Dawkins Demolished

[Alison]

Oh come on Alison. You surely cannot be arguing that evolutionary science is based solely on Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (which. by its sixth edition had lost its subtitle anyway)? What about Wallace's On The Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type, for a start, let alone the vast and expanding quantity of later work.

Not at all Nethers. Revd Fraser's remarks were designed exactly to show the flaws in Dawkin's line of argument.

My general point is that some folk require the highest standards of debate and logic while seemingly unquestioning of
the not infrequently fallible Dawkins.

[PhilipT]

"Christians seldom realise," Professor Dawkins declares, that "much of the moral consideration for others which is apparently promoted by both the Old and New Testament was originally intended to apply only to a narrowly defined in-group. 'Love they neighbour' didn't mean what we now think it means. It meant only 'Love another Jew'."...

So where does that leave the Parable of the Good Samaritan, one wonders?

[scottycelt]

I cannot believe there are still members here who apparently believe atheists like Dawkins don't believe in anything ...

Of course he believes in something ... he believes (and utterly dogmatically) that there is no God which is no more or less a belief than one who sincerely believes there is! That's why he and his chums hired that heavily-advertised double-decker bus so they could thump their secular bibles!

Why do some atheists continue to keep dodging this point when it's fairly put to them?

[Bryn]

I cannot believe there are still members here who apparently believe atheists like Dawkins don't believe in anything ...

Of course he believes in something ... he believes (and utterly dogmatically) that there is no God which is no more or less a belief than one who sincerely believes there is! That's why he and his chums hired that heavily-advertised double-decker bus so they could thump their secular bibles!

Why do some atheists continue to keep dodging this point when it's fairly put to them?

You probably failed to read the messages on the sides of buses correctly.

[Lateralthinking1]

I don't take sides on this one. I merge!

However, another problem. Science proves beyond all doubt with evidence. Belief only has to be belief. The fact that there is still belief means that science hasn't managed to prove beyond all doubt. Until it does, it cannot be a science.

[scottycelt]

You probably failed to read the messages on the sides of buses correctly.

Dawkins and chums were belatedly obliged to include the word 'probably' due to the Trades Description Act, it was widely reported at the time.

So there is a God!

[Bryn]

I don't take sides on this one. I merge!

However, another problem. Science proves beyond all doubt with evidence. Belief only has to be belief. The fact that there is still belief means that science hasn't managed to prove beyond all doubt. Until it does, it cannot be a science.

That's not a definition of science I recognise.

[Bryn]

Dawkins and chums were belatedly obliged to include the word 'probably' due to the Trades Description Act, it was widely reported at the time.

So there is a God!

Dawkins wanted "There is almost certainly no God", but lost the vote to "probably". The Advertising Standards story was dreamt up by Joan Bakewell, writing in a Murdoch publication, IIRC.

[jayne lee wilson]

Well Children, you could say that Scientists start with a theory which they try to prove with evidence for; let's call this a HYPO-THESIS. Then they try to disprove it with evidence against; let's call this an ANTI-THESIS; finally they say: in the light of the evidence against we have a SYN-THESIS - a modified theory.

So when they discover a gap in the fossil record, and the Creationists dance round their fire of burning books (always leaving one out), and cry, Lord be Praised, Evolution is dead, What WILL the Scientists do now?! The Scientists look puzzled, scratch their heads and reply: er, no, not really, we've just modified the theory and now we'll go on looking.

I don't take sides on this one. I merge!

However, another problem. Science proves beyond all doubt with evidence. Belief only has to be belief. The fact that there is still belief means that science hasn't managed to prove beyond all doubt. Until it does, it cannot be a science.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As I understand it, science "starts" with an observation, followed by a series of further observation and/or experimentation which try to determine what conditions create what's been observed. This leads to a Theoretical conclusion (which is not the same as a hypothesis) which is published and distributed to others to recreate, modify or disprove. If the Theory is supported by repeated testing, then it is accepted.

[Lateralthinking1]

Thanks Jayne. So if I understand this correctly, the theory of evolution is a theory that is evolving. Doesn't that make it rather different from, say, the scientific understanding that the earth isn't flat?

Meanwhile, creationists believe what has been set out in a book even though the book changes every century. Humbly my conclusion is that any certainties are daft almost beyond belief.

[teamsaint]

Well Children, you could say that Scientists start with a theory which they try to prove with evidence for; let's call this a HYPO-THESIS. Then they try to disprove it with evidence against; let's call this an ANTI-THESIS; finally they say: in the light of the evidence against we have a SYN-THESIS - a modified theory.

So when they discover a gap in the fossil record, and the Creationists dance round their fire of burning books (always leaving one out), and cry, Lord be Praised, Evolution is dead, What WILL the Scientists do now?! The Scientists look puzzled, scratch their heads and reply: er, no, not really, we've just modified the theory and now we'll go on looking.

Trouble is, some of these hypotheses get picked up as some sort of absolute truth by people who ought to know better, and used for bad ends.

As FF(I think) suggested, certainty of any kind is pretty dangerous. I am certain of this !!

[french frank]

Revd Fraser's remarks were designed exactly to show the flaws in Dawkin's line of argument.

More precisely, to respond to the Dawkins' opinion poll question which asked people whether they could name the first book of the New Testament ("an astonishing number" couldn't).

If one thinks back to an age when 'the country' was 'truly Christian', say 1250, a lot of people would not have gone to church and read the bible regularly, nor been able to name the first book of the New Testament.

I thought the poll answers seemed to show that those self-identifying as Christian were less doctrinal and more socially conscious in their 'beliefs', and thus defined as 'more secular'. Evolution?

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes, but some of the most important discoveries involved quite a leap of imagination, following those observations - think of Copernicus, or Newton, or Einstein. Or Darwin watching the Galapagos finches. Your "theoretical conclusion" is my "synthesis".

Lateralthinking, I could say, how do you know the Earth isn't flat, but that might be a bit naughty. Let's just say that the evidence to prove the flatness theory has so far been rather weak...

As I understand it, science "starts" with an observation, followed by a series of further observation and/or experimentation which try to determine what conditions create what's been observed. This leads to a Theoretical conclusion (which is not the same as a hypothesis) which is published and distributed to others to recreate, modify or disprove. If the Theory is supported by repeated testing, then it is accepted.

[scottycelt]

Dawkins wanted "There is almost certainly no God", but lost the vote to "probably". The Advertising Standards story was dreamt up by Joan Bakewell, writing in a Murdoch publication, IIRC.

So what you are actually saying is that even Dawkins is not really quite sure ... so therefore he's a bit of a fraud as he then logically can't be a true atheist?

Do you happen to know if anyone voted 'possibly' or, even 'I'm sorry, I haven't a clue' ... ?