Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Evangelist an 'idiot' on evolution

Expand Messages
  • Harold
    ... [snip] ... Ahhhh, instead of BURNING the books we ought to READ tham, is that it? [snip] ... Now there I disagree. The laws of physics aren t blind . They
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, <humanist@...> wrote:
      > http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/11/25/darwin.dawkins.evolution/
      > Dawkins: Evangelist an 'idiot' on evolution
      > CNN
      > November 25, 2009
      > London, England (CNN) -- A Christian evangelist branded an idiot by atheist
      > biologist Richard Dawkins for trying to refute Charles Darwin's theory of
      > evolution has brushed off the criticism.


      > Responding to Dawkins' criticism, Comfort issued a statement to CNN. "If the
      > views expressed in my introduction of 'On the Origin of Species' are
      > 'idiotic,' why would Mr. Dawkins tell students to rip them out of the book,
      > as he did recently?
      > "Surely he should encourage them to read the introduction to see how
      > foolhardy it is, and that would strengthen students' faith in the theory of
      > evolution."

      Ahhhh, instead of BURNING the books we ought to READ tham, is that it?

      > "Dan Dennett, the U.S. philosopher said it was the best idea anyone ever
      > had. It explains the whole of life, the diversity, the beauty of life, above
      > all the illusion of design. Living things look as if though they've been
      > designed at a fantastically complicated level. What Darwin showed is you can
      > get illusion of design with virtually nothing, with a simple idea, using
      > ordinary, blind laws of physics."

      Now there I disagree. The laws of physics aren't "blind". They are very set. Chaos is blind. But the laws of physics controls chaos. Sets boundaries. Those boundaries allow the universe to evolve into what we see every night.

      > He added: "You can't prove there's no God, no fairies, no leprechauns, or
      > that Thor or Apollo don't exist. There's got to be a positive reason to
      > think that fairies exist. Until somebody does, we can say technically we are
      > agnostic about fairies. We can't disprove them, but we think it's a bit of a
      > waste of time trying. And the same goes for God."

      For what it's worth, I would be impressed by his opinion if he were the end all and be all of *all* the sciences, and can actually engineer something, ANYthing, and not just a biologist.

      THEN he would be able to say that it all happened by itself and there is no God.

      Speaking as an agnostic, I also being a skeptic. I question *everything*. I would question even Einstein...

      Funny thing to me is that there has been admission to the fact that Apollo, Thor, Ra, leprechauns, faeries, and such were made up and by whom. However, no one yet has admitted to making up the existence of a creator God.

      But, since there is allegedly no evidence that satisfies atheists, agnostics and skeptics, there is as he says no point in discussing or arguing it. Yet, it is the ultimate form of arrogance to call someone an idiot because one does not accept a scientific principle. For all he or we know this guy might be brilliant, even moreso than Dr. Dawkins and all of us.

      "Hunches aren't valuable..." that's stupid. Hunches are equivalent to postulation, conjecture, hypothesis. Many times I myself have gone on a hunch about an electronic idea, and most have proved true and valuable. Hunches lead to discovery and as real a part of science as any other related cognitive function.

      I think too that most forget that some of the greatest scientific minds in history were also religious... idiots. Copernicus, Galileo, DaVinci, Newton, to name only a few.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.