or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Learning to Love Richard Dawkins
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Learning to Love Richard Dawkins

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
Apologies for this but I can't let it go. As many of you will know my personal favourite in a long catalogue of Bêtes noire is Richard Dawkins.

I suppose virulent opposition often indicates a deeper affinity which one wants to repudiate - one of my arguments against Dawkins in the past: that he is in fact as literalist and fundie as those he opposes which is why he does so - and the same possibly applies to me.... I am more 'spiritually' an atheist than a believer as atheists tend to be more radical, humanist, rational and liberal and they oppose religious lunacy of which there is massive amounts. The only problem is I'm a sort of Deist.

But I digress. My criticisms of Dawkins in the past has been that he paints with too broad a brush and 'protests too much'....I've long had a suspicion that he will undergo some sort of conversion. In fact I think it's inevitable.

So...is it happening?

Quote:
On Tuesday evening I attended the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxfords Natural History Museum. This was the second public encounter between the two men, but it turned out to be very different from the first. Lennox is the Oxford mathematics professor whose book, Gods Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? is to my mind an excoriating demolition of Dawkinss overreach from biology into religion as expressed in his book The God Delusion -- all the more devastating because Lennox attacks him on the basis of science itself. In the first debate, which can be seen on video on this website, Dawkins was badly caught off-balance by Lennoxs argument precisely because, possibly for the first time, he was being challenged on his own chosen scientific ground.

This weeks debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:

A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

Starting to like him..... but there's more:

Quote:
For example, I put to him that, since he is prepared to believe that the origin of all matter was an entirely spontaneous event, he therefore believes that something can be created out of nothing -- and that since such a belief runs counter to the very scientific principles of verifiable evidence which he tells us should govern all our thinking, this is itself precisely the kind of irrationality, or magic, which he scorns. In reply he said that, although he agreed this was a problematic position, he did indeed believe that the first particle arose spontaneously from nothing, because the alternative explanation God -- was more incredible.

That's a stunning position and one which I could adopt easily. I don't find 'God' more incredible as such but certainly 'equally' incredible so we are in the same ball-park now and it's Dawkins who has moved there.

But wait....this is the clincher. Dawkins has here in this next one come close to adopting one of my favourite stances and is now only a step away from full enlightenment (hahahah):

Quote:
Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?

The author is being disparaging here and for once Dawkins is by far the more rational. It is also not such an unusual position among scientists these days but let's leave 'little green men' out of it. The key concept is the 'creation' - depending on what is meant by that the alien intelligence could well have the characteristics of 'God'.

Or put another way; the concept of 'God' could be a primitive interpretation of the alien intelligence involved.

Then observations at the end of the article about Dawkins' own treatment of truth and facts is revealing but I don't want to debate them as such as I am in the flow of a new found admiration for the man.

Article
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #2 of 49
Well there are plenty of Scientific hypotheses of how matter and the universe could have arose in the beginning without a deist God intervening, unless of course you held the view that what previous ages felt as God, was actually the amazement of the discovery of scientific inquiry to the best of their ability for their era. I think we both know what the religious scriptures are and the domain they operate in....

Perhaps you would be better served by 'your' God, to go back to the primeval atom - before all the 'scriptural corruption' and religious BS as you put it, and just 'live' God as well as we can for the age we live in, like they used to do in purer times...

....a course in Astrophysics perhaps
post #3 of 49
Melanie Phillips? Melanie Fucking Phillips? The nadir of any argument is reached when she espouses it. I'm an atheist and not that keen on Dawkins;he's too abrasive, but that article is nonsense. Nothing she claims that he said points to some God-sized hole in his philosophy. Nor should it lead you to expect his conversion to a belief in ghosts.

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig
" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

Reply

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig
" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

Reply
post #4 of 49


Genius of Britain Dawkins-vs-Hawking

Quote:
In the last part of the program, Richard Dawkins made the point that science is not undamentally about math, or experiments, but about asking questions. There ensued a fascinating short discussion between Dawkins and Hawking on the big questions.

What really happened before the Bang? Dawkins asked Hawking. Hawking gave the standard, simple response there is no before because time is part of the universe, as predicted by general relativity (he seemed surprised by the question, as was I).

Hawking had a far harder question for Dawkins:

Why are you obsessed with God? It is exactly what I would have asked, but Dawkins seemed quite taken aback by the question. He responded initially by claiming that Stephen had brought up the question first, with his famous last line of A Brief History of Time (..for then we shall know the mind of God), which isnt much of an answer. However, Richard then said that his main problem with religion is that religious explanations for nature are a distraction from the real path of finding out have things work.. fair comment!

The Blind Faith of Stephen Hawking: The Eternal Universe
By Brian Melton, on September 24th, 2010

Quote:
By universally acknowledged definition, anything that occurred before the Big Bang is inaccessible to science. So, any statement affecting what occurs before the Bang or the assumed eventual Crunch (or Freeze, or whatever) must be made primarily based on blind faith.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist . . . It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."
Stephen Hawking

The problems exhibited by Hawking's statements are twofold. First, he simply misses the point in terms of intelligent design arguments for God's existence. Second, he appears to want to replace what he considers blind faith in one God with an equally blind faith in something else.

http://www.intellectualconservative....al-universe-2/

Hawking: no God behind the Big Bang

Quote:
So much for physics revealing the mind of God. Lest anybody still think that Stephen Hawking is religious, even in a deistic sense, check out his new book, The Grand Design (coauthored with American physicist Leonard Miodinow), available in the US September 7. Heres part of Hawkingss precis, taken from the Amazon listing:

In The Grand Design we explain why, according to quantum theory, the cosmos does not have just a single existence, or history, but rather that every possible history of the universe exists simultaneously. We question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a model-dependent theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiversethe idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete theory of everything. As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, 42.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....t-930-a-m-est/

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/hawking-no-god-behind-big-bang-dawkins-discussion-at-930-a-m-est/hawking/
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #5 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex London View Post

Melanie Phillips? Melanie Fucking Phillips? The nadir of any argument is reached when she espouses it. I'm an atheist and not that keen on Dawkins;he's too abrasive, but that article is nonsense. Nothing she claims that he said points to some God-sized hole in his philosophy. Nor should it lead you to expect his conversion to a belief in ghosts.

Agreed. She is execrable.

But we can still focus on Dawkins' actual quotes. In fact that's what I was doing - don't think I really thought about Phillips at all.

I'm sure she did not make them up, we don't need to shoot the messenger in this case.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Or put another way; the concept of 'God' could be a primitive interpretation of the alien intelligence involved.

So if humanity is the product of alien intervention, I suppose it is fair to assume that this alien intervention happened by seeding the Earth with biological building blocks billions of years ago and allowing evolution to run its course,

There appears to be no evidence of intelligent life in almost the entire history of life on this planet until we come along - that is intelligent enough to be capable of systematically sifting through 3.5 billion years of the evidence to come to the conclusion that we were 'planted by aliens'. Though there is no guarantee that this 'seeding' will produce anything intelligent at all...

So from these facts, there is a gap of 3.5 billion years from the 'seeding event' to intelligent life, and somehow, although I think that its often unfair that we view ancients as 'dim' - they managed to come to the correct conclusion about their 'true alien' origin, having no acceptable Scientific method, primitive understanding of Science - and a 3.5 billion year gap they apparently knew nothing about...

...then wrote this epic discovery down in almost undecipherable code, known as religion, conspired to make it look like it was little more than astrology, obviously to keep this devastating secret hidden and fool those who didn't truly believe...

All the while, modern Scientists, of which there are probably more today working on the problem, than there were humans in the entire world 5000 years ago, (also I assume have access to exactly the same evidence of our origins and evolution as those extremely wise infintiely clever blokes who documented this uber Scientific discovery...as parable) have no-idea where we came from - I suppose because they're too stupid and narrowminded to understand primitive Astrology!

and if they dont agree with Segovius esoteric view that Jesus was an interstellar spunk donar playboy, - or a mushroom... I forget which...then they are the 'black beast'.

[edit]Sorry, I just logged on to do some further inquiry about the ekpyrotic universe model I saw in my text[/edit]
post #7 of 49
Oh yes, I had a point....it seems that Dawkins is obviously more in tune with modern cosmology than Hawkins, so asked a valid Question in asking what happened before the big bang..

Hawkins, more concerned with politicking, than cosmology it seems.
post #8 of 49
Seg, it's not that she made them up per se, but that I don't trust her to provide the context in which they were said, i.e. full quotes, not sentence fragments. She is a an extremely unreliable witness so I reserve the right to shoot the messenger. Repeatedly.
More relevantly, this debate and subsequent article date from 2008, so I don't know why you ask in your first post, "Is it ( his conversion to Deism ) happening?" More correctly you could ask, "Has it happened?" To which the answer is "No" .
Marc, it's Hawking. That much I know.

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig
" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

Reply

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig
" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

Reply
post #9 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex London View Post

Seg, it's not that she made them up per se, but that I don't trust her to provide the context in which they were said, i.e. full quotes, not sentence fragments. She is a an extremely unreliable witness so I reserve the right to shoot the messenger. Repeatedly.
More relevantly, this debate and subsequent article date from 2008, so I don't know why you ask in your first post, "Is it ( his conversion to Deism ) happening?" More correctly you could ask, "Has it happened?" To which the answer is "No" .

Err...I only just noticed it....I try not to spend to much time on Dawkins.

But my point is more that I WANT Dawkins to become more rational. I am not an atheist but I feel more at home with them (apart from right-wing Nazi wankers like Harris) than religious nutters but they can be so irrational in their arguments.

You expect lunacy from religious idiots but it is some how debilitating to see it in people who should be thinkers.

If Dawkins is addressing this then it's great news.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #10 of 49
Seg, I just finished watching a documentary film hosted by Ben Stein called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Have you seen it? If not, you may find it interesting.

Ben Stein actually interviews Dawkins and some of his responses are quite interesting.

The reviews of it seem to be mostly unfavorable...which just made me want to watch it more (thank you, Netflix!).

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #11 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Seg, I just finished watching a documentary film hosted by Ben Stein called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Have you seen it? If not, you may find it interesting.

Ben Stein actually interviews Dawkins and some of his responses are quite interesting.

The reviews of it seem to be mostly unfavorable...which just made me want to watch it more (thank you, Netflix!).

Looks interesting, I haven't seen it but will track it down. I don't accept ID btw in any way, shape or form. As far as I'd be prepared to go would be evolution being God's methodology but even that I don;t think is necessary - God does not have to be a creator at all. He could just 'be' and evolution could be exactly what atheists claim it is and divorced from relationship to God. I don't know doesn't interest me so much...

What I have a problem with is this from your link:

Quote:
The film portrays evolution as responsible for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics and, in particular, Nazi atrocities in the Holocaust. Film critic Jeffrey Overstreet, writing for Christianity Today, stated that "Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany."

That in bold is a very silly comment don't you think? Displays a massive ignorance of history and little thought....

Racism surely is a major driving force of Nazism? And a major root of racism is religion. It has to be - Adam and Eve were 'perfect' and they (in Xian imagination) were white. Just as Jesus is always Aryan in depictions - you will never see a paining of a Jewish Jesus.

Even now the rise of the right-wing and Neo-Nazis is informed almost exclusively by an opposition to a non-Christian religion: Islam. The BNP platform is to 'preserve Christian values'. The Swedish Right are the 'Christian' democrats. Wilders wants to protect the 'Judeo-Christian' tradition. the KKK....well, you get the picture.

None of these groups are remotely interested in atheism or evolution. All are prototype Nazis...that is they stem from the same root and ideals. This is why Nazis opposed Jews (one reason) and why Jews have been demonized in the West - because they are held to be responsible for the death of Christ (the reasons for Jewish persecution BC are obviously different).

Having said that I do think Scientists sometimes conspire or group together to suppress data they find uncomfortable or which challenges consensus reality.

A good example would be Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo which presented evidence that humanity is far older than currently believed ('devolution' if you like) and a large amount of evidence such as:

Quote:
"Raised letter-like shapes found inside a block of marble from a quarry near Philadelphia, PA. The block of marble came from a depth of 60-70 feet, which suggests the letters were made from intelligent humans from the distant past."

"A metallic bell-shaped vessel that was blown out of pudding stone now called the Roxbury conglomerate, is over 600 million years old...by current standards, life was just beginning to form on this planet...but this vessel indicates the presence of artistic metal workers in North America over 600 million years before Leif Erikson."

"A chalk ball was found...and based on its stratigraphic position, it can be assigned a date of 45-55 million years ago."

I can see why scientists don't like it - but to dismiss it out of hand is akin to faith. Science should be able to explain it. If even as fraud. But to refuse to address it - which has happened - is suspicious.

Cremo cites hundreds of such examples and many are well attested. I don't clam anything from them but the question exists: how did these man-made artefacts get into these very old pre-human deposits?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #12 of 49
This explains it:






But seriously, scientists are humans. Sadly, some will exhibit some poor human behavior. I completely disagree with suppressing data--it totally flies in the face of what science is supposed to be about. However, I will contend that it is a very, very small minority that perform these egregious acts. I also will contend that those who already have an agenda that runs contrary to science (say like Mormons for example) will end up using isolated events like this to try to invalidate EVERYTHING science has given us and taught us since the dawn of civilization.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

But seriously, scientists are humans. Sadly, some will exhibit some poor human behavior. I completely disagree with suppressing data--it totally flies in the face of what science is supposed to be about. However, I will contend that it is a very, very small minority that perform these egregious acts. I also will contend that those who already have an agenda that runs contrary to science (say like Mormons for example) will end up using isolated events like this to try to invalidate EVERYTHING science has given us and taught us since the dawn of civilization.

True, I agree.

I also think there is something in the human mind that if the new evidence is so 'massive' or unlikely then it can't somehow grasp it for a long time. I think this is what happened with Darwin.

Of course religious people opposed him - but they were still more rational then than they are now - but also some scientists. Because it seemed so unlikely after millennia of other entrenched beliefs.

It's not so much about suppression but more about inability to adjust...same thing happened with Einstein who couldn't grasp new movements in physics.

I also heard that the British inventor of radar was virulently opposed to bombing raids to neutralize German radar in WW2. Scientists are only human.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #14 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Racism surely is a major driving force of Nazism? And a major root of racism is religion. It has to be - Adam and Eve were 'perfect' and they (in Xian imagination) were white. Just as Jesus is always Aryan in depictions - you will never see a paining of a Jewish Jesus.

Racism can be motivated by all sorts of different things. Surely what we call Darwinism, taken to the extreme, can be one of them.

Hitler not only murdered his political enemies and people of a specific race, he murdered the lame, sick, mentally ill - anyone who stood in the way of his idea of the "master race". I think his racism was motivated by eugenics.

And while Darwin himself certainly seemed to be against eugenics, I think his theories have been distorted, taken out of context, etc. by those who are proponents of it. In fact, I believe eugenics is alive and well in America today in the form of organizations like Planned Parenthood - but that's a whole other debate entirely.

I don't take anything in the film at face value - Stein deliberately takes one of Darwin's quotes out of context and alters it such that its meaning is very different from what Darwin actually wrote. But I do think the film raises a few valid and interesting points.

That highly credentialed scientists who even mention ID in their work have lost their academic jobs over it is quite evident. There seems to be this pervasive mentality that "the science is settled" and that it mustn't be questioned or challenged. To me, that is the exact opposite of of what science is all about. Should we not question everything, even Darwin's theories? Darwin himself was challenging the status quo of his day with his theories.

By the way, I found a link that has the full video online here.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #15 of 49
ID isn't science. It's god of the gaps all gussied up with fancy language. Dress up a pig and it's still a pig.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 49
Darwin's theories do not explain or account for everything.

ID doesn't even have to go as far as affirming the existence of "God", merely that there could have been an intelligence behind whatever caused at least 250 proteins to be arranged in just the right fashion as to create a living organism.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #17 of 49
ID doesn't TELL US ANYTHING about the universe. It's god of the gaps. NOTHING MORE.


FFS Jazz, did you not read Asimov's essay about degrees of wrongness? Evolution may be incomplete, but it is infinitely less incomplete than ID.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

ID doesn't TELL US ANYTHING about the universe.

Maybe it does but you just aren't listening.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 49
Nope, it doesn't.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Nope, it doesn't.

Arrogance is a wonderful thing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

ID doesn't TELL US ANYTHING about the universe. It's god of the gaps. NOTHING MORE.


FFS Jazz, did you not read Asimov's essay about degrees of wrongness? Evolution may be incomplete, but it is infinitely less incomplete than ID.

Are you going to address my point?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Darwin's theories do not explain or account for everything.

ID doesn't even have to go as far as affirming the existence of "God", merely that there could have been an intelligence behind whatever caused at least 250 proteins to be arranged in just the right fashion as to create a living organism.

Billions of years worth of random chemical combinations are a much better explanation for those protein arrangements. People who invoke "God" as part of an Occam's razor type of argument forget how much complexity they are hiding inside this God.

A god would be a much more complex creature than a human, most likely - where did they come from? An even bigger God that created them? You don't make the hypothesis less complex by saying "God did it", you make it much more complex.

"its turtles, all the way down"
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Billions of years worth of random chemical combinations are a much better explanation for those protein arrangements.

I disagree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

People who invoke "God" as part of an Occam's razor type of argument forget how much complexity they are hiding inside this God.

Actually I don't think they are forgetting this at all.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 49
I don't think anyone can claim to know the exact mechanics of how life came to be. It's been speculated that there would have to be approximately 250 proteins to provide minimal life function. If that is indeed the case, it is statistically impossible that 250 proteins could be perfectly aligned in such a way as to create life simply by chance.

The chances of that happening are roughly one in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion.

Essentially zero.

Proponents of ID simply want the possibility of a guided process to be discussed along with the possibility of a random process.

With our current level of understanding, neither possibility has been proven or disproved beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Proponents of ID simply want the possibility of a guided process to be discussed along with the possibility of a random process.

Who guided the process, and how did those guides get created?

MJ - your answer was very unsatisfactory, imho.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Who guided the process, and how did those guides get created?

MJ - your answer was very unsatisfactory, imho.

Those are excellent questions.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #27 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Those are excellent questions.

At some point, some creature had to evolve of nothing - either us or your "guides". Unless you think that these God-like creatures have existed for an infinite period in the past.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #28 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

At some point, some creature had to evolve of nothing - either us or your "guides". Unless you think that these God-like creatures have existed for an infinite period in the past.

It is my understanding that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But matter has always existed in one form or another. It has simply been rearranged - organized, if you will - in different ways.

Is it so irrational to believe that life has always existed in one form or another and can be organized by an intelligence capable of doing so? Is it any more irrational than believing the earth was seeded by aliens or that a statistically improbable process actually occurred?

My point is that we don't know. And until we do, it's in our best interest to consider all the possibilities. That's what science is about. Or what it used to be about. Possibilities.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #29 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

MJ - your answer was very unsatisfactory, imho.

Huh. Sorry. I thought I was merely stating my opinion. \

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Unless you think that these God-like creatures have existed for an infinite period in the past.

Well that is the basic theological position though isn't it? That God is, was and will always be. He had no beginning and has no end. He exists outside of both space and time.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 49
The universe is 18 billion years old, older than matter is by a few seconds. Unless your creators are able to live outside of the universe, and/or are not made from matter, then they evolved from the energy of the big bang.

So you either believe in evolution of some kind (for either us, or our creators, or some ancestor creators, etc), or else our creators are from outside the universe and have existed infinitely in the past.

And you think that it is more likely than billions of years of random molecule combinations forming proteins? I don't. I just don't understand the thought process of religious people at all, maybe there is not any reconciliation of our views that is possible.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #32 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The universe is 18 billion years old, older than matter is by a few seconds. Unless your creators are able to live outside of the universe, and/or are not made from matter, then they evolved from the energy of the big bang.

So you either believe in evolution of some kind (for either us, or our creators, or some ancestor creators, etc), or else our creators are from outside the universe and have existed infinitely in the past.

And you think that it is more likely than billions of years of random molecule combinations forming proteins? I don't.

OK. So you don't. I do.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

OK. So you don't. I do.

When our mathematical models and data are better, we will be able to calculate the probability of random molecule movements resulting in amino acids. I think that jazzguru's estimate of "zero" is a little light.

Suppose there is a 50% chance that the molecules could form the patterns, given the space and time allowed? Suppose it is 99.9999999%? Would there be any probability number where you would be willing to disbelieve in an external God?

I think it is also pretty clear that a intelligent design only works with an immortal god (or gods) from outside the universe and not made of matter from the big bang, at least if the end goal of ID is to find some alternative to evolution.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #34 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think it is also pretty clear that a intelligent design only works with an immortal god (or gods) from outside the universe and not made of matter from the big bang

Yes. And? I'm pretty certain that's the basic theological position of most Christians, Jews and Muslims who believe in a creator God.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

an immortal god (or gods) from outside the universe and not made of matter from the big bang,

If you have a brane oscillating in another dimension, creating our local universe in from the energy released in a collision with other branes in said dimension, then you have forces and energy outside our local universe.
post #36 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes. And? I'm pretty certain that's the basic theological position of most Christians, Jews and Muslims who believe in a creator God.

But the ID argument is that it is not necessarily a god, I was just pointing out that there is no workable middle ground that does not involve evolution.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #37 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

But the ID argument is that it is not necessarily a god,

I understand that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I was just pointing out that there is no workable middle ground that does not involve evolution.

Not quite sure I agree with that. Or, at least, your reasoning hasn't convinced me of it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #38 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

But the ID argument is that it is not necessarily a god, I was just pointing out that there is no workable middle ground that does not involve evolution.

There is - in the beginning of this thread I quoted an alleged reportage of Dawkins re the possibility of alien intervention in human genetic development.

I lean heavily to this possibility myself and there are passages in many scriptures to support it if your mind inclines to such things.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #39 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

There is - in the beginning of this thread I quoted an alleged reportage of Dawkins re the possibility of alien intervention in human genetic development.

I lean heavily to this possibility myself and there are passages in many scriptures to support it if your mind inclines to such things.

Then who or what intervened in the Alien's evolution?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #40 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I understand that.
Not quite sure I agree with that. Or, at least, your reasoning hasn't convinced me of it.

The universe is 18 billion years old - i.e. it has a finite history, and it started with a point source of energy. Any "creator" had to either evolve from the products of the big bang or come from outside the universe.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Learning to Love Richard Dawkins