair example of what Kazakhstan may end up looking like in thirty or forty years. Malaya has been independent and Muslim-ruled since 1967 (I think), Kazakhstan since 1991. You work it out.

Following on from Science’s dissection of Islamic creationism, Scientific American has published a pretty weighty article outlining the whole battle over creationism in the US and also how, ironically, the condition of it has evolved into it’s current ‘intelligent design’ status.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-latest-face-of-creationism

It’s a must-read for anyone unsure as to the history of intelligent design and why it is unscientific, with the rub coming in near the end: “Despite the lofty language, the ulterior intent and likely effect of [pro-creationism] bills are evident: undermining the teaching of evolution in public schools—a consequence only creationists regard as a blessing.”

Please remove the white-separatist spam from Qazi.

Does anyone knows if it is a non-coincidence that “Independent History and Research”, the publishing operation of white separatist Michael Hoffman, bears the same initials as the Holocaust denial outfit “Institute for Historical Review”?

Thanks, Antaeus Feldspar. Done.

Its easy to put down creationism to ignorance in the Muslim world and i am sure there are other primitive societies who would reject Darwinism also.
However it is far more likely in the case of the former that they will use creationism to attack western scientific values in a form of stealth Jihad as Robert Spencer coined the term for gradual destabilisation of western values
And i would not bet against finance being made available to American creationist propagandist by oil rich islamists.
perhaps that is why it has mushroomed recently in the corridors of pseudoscience in the west..

@davidka

“… I would not bet against finance being made available to American creationist propagandist by oil rich islamists.”

Are you suggesting a creationist coalition, with Islamists fighting side by side with Christian fundamentalists? Nice idea, davidka, but I’m not sure they would get along. Any evidence?

I would like to see what that graph would look like with the addition of a bar for the U.S. …. just for comparison purposes.

The sample size is pittiful. Regardless how well you think the respondants have been selected 527, even 1472 is just too small

38% of the population of Kazakhstan is Russian Orthodox. The country’s culture has much to do with the old Soviet state, and it sends many athletes with Russian names to succeed in the Olympics, the world athletics championships, and so on. Given that a majority of the population is Muslim, the impact of Russian and Soviet ways will decline in time, but at present it is a most untypical “Muslim” country. The others are much more typical; Malaya, in particular, which has massive non-Muslim minorities and an originally British political culture, is a fair example of what Kazakhstan may end up looking like in thirty or forty years. Malaya has been independent and Muslim-ruled since 1967 (I think), Kazakhstan since 1991. You work it out.

Following on from Science’s dissection of Islamic creationism, Scientific American has published a pretty weighty article outlining the whole battle over creationism in the US and also how, ironically, the condition of it has evolved into it’s current ‘intelligent design’ status.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-latest-face-of-creationism

It’s a must-read for anyone unsure as to the history of intelligent design and why it is unscientific, with the rub coming in near the end: “Despite the lofty language, the ulterior intent and likely effect of [pro-creationism] bills are evident: undermining the teaching of evolution in public schools—a consequence only creationists regard as a blessing.”

Please remove the white-separatist spam from Qazi.

Does anyone knows if it is a non-coincidence that “Independent History and Research”, the publishing operation of white separatist Michael Hoffman, bears the same initials as the Holocaust denial outfit “Institute for Historical Review”?

Thanks, Antaeus Feldspar. Done.

“Darwinism is an idea that maintains that human beings are a species of animal, that some races are superior to others, and that it is supposedly a law of nature for superior races to ruthlessly crush weaker ones in order to develop and progress.”

Of course people are an animal species. We are one of the ape species. Did you think we were plants?

Anyone who understands evolution (obviously you don’t understand it) knows that skin colors are the result of natural selection. In tropical climates a darker skin color is the best color a person can have, and in northern climates a lighter skin color is beneficial. No biologist ever said there’s a superior human race.

By the way it’s called “evolution”, not “Darwinism”. Evolution has massive evidence. Why don’t you study it some time. Science is nothing to fear. It’s just a description of how the world works.

My previous comments were for Mr. Oktar, who will probably never read this.

bobxxxxx; but what makes you think that creationists are afraid of science? on the contrary, they use science to demonstrate the fact of creation. science itself disproves the theory of evolution. it is by means of science that we know the fossil record contains no real intermediate forms. it is again by means of science we know how complex a living cell, the DNA, life as a whole is. so we are not afraid of science, but you are probably afraid of admitting what science actually shows.

Then where is the scientific theory of creation or of design? Why is it not written, tested and submitted for peer review? There are plenty of examples of peer reviewed scientific literature which upset the apple cart of contemporary thinking, so if science actually does as you suggest “disprove the theory of evolution” why do not the scientific creationists present their own theory to the scientific community?

It’s fairly simple. Present your hypothesis, list your observations, explain why those observations support the hypothesis and show the results of your tests.

“ony says, “I think it’s a turn for the worse to present fallacious arguments in what I regard as a misguided attempt to appear even handed.” Again, this is an “attack” that doesn’t address the actual argument I made, just derides my assumed motive. This is the kind of thing you see when creationists say, “You are just trying to suppress any belief in God!” It’s bizarre, and is a distraction.”

The trouble here is that while “God wouldn’t be so inefficient” is a bad argument it could equally be argued that any rhetorical argument is, from a scientific point of view, a bad one. The scientific argument regarding vestigial organs or inefficient biological systems does not involve second guessing the motives of a scientifically irrelevant creator. It is unscientific to even mention an unobservable and unknowable entity.

The scientific argument with regards to vestigial organs and inefficient or unhelpful biological systems is that it is in keeping with the model of evolution. The development of the vagus nerve and the existence of now useless or troublesome vestigial organs provide additional evidence for common descent and are in keeping with the predictions made by the theory of evolution with regards to common descent. That is the scientific position on it.

It is entirely possible that a creator, even an omnipotent and omniscient one, would design lifeforms in this manner but in the absence of any other evidence for said creator the existence of such organs supports and is explained by the theory of evolution.

AN INVITATION TO TRUTH
http://www.harunyahya.com

The general community of Europe and the US as well as a great part of Asia and Africa are people of faith. They are noble people, with their strong power and will of conscience alive. They know how to act in goodness and they are content by acting as to the Revelation.

Human beings are created in the image of God, this is a fact. They are pure souls, being tested in the material-looking (but actually totally metaphysical) world, in order to see if they will act in goodness or evil. This way all human beings that have souls are very precious, they have a certain purpose and a very important place in this world. They are created by God, with a full destiny incredibly complex with countless blessings and happenings.

This responsibility of human beings is what makes it special and unique compared to the entire universe. We are here to be brothers, we are here to share and give respect, to love and forgive. We are given all these blessings in life and ups and downs, to see and reflect on the purpose of our creation, and we are here to live in peace with total compassion and tolerance for each other.

All religions are the ways to realize this ultimate responsibility and purpose of man.

You cannot expect flour, eggs, sugar and milk put next to each other to become a cake in millions of years. How can you expect mud, water, rain, wind put next to each other to produce a living cell out of non-living dust through randomness or chance?

God is the Creator of everything we see around us, the complexity of all, the fine tuning in the atom as well as the universe, the fact that what we see is actually an interpretation of electrical signals in our brain are all evidence to fact of creation.

Science is the main artery feeding faith and belief in God and creation. Science is serving goodness for the purpose of making human beings think more, understand more, serve more and invent more for a higher purpose.

I am sure all people of faith have come to realize this fact. And the rest will hopefully achieve this end, the only and obvious truth of the life of this world.

HARUN YAHYA is a man of faith and a scholar who has been serving the entire world with great courage against all defamation and threats. I am sure his great wisdom will be better understood very soon.

Now, I don’t have a suspicious sort of mind (ahem!). But if I did, I might think there was some sort of concerted effort going on here.

Particularly since so many of your IP addresses resolve to Turkey. Hmm.

DARWINISM IS DEAD
http://www.religionofdarwinism.com

I am living in Turkey, I am a master degree student in a university in Istanbul. And at the same time I had the opportunity to visit the number of fossil museums in various parts of the city, mostly in crowded places, restaurants, cafes etc. where the general majority of the public gather.

I came across some friends of Harun Yahya, very educated and modern intellectuals who tried to answer all the questions I asked them.

Then I visited http://www.bookglobal.net where I purchased the many books by Harun Yahya and this way I delved more into Islam. Now, I think that Christianity and Islam as well as Judaism, all People of the Book as to the teaching of the Qur’an are to live in great harmony and peace.

HARUN YAHYA is serving goodness with all his efforts and the young Turks I did see in the streets of the beautiful city of Istanbul are also in great joy and enthusiasm that is observed from their endless endeavor in the way of God.

Now, I am reading more, thinking more and giving less worth to the materiality that led my life in the past. We are here for a purpose and will die at the end, leaving behind the wealth and status we had. But we will wake up just like from a dream and see the real world in the hereafter. This is the one true fact, that I came to realize through Harun Yahya. I am so thankful to him.

More on that Darwin quote about the ‘Turks’:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#DarwinRaceQuotes

Counterknowledge seems to have acquired an anti-rational virus. Hope you get rid of it soon.

Furiously pumping antivirals into its arm as we speak, veritas.

They do say there’s ‘no such thing as negative attention’, but I’m beginning to doubt that after the insanity on this thread.

If only we rationalists had such a ready-and-willing army, eh?

The comments that Harun Yahya makes is very interesting and I find them logical. In our day people believe that big fish eats the little fish and they behave selfish. I realized that the Darwinian education caused people to be behave like that. I found your interview very useful. Thank you.

Rationalism needs no army, Milo. All it needs is for one individual to challenge an irrational claim. The fact that Adnan Oktar has the money and the influence to state his case doesn’t make it make it6 true. Bullshit is still bullshit.

I admire your optimism, veritas. Alas, I think in the end it is he who can shout the loudest who will prevail.

There’s an awful lot of nonsense being written on this subject. I’m particularly fond of the notion that Darwin was somehow responsible for selfishness, the implication being of course that prior to the 1850s everyone was jolly nice to each other.

Milo: in my experience shouting just pisses people off – would you listen if you were being shouted at ?

Tony: couldn’t agree more with your last post. Who would have thought that Darwin is responsible for all the evils in the world, eh ?

I wasn’t so much talking about prevailing in an argument, veritas. In fact, I wasn’t really talking about the merits at all. I simply meant that “money and influence” probably count for a lot more than sound reasoning these days.

Adnan doesn’t understand the meaning of “Science”…. Darwinism a religion… LOL

There’s almost enough in this series of posts for volume 2 of Counterknowledge. I remember a bit in one of hte Dilbert books – there is an infinite amount of stupidity in the world and we could solve the problem of cheap, non-polluting energy if we could only harness all that stupidity for peaceful aims.

Surely that’s a photo of Boycie from “Only Fools and Horses”?
Oktar’s statement that “each of the structures cited as vestigial organs in that list have now been seen to possess very important functions” certainly shoes him to be a fool, because Darwin was clear from the start that vestigial organs aren’t necessarily functionless: “An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges_functional
If you’re going to attack the keystone theory of biology, better make sure you understand it…

Thanks for giving us the opportunity of reading the interview of Adnan Oktar who is a great man, great scholar, great muslim! Besides he is really very good looking. I recommend you to read his books and visit his site; http://www.harunyahya.com
I wish i met him somewhere as soon as possible.

Now we know why the Islamic world isn’t producing many notable scientists these days. It’s full of ignorant, smug people who think they already know it all, and are therefore devoid of the genuine humility in the face of nature’s mysteries that lead to real scientific thought. Darwin was a great scientist because he had enough enough humility to observe clearly, record honestly, and think rationally – qualities that seem to be out of fashion among today’s Muslims.

The uneducated halfwit. This isn’t even worth responding to.
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but he talks well.

Perfect interview, thanks. Yahya rocks still

I dont agree with creationism, it is quite obvious that it is simply a christian tale made up to explain things they could not understand. However Darwinism also has its flaws. Modern science believes our species, homo spaiens has existed for only 180,000 years. 10 years ago it was beleived to be only 120,000, 30 years ago it was put at 80,000 and a century ago it was put at 20,000. However it has also been (quietly) recognised that pretty well the same human ytpe as Cro-Magnon Man (Homo sapiens sapiens) with a 20% larger brain and who was considerably taller than us existed 1.5 million years ago.
There are gaping flaws in the origin of species that do not explan the transition from man to ape. However at the time of its release western christian theology was unable to paper over the self evident cracks in its own logic, so unsurprisingly it was unable to put up much of a struggle against darwinism.
Darwinism to easily won over the minds of many, and lead to the now totally accepted but also flawed Big Bang Theory, whereby something comes from nothing.
Realisitically we know little of or world beyond the past 3,000 years and we have seperated ourselves from the actual essence of our planet, by pushing aside all things except those which are logical to us.
http://freeyourmind-hiddentruths.blogspot.com

“Darwin was a great scientist because he had enough enough humility to observe clearly, record honestly, and think rationally – qualities that seem to be out of fashion among today’s Muslims.”

We can only hope that the utter stupididty of Harun Yahya is countered by an upwelling of rationality in the muslim world.

Save Bookmark

“Darwinism is an idea that maintains that human beings are a species of animal, that some races are superior to others, and that it is supposedly a law of nature for superior races to ruthlessly crush weaker ones in order to develop and progress.”

Of course people are an animal species. We are one of the ape species. Did you think we were plants?

Anyone who understands evolution (obviously you don’t understand it) knows that skin colors are the result of natural selection. In tropical climates a darker skin color is the best color a person can have, and in northern climates a lighter skin color is beneficial. No biologist ever said there’s a superior human race.

By the way it’s called “evolution”, not “Darwinism”. Evolution has massive evidence. Why don’t you study it some time. Science is nothing to fear. It’s just a description of how the world works.

My previous comments were for Mr. Oktar, who will probably never read this.

bobxxxxx; but what makes you think that creationists are afraid of science? on the contrary, they use science to demonstrate the fact of creation. science itself disproves the theory of evolution. it is by means of science that we know the fossil record contains no real intermediate forms. it is again by means of science we know how complex a living cell, the DNA, life as a whole is. so we are not afraid of science, but you are probably afraid of admitting what science actually shows.

Then where is the scientific theory of creation or of design? Why is it not written, tested and submitted for peer review? There are plenty of examples of peer reviewed scientific literature which upset the apple cart of contemporary thinking, so if science actually does as you suggest “disprove the theory of evolution” why do not the scientific creationists present their own theory to the scientific community?

It’s fairly simple. Present your hypothesis, list your observations, explain why those observations support the hypothesis and show the results of your tests.

“ony says, “I think it’s a turn for the worse to present fallacious arguments in what I regard as a misguided attempt to appear even handed.” Again, this is an “attack” that doesn’t address the actual argument I made, just derides my assumed motive. This is the kind of thing you see when creationists say, “You are just trying to suppress any belief in God!” It’s bizarre, and is a distraction.”

The trouble here is that while “God wouldn’t be so inefficient” is a bad argument it could equally be argued that any rhetorical argument is, from a scientific point of view, a bad one. The scientific argument regarding vestigial organs or inefficient biological systems does not involve second guessing the motives of a scientifically irrelevant creator. It is unscientific to even mention an unobservable and unknowable entity.

The scientific argument with regards to vestigial organs and inefficient or unhelpful biological systems is that it is in keeping with the model of evolution. The development of the vagus nerve and the existence of now useless or troublesome vestigial organs provide additional evidence for common descent and are in keeping with the predictions made by the theory of evolution with regards to common descent. That is the scientific position on it.

It is entirely possible that a creator, even an omnipotent and omniscient one, would design lifeforms in this manner but in the absence of any other evidence for said creator the existence of such organs supports and is explained by the theory of evolution.

AN INVITATION TO TRUTH
http://www.harunyahya.com

The general community of Europe and the US as well as a great part of Asia and Africa are people of faith. They are noble people, with their strong power and will of conscience alive. They know how to act in goodness and they are content by acting as to the Revelation.

Human beings are created in the image of God, this is a fact. They are pure souls, being tested in the material-looking (but actually totally metaphysical) world, in order to see if they will act in goodness or evil. This way all human beings that have souls are very precious, they have a certain purpose and a very important place in this world. They are created by God, with a full destiny incredibly complex with countless blessings and happenings.

This responsibility of human beings is what makes it special and unique compared to the entire universe. We are here to be brothers, we are here to share and give respect, to love and forgive. We are given all these blessings in life and ups and downs, to see and reflect on the purpose of our creation, and we are here to live in peace with total compassion and tolerance for each other.

All religions are the ways to realize this ultimate responsibility and purpose of man.

You cannot expect flour, eggs, sugar and milk put next to each other to become a cake in millions of years. How can you expect mud, water, rain, wind put next to each other to produce a living cell out of non-living dust through randomness or chance?

God is the Creator of everything we see around us, the complexity of all, the fine tuning in the atom as well as the universe, the fact that what we see is actually an interpretation of electrical signals in our brain are all evidence to fact of creation.

Science is the main artery feeding faith and belief in God and creation. Science is serving goodness for the purpose of making human beings think more, understand more, serve more and invent more for a higher purpose.

I am sure all people of faith have come to realize this fact. And the rest will hopefully achieve this end, the only and obvious truth of the life of this world.

HARUN YAHYA is a man of faith and a scholar who has been serving the entire world with great courage against all defamation and threats. I am sure his great wisdom will be better understood very soon.

Now, I don’t have a suspicious sort of mind (ahem!). But if I did, I might think there was some sort of concerted effort going on here.

Particularly since so many of your IP addresses resolve to Turkey. Hmm.

DARWINISM IS DEAD
http://www.religionofdarwinism.com

I am living in Turkey, I am a master degree student in a university in Istanbul. And at the same time I had the opportunity to visit the number of fossil museums in various parts of the city, mostly in crowded places, restaurants, cafes etc. where the general majority of the public gather.

I came across some friends of Harun Yahya, very educated and modern intellectuals who tried to answer all the questions I asked them.

Then I visited http://www.bookglobal.net where I purchased the many books by Harun Yahya and this way I delved more into Islam. Now, I think that Christianity and Islam as well as Judaism, all People of the Book as to the teaching of the Qur’an are to live in great harmony and peace.

HARUN YAHYA is serving goodness with all his efforts and the young Turks I did see in the streets of the beautiful city of Istanbul are also in great joy and enthusiasm that is observed from their endless endeavor in the way of God.

Now, I am reading more, thinking more and giving less worth to the materiality that led my life in the past. We are here for a purpose and will die at the end, leaving behind the wealth and status we had. But we will wake up just like from a dream and see the real world in the hereafter. This is the one true fact, that I came to realize through Harun Yahya. I am so thankful to him.

More on that Darwin quote about the ‘Turks’:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#DarwinRaceQuotes

Counterknowledge seems to have acquired an anti-rational virus. Hope you get rid of it soon.

Furiously pumping antivirals into its arm as we speak, veritas.

They do say there’s ‘no such thing as negative attention’, but I’m beginning to doubt that after the insanity on this thread.

If only we rationalists had such a ready-and-willing army, eh?

The comments that Harun Yahya makes is very interesting and I find them logical. In our day people believe that big fish eats the little fish and they behave selfish. I realized that the Darwinian education caused people to be behave like that. I found your interview very useful. Thank you.

Rationalism needs no army, Milo. All it needs is for one individual to challenge an irrational claim. The fact that Adnan Oktar has the money and the influence to state his case doesn’t make it make it6 true. Bullshit is still bullshit.

I admire your optimism, veritas. Alas, I think in the end it is he who can shout the loudest who will prevail.

There’s an awful lot of nonsense being written on this subject. I’m particularly fond of the notion that Darwin was somehow responsible for selfishness, the implication being of course that prior to the 1850s everyone was jolly nice to each other.

Milo: in my experience shouting just pisses people off – would you listen if you were being shouted at ?

Tony: couldn’t agree more with your last post. Who would have thought that Darwin is responsible for all the evils in the world, eh ?

I wasn’t so much talking about prevailing in an argument, veritas. In fact, I wasn’t really talking about the merits at all. I simply meant that “money and influence” probably count for a lot more than sound reasoning these days.

Adnan doesn’t understand the meaning of “Science”…. Darwinism a religion… LOL

There’s almost enough in this series of posts for volume 2 of Counterknowledge. I remember a bit in one of hte Dilbert books – there is an infinite amount of stupidity in the world and we could solve the problem of cheap, non-polluting energy if we could only harness all that stupidity for peaceful aims.

Surely that’s a photo of Boycie from “Only Fools and Horses”?
Oktar’s statement that “each of the structures cited as vestigial organs in that list have now been seen to possess very important functions” certainly shoes him to be a fool, because Darwin was clear from the start that vestigial organs aren’t necessarily functionless: “An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges_functional
If you’re going to attack the keystone theory of biology, better make sure you understand it…

Thanks for giving us the opportunity of reading the interview of Adnan Oktar who is a great man, great scholar, great muslim! Besides he is really very good looking. I recommend you to read his books and visit his site; http://www.harunyahya.com
I wish i met him somewhere as soon as possible.

Now we know why the Islamic world isn’t producing many notable scientists these days. It’s full of ignorant, smug people who think they already know it all, and are therefore devoid of the genuine humility in the face of nature’s mysteries that lead to real scientific thought. Darwin was a great scientist because he had enough enough humility to observe clearly, record honestly, and think rationally – qualities that seem to be out of fashion among today’s Muslims.

The uneducated halfwit. This isn’t even worth responding to.
He doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but he talks well.

Perfect interview, thanks. Yahya rocks still

I dont agree with creationism, it is quite obvious that it is simply a christian tale made up to explain things they could not understand. However Darwinism also has its flaws. Modern science believes our species, homo spaiens has existed for only 180,000 years. 10 years ago it was beleived to be only 120,000, 30 years ago it was put at 80,000 and a century ago it was put at 20,000. However it has also been (quietly) recognised that pretty well the same human ytpe as Cro-Magnon Man (Homo sapiens sapiens) with a 20% larger brain and who was considerably taller than us existed 1.5 million years ago.
There are gaping flaws in the origin of species that do not explan the transition from man to ape. However at the time of its release western christian theology was unable to paper over the self evident cracks in its own logic, so unsurprisingly it was unable to put up much of a struggle against darwinism.
Darwinism to easily won over the minds of many, and lead to the now totally accepted but also flawed Big Bang Theory, whereby something comes from nothing.
Realisitically we know little of or world beyond the past 3,000 years and we have seperated ourselves from the actual essence of our planet, by pushing aside all things except those which are logical to us.
http://freeyourmind-hiddentruths.blogspot.com

“Darwin was a great scientist because he had enough enough humility to observe clearly, record honestly, and think rationally – qualities that seem to be out of fashion among today’s Muslims.”

We can only hope that the utter stupididty of Harun Yahya is countered by an upwelling of rationality in the muslim world.

Save Bookmark

If there really was an omnipotent and omniscient creator, I am sure the process of «completely re-think(ing) the entire process of embryonic development» would’nt take him long. I am afraid your line of reasoning seems rather far-fetched.

Moreover, I don’t think it is fair to put the alleged arguments from ignorance on an equal footing. The arguments about «design blunders» serves to debunk creationist assertions (the creation is perfect, the Creator must be perfect as well).
When taken together they obviously provide strong support for common ancestry and evolution making the best of a bad job, rather than implementing the scheme of a divine creator.

This series has taken a turn for the worse, choosing to perpetuate the myth that there are two sides to the question rather than basing the argument on the preponderance of evidence.

It is particularly egregious to suggest that pointing out vestigial organs is an argument from ignorance. It isn’t. Vestigial organs suggest common descent and are in line with both the predictions made by the theory of evolution and other lines of evidence including genetics and fossils.

Why are there some rules an intelligent designer can make and some s/he can’t? That is, if there’s an intelligence behind the design, why can’t it change the way some animals’ embryos develop? Why can’t it simply decide, “giraffes? Nah, that’ll never work — the vagus nerve would have to be super long. Maybe some other animal can fit that niche.” If we assume that the fixed points of intelligent design are the same as those of evolution, that the mechanisms by which intelligent design iterates are identical to those explained by evolutionary theory, where does the intelligence come in?

All the evidence, and the evidence is massive, supports evolution by natural selection. The “intelligent designer” also known as the “Magic Fairy” has not one shred of evidence, which isn’t surprising because magic is a childish idiotic idea.

As has already been noted in these comments, talking of “degrees of inconvenience” makes no sense with reference to an an omnipotent designer god.
The problem of functionless vestigial organs is a far easier one to crack than the vagus nerve – just get rid of the offending organs! Even evolution can acheive this if given enough time.
Evolutionists don’t necessarily say things “must not” have been done on purpose – they simply (and rightly) say that in cases of doubt, the burden of proof lies with the I.D. supporters to say that there is a purpose. Until they do so, the evolutionary explanation should be preferred, because it is simpler.
As Dawkins put it, “When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

I smell theism. Is the author of this article a Christian?

This is a very unconvincing argument. As Tony points out, vestigial organs and a backwards-wired retina are strong evidence for common descent. Cephalopods, by contrast, have retinas that are wired-up “the right way”. Now, of course, a “designer” might want to design species in such a way as to give a remarkable simulacrum of common descent and natural selection, but Occam’s Razor would suggest such a suggestion isn’t worth entertaining. I, too, detect a whiff of anti-scientific thinking in this article – or at least a love of logical fiddlesticks.

These comments are fantastic. Because more than anything, many of these comments show that there can be a proliferation of “counter-knowledge tactics” on both sides of the debate.

In this article, I call into question one specific argument used by evolutionists that I don’t believe has any merit. And in response, I get:

DavidMWW making an ad hominem attack, asking if I’m Christian.

bobxxxx making the general statement that “all the evidence supports evolution” (something that I argree with, as it happens) without ever addressing the specific issue I brought up in the post.

Tony saying that it’s a “turn for the worse” to ever criticize ANY evolutionist arguments, because heaven forbid there ever be an engaging debate.

These are precisely the styles of argument that creationists use. In fact, these are the same styles of argument that a creationist used against ME in comments to previous posts of mine…. which I criticized.

So, let me make something totally clear: When I claim that supporters of evolution sometimes make bad arguments, I’m not saying that evolution is wrong. I’m not saying that those bad arguments discredit evolution. I’m not saying that “evolution and creationism are the same.”

I’m just saying that supporters of evolution sometimes make bad arguments.

Now, to address the specific points made by Knut-Sverre Horn and Heresiarch.

The core of my thesis is simply this: Your argument here rests on you making assumptions about the decisions or thought-process of a (theoretically) omniscient being. And, sadly, you are not yourself omniscient. This opens you (and anyone else) up to endless and meaningless iterations of, “Well, maybe the Creator did it this way for THAT reason….”

As a result, it’s simply a bad argument. It’s rooted in the fact that you “can’t come up with” an explanation for why someone who is smarter than you (God) would do something a certain way. That entire approach is not, on the face of it, convincing.

And finally, as others have pointed out, there is a huge mass of evidence for evolution that is very convincing. Which is why I am really apalled that people cling to an argument as poor as this one.

It wasn’t an ad hom attack, Greg. It was a hypothesis-testing question.

DavidMWW: “I smell theism.”….. yep, that’s the judgement-neutral tone of hypothesis-testing, right there.

Look, I’ll back off on my tone a bit; however, I do want to say this: yours was a knee-jerk reaction. I hope you recognize that it is exactly that kind of response, moreover, that inhibits dialogue with people who are yet-to-be-convinced.

As it happens, although it couldn’t possibly be less relevant to the discussion at hand, I’m an agnostic that was raised by a Unitarian painter and an athiest chemistry professor.

And although I whole-heartedly support evolution, I still recognize that people who believe good things can still make bad arguments.

I think actually you DO mean “God works in mysterious ways” in that weird mystical sense. You’re suggesting that any God smart enough to design a universe must be much smarter than we are, and might have seen reasons to do things in a way that seems weird to us because we’re not smart enough to understand it. This is exactly the argument put forth by some religious people to explain why bad things happen to good people: if we were God, we’d understand his master plan and it would make sense to us. Is there anything we CAN’T hand-wave away with this counterargument?

Evolutionary theory explains the vagus nerve by saying that we evolved from common ancestors, and that what made sense in fish doesn’t make as much sense in humans or giraffes, but since it’s based on previous designs and there’s no intelligent designer who could theoretically go clean-sheet for the giraffe and say “let’s make an efficient long-necked mammal for eating leaves from tall trees,” we’re stuck with it.

So if the outcome of supposedly “intelligent design” looks exactly as though the later designs evolved by natural selection from the earlier designs, the role of the intelligent designer is reduced to standing above the factory floor nodding and grunting at the automatic iteration of his or her designs. Deism? The intelligent designer sets everything in motion, then packs some suitcases and goes off to Cancun, ultimately superfluous to the ongoing process? Why postulate an intelligent designer in the first place?

encyclops: “You’re suggesting that any God smart enough to design a universe must be much smarter than we are, and might have seen reasons to do things in a way that seems weird to us because we’re not smart enough to understand it.”

Well… yes and no. I’m actually thinking along more specific lines than just that. You’re probably familiar with the whole concept of “sensitive dependence”, right? Popularized by the notion of the “butterfly effect”: making small changes in a complex system can have dramatic and unexpected outcomes.

I’m just saying that without actually tinkering around and examining the details of what an “alternatively designed ecosystem” would look like, it’s not a scientific claim to simply say, “Oh, such-and-such could easily have been done differently, without any other side-effects!” Not only is it not scientifically sound, but knowing what we do about the nature of biological systems, it is not even really probable.

To allow the vagus nerve to be wired more efficiently in the giraffe, its embryonic development would have had to have progressed differently. For that to have happened would require a different course of cell splitting and specialization. For that to happen, would likely have required a number of differences in genetic code.

And I don’t know (and I suspect you do not, either) exactly what those differences would be, or what side-effects they might have incurred. Maybe the only way to code a DNA strand to make the embryo develop in a way that produces an optimal giraffe vagus nerve would have the side effect of creating OTHER genetic problems. Maybe the only way to do it without bad side-effects would be to code protein synthesis in a mechanism other than DNA, which opens up a host of other new problems.

The thing is, because you haven’t done due diligence and created a giraffe with an “optimal” vagus nerve, you actually DON’T know that it “could” be designed better. You don’t know it in the details.

That is why this is not a scientific argument. You say you can “imagine” a world in which everything is exactly the same except that giraffes develop in such a way as to have a shorter vagus nerve. I’m saying that you are not qualified to “know” that at all.

People can “imagine” many things that are not actually logically possible.

I think it would be helpful for you to distinguish between the different types of belief in creation and/or ID as (in a previous poat) you do between different meanings of the term evolution. I believe in a Creator, but that does not mean I subscribe to many of the wacky theories that are usually propounded (and derided) as Creationist, nor that I necessarily dispute natural selection (though I do not see how it accounts for the major discontinuities between not-alive and alive, for example, for all Dawkins’ explanation…

“Tony saying that it’s a “turn for the worse” to ever criticize ANY evolutionist arguments, because heaven forbid there ever be an engaging debate.”

No. I think it’s a turn for the worse to present fallacious arguments in what I regard as a misguided attempt to appear even handed. Poor arguments for evolution should absolutely be rejected, vestigial organs however form part of the scientific evidence of evolution. If it were an argument made in isolation of the other evidence then it wouldn’t be a terribly strong one and certainly isn’t enough to be conclusive, but it does not exist in isolation, it exists alongside multiple other streams of evidence. It also supports the predictions made by the theory of evolution, one would expect if the theory is correct that leftover parts from early species would still exist and that inefficiencies would be expected.

My biggest issue with the notion of taking the middle ground in the “debate” between evolution and creation is that there really isn’t a debate. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by multiple streams of evidence, while creationism is the closed assertion that “God did it”. Intelligent design proponents suffer from the same limitation, only their contention is that “someone did it”.

When one side spends the whole time attacking the other without proposing any alternative then it isn’t really a debate.

Tony considers this article to be “what I regard as a misguided attempt to appear even handed.”

That’s actually not my “meta-motive”, as it were.

My “meta-motive” is to say this: if you’ve got really good, strong arguments on your side, don’t resort to parlor-games like “let’s imagine what a Creator SHOULD have done!” because it’s weak, it’s not scientific, and it’s not convincing.

Honestly, it always upsets me to see people make bad arguments for good conclusions. It side-tracks the debate. As I’ve said before, there is SO MUCH evidence for evolution, this is a distracting red-herring.

I’m not taking a “middle ground” and I absolutely do NOT think evolution and creationism are on even footing.

I just think it’s a bad idea to use bad rhetoric in support of a good theory.

Greg,

That Dawkins employs it is practically proof that it’s a tactic borne of counterknowledge and pseudo-scientific.

This is not to say that evolution is anything but true; rather that the Selfish-Meme peddler is a demagogue and deliberately misrepresents the truth to further his own arguments (his recent TV programme is proof positive of this; his reduction of the history of understandings of our origin to exclude theories of epigenesis is heinous enough, without claiming that his ’selfish gene’ stuff is accepted by the majority of scientists…)

Further, this kind of condemnatory, aloof disdain is typical of Dawkins’ materialist worshippers.

I am sure I will be accused of all kinds of calumnies, from theism to child-buggery, and that there will be fulminations against me for daring to criticise the great Dicky, but if this site isn’t about outing counter-knowledge regardless of who publishes it, then what is it?

C.P.:

When Dawkins uses the argument I talked about in the article, he’s using counter-knowledge tactics.

But, that being said, i’m not entirely sure from where all of your venom toward him comes.

A philosophical materialist and shameless self-promoter who sells T-shirts with a ruddy great ‘A’ for atheist on them; who has engendered a personality cult and who relies on sneering and poor understanding of basic philosophy to back up his empty world-view, who refuses to accept that the academic world has moved past him (cell biologist Lenny Moss has described his concept of the ’selfish gene’ as ‘a biology built of onto-theology’), and whose followers slavishly worship him, he engages in shallow debates and sways the masses as a demagogue through false argument and reductionism, in order to perpetuate his own flawed thinking and to spread his materialist claptrap (see the bus signs mentioned below…).

The man is, in short, a menace to the intellectual world and to the intellectual integrity of both the university of Oxford and the general public, but also, ironically, to the public understanding of science.

I fulminate against him not because he is necessarily wrong, but that the building-blocks he has used to reach his conclusion are so painfully lacking, and his supporters growing dangerously.

Your tone makes me a little sad. You accuse him of demagoguery, but go on to say that any argument used by Dawkins MUST be a bad argument because:

1) he is an atheist
2) people like him
3) you don’t like his tone
4) you don’t like the tone of the people who like him

Instead of restricting yourself to material criticisms, you pepper your prose with name-calling, directed both at him and the people who support him.

Honestly, it sounds a little hysterical.

Erm, I believe you’ve conflated two posts. The comment that Dawkins’ arguments are by definition bad actually came from a previous one, and was not intended entirely seriously.

You seem, however, decided to cast aspersions on my meaning that are not in what I have said. My accusations are that he is:

1) A populist and a demagogue (see T-shirts, etc.);
2) Intellectually dishonest (both in his claims that his discredited theories are widely accepted in academic circles and in his reductionist omission of all mention of Aristotelian epigenesis in order to create a false dichotomy, not to mention the weak and frankly academically unacceptable manner of his anti-religious works);
3) Causing harm to both the public and the academic world via 2;
4) engendering a personality cult around himself (something dangerous in itself).

I apologise if that wasn’t clear. At present I have flu, and I wrote that reply with a thumping headache. I hope this clarifies what I was getting at.

“My “meta-motive” is to say this: if you’ve got really good, strong arguments on your side, don’t resort to parlor-games like “let’s imagine what a Creator SHOULD have done!” because it’s weak, it’s not scientific, and it’s not convincing.”

Vestigial organs, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is one stream of evidence among many others for evolution. When it is used in an argument pitting evolution against creationism it is invariably in response to the absurd “how could something do perfect happen by chance?” and is pointing out that this “perfection” is simply illusory.

As I mentioned if this were the only argument in favour or evolution it would be fairly weak, but it is just one more piece of the rather complete puzzle.

Your articles so far have implied that you think there may be some doubt about the fact of species to species evolution. In the world of science there really isn’t.

OK, let’s start again.

Greg, you say that evolutionists who make arguments based on vagus nerves or retinas are playing “parlour games” by making assumptions about what God would do. What you miss is why they resort to these tactics. Allow your point that it is a bad argument – though it isn’t when, as Tony says, you take in in the context of all the other evidence. Why would evolutionists resort to bad arguments? Perhaps because the creationists’ arguments are themselves so bad that “good arguments” become simply otiose. If you’re going to argue with these people (which may, I admit, be pointless) sooner or later you’re going to have to come down to their level.

Put it a different way. The God hypothesis doesn’t exist in isolation: it requires a pre-existing view of what God is like and the sort of things God does, a view that has nothing to do with biology or any science, but derives squarely from religion. So to point out to believers in divine creation that God – as they tend to conceive of him – seems to be acting in illogical ways isn’t actually a bad argument, because it isn’t really an argument about the characteristics or behaviour of God at all, but rather an argument about the illogicality of their world-view.

This is why this comment spectacularly misses the point:

The thing is, because you haven’t done due diligence and created a giraffe with an “optimal” vagus nerve, you actually DON’T know that it “could” be designed better. You don’t know it in the details.

No, but you do know – logically – that an omnipotent God would have found a way. A God forced to make compromises in the way you describe would be by definition a limited being – or, alternatively, would be doing it on purpose as part of a cynical attempt to make people believe in evolution, and thus would not have the characteristics of truth and goodness also generally attributed to him.

Greg, I apologise for accusing you of Christianity.

To reiterate some of what Tony and Heresiarch have already said, the argument from design flaws is both a scientific argument and a theological argument.

Omnniscience and omnipotence are traditional attributes of the creator god. These attributes render your “Have you ever created a universe?” argument illogical. Those two omnis mean that everything made by the creator turned out exactly as it intended. A being of infinite knowledge and ability has no limits “in a real practical sense”. So a question like “Why the panda’s thumb?” is a legitimate one, to which “maybe because it would have been too hard to do otherwise” is only a reasonable answer if you are willing to ditch the omnis. Creationists, typically, are not.

So you are left with the “mysterious ways”, which exposes another contradiction. The god of creationists is a perfectly lucid and understandable one when it comes to relaying its opinions on stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion and homosexuality. It only becomes “mysterious” when you start asking awkward questions about it. The argument from design flaws provides just such an awkward quesition.

You are right that creationists “absolutely do not” have to explain design flaws. But their various responses (and silence is one of them) reveal weaknesses in their viewpoint in various ways.

Yes, people who believe good things can still make bad arguments. But the argument from design flaws is not a bad argument.

DavidMWW: “Greg, I apologise for accusing you of Christianity.”

“accusing”? I don’t know if you said that on purpose but that’s nice

“accusing”? I don’t know if you said that on purpose

On purpose? Certainly not. It evolved independently through natural selection.

Heresiarch’s nailed the key point here.

Creationist may not be required to explain the precise reasons for existence of inefficient ‘design’ elements in organic life, but they do have to square-off the presence of such flaws with their belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and infallible creator.

I wonder not if you are a Christian Greg but if you are into self – flagellation. The only people with whom it is more futile to try and argue than religious fundamentalists are humanist fundamentalists.

A while ago I entered a CiF thread to argue that people like Robert Winston and that guy who was thrown out of the Royal Society were not betraying science by being practicing members of a religious faith.

I was immediately attacked by a howling mob accusing me of being a creationists just like Winston and the other Guy, Reece? Neither of them are of course.

Ian Thorpe – the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Greg’s article is not a result of this site being populated by “humanist fundamentalists” (what on earth are they?). It is because his argument was fundamentally flawed in a way which nearly every commenter from the 1st one down pointed out.

If you make a bad argument in a forum such as this or CiF, there is no shortage of readers who are happy to explain where you went wrong. They will do so with varying degrees of civility.

I was not witness to your being “attacked by a howling mob” on CiF. But you should consider the possibility – and judging from your comment here, it is quite a strong possibility – that you may simply have been talking crap.

David,

Clearly you and I disagree about the validity of the “You have to explain why God made things differently than I would have made them!” argument. That’s fine. Personally, I think you are taking a naive view of what “omnipotence” means. I think an “omnipotent” God could still very well have a desire to create a self-consistent and coherent universe. My argument about sensitive dependence and understanding the side-effects of fundamental changes (e.g. the changes needed in DNA that would lead to changes in embryonic functioning that would allow the vagus nerve to develop more optimally in giraffes) presumes that God would not WANT to say “I will make this organism follow completely different physical laws than all other things!” It presumes that God would not WANT to say, “I’m just not going to bother with using DNA in this organism, I’ll use something else this time!”

In my view, it makes sense to think that God may want, in creating a universe with consistent laws and functioning, to allow some things to be non-optimal along factor X because he was optimizing instead along factor Y in a delicate and balanced system.

But, in my view, this all is just another illustration of why this is entire approach is such a very bad argument: it rests on speculations by ALL parties about what a creater “would” or “should” have done. That is where the dangerous ground lies, in my opinion.

In addition, I’ll point out something that troubles me slightly about this entire discussion. (This is not directed at you, David, in particular; this is a response to the entire thread.)

The real problem that I see in the above comments is the very strong parallels between the way that many have gone about debating this matter, and the way that creationists often debate. Let me point out some of the similarities.

1) I say “A is a bad argument”; someone responds by saying, “But we have arguments B-Z over here!”

When I said that this specific argument was a bad one, bobxxxx “defended” it by saying “all the evidence, and the evidence is massive, supports evolution by natural selection.” I agree that this is true, but it doesn’t make this specific argument any better. This is exactly the same strategy creationists use much of the time. You tell them that they misunderstand the definition of “transitional species”, and they respond by saying, “Well, how do you explain the soul?” It’s a strategy of distraction.

2) Irrelevant accusations

David’s “I think I smell theism” was about as rational an argument as saying “evolutionists worship Chance as if it were a god.” It’s not even worth addressing.

3) Questioning meta-motives.

Tony says, “I think it’s a turn for the worse to present fallacious arguments in what I regard as a misguided attempt to appear even handed.” Again, this is an “attack” that doesn’t address the actual argument I made, just derides my assumed motive. This is the kind of thing you see when creationists say, “You are just trying to suppress any belief in God!” It’s bizarre, and is a distraction.

If you really want to take the intellectual high-ground in this debate, you shouldn’t resort to the same conversational tactics that you criticize for being unscientific and unprofessional. Heresiarch pointed out that many times evolutionists are drawn into bad arguments because creationists use such bad arguments (and seem to refuse to understand good ones, as well).

That may be true, but to any outside observer, consider how this looks. You lose ALL credibility when you start acting exactly like your opponents.

What about:

4) Redefining fundamental terms in order to keep your argument afloat.

You say my (actually, not just my – also Knut-Sverre Horn’s, Tony’s, encyclops’s, Robert Stovold’s, Heresiarch’s and Unity’s, who all make the same point) view of omnipotence is “naive”. As opposed to your still-undefined definition of omnipotence, which is more …what? … sophisticated? down-to-earth?

Creationists do this all the time. Show them a transitional fossil and they’ll say it’s not “transitional” in the way they mean. Those fruit flys evolved a resistance to virus x? That’s not “evolution” as they define it.

By standard definition (by a creationist’s standards, that is), an omnipotent, omniscient perfect being is one of infinite power and knowledge. Such a being would – by definition – be unconstrained by practical limitations and therefore have no need to “allow some things to be non-optimal along factor X because he was optimizing instead along factor Y in a delicate and balanced system.”

You say:

My argument about sensitive dependence and understanding the side-effects of fundamental changes […] presumes that God would not WANT to say “I will make this organism follow completely different physical laws than all other things!” It presumes that God would not WANT to say, “I’m just not going to bother with using DNA in this organism, I’ll use something else this time!”

Beside the fact that are making some extraordinary presumptions about the desires of god here (my nose is twitching again, sorry!), an omni-blah being would not HAVE TO say “I will make make this organism follow completely different physical laws than all other things” or “I’m just not going to bother with using DNA in this organism, I’ll use something else this time!” – he could achieve what he wants by any means he wants while maintaining a “perfectly consistent and coherent system”. That’s by definition – not presumption.

As I said before, the argument from design flaws is a good one because whatever the creationist’s response, it forces him to concede ground. Even if that involves just a redefining of “omnipotent” to mean something a lot less than he thought it meant before – it’s a small victory, and a baby step in the right direction.

I think this is a very poignant question that no one seems to be asking.

http://derrenbrownart.com/blog/?p=67

LOL. Classic !

This article is false and misrepresents the claims of Dawkins, Gould and others. The argument being discussed is actually a response to the claims that the proof of the existence of God is the perfection of the design of nature. If biologists can show that nature is not designed perfectly, but in fact in many instances imperfect, then this claim is obviously wrong.

Burden of proof is pretty meaningless in such a debate, but given that the statement being discussed is a response to an argument, rather than an argument in itself (as the author falsely implies), the creationists would need to be able to counter the imperfection argument if the want to be successful in convincing people that nature is indeed perfectly designed by God.

I find the Evolution vs Creationism debate fascinating. It strikes me that the extremes of both positions imitate each other. Let me explain. Aggressive science, such as the type employed by Dawkins, states emphatically that the concept of Creationism cannot intelligently offer anything to explain the origin of life. Creationism, so it argues, is not based on evidence, but faith. And so is bunkum. It is true it is not based on evidence. But is faith unintelligent? Not necessarily. I have never been to Mongolia. Yet I believe it exists. Why? Because a variety of authorities, whom I trust, tell me it exists, show me holiday snapshots of them drinking yak’s milk, etc. That is faith. I believe on the authority of the person telling me. And if that person is credible, that faith is not unintelligent.

However, when Creationists go further than an affirmation of faith, which most reasonable persons would respect, but attempt to go further, and treat Creationism as an empirical science? That is certainly unintelligent. For how can the acts of a spiritual being be subject to observation by the senses? It actually imitates Science in order to combat Science.

But consider the other extreme: I’
ll call it Militant Evolutionism. Evolution has never claimed to explain the origin of life.How does inert matter organise itself into a complex, self-sustaining and self-replicating organism? So far, it has not empirically demonstrated how that happens. Sure, evolution describes, imperfectly and incompletely, the journey of life, from empirical evidence. But not THE origin of life. Of course, simply because it does not explain it does not mean it won’t in the future. Just as, because it doesn’t explain, it doesn’t mean that direct creation must be the explanation. In order to supply this deficiency, ‘militant evolutionism’, as I have called it, acts like a Faith, requiring us to have faith that evolution alone has all the answers. So you have the two extremes having to imitate each other in order to maintain their power (yes, power-let’s not forget the political aspect of this debate).

What both sides need is a little humility. We should deny neither good Science nor the sense of humility and awe that is part of our spiritual being. Life is a wondrous thing ultimately beyond comprehension and perhaps explanation.

“Life is a wondrous thing ultimately beyond comprehension and perhaps explanation.”

Do you really think this? It seems unlikely to me but I would accept that it may take a while.

I think it should be a sad world when we have reduced life to mathematical equations and say, ‘we get it now’. There is something essentially spiritual about life. I am an admirer of the thinking of Paul Davies, the Australian physicist. He explains the universe as far as he can, and finally concludes that there is something about it ultimately beyond explanation. That is not to say he resorts to the ‘God, the First Cause’ explanation. He simply says there is something inexplicable.

I think that is a healthy attitude. It is arrogant on the part of both Science and faith to assume anything else. Science will explain more and more as time goes on but in the meantime it must be humble. It must also be mindful that just as faith is not competent to judge Science, neither is Science competent to judge faith.

“But consider the other extreme: I’
ll call it Militant Evolutionism. Evolution has never claimed to explain the origin of life.How does inert matter organise itself into a complex, self-sustaining and self-replicating organism? So far, it has not empirically demonstrated how that happens. Sure, evolution describes, imperfectly and incompletely, the journey of life, from empirical evidence. But not THE origin of life. Of course, simply because it does not explain it does not mean it won’t in the future.”

Evolution does not and will never explain the origin of life. The origin of life is a question to be answered by chemistry, not by biology. Evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life, suggesting that it should also explain the origin of life from non-living matter is a misrepresentation.

Gazza, I don’t see why understanding something reduces one’s wonder or appreciation of that thing. I know the sun is just a big burning ball of gas but I still stare in awe at a glorious sunset. To my mind, the more we understand the way things work and interact, the more wonderful it all is.

I fully expect that one day we will also understand the mechanisms that lead to feelings of awe, wonder, or, if you want, spirituality. It won’t stop us experiencing these feelings but, perhaps, it will help put to rest the idea that there is something inexplicable behind everything (really just another way of saying God isn’t it?).

I would argue that science is inherently humble insofar as it alters to encompass new evidence and is prepared to admit that we do not know everything (yet!). Faith seems to me to be quite the opposite; clinging to belief in the face of contradictory evidence and even inventing nonsense to support those beliefs. It may be that we differ in our definition of faith as your idea of faith in the existence of Mongolia is not, to my mind, faith. It is an accumulation of evidence that proves to you, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mongolia exists. Faith, in my view, is the belief in something for which you have no evidence (or evidence of such poor quality that there must be considerable doubt).

Tony, it’s semantics really isn’t it? At the molecular/atomic level physics, chemistry and biology seem pretty much indistinguishable.

“Tony, it’s semantics really isn’t it? At the molecular/atomic level physics, chemistry and biology seem pretty much indistinguishable.”

No it isn’t. The difference between science and rhetoric is not “semantics”. If somebody suggests that one day “evolution” will explain the origin of life from non-living matter then the likelihood is that they are looking at a strawman version of biological evolution.

I agree but that wasn’t what I was saying. The point at which life can be said to originate could be called chemistry or biology. Let’s call it biochemistry.

Cool. Like I said, evolution (for evolution read Science, biology, chemistry, whatever) does not explain the first animation of inanimate matter, and perhaps never will. So there is a mystery. The reasonable thing is to respect the mystery. Just as religion is not a science, neither is science a religion.

The Vagus nerve is a rather important nerve and it does a lot more than just connect the brain to the throat. It regulates your heart beat, helps with speech and digestion and a handful of other things. At least that’s what several books and websites told me…

You make such a bold claim, saying the Vegus nerve basicly just joins two body parts, but you don’t reference it? Who told you that’s all it does? How can you base an argument on misinformation?

I’m a christian and I just understand why u guys can’t have faith. It says to do so right in the bible, duh. U guys claim to be all scientific but u can’t even read.

“For You formed my inward parts… I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…” Psalm 139:13-14

Psalm 19
Psalm of David.
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands

Doh … done it again. Seem I have missed out on this article whilst it was still a hot-topic. Never mind … maybe it will become ‘hot’ again sometime!

Hope you don’t mind but going to go slightly off the specific topic/argument of this post and paste in a comment I made in the 2nd article of this little series that Greg has done. I seem to have a habit of entering these things too late!

Came across this site when doing some research on Scientology, and got interested enough to read this debate.

So I can be pigeon-holed straight away … I’m a creationist of the most “nutter” variety! I believe the universe exists as an act of divine will. I believe that all life on earth comes from an act of divine will, and that all this happened in a timescale of 1,000’s of years not 1,000,000’s or 1,000,000,000’s of years.

I simply wanted to say that I have found this article one of the best evolution/creation critiques I’ve encountered. Most tend to simply belittle, ridicule and/or patronise. This actually takes some of the arguments seriously. And as Mr Stevens has pointed out, often there is simply a lack of common definition.

Just a few points & questions I would like to make –
(1) It seems that you are simply not allowed to be a critic of Darwinian evolution. Even if you do not propose an alternative, simply to point out any flaw, contradiction, falsehood or even to raise a question instantly condemns you to the position of an apostate heretic. [I use a religious analogy because the parallels are so remarkably uncanny].
(2) I am often gob smacked by the way that evolution is used as scientific ‘catch all’ to explain virtually anything you want – evolutionary psychology being the worst – with absolutely ZERO scientific method being applied.
(3) Why is DNA is attributed with anthropomorphic qualities … it has a ‘desire’ to ’survive’. It’s just a chemical isn’t it? Why is it bestowed with ‘desires’ and a ‘will’ of sorts? Why does it ‘want’ to do this more than sodium chloride?
(4) I’ve never yet heard a plausible evolutionary explanation for mutual species inter-dependence or reproductive inter-dependence but would love to pointed to one (sincerely I would). How could the mutually inter-dependant sexual reproductive organs evolve slowly over 100’s of 1000’s of years?

Appreciate the calm, considered style of this site … much better than some that I could mention!

On the specific argument that Greg made in his title article …

I think it’s interesting how many people in the comments have falling EXACTLY into the trap that Greg talks about.

Isn’t it just as flawed to say that IF God had designed things He should have done this-or-that as it is to say that if evolution occurred then why didn’t this-or-that happen. For e.g., as a creationist, I don’t understand what evolutionary advantage there is to LOSING the ability to fly/photosynthesise/diffuse oxygen under water etc… Surely which ever animal didn’t LOSE these abilities but simply developed additional ones would have had a better survival chance. [Please don't answer those specific questions … they are there to serve the point on the futility of such an argument!]

Or again, why haven’t we evolved wheels. Ludicrous … but just as ludicrous as saying “if I were God I’d have designed the optic nerve like this”. Well if I were God I would have given us the ability to fly and breathe under water and see in the dark and not need to sleep … etc etc.

This is neither good theology (understanding of God) or natural science. Just pseudo-philosophy at it’s very worst and certainly not going to produce anything of value in a discussion on explaining the ‘origins of species’.

Basically, I agree with your article whole-heartedly Greg! And some of the responses you have had illustrate the point I made in my last post … that it seems you simply cannot criticise or critique any evolutionary argument without being jumped on by the “high priests” for daring to question their “orthodoxy”. I do find it quite saddening because it means that genuine discourse & debate just gets completely lost.

Still, your articles and the comments afterwards seem to come to the closest I’ve ever encountered in a long long while. Thank you.

If there really was an omnipotent and omniscient creator, I am sure the process of «completely re-think(ing) the entire process of embryonic development» would’nt take him long. I am afraid your line of reasoning seems rather far-fetched.

Moreover, I don’t think it is fair to put the alleged arguments from ignorance on an equal footing. The arguments about «design blunders» serves to debunk creationist assertions (the creation is perfect, the Creator must be perfect as well).
When taken together they obviously provide strong support for common ancestry and evolution making the best of a bad job, rather than implementing the scheme of a divine creator.

This series has taken a turn for the worse, choosing to perpetuate the myth that there are two sides to the question rather than basing the argument on the preponderance of evidence.

It is particularly egregious to suggest that pointing out vestigial organs is an argument from ignorance. It isn’t. Vestigial organs suggest common descent and are in line with both the predictions made by the theory of evolution and other lines of evidence including genetics and fossils.

Why are there some rules an intelligent designer can make and some s/he can’t? That is, if there’s an intelligence behind the design, why can’t it change the way some animals’ embryos develop? Why can’t it simply decide, “giraffes? Nah, that’ll never work — the vagus nerve would have to be super long. Maybe some other animal can fit that niche.” If we assume that the fixed points of intelligent design are the same as those of evolution, that the mechanisms by which intelligent design iterates are identical to those explained by evolutionary theory, where does the intelligence come in?

All the evidence, and the evidence is massive, supports evolution by natural selection. The “intelligent designer” also known as the “Magic Fairy” has not one shred of evidence, which isn’t surprising because magic is a childish idiotic idea.

As has already been noted in these comments, talking of “degrees of inconvenience” makes no sense with reference to an an omnipotent designer god.
The problem of functionless vestigial organs is a far easier one to crack than the vagus nerve – just get rid of the offending organs! Even evolution can acheive this if given enough time.
Evolutionists don’t necessarily say things “must not” have been done on purpose – they simply (and rightly) say that in cases of doubt, the burden of proof lies with the I.D. supporters to say that there is a purpose. Until they do so, the evolutionary explanation should be preferred, because it is simpler.
As Dawkins put it, “When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

I smell theism. Is the author of this article a Christian?

This is a very unconvincing argument. As Tony points out, vestigial organs and a backwards-wired retina are strong evidence for common descent. Cephalopods, by contrast, have retinas that are wired-up “the right way”. Now, of course, a “designer” might want to design species in such a way as to give a remarkable simulacrum of common descent and natural selection, but Occam’s Razor would suggest such a suggestion isn’t worth entertaining. I, too, detect a whiff of anti-scientific thinking in this article – or at least a love of logical fiddlesticks.

These comments are fantastic. Because more than anything, many of these comments show that there can be a proliferation of “counter-knowledge tactics” on both sides of the debate.

In this article, I call into question one specific argument used by evolutionists that I don’t believe has any merit. And in response, I get:

DavidMWW making an ad hominem attack, asking if I’m Christian.

bobxxxx making the general statement that “all the evidence supports evolution” (something that I argree with, as it happens) without ever addressing the specific issue I brought up in the post.

Tony saying that it’s a “turn for the worse” to ever criticize ANY evolutionist arguments, because heaven forbid there ever be an engaging debate.

These are precisely the styles of argument that creationists use. In fact, these are the same styles of argument that a creationist used against ME in comments to previous posts of mine…. which I criticized.

So, let me make something totally clear: When I claim that supporters of evolution sometimes make bad arguments, I’m not saying that evolution is wrong. I’m not saying that those bad arguments discredit evolution. I’m not saying that “evolution and creationism are the same.”

I’m just saying that supporters of evolution sometimes make bad arguments.

Now, to address the specific points made by Knut-Sverre Horn and Heresiarch.

The core of my thesis is simply this: Your argument here rests on you making assumptions about the decisions or thought-process of a (theoretically) omniscient being. And, sadly, you are not yourself omniscient. This opens you (and anyone else) up to endless and meaningless iterations of, “Well, maybe the Creator did it this way for THAT reason….”

As a result, it’s simply a bad argument. It’s rooted in the fact that you “can’t come up with” an explanation for why someone who is smarter than you (God) would do something a certain way. That entire approach is not, on the face of it, convincing.

And finally, as others have pointed out, there is a huge mass of evidence for evolution that is very convincing. Which is why I am really apalled that people cling to an argument as poor as this one.

It wasn’t an ad hom attack, Greg. It was a hypothesis-testing question.

DavidMWW: “I smell theism.”….. yep, that’s the judgement-neutral tone of hypothesis-testing, right there.

Look, I’ll back off on my tone a bit; however, I do want to say this: yours was a knee-jerk reaction. I hope you recognize that it is exactly that kind of response, moreover, that inhibits dialogue with people who are yet-to-be-convinced.

As it happens, although it couldn’t possibly be less relevant to the discussion at hand, I’m an agnostic that was raised by a Unitarian painter and an athiest chemistry professor.

And although I whole-heartedly support evolution, I still recognize that people who believe good things can still make bad arguments.

I think actually you DO mean “God works in mysterious ways” in that weird mystical sense. You’re suggesting that any God smart enough to design a universe must be much smarter than we are, and might have seen reasons to do things in a way that seems weird to us because we’re not smart enough to understand it. This is exactly the argument put forth by some religious people to explain why bad things happen to good people: if we were God, we’d understand his master plan and it would make sense to us. Is there anything we CAN’T hand-wave away with this counterargument?

Evolutionary theory explains the vagus nerve by saying that we evolved from common ancestors, and that what made sense in fish doesn’t make as much sense in humans or giraffes, but since it’s based on previous designs and there’s no intelligent designer who could theoretically go clean-sheet for the giraffe and say “let’s make an efficient long-necked mammal for eating leaves from tall trees,” we’re stuck with it.

So if the outcome of supposedly “intelligent design” looks exactly as though the later designs evolved by natural selection from the earlier designs, the role of the intelligent designer is reduced to standing above the factory floor nodding and grunting at the automatic iteration of his or her designs. Deism? The intelligent designer sets everything in motion, then packs some suitcases and goes off to Cancun, ultimately superfluous to the ongoing process? Why postulate an intelligent designer in the first place?

encyclops: “You’re suggesting that any God smart enough to design a universe must be much smarter than we are, and might have seen reasons to do things in a way that seems weird to us because we’re not smart enough to understand it.”

Well… yes and no. I’m actually thinking along more specific lines than just that. You’re probably familiar with the whole concept of “sensitive dependence”, right? Popularized by the notion of the “butterfly effect”: making small changes in a complex system can have dramatic and unexpected outcomes.

I’m just saying that without actually tinkering around and examining the details of what an “alternatively designed ecosystem” would look like, it’s not a scientific claim to simply say, “Oh, such-and-such could easily have been done differently, without any other side-effects!” Not only is it not scientifically sound, but knowing what we do about the nature of biological systems, it is not even really probable.

To allow the vagus nerve to be wired more efficiently in the giraffe, its embryonic development would have had to have progressed differently. For that to have happened would require a different course of cell splitting and specialization. For that to happen, would likely have required a number of differences in genetic code.

And I don’t know (and I suspect you do not, either) exactly what those differences would be, or what side-effects they might have incurred. Maybe the only way to code a DNA strand to make the embryo develop in a way that produces an optimal giraffe vagus nerve would have the side effect of creating OTHER genetic problems. Maybe the only way to do it without bad side-effects would be to code protein synthesis in a mechanism other than DNA, which opens up a host of other new problems.

The thing is, because you haven’t done due diligence and created a giraffe with an “optimal” vagus nerve, you actually DON’T know that it “could” be designed better. You don’t know it in the details.

That is why this is not a scientific argument. You say you can “imagine” a world in which everything is exactly the same except that giraffes develop in such a way as to have a shorter vagus nerve. I’m saying that you are not qualified to “know” that at all.

People can “imagine” many things that are not actually logically possible.

I think it would be helpful for you to distinguish between the different types of belief in creation and/or ID as (in a previous poat) you do between different meanings of the term evolution. I believe in a Creator, but that does not mean I subscribe to many of the wacky theories that are usually propounded (and derided) as Creationist, nor that I necessarily dispute natural selection (though I do not see how it accounts for the major discontinuities between not-alive and alive, for example, for all Dawkins’ explanation…

“Tony saying that it’s a “turn for the worse” to ever criticize ANY evolutionist arguments, because heaven forbid there ever be an engaging debate.”

No. I think it’s a turn for the worse to present fallacious arguments in what I regard as a misguided attempt to appear even handed. Poor arguments for evolution should absolutely be rejected, vestigial organs however form part of the scientific evidence of evolution. If it were an argument made in isolation of the other evidence then it wouldn’t be a terribly strong one and certainly isn’t enough to be conclusive, but it does not exist in isolation, it exists alongside multiple other streams of evidence. It also supports the predictions made by the theory of evolution, one would expect if the theory is correct that leftover parts from early species would still exist and that inefficiencies would be expected.

My biggest issue with the notion of taking the middle ground in the “debate” between evolution and creation is that there really isn’t a debate. Evolution is a scientific theory backed by multiple streams of evidence, while creationism is the closed assertion that “God did it”. Intelligent design proponents suffer from the same limitation, only their contention is that “someone did it”.

When one side spends the whole time attacking the other without proposing any alternative then it isn’t really a debate.

Tony considers this article to be “what I regard as a misguided attempt to appear even handed.”

That’s actually not my “meta-motive”, as it were.

My “meta-motive” is to say this: if you’ve got really good, strong arguments on your side, don’t resort to parlor-games like “let’s imagine what a Creator SHOULD have done!” because it’s weak, it’s not scientific, and it’s not convincing.

Honestly, it always upsets me to see people make bad arguments for good conclusions. It side-tracks the debate. As I’ve said before, there is SO MUCH evidence for evolution, this is a distracting red-herring.

I’m not taking a “middle ground” and I absolutely do NOT think evolution and creationism are on even footing.

I just think it’s a bad idea to use bad rhetoric in support of a good theory.

Greg,

That Dawkins employs it is practically proof that it’s a tactic borne of counterknowledge and pseudo-scientific.

This is not to say that evolution is anything but true; rather that the Selfish-Meme peddler is a demagogue and deliberately misrepresents the truth to further his own arguments (his recent TV programme is proof positive of this; his reduction of the history of understandings of our origin to exclude theories of epigenesis is heinous enough, without claiming that his ’selfish gene’ stuff is accepted by the majority of scientists…)

Further, this kind of condemnatory, aloof disdain is typical of Dawkins’ materialist worshippers.

I am sure I will be accused of all kinds of calumnies, from theism to child-buggery, and that there will be fulminations against me for daring to criticise the great Dicky, but if this site isn’t about outing counter-knowledge regardless of who publishes it, then what is it?

C.P.:

When Dawkins uses the argument I talked about in the article, he’s using counter-knowledge tactics.

But, that being said, i’m not entirely sure from where all of your venom toward him comes.

A philosophical materialist and shameless self-promoter who sells T-shirts with a ruddy great ‘A’ for atheist on them; who has engendered a personality cult and who relies on sneering and poor understanding of basic philosophy to back up his empty world-view, who refuses to accept that the academic world has moved past him (cell biologist Lenny Moss has described his concept of the ’selfish gene’ as ‘a biology built of onto-theology’), and whose followers slavishly worship him, he engages in shallow debates and sways the masses as a demagogue through false argument and reductionism, in order to perpetuate his own flawed thinking and to spread his materialist claptrap (see the bus signs mentioned below…).

The man is, in short, a menace to the intellectual world and to the intellectual integrity of both the university of Oxford and the general public, but also, ironically, to the public understanding of science.

I fulminate against him not because he is necessarily wrong, but that the building-blocks he has used to reach his conclusion are so painfully lacking, and his supporters growing dangerously.

Your tone makes me a little sad. You accuse him of demagoguery, but go on to say that any argument used by Dawkins MUST be a bad argument because:

1) he is an atheist
2) people like him
3) you don’t like his tone
4) you don’t like the tone of the people who like him

Instead of restricting yourself to material criticisms, you pepper your prose with name-calling, directed both at him and the people who support him.

Honestly, it sounds a little hysterical.

Erm, I believe you’ve conflated two posts. The comment that Dawkins’ arguments are by definition bad actually came from a previous one, and was not intended entirely seriously.

You seem, however, decided to cast aspersions on my meaning that are not in what I have said. My accusations are that he is:

1) A populist and a demagogue (see T-shirts, etc.);
2) Intellectually dishonest (both in his claims that his discredited theories are widely accepted in academic circles and in his reductionist omission of all mention of Aristotelian epigenesis in order to create a false dichotomy, not to mention the weak and frankly academically unacceptable manner of his anti-religious works);
3) Causing harm to both the public and the academic world via 2;
4) engendering a personality cult around himself (something dangerous in itself).

I apologise if that wasn’t clear. At present I have flu, and I wrote that reply with a thumping headache. I hope this clarifies what I was getting at.

“My “meta-motive” is to say this: if you’ve got really good, strong arguments on your side, don’t resort to parlor-games like “let’s imagine what a Creator SHOULD have done!” because it’s weak, it’s not scientific, and it’s not convincing.”

Vestigial organs, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is one stream of evidence among many others for evolution. When it is used in an argument pitting evolution against creationism it is invariably in response to the absurd “how could something do perfect happen by chance?” and is pointing out that this “perfection” is simply illusory.

As I mentioned if this were the only argument in favour or evolution it would be fairly weak, but it is just one more piece of the rather complete puzzle.

Your articles so far have implied that you think there may be some doubt about the fact of species to species evolution. In the world of science there really isn’t.

OK, let’s start again.

Greg, you say that evolutionists who make arguments based on vagus nerves or retinas are playing “parlour games” by making assumptions about what God would do. What you miss is why they resort to these tactics. Allow your point that it is a bad argument – though it isn’t when, as Tony says, you take in in the context of all the other evidence. Why would evolutionists resort to bad arguments? Perhaps because the creationists’ arguments are themselves so bad that “good arguments” become simply otiose. If you’re going to argue with these people (which may, I admit, be pointless) sooner or later you’re going to have to come down to their level.

Put it a different way. The God hypothesis doesn’t exist in isolation: it requires a pre-existing view of what God is like and the sort of things God does, a view that has nothing to do with biology or any science, but derives squarely from religion. So to point out to believers in divine creation that God – as they tend to conceive of him – seems to be acting in illogical ways isn’t actually a bad argument, because it isn’t really an argument about the characteristics or behaviour of God at all, but rather an argument about the illogicality of their world-view.

This is why this comment spectacularly misses the point:

The thing is, because you haven’t done due diligence and created a giraffe with an “optimal” vagus nerve, you actually DON’T know that it “could” be designed better. You don’t know it in the details.

No, but you do know – logically – that an omnipotent God would have found a way. A God forced to make compromises in the way you describe would be by definition a limited being – or, alternatively, would be doing it on purpose as part of a cynical attempt to make people believe in evolution, and thus would not have the characteristics of truth and goodness also generally attributed to him.

Greg, I apologise for accusing you of Christianity.

To reiterate some of what Tony and Heresiarch have already said, the argument from design flaws is both a scientific argument and a theological argument.

Omnniscience and omnipotence are traditional attributes of the creator god. These attributes render your “Have you ever created a universe?” argument illogical. Those two omnis mean that everything made by the creator turned out exactly as it intended. A being of infinite knowledge and ability has no limits “in a real practical sense”. So a question like “Why the panda’s thumb?” is a legitimate one, to which “maybe because it would have been too hard to do otherwise” is only a reasonable answer if you are willing to ditch the omnis. Creationists, typically, are not.

So you are left with the “mysterious ways”, which exposes another contradiction. The god of creationists is a perfectly lucid and understandable one when it comes to relaying its opinions on stem cell research, euthanasia, abortion and homosexuality. It only becomes “mysterious” when you start asking awkward questions about it. The argument from design flaws provides just such an awkward quesition.

You are right that creationists “absolutely do not” have to explain design flaws. But their various responses (and silence is one of them) reveal weaknesses in their viewpoint in various ways.

Yes, people who believe good things can still make bad arguments. But the argument from design flaws is not a bad argument.

DavidMWW: “Greg, I apologise for accusing you of Christianity.”

“accusing”? I don’t know if you said that on purpose but that’s nice

“accusing”? I don’t know if you said that on purpose

On purpose? Certainly not. It evolved independently through natural selection.

Heresiarch’s nailed the key point here.

Creationist may not be required to explain the precise reasons for existence of inefficient ‘design’ elements in organic life, but they do have to square-off the presence of such flaws with their belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and infallible creator.

I wonder not if you are a Christian Greg but if you are into self – flagellation. The only people with whom it is more futile to try and argue than religious fundamentalists are humanist fundamentalists.

A while ago I entered a CiF thread to argue that people like Robert Winston and that guy who was thrown out of the Royal Society were not betraying science by being practicing members of a religious faith.

I was immediately attacked by a howling mob accusing me of being a creationists just like Winston and the other Guy, Reece? Neither of them are of course.

Ian Thorpe – the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Greg’s article is not a result of this site being populated by “humanist fundamentalists” (what on earth are they?). It is because his argument was fundamentally flawed in a way which nearly every commenter from the 1st one down pointed out.

If you make a bad argument in a forum such as this or CiF, there is no shortage of readers who are happy to explain where you went wrong. They will do so with varying degrees of civility.

I was not witness to your being “attacked by a howling mob” on CiF. But you should consider the possibility – and judging from your comment here, it is quite a strong possibility – that you may simply have been talking crap.

David,

Clearly you and I disagree about the validity of the “You have to explain why God made things differently than I would have made them!” argument. That’s fine. Personally, I think you are taking a naive view of what “omnipotence” means. I think an “omnipotent” God could still very well have a desire to create a self-consistent and coherent universe. My argument about sensitive dependence and understanding the side-effects of fundamental changes (e.g. the changes needed in DNA that would lead to changes in embryonic functioning that would allow the vagus nerve to develop more optimally in giraffes) presumes that God would not WANT to say “I will make this organism follow completely different physical laws than all other things!” It presumes that God would not WANT to say, “I’m just not going to bother with using DNA in this organism, I’ll use something else this time!”

In my view, it makes sense to think that God may want, in creating a universe with consistent laws and functioning, to allow some things to be non-optimal along factor X because he was optimizing instead along factor Y in a delicate and balanced system.

But, in my view, this all is just another illustration of why this is entire approach is such a very bad argument: it rests on speculations by ALL parties about what a creater “would” or “should” have done. That is where the dangerous ground lies, in my opinion.

In addition, I’ll point out something that troubles me slightly about this entire discussion. (This is not directed at you, David, in particular; this is a response to the entire thread.)

The real problem that I see in the above comments is the very strong parallels between the way that many have gone about debating this matter, and the way that creationists often debate. Let me point out some of the similarities.

1) I say “A is a bad argument”; someone responds by saying, “But we have arguments B-Z over here!”

When I said that this specific argument was a bad one, bobxxxx “defended” it by saying “all the evidence, and the evidence is massive, supports evolution by natural selection.” I agree that this is true, but it doesn’t make this specific argument any better. This is exactly the same strategy creationists use much of the time. You tell them that they misunderstand the definition of “transitional species”, and they respond by saying, “Well, how do you explain the soul?” It’s a strategy of distraction.

2) Irrelevant accusations

David’s “I think I smell theism” was about as rational an argument as saying “evolutionists worship Chance as if it were a god.” It’s not even worth addressing.

3) Questioning meta-motives.

Tony says, “I think it’s a turn for the worse to present fallacious arguments in what I regard as a misguided attempt to appear even handed.” Again, this is an “attack” that doesn’t address the actual argument I made, just derides my assumed motive. This is the kind of thing you see when creationists say, “You are just trying to suppress any belief in God!” It’s bizarre, and is a distraction.

If you really want to take the intellectual high-ground in this debate, you shouldn’t resort to the same conversational tactics that you criticize for being unscientific and unprofessional. Heresiarch pointed out that many times evolutionists are drawn into bad arguments because creationists use such bad arguments (and seem to refuse to understand good ones, as well).

That may be true, but to any outside observer, consider how this looks. You lose ALL credibility when you start acting exactly like your opponents.

What about:

4) Redefining fundamental terms in order to keep your argument afloat.

You say my (actually, not just my – also Knut-Sverre Horn’s, Tony’s, encyclops’s, Robert Stovold’s, Heresiarch’s and Unity’s, who all make the same point) view of omnipotence is “naive”. As opposed to your still-undefined definition of omnipotence, which is more …what? … sophisticated? down-to-earth?

Creationists do this all the time. Show them a transitional fossil and they’ll say it’s not “transitional” in the way they mean. Those fruit flys evolved a resistance to virus x? That’s not “evolution” as they define it.

By standard definition (by a creationist’s standards, that is), an omnipotent, omniscient perfect being is one of infinite power and knowledge. Such a being would – by definition – be unconstrained by practical limitations and therefore have no need to “allow some things to be non-optimal along factor X because he was optimizing instead along factor Y in a delicate and balanced system.”

You say:

My argument about sensitive dependence and understanding the side-effects of fundamental changes […] presumes that God would not WANT to say “I will make this organism follow completely different physical laws than all other things!” It presumes that God would not WANT to say, “I’m just not going to bother with using DNA in this organism, I’ll use something else this time!”

Beside the fact that are making some extraordinary presumptions about the desires of god here (my nose is twitching again, sorry!), an omni-blah being would not HAVE TO say “I will make make this organism follow completely different physical laws than all other things” or “I’m just not going to bother with using DNA in this organism, I’ll use something else this time!” – he could achieve what he wants by any means he wants while maintaining a “perfectly consistent and coherent system”. That’s by definition – not presumption.

As I said before, the argument from design flaws is a good one because whatever the creationist’s response, it forces him to concede ground. Even if that involves just a redefining of “omnipotent” to mean something a lot less than he thought it meant before – it’s a small victory, and a baby step in the right direction.

I think this is a very poignant question that no one seems to be asking.

http://derrenbrownart.com/blog/?p=67

LOL. Classic !

This article is false and misrepresents the claims of Dawkins, Gould and others. The argument being discussed is actually a response to the claims that the proof of the existence of God is the perfection of the design of nature. If biologists can show that nature is not designed perfectly, but in fact in many instances imperfect, then this claim is obviously wrong.

Burden of proof is pretty meaningless in such a debate, but given that the statement being discussed is a response to an argument, rather than an argument in itself (as the author falsely implies), the creationists would need to be able to counter the imperfection argument if the want to be successful in convincing people that nature is indeed perfectly designed by God.

I find the Evolution vs Creationism debate fascinating. It strikes me that the extremes of both positions imitate each other. Let me explain. Aggressive science, such as the type employed by Dawkins, states emphatically that the concept of Creationism cannot intelligently offer anything to explain the origin of life. Creationism, so it argues, is not based on evidence, but faith. And so is bunkum. It is true it is not based on evidence. But is faith unintelligent? Not necessarily. I have never been to Mongolia. Yet I believe it exists. Why? Because a variety of authorities, whom I trust, tell me it exists, show me holiday snapshots of them drinking yak’s milk, etc. That is faith. I believe on the authority of the person telling me. And if that person is credible, that faith is not unintelligent.

However, when Creationists go further than an affirmation of faith, which most reasonable persons would respect, but attempt to go further, and treat Creationism as an empirical science? That is certainly unintelligent. For how can the acts of a spiritual being be subject to observation by the senses? It actually imitates Science in order to combat Science.

But consider the other extreme: I’
ll call it Militant Evolutionism. Evolution has never claimed to explain the origin of life.How does inert matter organise itself into a complex, self-sustaining and self-replicating organism? So far, it has not empirically demonstrated how that happens. Sure, evolution describes, imperfectly and incompletely, the journey of life, from empirical evidence. But not THE origin of life. Of course, simply because it does not explain it does not mean it won’t in the future. Just as, because it doesn’t explain, it doesn’t mean that direct creation must be the explanation. In order to supply this deficiency, ‘militant evolutionism’, as I have called it, acts like a Faith, requiring us to have faith that evolution alone has all the answers. So you have the two extremes having to imitate each other in order to maintain their power (yes, power-let’s not forget the political aspect of this debate).

What both sides need is a little humility. We should deny neither good Science nor the sense of humility and awe that is part of our spiritual being. Life is a wondrous thing ultimately beyond comprehension and perhaps explanation.

“Life is a wondrous thing ultimately beyond comprehension and perhaps explanation.”

Do you really think this? It seems unlikely to me but I would accept that it may take a while.

I think it should be a sad world when we have reduced life to mathematical equations and say, ‘we get it now’. There is something essentially spiritual about life. I am an admirer of the thinking of Paul Davies, the Australian physicist. He explains the universe as far as he can, and finally concludes that there is something about it ultimately beyond explanation. That is not to say he resorts to the ‘God, the First Cause’ explanation. He simply says there is something inexplicable.

I think that is a healthy attitude. It is arrogant on the part of both Science and faith to assume anything else. Science will explain more and more as time goes on but in the meantime it must be humble. It must also be mindful that just as faith is not competent to judge Science, neither is Science competent to judge faith.

“But consider the other extreme: I’
ll call it Militant Evolutionism. Evolution has never claimed to explain the origin of life.How does inert matter organise itself into a complex, self-sustaining and self-replicating organism? So far, it has not empirically demonstrated how that happens. Sure, evolution describes, imperfectly and incompletely, the journey of life, from empirical evidence. But not THE origin of life. Of course, simply because it does not explain it does not mean it won’t in the future.”

Evolution does not and will never explain the origin of life. The origin of life is a question to be answered by chemistry, not by biology. Evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life, suggesting that it should also explain the origin of life from non-living matter is a misrepresentation.

Gazza, I don’t see why understanding something reduces one’s wonder or appreciation of that thing. I know the sun is just a big burning ball of gas but I still stare in awe at a glorious sunset. To my mind, the more we understand the way things work and interact, the more wonderful it all is.

I fully expect that one day we will also understand the mechanisms that lead to feelings of awe, wonder, or, if you want, spirituality. It won’t stop us experiencing these feelings but, perhaps, it will help put to rest the idea that there is something inexplicable behind everything (really just another way of saying God isn’t it?).

I would argue that science is inherently humble insofar as it alters to encompass new evidence and is prepared to admit that we do not know everything (yet!). Faith seems to me to be quite the opposite; clinging to belief in the face of contradictory evidence and even inventing nonsense to support those beliefs. It may be that we differ in our definition of faith as your idea of faith in the existence of Mongolia is not, to my mind, faith. It is an accumulation of evidence that proves to you, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mongolia exists. Faith, in my view, is the belief in something for which you have no evidence (or evidence of such poor quality that there must be considerable doubt).

Tony, it’s semantics really isn’t it? At the molecular/atomic level physics, chemistry and biology seem pretty much indistinguishable.

“Tony, it’s semantics really isn’t it? At the molecular/atomic level physics, chemistry and biology seem pretty much indistinguishable.”

No it isn’t. The difference between science and rhetoric is not “semantics”. If somebody suggests that one day “evolution” will explain the origin of life from non-living matter then the likelihood is that they are looking at a strawman version of biological evolution.

I agree but that wasn’t what I was saying. The point at which life can be said to originate could be called chemistry or biology. Let’s call it biochemistry.

Cool. Like I said, evolution (for evolution read Science, biology, chemistry, whatever) does not explain the first animation of inanimate matter, and perhaps never will. So there is a mystery. The reasonable thing is to respect the mystery. Just as religion is not a science, neither is science a religion.

The Vagus nerve is a rather important nerve and it does a lot more than just connect the brain to the throat. It regulates your heart beat, helps with speech and digestion and a handful of other things. At least that’s what several books and websites told me…

You make such a bold claim, saying the Vegus nerve basicly just joins two body parts, but you don’t reference it? Who told you that’s all it does? How can you base an argument on misinformation?

I’m a christian and I just understand why u guys can’t have faith. It says to do so right in the bible, duh. U guys claim to be all scientific but u can’t even read.

“For You formed my inward parts… I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made…” Psalm 139:13-14

Psalm 19
Psalm of David.
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands

Doh … done it again. Seem I have missed out on this article whilst it was still a hot-topic. Never mind … maybe it will become ‘hot’ again sometime!

Hope you don’t mind but going to go slightly off the specific topic/argument of this post and paste in a comment I made in the 2nd article of this little series that Greg has done. I seem to have a habit of entering these things too late!

Came across this site when doing some research on Scientology, and got interested enough to read this debate.

So I can be pigeon-holed straight away … I’m a creationist of the most “nutter” variety! I believe the universe exists as an act of divine will. I believe that all life on earth comes from an act of divine will, and that all this happened in a timescale of 1,000’s of years not 1,000,000’s or 1,000,000,000’s of years.

I simply wanted to say that I have found this article one of the best evolution/creation critiques I’ve encountered. Most tend to simply belittle, ridicule and/or patronise. This actually takes some of the arguments seriously. And as Mr Stevens has pointed out, often there is simply a lack of common definition.

Just a few points & questions I would like to make –
(1) It seems that you are simply not allowed to be a critic of Darwinian evolution. Even if you do not propose an alternative, simply to point out any flaw, contradiction, falsehood or even to raise a question instantly condemns you to the position of an apostate heretic. [I use a religious analogy because the parallels are so remarkably uncanny].
(2) I am often gob smacked by the way that evolution is used as scientific ‘catch all’ to explain virtually anything you want – evolutionary psychology being the worst – with absolutely ZERO scientific method being applied.
(3) Why is DNA is attributed with anthropomorphic qualities … it has a ‘desire’ to ’survive’. It’s just a chemical isn’t it? Why is it bestowed with ‘desires’ and a ‘will’ of sorts? Why does it ‘want’ to do this more than sodium chloride?
(4) I’ve never yet heard a plausible evolutionary explanation for mutual species inter-dependence or reproductive inter-dependence but would love to pointed to one (sincerely I would). How could the mutually inter-dependant sexual reproductive organs evolve slowly over 100’s of 1000’s of years?

Appreciate the calm, considered style of this site … much better than some that I could mention!

On the specific argument that Greg made in his title article …

I think it’s interesting how many people in the comments have falling EXACTLY into the trap that Greg talks about.

Isn’t it just as flawed to say that IF God had designed things He should have done this-or-that as it is to say that if evolution occurred then why didn’t this-or-that happen. For e.g., as a creationist, I don’t understand what evolutionary advantage there is to LOSING the ability to fly/photosynthesise/diffuse oxygen under water etc… Surely which ever animal didn’t LOSE these abilities but simply developed additional ones would have had a better survival chance. [Please don't answer those specific questions … they are there to serve the point on the futility of such an argument!]

Or again, why haven’t we evolved wheels. Ludicrous … but just as ludicrous as saying “if I were God I’d have designed the optic nerve like this”. Well if I were God I would have given us the ability to fly and breathe under water and see in the dark and not need to sleep … etc etc.

This is neither good theology (understanding of God) or natural science. Just pseudo-philosophy at it’s very worst and certainly not going to produce anything of value in a discussion on explaining the ‘origins of species’.

Basically, I agree with your article whole-heartedly Greg! And some of the responses you have had illustrate the point I made in my last post … that it seems you simply cannot criticise or critique any evolutionary argument without being jumped on by the “high priests” for daring to question their “orthodoxy”. I do find it quite saddening because it means that genuine discourse & debate just gets completely lost.

Still, your articles and the comments afterwards seem to come to the closest I’ve ever encountered in a long long while. Thank you.

I’m not sure about this :

“It is normal, it is healthy, and it is necessary for us to challenge even our most fundamental beliefs about the world around us. If we have true faith in evolution, we have nothing to fear from creationist arguments, even in their strongest forms. Furthermore, only frank, open and critical discussion has a chance of influencing young minds already poisoned by creationist dogma.”

My problem is that explaining why creationism is wrong, is quite hard. There’s an awful lot of evidence to cover, and there are creationist objections to most of it, so then you have to explain why the objections are wrong…and so on.

Of course the creationists are wrong. But I think it’s optimistic to expect children to be able to understand *why* they’re wrong. Sure, you can teach them some of the evidence for evolution. Fossils are pretty easy to understand. But then they’ll meet some creationist who disputes the evidence – and the kids won’t know what to think.

My personal view is that we should keep creationism out of schools as far as possible. Creationism is a craze, largely exported by Americans, which only started 30 years ago and will die fairly soon. We just need to hold the line until it does, I reckon, and the best way to do that is to ignore it.

I may be being too cynical about this, but I think it’s a bit optimistic to expect that reasoned discussion will solve everything…

“The Daily Telegraph reports today that one in three teachers recommend teaching creationism alongside evolution.”

This was based upon a ’survey’ by the website Teachers.tv. They sent out 10 000 questionnaires and received circa 1200 replies (spot the error there). Moreover the question was reported to be ambiguous – apparently it didn’t specify whether creationism should be taught in science lessons or in other parts of the curriculum (such as RE lessons).

So that ‘one in three’ finding is as about as unscientific as it gets.

This is grist to the mill of your average hack journalist. But I really expect more from a sceptic blog run by the author of an excellent book defending science from counterknowledge.

At the very least, lets stop reporting the ‘findings’ of such ridiculous ’surveys’ as fact.

@ woodchopper

The story in the Telegraph was intended merely as a point of discussion.

My main point was that we ought not to silence creationists, but rather show how examining creationism side-by-side with evolution demonstrates the virtues of a scientific theory over a non-scientific theory.

@ Neuroskeptic

You’re right, it’s a hard slog. But by God, we must try: just glance at the widespread and terrifying censorship going on in Turkey at the behest of the repulsive Adnan Oktar, and you’ll see it’s a very necessary fight.

I tend to swing between saying that creationism should be taught in science classes as a perfect example of how NOT to do science and saying it should have no place at all. The latter simply panders to the proponents by allowing them to say that their right to free speech has been taken from them…

However, I agree with Neuroskeptic about it being time consuming to counter all the claims and counter claims of creationists, bearing in mind that children are unlikely to have sufficient time in class for just this.

Creationism is not science therefore it should not be taught in science lessons. To do otherwise is to give it more credence than it is due. By all means discuss it within the abomination known as religous education but it shouldn’t be given more air time than that.

Now if we were to replace RE in the UK education system with Philosophy perhaps a discussion on creationism would have more merit. Food for thought perhaps.

Creationist I’ve talked too wouldn’t have a problem with evolution being taught to their children if it were taught properly.

No one disputes micro-evolution. It is obvious and proven scientifically. The problem is macro-evolution being taught as fact. It is not fact, just a theory that can’t be proven anymore than creationism can. They are both a matter of faith, therefore if one can’t be taught, neither should the other.

Also, not all creationist believe in the so-called “young earth theory”.

Daisy, macro-evolution has been observed many times over and over again, and is supported by massive amount of evidence. Before you missrepresent the facts please open a scientific journal and enlighten your self. Actually, now days it is even easier since most of the scientific journals are avaible online.
As for faith, it takes as much faith to belive in evolution as to believe that the sky is blue.

creationist intellegent design is rooted within the doctrine of religion, this is not for the unbelievers of religion

I will pray for all of you that one day you will find christ. I really hope you do.

I’m not sure about this :

“It is normal, it is healthy, and it is necessary for us to challenge even our most fundamental beliefs about the world around us. If we have true faith in evolution, we have nothing to fear from creationist arguments, even in their strongest forms. Furthermore, only frank, open and critical discussion has a chance of influencing young minds already poisoned by creationist dogma.”

My problem is that explaining why creationism is wrong, is quite hard. There’s an awful lot of evidence to cover, and there are creationist objections to most of it, so then you have to explain why the objections are wrong…and so on.

Of course the creationists are wrong. But I think it’s optimistic to expect children to be able to understand *why* they’re wrong. Sure, you can teach them some of the evidence for evolution. Fossils are pretty easy to understand. But then they’ll meet some creationist who disputes the evidence – and the kids won’t know what to think.

My personal view is that we should keep creationism out of schools as far as possible. Creationism is a craze, largely exported by Americans, which only started 30 years ago and will die fairly soon. We just need to hold the line until it does, I reckon, and the best way to do that is to ignore it.

I may be being too cynical about this, but I think it’s a bit optimistic to expect that reasoned discussion will solve everything…

“The Daily Telegraph reports today that one in three teachers recommend teaching creationism alongside evolution.”

This was based upon a ’survey’ by the website Teachers.tv. They sent out 10 000 questionnaires and received circa 1200 replies (spot the error there). Moreover the question was reported to be ambiguous – apparently it didn’t specify whether creationism should be taught in science lessons or in other parts of the curriculum (such as RE lessons).

So that ‘one in three’ finding is as about as unscientific as it gets.

This is grist to the mill of your average hack journalist. But I really expect more from a sceptic blog run by the author of an excellent book defending science from counterknowledge.

At the very least, lets stop reporting the ‘findings’ of such ridiculous ’surveys’ as fact.

@ woodchopper

The story in the Telegraph was intended merely as a point of discussion.

My main point was that we ought not to silence creationists, but rather show how examining creationism side-by-side with evolution demonstrates the virtues of a scientific theory over a non-scientific theory.

@ Neuroskeptic

You’re right, it’s a hard slog. But by God, we must try: just glance at the widespread and terrifying censorship going on in Turkey at the behest of the repulsive Adnan Oktar, and you’ll see it’s a very necessary fight.

I tend to swing between saying that creationism should be taught in science classes as a perfect example of how NOT to do science and saying it should have no place at all. The latter simply panders to the proponents by allowing them to say that their right to free speech has been taken from them…

However, I agree with Neuroskeptic about it being time consuming to counter all the claims and counter claims of creationists, bearing in mind that children are unlikely to have sufficient time in class for just this.

Creationism is not science therefore it should not be taught in science lessons. To do otherwise is to give it more credence than it is due. By all means discuss it within the abomination known as religous education but it shouldn’t be given more air time than that.

Now if we were to replace RE in the UK education system with Philosophy perhaps a discussion on creationism would have more merit. Food for thought perhaps.

Creationist I’ve talked too wouldn’t have a problem with evolution being taught to their children if it were taught properly.

No one disputes micro-evolution. It is obvious and proven scientifically. The problem is macro-evolution being taught as fact. It is not fact, just a theory that can’t be proven anymore than creationism can. They are both a matter of faith, therefore if one can’t be taught, neither should the other.

Also, not all creationist believe in the so-called “young earth theory”.

Daisy, macro-evolution has been observed many times over and over again, and is supported by massive amount of evidence. Before you missrepresent the facts please open a scientific journal and enlighten your self. Actually, now days it is even easier since most of the scientific journals are avaible online.
As for faith, it takes as much faith to belive in evolution as to believe that the sky is blue.

creationist intellegent design is rooted within the doctrine of religion, this is not for the unbelievers of religion

I will pray for all of you that one day you will find christ. I really hope you do.

According to Turkish Daily News (http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=117717):

“Vatan said http://www.gazetevatan.com had become the 61st site shut down by Oktar’s lawyers. Other sites include google.groups, Ek?i sözlük ? a Web site with user contributors, Süperpoligon and Antoloji.com.”

He looks like he’d make a great villain for the next Bond movie.

“insulted Adnan Oktar”

Insulted? Its really, really, time these stupid primitive people grew up, took responsibility for their own emotions, and stopped being violent towards others who provoke them with this rhetoric of the “insult”.

Insult? try this: Adnana Oktar you are a total, utter, complete and iredeemable CUNT and so are all Muslims who behave like petulant but violent children who feel they should get their own way all the time and never be challenged.

@Joe

LOL

HA HA HA HARUNYAHYA IS GOD!!!!! YOU NOT STOP HARUNYAHYA!!!!! HARUNYAHYA LIKE A TIDDLE WAVE !!!!!!
WHY YOU GET IRRITATE WHEN SCIENTIFRIC EVIDENSE AGAINST EVOLUSHUN IS SHOWN TO BE NOT THERE?

HA HA HA HARUNYAHYA IS GOD!!!!! YOU NOT STOP HARUNYAHYA!!!!! HARUNYAHYA LIKE A TIDDLE WAVE !!!!!!
WHY YOU GET IRRITATE WHEN SCIENTIFRIC EVIDENSE AGAINST EVOLUSHUN IS SHOWN TO BE NOT THERE?

With the information they contain, their wise language and esthetic design, Adnan Oktar’s books have a wide global impact. These works enjoy an enormous readership in many countries of the world, from the USA to Indonesia, from South Africa to Russia, from China to Australia and from Nigeria to Canada. Works dealing with the moral values of the Qur’an, the Sunna of our Prophet (saas) and the signs leading to faith are instrumental in many people become believers or growing in faith. Books about world politics or freemasonry, on the other hand, change many people’s way of looking at the world and allow them to learn the truth behind many events. Adnan Oktar’s books concerning the scientific collapse of Darwinism are among those that have the most powerful impact of all. All these books elicit major responses worldwide and lift the mask of Darwinism in a great many countries, Turkey in particular.

It is in his books that Adnan Oktar’s intelligence, wisdom and foresight can be seen. Adnan Oktar’s profound analysis, rational descriptions and matchless examples are some of the main reasons why these works have such a huge global impact worldwide and elicit such great responses. Mr. Oktar’s works are unique in terms of their descriptive technique, illustrations, logical framework, depth, sincerity and credibility. The style employed in these books, the way the sentences are put together, the powerful evidence employed and their irrefutability are not to be found in any other works.

These works, which are instrumental in people coming to believe or to grow in faith, can only lead to salvation through the great wisdom bestowed by Allah. And by Allah’s leave, that great wisdom manifests itself in Adnan Oktar. The idea in question therefore stems from the rantings of certain people made uneasy by the impact of these works.

According to Turkish Daily News (http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=117717):

“Vatan said http://www.gazetevatan.com had become the 61st site shut down by Oktar’s lawyers. Other sites include google.groups, Ek?i sözlük ? a Web site with user contributors, Süperpoligon and Antoloji.com.”

He looks like he’d make a great villain for the next Bond movie.

“insulted Adnan Oktar”

Insulted? Its really, really, time these stupid primitive people grew up, took responsibility for their own emotions, and stopped being violent towards others who provoke them with this rhetoric of the “insult”.

Insult? try this: Adnana Oktar you are a total, utter, complete and iredeemable CUNT and so are all Muslims who behave like petulant but violent children who feel they should get their own way all the time and never be challenged.

@Joe

LOL

HA HA HA HARUNYAHYA IS GOD!!!!! YOU NOT STOP HARUNYAHYA!!!!! HARUNYAHYA LIKE A TIDDLE WAVE !!!!!!
WHY YOU GET IRRITATE WHEN SCIENTIFRIC EVIDENSE AGAINST EVOLUSHUN IS SHOWN TO BE NOT THERE?

HA HA HA HARUNYAHYA IS GOD!!!!! YOU NOT STOP HARUNYAHYA!!!!! HARUNYAHYA LIKE A TIDDLE WAVE !!!!!!
WHY YOU GET IRRITATE WHEN SCIENTIFRIC EVIDENSE AGAINST EVOLUSHUN IS SHOWN TO BE NOT THERE?

With the information they contain, their wise language and esthetic design, Adnan Oktar’s books have a wide global impact. These works enjoy an enormous readership in many countries of the world, from the USA to Indonesia, from South Africa to Russia, from China to Australia and from Nigeria to Canada. Works dealing with the moral values of the Qur’an, the Sunna of our Prophet (saas) and the signs leading to faith are instrumental in many people become believers or growing in faith. Books about world politics or freemasonry, on the other hand, change many people’s way of looking at the world and allow them to learn the truth behind many events. Adnan Oktar’s books concerning the scientific collapse of Darwinism are among those that have the most powerful impact of all. All these books elicit major responses worldwide and lift the mask of Darwinism in a great many countries, Turkey in particular.

It is in his books that Adnan Oktar’s intelligence, wisdom and foresight can be seen. Adnan Oktar’s profound analysis, rational descriptions and matchless examples are some of the main reasons why these works have such a huge global impact worldwide and elicit such great responses. Mr. Oktar’s works are unique in terms of their descriptive technique, illustrations, logical framework, depth, sincerity and credibility. The style employed in these books, the way the sentences are put together, the powerful evidence employed and their irrefutability are not to be found in any other works.

These works, which are instrumental in people coming to believe or to grow in faith, can only lead to salvation through the great wisdom bestowed by Allah. And by Allah’s leave, that great wisdom manifests itself in Adnan Oktar. The idea in question therefore stems from the rantings of certain people made uneasy by the impact of these works.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that RD got a ‘mauling’ here. What happened was somebody claimed their mates A, B and C could kick RD’s ass in debate.

I notice that when such ‘fair’ debates are arranged – by the Templeton Foundation, say – the atheist is not invariably the one counted out. I refer you to:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/realitybase/2008/09/23/god-0-atheism-2-hitchens-eats-another-religious-figure-for-lunch/

Having watched some of the Harun Yahya shows on the local community TV station, I’m amazed that he uses the same arguments as the Christian creationists, yet his conclusion is “Allah did it” rather than “God did it”.

Not that there’s all that much argument. One particularly memorable explanation went along the lines of “Isn’t the elephant an amazing animal? Allah did it.”

The ‘It’s really complicated, so God must have done it’ argument is the best the apologists have. All the clever Western ones do is use more sophisticated examples. If not the amazing elephant, then the staggering bacterial flagellum. If not the bacterial flagellum, then the eternally mysterious human imagination.

Apologies to the owners of this blog, who will disagree strongly, but religious apologists are always creationists in a broad sense of the term – they’re all convinced they’ve found god’s fingerprints somewhere.

Valdemar: in your case, I am quite disposed to excuse God of the absurd mistake of having made your brains. Clearly, a perfect being cannot be possibly guilty of anything so badly made. I am perfectly willing to believe that you are a self-made man – and worship your creator.

Now to the serious stuff. When it comes to this sort of thing, I am certainly on the side of any Dawkins or similar. What this man is doing is trying to silence an argument better than his own (yes, Dawkins is more educated than Yahya – why, what high praise). This is criminal and really does prelude to tyranny. Where the Dawkinses of the world are concerned, all I ask is the freedom to answer back anywhere and any way I feel like it, and to have my answer left untouched. That, my friends, is called freedom. It is also called honesty. To produce an expensive book of trashy propaganda, using the money of your more shadowy friends, to attack someone’s views, and then to try and prevent him from replying, is a thing with many names – cowardice, corruption, dishonesty, mendacity, tyranny. The only good thing that may be said about this kind of filth is that if these people are forced to this sort of underhanded behaviour, to the support of propaganda lies with corrupt legal procedure, that must mean that at some level they do not believe in their own case. They fear that it should be exposed. And when people entertain that sort of unspoken, unconscious fear, they usually have very good reason for it. Perhaps, like the old Soviet monster, the dragon of Islamism is weaker than we think; perhaps we are looking at one of those nightmares of Chesterton’s –

Of what colossal gods of shame could cow men and yet crash,
Of what huge devils hid the stars, yet fell at a pistol flash.

Oh, Fabio, despite your incessant rudeness (which is so endearingly devoid of wit) I agree with you. Free speech is important to me, too. Almost an article of faith, in fact. But why assume that people who resort to repression, lies and censorship are on the weaker side?

Consider the fascists and communists. Consider the Chinese regime today. Consider – and remember your blood pressure as you do it – the Church of Rome with its list of banned books. Consider Governor Palin of Alaska seeking to ban a handful of books in a tiny provincial library, in a town where (presumably) anybody can go on the net and read just about anything at all.

We like to believe that the honest and open way is the ’strong’ debating position, but the verdict of history has yet to be delivered. A lot of people seem to like being told what to think. Indeed (and here’s another opportunity to be clunkily rude to me – sieze it!) religion would hardly have survived this long if we, as a species, loved open, honest and rational debate as much as you think.

Consider your errors of fact. Consider that Governor Palin tried to ban nothing, except in the fevered fantasies of bloggers, and that the Church of Rome has no list of banned books. Consider that you clearly believe that truth has no power over lies, and that to lie is not the desperate resort of people driven into a corner by facts, but the constructive strategy of strong and purposeful statesmen. Consider that you do not believe that truth has any advantage over lies. And you may yet realize why you believe obvious lies without making any attempt to test them.

Me, I am a firm believer in truth. That is why I ask for nothing more than to be free to state it as I see it.

“And you may yet realize why you believe obvious lies without making any attempt to test them”

and just how do you test your faith, Fabio?

I came across an interesting study that supports my (admittedly pessimistic) view of the rise of creationism and other lies. Admittedly, this deals with the attitudes of American voters to Iraq and the old ‘Obama’s a Muslim’ lie. But it’s right – telling someone they are factually wrong doesn’t win the argument. Perhaps it did in 18th century drawing rooms?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html

Interesting article, Valdemar.

As regards the headline of this post “As if being mauled by Counterknowledge readers wasn’t enough…” , I followed the link and all I really saw was Fabio going off on one. Hardly a mauling, imo.
.

Rifty – if that is a serious question, I authorize Damian to release to you my e-mail address so that we can discuss it in the depth it requires. If it is merely an attempt to prove your cleverness at dumb soundbites, forget it – I have no intention to help anyone indulge in unwarranted self-regard.

Valdemar: considering the amount of lies to the credit of Voltaire and his mates in France, and the prevalence of Whiggery (with its adjunct, the Bloody Code) in the United KIngdom, eighteenth-century drawing rooms may not have been the most suitable places for truth. In fact, no social environment is free of lies. But lies are always a contingent and desperate attempt to salvage a toppling balance hit by the impact of hard fact. Fundamentalism, for instance, begins late in the nineteenth century when the foundation of Protestantism – namely Sola Scriptura is made untenable by the advance of historical studies. In order to preserve the primacy of Scripture, one misstatement needs to be piled on top of another, until it becomes obvious to the very cobblestones that the construct is not reasonable. The majority of Americans, including Republicans, reject creationism and fundamentalism, always have, always will. And one lie desroys a whole set of good intentions. WJ Bryant, who was, lest we forget, one of the most outstanding and progressive American politicians of his time, had perfectly good reasons to dislike the moral atmosphere created by Social Darwinism. Alas, he tried to go from the perfectly reasonable “Social Darwinism is a nasty kind of theory” to the unacceptable corollary “therefore Darwin’s science must be wrong”. And that wrecked his whole argument. Of his opponents, Mencken was a nasty man (later a supporter of Hitler), Scopes a Social Darwinist himself, whose textbook was full of racist conclusions, and Clarence Darrow an idealistic twit whose viewpoints provided nothing but mirth to more worldly persons and who would have been a natural target for Mencken himself, were they not bent on the same goal. However, there is one and only one thing that matters: they were right on the issue at hand. Darrow was clever enough to make Bryant sound like an ignorant fool, but what wins the case in front of the court of history is one thing and one thing alone: Bryant was in the wrong, and Darrow in the right. End of story.

Fabio,

It was a serious question. I’m ever increasingly bemused by the attitude of religous people on this site who , while they laugh at the counterknowlege spewed out by other people than themselves, believe in something that has no evidence for it whatsoever,ie, God. But , there you go, you beleive in him/her or whatever it is.

I’ll go back to a very simple point that should test your belief. . If God exists, then he must be a very mean and horrible god. People starve every day. Poor people, who are basically shat upon by others and the environment. If your God exists, and its your right to beleive he does, then I feel like spitting in his face. You can pray for me if you like.

It is not a simple point and if you were serious about it you would see that it does not do much to test any Christian’s belief. However, I am having trouble with my current account, the one known to Damian. This places me in a bind: if I just said that, you would take it to be an excuse to wiggle out of a debate. So I am forced to place my e-mail in a public area – something I really did not fancy. So if you want to argue seriously (and the resurrection of this old chestnut, which my grandmother could adequately have answered, does not suggest it), you had better get in touch with this new address: [email protected]

Fabio,

Firslty, thanks for the email adress.

Secondly, why in both your answers have you questioned my seriousness? I am very serious about this subject. I may not be as clever as you, and definelty not as good with the use of words as you, but my problem with your faith in an unproveable God is very serious. Also,if by some chance this unproved God figure does exiist, I do have a serious problem with your unquestioning faith in such an uncaring and mean God.

I will write to you. Thankyou again for your email adress.

My office has just been deluged with a whole box of Yayha’s atlases – where is the money coming from?

Dare I suggest from places not unconnected with petroleum?

Rifty – two reasons. First, that the Internet is full of people who think they are cleverer than Christians. Second, because the fact that you present the oldest single argument against the theodicy as if it were something novel, and as if Christians had not had thousands of years to think about it and find answers, does not suggest much seriousness. You seem to start from the notion that we are all so totally stupid as to have spent 2000 years without once reflecting on the issue of undeserved pain. Ask yourself whether you would make such an insulting assumpition about any other group, at least without admitting to yourself that it is a contemptous assumtpion to make.

Whoops. I think I gave Rifty the wrong e-mail address. It seems to be actually:
[email protected]
(not gmail). Apologies if s/he tried to get in touch and failed.

Fabio,

I dont think I’m cleverer than Christians, and I’m almost absolutely sure from reading the posts on this site (espeically yours) that I’m not as academically clever as nearly everyone on here. But being clever doesnt make you right.

Also, I didn’t present the oldest single argument (undeserved pain) against theodicy as if it were novel. I actually said “I’ll go back to a very simple point that should test your belief” For a clever person, why dont you ask yourself why its an old argument? Has it got anything to do with the fact that its still unanswered properly. By the way, I dont class undeserved pain as my Christian Grandmother dying in pain from an ailment she didnt deserve. I class it as whole masses of people dying from starvation,or living in poverty and debt because of the inaction of selfish first world rich people. Many of whom are Christians. God isnt helping those people. The only people whocan help those people are other people. Your God doesnt exist,and if he does,he bloody well doesnt care.

Look, either use the e-mail address I provided you with, or shut up. I simply refuse to get into this kind of argument on someone else’s blog. It is not the right place, and it is a perfect way to attract trolls and worse.

Are you telling me to shutup? Who are you to do that,remind me? I am simply having a discussion in a thread about God, which was started by others, including yourself. Would God approve of your arrogance and rudeness?

You are talking specifically to me. I asked you to do so somewhere else. You refused to. Now go on talking to yourself. Which is what you want to do anyway. As for arrogance, you are not just the pot, but the coal-mine calling the pale-grey sweater black.

Your own arrogance is getting really boring now, Fabio.

yawn, yawn….zzzzzz

Ask no questions and you will be told no lies

Poor Richard indeed! Perhaps he wouldn’t be so poor if he could manage to pull off a win in open debate with anti-darwinists

HARUN YAHYA IS GREATEST SCIENTIST ON PLANET! SECULAR ESTABLISHMENT BAN HARUNYAHYA!! HARUN YAHYA SHOW IS NO EVIDENCE FOR DAWKINISM!!!!! HARUN YAHYA SHOW NO ANIMALS EVOLUSHUNATING AT PRESENT OR IN PAST!!!!!! HARUN YAHYA NOT DONE ANYTHING CRIMNINAL!!!!! HE NOT BLACKMAIL OR BUGGER YOUNG GIRLS!!!!!! HE PURE AND VERTUOUSS MAN!!!!!!HARUN YAHYA IS BETTER THAN GOD OR ALLAH!!!!! HARUN YAHYA IS NEW PROPHET AND WILL DESTROY EVOLUSHUNATING DAWKINISTS FOREVER WHEN HE GET OUT OF PRISON!!! WAIT AND SEE DAWKINIST!!!!!
HE DESTROY YOU AND ALL WILL BE PURE AND LOVE AND HARUN YAHYA WILL BE GOD FOREVER!!!! NO DAWKINIST EVOLUSHUNATORSS, NO IMMODESTROUS EMMORALITY, NO GODLESS, JUST LOVE OF HARUN YAHYA FOREVER AND EVER!!!
WAIT AND SEE DAWKINIST!!!

Richard dawkin is god my, athiest we make god him

To the aptly named Joseph Moron. Your caricature of atheists as worshipping Richard Dawkins is way off the mark. We aren’t a religious cult like your homo erotic Adnan Oktar idolizing christian pseudoislamic cult.
You just don’t get it do you Jamshed?
That is because you are too dense to see that some people aren’t as insecure as religious adherents like you.
We simply don’t need childish and primitive “sky mommies and daddies”. We’re adults, unlike you.

I don’t think it’s fair to say that RD got a ‘mauling’ here. What happened was somebody claimed their mates A, B and C could kick RD’s ass in debate.

I notice that when such ‘fair’ debates are arranged – by the Templeton Foundation, say – the atheist is not invariably the one counted out. I refer you to:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/realitybase/2008/09/23/god-0-atheism-2-hitchens-eats-another-religious-figure-for-lunch/

Having watched some of the Harun Yahya shows on the local community TV station, I’m amazed that he uses the same arguments as the Christian creationists, yet his conclusion is “Allah did it” rather than “God did it”.

Not that there’s all that much argument. One particularly memorable explanation went along the lines of “Isn’t the elephant an amazing animal? Allah did it.”

The ‘It’s really complicated, so God must have done it’ argument is the best the apologists have. All the clever Western ones do is use more sophisticated examples. If not the amazing elephant, then the staggering bacterial flagellum. If not the bacterial flagellum, then the eternally mysterious human imagination.

Apologies to the owners of this blog, who will disagree strongly, but religious apologists are always creationists in a broad sense of the term – they’re all convinced they’ve found god’s fingerprints somewhere.

Valdemar: in your case, I am quite disposed to excuse God of the absurd mistake of having made your brains. Clearly, a perfect being cannot be possibly guilty of anything so badly made. I am perfectly willing to believe that you are a self-made man – and worship your creator.

Now to the serious stuff. When it comes to this sort of thing, I am certainly on the side of any Dawkins or similar. What this man is doing is trying to silence an argument better than his own (yes, Dawkins is more educated than Yahya – why, what high praise). This is criminal and really does prelude to tyranny. Where the Dawkinses of the world are concerned, all I ask is the freedom to answer back anywhere and any way I feel like it, and to have my answer left untouched. That, my friends, is called freedom. It is also called honesty. To produce an expensive book of trashy propaganda, using the money of your more shadowy friends, to attack someone’s views, and then to try and prevent him from replying, is a thing with many names – cowardice, corruption, dishonesty, mendacity, tyranny. The only good thing that may be said about this kind of filth is that if these people are forced to this sort of underhanded behaviour, to the support of propaganda lies with corrupt legal procedure, that must mean that at some level they do not believe in their own case. They fear that it should be exposed. And when people entertain that sort of unspoken, unconscious fear, they usually have very good reason for it. Perhaps, like the old Soviet monster, the dragon of Islamism is weaker than we think; perhaps we are looking at one of those nightmares of Chesterton’s –

Of what colossal gods of shame could cow men and yet crash,
Of what huge devils hid the stars, yet fell at a pistol flash.

Oh, Fabio, despite your incessant rudeness (which is so endearingly devoid of wit) I agree with you. Free speech is important to me, too. Almost an article of faith, in fact. But why assume that people who resort to repression, lies and censorship are on the weaker side?

Consider the fascists and communists. Consider the Chinese regime today. Consider – and remember your blood pressure as you do it – the Church of Rome with its list of banned books. Consider Governor Palin of Alaska seeking to ban a handful of books in a tiny provincial library, in a town where (presumably) anybody can go on the net and read just about anything at all.

We like to believe that the honest and open way is the ’strong’ debating position, but the verdict of history has yet to be delivered. A lot of people seem to like being told what to think. Indeed (and here’s another opportunity to be clunkily rude to me – sieze it!) religion would hardly have survived this long if we, as a species, loved open, honest and rational debate as much as you think.

Consider your errors of fact. Consider that Governor Palin tried to ban nothing, except in the fevered fantasies of bloggers, and that the Church of Rome has no list of banned books. Consider that you clearly believe that truth has no power over lies, and that to lie is not the desperate resort of people driven into a corner by facts, but the constructive strategy of strong and purposeful statesmen. Consider that you do not believe that truth has any advantage over lies. And you may yet realize why you believe obvious lies without making any attempt to test them.

Me, I am a firm believer in truth. That is why I ask for nothing more than to be free to state it as I see it.

“And you may yet realize why you believe obvious lies without making any attempt to test them”

and just how do you test your faith, Fabio?

I came across an interesting study that supports my (admittedly pessimistic) view of the rise of creationism and other lies. Admittedly, this deals with the attitudes of American voters to Iraq and the old ‘Obama’s a Muslim’ lie. But it’s right – telling someone they are factually wrong doesn’t win the argument. Perhaps it did in 18th century drawing rooms?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-does-ideology-trump-facts-studies-say-it-often-does.html

Interesting article, Valdemar.

As regards the headline of this post “As if being mauled by Counterknowledge readers wasn’t enough…” , I followed the link and all I really saw was Fabio going off on one. Hardly a mauling, imo.
.

Rifty – if that is a serious question, I authorize Damian to release to you my e-mail address so that we can discuss it in the depth it requires. If it is merely an attempt to prove your cleverness at dumb soundbites, forget it – I have no intention to help anyone indulge in unwarranted self-regard.

Valdemar: considering the amount of lies to the credit of Voltaire and his mates in France, and the prevalence of Whiggery (with its adjunct, the Bloody Code) in the United KIngdom, eighteenth-century drawing rooms may not have been the most suitable places for truth. In fact, no social environment is free of lies. But lies are always a contingent and desperate attempt to salvage a toppling balance hit by the impact of hard fact. Fundamentalism, for instance, begins late in the nineteenth century when the foundation of Protestantism – namely Sola Scriptura is made untenable by the advance of historical studies. In order to preserve the primacy of Scripture, one misstatement needs to be piled on top of another, until it becomes obvious to the very cobblestones that the construct is not reasonable. The majority of Americans, including Republicans, reject creationism and fundamentalism, always have, always will. And one lie desroys a whole set of good intentions. WJ Bryant, who was, lest we forget, one of the most outstanding and progressive American politicians of his time, had perfectly good reasons to dislike the moral atmosphere created by Social Darwinism. Alas, he tried to go from the perfectly reasonable “Social Darwinism is a nasty kind of theory” to the unacceptable corollary “therefore Darwin’s science must be wrong”. And that wrecked his whole argument. Of his opponents, Mencken was a nasty man (later a supporter of Hitler), Scopes a Social Darwinist himself, whose textbook was full of racist conclusions, and Clarence Darrow an idealistic twit whose viewpoints provided nothing but mirth to more worldly persons and who would have been a natural target for Mencken himself, were they not bent on the same goal. However, there is one and only one thing that matters: they were right on the issue at hand. Darrow was clever enough to make Bryant sound like an ignorant fool, but what wins the case in front of the court of history is one thing and one thing alone: Bryant was in the wrong, and Darrow in the right. End of story.

Fabio,

It was a serious question. I’m ever increasingly bemused by the attitude of religous people on this site who , while they laugh at the counterknowlege spewed out by other people than themselves, believe in something that has no evidence for it whatsoever,ie, God. But , there you go, you beleive in him/her or whatever it is.

I’ll go back to a very simple point that should test your belief. . If God exists, then he must be a very mean and horrible god. People starve every day. Poor people, who are basically shat upon by others and the environment. If your God exists, and its your right to beleive he does, then I feel like spitting in his face. You can pray for me if you like.

It is not a simple point and if you were serious about it you would see that it does not do much to test any Christian’s belief. However, I am having trouble with my current account, the one known to Damian. This places me in a bind: if I just said that, you would take it to be an excuse to wiggle out of a debate. So I am forced to place my e-mail in a public area – something I really did not fancy. So if you want to argue seriously (and the resurrection of this old chestnut, which my grandmother could adequately have answered, does not suggest it), you had better get in touch with this new address: [email protected]

Fabio,

Firslty, thanks for the email adress.

Secondly, why in both your answers have you questioned my seriousness? I am very serious about this subject. I may not be as clever as you, and definelty not as good with the use of words as you, but my problem with your faith in an unproveable God is very serious. Also,if by some chance this unproved God figure does exiist, I do have a serious problem with your unquestioning faith in such an uncaring and mean God.

I will write to you. Thankyou again for your email adress.

My office has just been deluged with a whole box of Yayha’s atlases – where is the money coming from?

Dare I suggest from places not unconnected with petroleum?

Rifty – two reasons. First, that the Internet is full of people who think they are cleverer than Christians. Second, because the fact that you present the oldest single argument against the theodicy as if it were something novel, and as if Christians had not had thousands of years to think about it and find answers, does not suggest much seriousness. You seem to start from the notion that we are all so totally stupid as to have spent 2000 years without once reflecting on the issue of undeserved pain. Ask yourself whether you would make such an insulting assumpition about any other group, at least without admitting to yourself that it is a contemptous assumtpion to make.

Whoops. I think I gave Rifty the wrong e-mail address. It seems to be actually:
[email protected]
(not gmail). Apologies if s/he tried to get in touch and failed.

Fabio,

I dont think I’m cleverer than Christians, and I’m almost absolutely sure from reading the posts on this site (espeically yours) that I’m not as academically clever as nearly everyone on here. But being clever doesnt make you right.

Also, I didn’t present the oldest single argument (undeserved pain) against theodicy as if it were novel. I actually said “I’ll go back to a very simple point that should test your belief” For a clever person, why dont you ask yourself why its an old argument? Has it got anything to do with the fact that its still unanswered properly. By the way, I dont class undeserved pain as my Christian Grandmother dying in pain from an ailment she didnt deserve. I class it as whole masses of people dying from starvation,or living in poverty and debt because of the inaction of selfish first world rich people. Many of whom are Christians. God isnt helping those people. The only people whocan help those people are other people. Your God doesnt exist,and if he does,he bloody well doesnt care.

Look, either use the e-mail address I provided you with, or shut up. I simply refuse to get into this kind of argument on someone else’s blog. It is not the right place, and it is a perfect way to attract trolls and worse.

Are you telling me to shutup? Who are you to do that,remind me? I am simply having a discussion in a thread about God, which was started by others, including yourself. Would God approve of your arrogance and rudeness?

You are talking specifically to me. I asked you to do so somewhere else. You refused to. Now go on talking to yourself. Which is what you want to do anyway. As for arrogance, you are not just the pot, but the coal-mine calling the pale-grey sweater black.

Your own arrogance is getting really boring now, Fabio.

yawn, yawn….zzzzzz

Ask no questions and you will be told no lies

Poor Richard indeed! Perhaps he wouldn’t be so poor if he could manage to pull off a win in open debate with anti-darwinists

HARUN YAHYA IS GREATEST SCIENTIST ON PLANET! SECULAR ESTABLISHMENT BAN HARUNYAHYA!! HARUN YAHYA SHOW IS NO EVIDENCE FOR DAWKINISM!!!!! HARUN YAHYA SHOW NO ANIMALS EVOLUSHUNATING AT PRESENT OR IN PAST!!!!!! HARUN YAHYA NOT DONE ANYTHING CRIMNINAL!!!!! HE NOT BLACKMAIL OR BUGGER YOUNG GIRLS!!!!!! HE PURE AND VERTUOUSS MAN!!!!!!HARUN YAHYA IS BETTER THAN GOD OR ALLAH!!!!! HARUN YAHYA IS NEW PROPHET AND WILL DESTROY EVOLUSHUNATING DAWKINISTS FOREVER WHEN HE GET OUT OF PRISON!!! WAIT AND SEE DAWKINIST!!!!!
HE DESTROY YOU AND ALL WILL BE PURE AND LOVE AND HARUN YAHYA WILL BE GOD FOREVER!!!! NO DAWKINIST EVOLUSHUNATORSS, NO IMMODESTROUS EMMORALITY, NO GODLESS, JUST LOVE OF HARUN YAHYA FOREVER AND EVER!!!
WAIT AND SEE DAWKINIST!!!

Richard dawkin is god my, athiest we make god him

To the aptly named Joseph Moron. Your caricature of atheists as worshipping Richard Dawkins is way off the mark. We aren’t a religious cult like your homo erotic Adnan Oktar idolizing christian pseudoislamic cult.
You just don’t get it do you Jamshed?
That is because you are too dense to see that some people aren’t as insecure as religious adherents like you.
We simply don’t need childish and primitive “sky mommies and daddies”. We’re adults, unlike you.

Ew, gross. That mirthless smile certainly helps me understand aspects of evolution, if I may be so ungentlemanly.

Wendy Wright’s arrogant, smug ignorance is typical of millions of people – not just Americans, of course – who hate thought and are happy in all-embracing belief. Hence Sarah Palin. No thought needed, just belief, and sneer at the elitists who say otherwise.

Which is ironic, given that one of the biggest questions in evolution is how we got our big brains. Perhaps biologists could spend a little time studying why so few people seem to want to use them.

Upon my word of honour, I cannot imagine why you should promote the fanatical, irrational and ignorant Richard Dawkins, inventor of the metaphysical and unprovable “meme” and “selfish gene” notions, as any kind of voice of reason. The best that can be said is that he and his enemies deserve each other. I would dearly love to see him try to patronize, say, John Polkinghorne; but we all know that that is as likely as the paper dog pursuing the fire-cat through Hell. Dawkins only ever “answers” people he thinks he can patronize and squash. Real intellectuals, he runs away from.

Fabio – I completely agree with your views on Dawkins. I would also love to see him take on Polkinghorne.

But the video, you have to admit, is still amusing!

well, almost completely agree (after a second reading of your comment)

Yes, it’s a pity you support this pseudo-scientific hack, inventer of the (to quote Moss) ‘patently false’ selfish gene, a ‘biology built of onto-theology’ (Moss again).

Sorry, should read: “tacitly support”.

My, my, what venom!

OK, I get the point that both Fabio and Clodius don’t like Richard Dawkins but why the vitriolic outbursts ?

If we can’t seperate out our personal views of RD from his arguments then it may not be too long before evolution itself ends up as a target for counterknowledge.

Disagree with his views by all means and debate them (John Polkinghorne and Alister certainly do) but name-calling does nothing but point up our own prejudices.

My, my, what venom!

OK, I get the point that both Fabio and Clodius don’t like Richard Dawkins but why the vitriolic outbursts ?

If we can’t seperate out our personal views of RD from his arguments then it may not be too long before evolution itself ends up as a target for counterknowledge.

Disagree with his views by all means and debate them (John Polkinghorne and Alister McGrath certainly do) but name-calling does nothing but point up our own prejudices.

Ooops!

Sorry I posted twice (well three times now!) but I left off Alister McGrath’s surname and I wouldn’t want to upset blog people who just love to spot typo errors!

Fabio, why is RD ‘fanatical, irrational and ignorant’?

‘No answer, was the stern reply’.

It doesn’t matter how smug and annoying Dawkins is, or how wrong he is in other areas. He is right about teaching evolution in schools and Wendy Wright is wrong – dangerously wrong.

Damian: that is like saying that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Dawkins’ wrongness is not an interesting feature of his thinking: it is the framework of it. And to say that he must be right because Wendy Wright is wrong is like saying that Stalin must have been right because Hitler was his enemy and was wrong.

Valdemar: I could not answer because my computer was broken. Not because I ever find any problems answering the likes of you. As for Richard Dawkins: he hates me. His malevolence towards Christians (he claims to have it in for all religion, but in fact he only ever attacks Christianity and Hebraism) is direct, personal and fiery. My detestation for him is like my detestation for a malignant bacillus or a mad dog – for something that, given his own way, would do me harm. I have no doubt at all that a Dawkins as dictator of the world would result in Christians being sent to the death camps. And I am surprised that neither you nor Damian seem able to perceive the hot and sulphurous breath of hatred that rises from all his polemics.

Fanatical: do I even have to demonstrate this?

Irrational: inventor of the “meme”. You work it out.

Ignorant: long after his influence has vaned, quotations of what he thought was Christianity will hold Christian apologists and scholars in stitches. He genuinely hates what he does not know, and, what is more, he is totally unwilling to be corrected even on matter of fact.

Fabio,
Could you give an example of a “matter of fact” that RD needs to be corrected on ?

Fabio, I’d be pretty knobbed off if I recieved HATE mail every day!

Can’t you religious nut-jobs simply FORGIVE, instead of hate? Isn’t that what you’re 2000 year old Hebrew guide is all about? C’mon Fabio, forgive… HATRED is bad, you don’t have to be an aetheist to recognise that, or do you…?

Dawkins, for all his failings in the personality department, is right. The facts speak for themselves. You have no facts on which to base your opinions.

None.

DannyJ: you start with the language of hate and insult and then demand that we forgive you? Exactly who is a “nut-job” (that is, in your illiterate jargon, irrational, delirious, not sane) here? Please start engaging your brain before you let your hatred sweep you away.

Fabio
I’m still waiting for you to engage your own brain on the small matter of fact that rd RD needs to be corrected on.

Falsitas: Dawkins knows nothing whatsoever about what Christians and Jews actually believe. The point has been made again and again, and you would know it if, instead of limiting your reading to atheist trash, you actually bothered to read what Christians write. The extent and depth of his errors is such that I cannot undertake to cover them here. Why don’t you actually try to find out for yourself, instead of asking to be drip-fed factoids in an obviously inadequate and unsuitable forum?

Well, Falsitas, since you cannot be counted upon to go and investigate anything that migh disagree with your digestion, here are just a few of the myriad responses – mostly not very respectful – to be found on the internet

http://ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/tcrean_dawkinsreligion_nov07.asp
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2008/07/journalist-said.html#comment-123192986
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3184&var_recherche=Dawkins
Incidentally, I recommend the thunder of that noted agnostic, the late and never enough lamented Stephen Jay Gould, who showed that, even as a Darwinist, Dawkins was the most desperate and dangerous kind of reductionist.

What everyone has to understand is that the inadequacy of Dawkins as a critic of religion is not something you can find in a specific place. So many Christian and non-Christan writers have remarked upon it from so many different viewpoints, that being asked to prove it is not unlike being asked to prove that the English use “bloody” as a swearword. The problem is not to find the evidence, but to manage to stop.

Fabio
Just out of interest, are you actually interacting with anyone else on this thread other than yourself ?

On second thoughts, it doesn’t really matter Fabio. You seem happy enough in your little universe of hatred for those who dare to disagree with you, and I’m happy I’m not to be part of it, ergo, we’re both happy.

Anyway, I have to go now as Richard Dawkins is coming round for a cup of tea in a little while – I’ll give him your best wishes.

Bye, bye forever.

Falsitas – For someone who is trying to show contempt, you sure waste a lot of words. And for someone who claimed to want answers, you sure manage to vanish from the scene fast enough when even the smallest attempt at an answer is made. Like your hero Dawkins, you can dish it out but you sure can’t take it.

Fabio, who decides whether Dawkins is an adequate critic of religion? (

God springs to mind – He/She/It can have a word with RD in due course, if He/She/It exists. Everyone else is, by definition, a pipsqueak and imbecile in comparison. If He/She/It exists. And that, really, is the problem.

Though I’m not a Christian, I forgive you for your ill-temper. We all get angry sometimes.

Valdemar: anyone who has even a moderate knowledge of the Christian religion (Dawkins, being a model coward, never attacks any other) can tell that the man knows nothing about it. It is not a matter of debate, it is the equivalent of (to use a relevant comparison) someone who thinks that Evoluiont means that humans are descended from chimpanzees. His errors are basic, a matter of ABC, and he gets angry if he is corrected. If you knew anything about the Christian religion yourself, you would not have to ask, I assure you. Anyway, just follow the few little links I provided – a few out of possible thousands, so much mirth has this gentleman roused – you will see that his views are not treated with respect. They are treated, as I keep telling you, as grossly, foolishly, obstinately wrong.

“Damian: that is like saying that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Dawkins’ wrongness is not an interesting feature of his thinking: it is the framework of it. And to say that he must be right because Wendy Wright is wrong is like saying that Stalin must have been right because Hitler was his enemy and was wrong.”

Excellent answer, genau.

Just a cursory read of ‘The God Delusion’ reveals that Dawkins does not fully understand the nature of belief nor the concept of God. He resorts to some wonderfully shallow and oft-heard) arguments that demonstrate the deficiency of his philosophical understanding of the subject he attempts to tackle. Some of these arguments insult the intelligence of thinking deists. His book offers nothing that has not been heard, refuted and counter-argued many times before. It is insulting in tone, as the very title predicts.

Dawkins is a gifted man. But his gifts seem to be primarily in Science, not philosophy. Dawkins demonstrates once again the problem of Science crossing over into faith, and faith crossing into Science. They are both in different spheres.Science can make no statement about the idea of God, because God, being a spiritual Being (if God exists) is beyond the measure of empirical Science. Likewise, and for the converse reason, faith can say nothing definitively about the nature of the physical world. Faith is primarily concerned with the question ‘why’? Science cannot ask that question. SCience is concerned with ‘what? and how?’.Faith, not concerned with empirical measures, cannot answer those questions.

good blog Gazza, especially the part about the difference between science and spirituallity. I could not understand why Dawkins wanted to devide into units, small or large, what I call merely Memory, not meme (sounds like cream). Maybe I understood it wrong???

Sylvia –

“Meme” is not simply “memory” divided into units. Let me see if I can explain by analogy what a meme is.

What do we mean when we say the word “virus”? Well, obviously, we can mean “a sub-microscopic entity smaller than a single cell.”

But what then do we mean when we say “I’m feeling sick; I must have a virus”? Obviously one single sub-microscopic entity smaller than a single cell doesn’t make us sick.

What we mean by “virus” in this context is a huge number of copies of that sub-microscopic entity occupying the body of the person who “has a virus”.

But if these are our only two meanings of “virus”, how could we make sense of someone else saying “oh, dear, you’re sick like me — I must have given you my virus”? Both our previous meanings of “virus” were limited to something that resided in a single body. Now we are touching on a third meaning, which is something that can transfer from one body to another, and thereafter exists in both bodies.

If you have followed me so far — “meme” is what you get when you take the base idea of “idea” but expand the idea of “idea” as we just expanded the idea of “virus”. That is why “meme” is most definitely NOT just “memory, divided into units”; the key concept behind the meme is that it TRANSFERS from person to person.

Here is a splendid over the top Fabio B rant. It’s pretty clear that Richard Dawkins is on the nail, and telling the truth, he’s certainly upsetting Fabio!

Fabio P. Barberi wrote:

“uld promote the fanatical, irrational and ignorant Richard Dawkins, inventor of the metaphysical and unprovable “meme” and “selfish gene” notions, as any kind of voice of reason. The best that can be said is that he and his enemies deserve each other. I would dearly love to see him try to patronize, say, John Polkinghorne; but we all know that that is as likely as the paper dog pursuing the fire-cat through Hell. Dawkins only ever “answers” people he thinks he can patronize and squash. Real intellectuals, he runs away from.”

posted by Gazza:

“Just a cursory read of ‘The God Delusion’ reveals that Dawkins does not fully understand the nature of belief nor the concept of God. He resorts to some wonderfully shallow and oft-heard) arguments that demonstrate the deficiency of his philosophical understanding of the subject he attempts to tackle. Some of these arguments insult the intelligence of thinking deists. His book offers nothing that has not been heard, refuted and counter-argued many times before. It is insulting in tone, as the very title predicts.”

You must have given his book a very very cursory read. His arguments are not shallow, and they have been refuted only in the fevered minds of the most stupid theologians. As for his arguments insulting the intelligence of deists, I think its the other way around; deists arguments insult the intelligence of rational folk. you might try reading the book without your righteous condescension spectacles on. Then you’d realise that religious apologists talk bullshit and then think even more bullshit, rather than thinking rationally.

Ew, gross. That mirthless smile certainly helps me understand aspects of evolution, if I may be so ungentlemanly.

Wendy Wright’s arrogant, smug ignorance is typical of millions of people – not just Americans, of course – who hate thought and are happy in all-embracing belief. Hence Sarah Palin. No thought needed, just belief, and sneer at the elitists who say otherwise.

Which is ironic, given that one of the biggest questions in evolution is how we got our big brains. Perhaps biologists could spend a little time studying why so few people seem to want to use them.

Upon my word of honour, I cannot imagine why you should promote the fanatical, irrational and ignorant Richard Dawkins, inventor of the metaphysical and unprovable “meme” and “selfish gene” notions, as any kind of voice of reason. The best that can be said is that he and his enemies deserve each other. I would dearly love to see him try to patronize, say, John Polkinghorne; but we all know that that is as likely as the paper dog pursuing the fire-cat through Hell. Dawkins only ever “answers” people he thinks he can patronize and squash. Real intellectuals, he runs away from.

Fabio – I completely agree with your views on Dawkins. I would also love to see him take on Polkinghorne.

But the video, you have to admit, is still amusing!

well, almost completely agree (after a second reading of your comment)

Yes, it’s a pity you support this pseudo-scientific hack, inventer of the (to quote Moss) ‘patently false’ selfish gene, a ‘biology built of onto-theology’ (Moss again).

Sorry, should read: “tacitly support”.

My, my, what venom!

OK, I get the point that both Fabio and Clodius don’t like Richard Dawkins but why the vitriolic outbursts ?

If we can’t seperate out our personal views of RD from his arguments then it may not be too long before evolution itself ends up as a target for counterknowledge.

Disagree with his views by all means and debate them (John Polkinghorne and Alister certainly do) but name-calling does nothing but point up our own prejudices.

My, my, what venom!

OK, I get the point that both Fabio and Clodius don’t like Richard Dawkins but why the vitriolic outbursts ?

If we can’t seperate out our personal views of RD from his arguments then it may not be too long before evolution itself ends up as a target for counterknowledge.

Disagree with his views by all means and debate them (John Polkinghorne and Alister McGrath certainly do) but name-calling does nothing but point up our own prejudices.

Ooops!

Sorry I posted twice (well three times now!) but I left off Alister McGrath’s surname and I wouldn’t want to upset blog people who just love to spot typo errors!

Fabio, why is RD ‘fanatical, irrational and ignorant’?

‘No answer, was the stern reply’.

It doesn’t matter how smug and annoying Dawkins is, or how wrong he is in other areas. He is right about teaching evolution in schools and Wendy Wright is wrong – dangerously wrong.

Damian: that is like saying that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Dawkins’ wrongness is not an interesting feature of his thinking: it is the framework of it. And to say that he must be right because Wendy Wright is wrong is like saying that Stalin must have been right because Hitler was his enemy and was wrong.

Valdemar: I could not answer because my computer was broken. Not because I ever find any problems answering the likes of you. As for Richard Dawkins: he hates me. His malevolence towards Christians (he claims to have it in for all religion, but in fact he only ever attacks Christianity and Hebraism) is direct, personal and fiery. My detestation for him is like my detestation for a malignant bacillus or a mad dog – for something that, given his own way, would do me harm. I have no doubt at all that a Dawkins as dictator of the world would result in Christians being sent to the death camps. And I am surprised that neither you nor Damian seem able to perceive the hot and sulphurous breath of hatred that rises from all his polemics.

Fanatical: do I even have to demonstrate this?

Irrational: inventor of the “meme”. You work it out.

Ignorant: long after his influence has vaned, quotations of what he thought was Christianity will hold Christian apologists and scholars in stitches. He genuinely hates what he does not know, and, what is more, he is totally unwilling to be corrected even on matter of fact.

Fabio,
Could you give an example of a “matter of fact” that RD needs to be corrected on ?

Fabio, I’d be pretty knobbed off if I recieved HATE mail every day!

Can’t you religious nut-jobs simply FORGIVE, instead of hate? Isn’t that what you’re 2000 year old Hebrew guide is all about? C’mon Fabio, forgive… HATRED is bad, you don’t have to be an aetheist to recognise that, or do you…?

Dawkins, for all his failings in the personality department, is right. The facts speak for themselves. You have no facts on which to base your opinions.

None.

DannyJ: you start with the language of hate and insult and then demand that we forgive you? Exactly who is a “nut-job” (that is, in your illiterate jargon, irrational, delirious, not sane) here? Please start engaging your brain before you let your hatred sweep you away.

Fabio
I’m still waiting for you to engage your own brain on the small matter of fact that rd RD needs to be corrected on.

Falsitas: Dawkins knows nothing whatsoever about what Christians and Jews actually believe. The point has been made again and again, and you would know it if, instead of limiting your reading to atheist trash, you actually bothered to read what Christians write. The extent and depth of his errors is such that I cannot undertake to cover them here. Why don’t you actually try to find out for yourself, instead of asking to be drip-fed factoids in an obviously inadequate and unsuitable forum?

Well, Falsitas, since you cannot be counted upon to go and investigate anything that migh disagree with your digestion, here are just a few of the myriad responses – mostly not very respectful – to be found on the internet

http://ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/tcrean_dawkinsreligion_nov07.asp
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2008/07/journalist-said.html#comment-123192986
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3184&var_recherche=Dawkins
Incidentally, I recommend the thunder of that noted agnostic, the late and never enough lamented Stephen Jay Gould, who showed that, even as a Darwinist, Dawkins was the most desperate and dangerous kind of reductionist.

What everyone has to understand is that the inadequacy of Dawkins as a critic of religion is not something you can find in a specific place. So many Christian and non-Christan writers have remarked upon it from so many different viewpoints, that being asked to prove it is not unlike being asked to prove that the English use “bloody” as a swearword. The problem is not to find the evidence, but to manage to stop.

Fabio
Just out of interest, are you actually interacting with anyone else on this thread other than yourself ?

On second thoughts, it doesn’t really matter Fabio. You seem happy enough in your little universe of hatred for those who dare to disagree with you, and I’m happy I’m not to be part of it, ergo, we’re both happy.

Anyway, I have to go now as Richard Dawkins is coming round for a cup of tea in a little while – I’ll give him your best wishes.

Bye, bye forever.

Falsitas – For someone who is trying to show contempt, you sure waste a lot of words. And for someone who claimed to want answers, you sure manage to vanish from the scene fast enough when even the smallest attempt at an answer is made. Like your hero Dawkins, you can dish it out but you sure can’t take it.

Fabio, who decides whether Dawkins is an adequate critic of religion? (

God springs to mind – He/She/It can have a word with RD in due course, if He/She/It exists. Everyone else is, by definition, a pipsqueak and imbecile in comparison. If He/She/It exists. And that, really, is the problem.

Though I’m not a Christian, I forgive you for your ill-temper. We all get angry sometimes.

Valdemar: anyone who has even a moderate knowledge of the Christian religion (Dawkins, being a model coward, never attacks any other) can tell that the man knows nothing about it. It is not a matter of debate, it is the equivalent of (to use a relevant comparison) someone who thinks that Evoluiont means that humans are descended from chimpanzees. His errors are basic, a matter of ABC, and he gets angry if he is corrected. If you knew anything about the Christian religion yourself, you would not have to ask, I assure you. Anyway, just follow the few little links I provided – a few out of possible thousands, so much mirth has this gentleman roused – you will see that his views are not treated with respect. They are treated, as I keep telling you, as grossly, foolishly, obstinately wrong.

“Damian: that is like saying that Mussolini made the trains run on time. Dawkins’ wrongness is not an interesting feature of his thinking: it is the framework of it. And to say that he must be right because Wendy Wright is wrong is like saying that Stalin must have been right because Hitler was his enemy and was wrong.”

Excellent answer, genau.

Just a cursory read of ‘The God Delusion’ reveals that Dawkins does not fully understand the nature of belief nor the concept of God. He resorts to some wonderfully shallow and oft-heard) arguments that demonstrate the deficiency of his philosophical understanding of the subject he attempts to tackle. Some of these arguments insult the intelligence of thinking deists. His book offers nothing that has not been heard, refuted and counter-argued many times before. It is insulting in tone, as the very title predicts.

Dawkins is a gifted man. But his gifts seem to be primarily in Science, not philosophy. Dawkins demonstrates once again the problem of Science crossing over into faith, and faith crossing into Science. They are both in different spheres.Science can make no statement about the idea of God, because God, being a spiritual Being (if God exists) is beyond the measure of empirical Science. Likewise, and for the converse reason, faith can say nothing definitively about the nature of the physical world. Faith is primarily concerned with the question ‘why’? Science cannot ask that question. SCience is concerned with ‘what? and how?’.Faith, not concerned with empirical measures, cannot answer those questions.

good blog Gazza, especially the part about the difference between science and spirituallity. I could not understand why Dawkins wanted to devide into units, small or large, what I call merely Memory, not meme (sounds like cream). Maybe I understood it wrong???

Sylvia –

“Meme” is not simply “memory” divided into units. Let me see if I can explain by analogy what a meme is.

What do we mean when we say the word “virus”? Well, obviously, we can mean “a sub-microscopic entity smaller than a single cell.”

But what then do we mean when we say “I’m feeling sick; I must have a virus”? Obviously one single sub-microscopic entity smaller than a single cell doesn’t make us sick.

What we mean by “virus” in this context is a huge number of copies of that sub-microscopic entity occupying the body of the person who “has a virus”.

But if these are our only two meanings of “virus”, how could we make sense of someone else saying “oh, dear, you’re sick like me — I must have given you my virus”? Both our previous meanings of “virus” were limited to something that resided in a single body. Now we are touching on a third meaning, which is something that can transfer from one body to another, and thereafter exists in both bodies.

If you have followed me so far — “meme” is what you get when you take the base idea of “idea” but expand the idea of “idea” as we just expanded the idea of “virus”. That is why “meme” is most definitely NOT just “memory, divided into units”; the key concept behind the meme is that it TRANSFERS from person to person.

Here is a splendid over the top Fabio B rant. It’s pretty clear that Richard Dawkins is on the nail, and telling the truth, he’s certainly upsetting Fabio!

Fabio P. Barberi wrote:

“uld promote the fanatical, irrational and ignorant Richard Dawkins, inventor of the metaphysical and unprovable “meme” and “selfish gene” notions, as any kind of voice of reason. The best that can be said is that he and his enemies deserve each other. I would dearly love to see him try to patronize, say, John Polkinghorne; but we all know that that is as likely as the paper dog pursuing the fire-cat through Hell. Dawkins only ever “answers” people he thinks he can patronize and squash. Real intellectuals, he runs away from.”

posted by Gazza:

“Just a cursory read of ‘The God Delusion’ reveals that Dawkins does not fully understand the nature of belief nor the concept of God. He resorts to some wonderfully shallow and oft-heard) arguments that demonstrate the deficiency of his philosophical understanding of the subject he attempts to tackle. Some of these arguments insult the intelligence of thinking deists. His book offers nothing that has not been heard, refuted and counter-argued many times before. It is insulting in tone, as the very title predicts.”

You must have given his book a very very cursory read. His arguments are not shallow, and they have been refuted only in the fevered minds of the most stupid theologians. As for his arguments insulting the intelligence of deists, I think its the other way around; deists arguments insult the intelligence of rational folk. you might try reading the book without your righteous condescension spectacles on. Then you’d realise that religious apologists talk bullshit and then think even more bullshit, rather than thinking rationally.