That's a quote from Richard Dawkins hawking his latest book
Doesn't that make it difficult for a creationist to read this book without feeling insulted? Won't that hurt your goal?What's so funny about Dawkins' quote is that he knows his last bookNo, I'm not really aiming it at creationists. I don't think they read books anyway, except for one book. It's aimed at the intelligent layperson who does read books and who vaguely knows a little bit about evolution and who vaguely knows that there are creationists and maybe even vaguely thinks that he's a creationist himself, but who is curious and wants to know the evidence.
It's just that the evidence is so enthralling, it's so exciting. It is so wonderful that here we are on this planet and we understand why we're here. And it's just a sort of ecstatic feeling to understand why you exist, and I want to share that feeling with other people.
was purchased by many Christians and he knows that they'll probably buy this one as well (I'm waiting to check it out of the library) no matter how insulting he is to them. We have no problem reading the other sides' point of view. But do they? Here's one of the best books I've read from our point of view
for those who really are free thinkers.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Moonshadow, you've seen some videos by Kurt Wise and he recognizes his bad position. Does he make any attempt to refute or deny the scientific evidence? For example Ken Hovind tried on his videos now on You Tube, but they're so bad that even the Ken Ham criticized Hovind about them.
I'm glad you brought up the CMBR because it is such a good example of how much of this evidence was uncovered. People stumbled across it and only afterwards figured out what it meant. It wasn't like the Evil Atheist Conspiracy paid off a bunch of scientists to do bogus research to refute young Earth creationism.
http://www.rae.org/critanl.html
[snip]
Some questions for Richard Dawkins:
1. In your book, "The Devil's Chaplain", you write to your then
10-year-old daughter: "And next time somebody tells you that something is
true, why not say to them, 'What kind of evidence is there for that?'
What is the best evidence you can cite for vertical
evolution(information-enhancing evolution)? How do you know it's true?
2. Regarding University of Massachussetts professor Lynn Margulis, Michael
Behe writes in "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution" (1996): "At one of her many public talks she asks the molecular
biologists in the audience to name a single, unambiguous example of the
formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge
goes unmet." (Behe, p. 26).
In the years since Margulis first asked the question, can biologists now
name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by
the accumulation of mutations? Can you give one example of an evolutionary
process or mechanism which can be seen to create new functional
information at the genetic level? Can you give one reference for any study
that has shown that duplicated genes acquired different functions during
an experiment or series of experiments?
3. Are you able to describe the specific evolutionary process that
accounted for the complex arrangement of inanimate matter into a life form
that grows, metabolizes, reacts to stimuli, and reproduces? (the four
criteria for biological life). If 'yes', what was the process? If 'no',
why can't the process be specifically described?
4. On page one of your book, "The Blind Watchmaker" you write: "Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been
designed for a purpose".
a) If living things look designed--if the empirical evidence suggests
purpose--then how do you know they weren't designed?
b) What is your criteria for "apparent" design?
[snip]
http://www.icr.org/article/natural-selection-creationists-idea/
Natural Selection - A Creationist's Idea
by Paul G. Humber, M.S.
http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild
Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild
If you thought Darwin’s Origin was original, think again!
by Russell Grigg, Australia
On Sept. 29, Richard Dawkins was one of the guests on The
Hour(www.cbc.ca/thehour)
The host, George Stroumboulopoulos, asked Dawkins:
"What is one single thing that you can say that definitely proves that
evolution is a fact?"
Dawkins' response:
"Comparing the genes molecularly across all animals and plants. It falls
on a precise hierarchical pattern which is obviously best interpreted on a
family tree, and this becomes possible--becomes quantitatively
possible--because all living creatures have the same genetic code, which
means you have literally reams and reams of textual information, just like
a book, in every cell of every body, of every creature and every plant in
the world."
So.....a pattern of highly organized textual information comparable to
books is evidence that there wasn't any intelligent design involved?
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Hour/ID=1280204955
For a counterpoint to Dawkins, someone like Dr. Jonathan Sarfati of
Australia should be interviewed:
http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati
author of Refuting Evolution, and co-author of Refuting Evolution II
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-index
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-index
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-331.pdf
Henry M. Morris writes:
[snip]
Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution,
evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial
evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of
organisms as their “proof” that evolution is a scientific fact. A number
of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for
evolution,
since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that
similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common
evolutionary ancestry.
Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator
could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for
all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and
creation, not evolution.
[snip]
http://www.icr.org/article/3187/
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_84-92.pdf
http://creation.com/is-the-evolutionary-tree-changing-into-a-creationist-orchard
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-6-argument-common-design-points-to-common-ancestry
Watch a trailer from the upcoming documentary, Darwin: The Voyage That
Shook the World
http://creation.com
Does he make any attempt to refute or deny the scientific evidence?
No, for the most part he lets it be. The only thing he question is the interpretation of the geological (and cosmological?) evidence, inferences drawn from it.
Mere_Christian
October 16, 2009 5:29 PM
"Of course we read his books.
I go to the Circus to see clowns too."
Maybe you should read less clownish books then.
Say what you will about Richard Dawkins, but his book "The Selfish Gene" is a considered a classic. I really need to read "The Extended Phenotype" as it expands on those ideas.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.