PDA

View Full Version : Richard Dawkins has found a new virus



bob b
March 13th, 2006, 08:55 AM
Richard Dawkins on recent UK TV program

In a TV broadcast recently throughout the United Kingdom (and no doubt soon to be shown on American television as well), the world’s leading spokesperson on evolution, atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, made these remarkable and shocking statements:

“I’m very concerned about the religious indoctrination of children. I want to show how faith acts like a virus that attacks the young and infects generations after generation …

It’s time to question the abuse of chilfhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish. What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible] that contains such stuff? [instead we should be venerating the birthday of Darwin, right? RBB].

The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all of fiction – jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide. …

When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus. It’s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.”
[perhaps taking them away from parents and having the State raise and educate them is the answer. RBB]

-----------

Anyone notice that Dawkins gave Islam and Allah a pass?

I wonder why? :think:

eisenreich
March 13th, 2006, 09:45 AM
Richard Dawkins on recent UK TV program

In a TV broadcast recently throughout the United Kingdom (and no doubt soon to be shown on American television as well)
The program I believe you're referring to, "Religion - The Root of All Evil?" recently aired on BBC as a two-part documentary critically examining religion in modern society. Episode one, "The God Delusion." explored the unproven traditions that are treated as fact by religious faiths, and the extremes to which some followers have taken them. Your post seems to refer to the second part of the series, "The Virus of Faith."

Considering that the lame sitcom, "The Book of Daniel," was yanked from the air so that blood-thirsty Christians (http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3474509) issuing death-threats didn't storm a tv station in Indiana, I doubt this will get much airtime in the U.S. Interesting to note that the title "The Root of All Evil?" was not Dawkin's own choice, and he wasn't in favour of it, but that Channel 4 insisted on it to create controversy.

The first episode can be watched online in its entirety here (http://youtube.com/w/Richard-Dawkins---Root-of-All-Evil-Part-1?v=CPaD6D54L4o&search=dawkins)


The world’s leading spokesperson on evolution, atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, made these remarkable and shocking statements:

“I’m very concerned about the religious indoctrination of children. I want to show how faith acts like a virus that attacks the young and infects generations after generation
Would you disagree with this, Bob? The indoctrination of children happens every day, in cultures all over the world. The Bible, Koran, science books; anything that is presented to young children as fact will most likely be accepted as truth. As an athiest, Dawkins argues against the indoctination of innocent children with what he views as myths.


It’s time to question the abuse of chilfhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish. What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible] that contains such stuff? [instead we should be venerating the birthday of Darwin, right? RBB].
If you were to look into the hearts of the majority of Christians as children, I believe one of their primary reasons for accepting Christianity was to escape the fires of hell preached to them by the parents/church.

Re: Darwin's birthday; what would a textbook on intelligent design look like..? Chapter 5, the human eye: God did that. Chapter 6, Sexual Reproduction in Humans: Don't bother looking for explanations, God took care of that also.


The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all of fiction – jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide. …
I don't think too many people would debate this, apart from the [fiction] comment.


When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus. It’s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.”
[perhaps taking them away from parents and having the State raise and educate them is the answer. RBB]
I believe Dawkins' analogy is apt when looking at indoctrination as a whole. When you look at yourself, the most core values and beliefs you hold come from your parents. As a result, you will be more likely to pass them on to your own children.

Look at Catholicism, since everyone hates Catholics on this forum.. Would you consider Catholicism to be a virus, since most people born Catholic will not only die Catholic, they'll pass it on to their children. Where's the outrage; or is only when Dawkins applies the same logic to your particular flavor of Christianity..?

-----------


Anyone notice that Dawkins gave Islam and Allah a pass?

I wonder why? :think:
In episode one, Dawkins interviews Yousef al-Khattab (Joseph Cohen), an American-born Jew who settled in Israel before converting to Islam. So, no, he doesn't give Islam a pass. Dawkins is an athiest, he doesn't play favorites when it comes to religions (myth = myth = myth).

The Berean
March 13th, 2006, 09:54 AM
Richard Dawkins? Is that guy still around? I'm curious eisenriech, what is your purpose here at TOL? Just curious. Not all people become Christian as children. I was an atheist until age 30. I used to be just like Dawkins in my mindset. His "religious" crusade to fee all people of the chains of religion was my motto, too. I thought Christianity and all religion, was a bunch of hooey. I was a staunch defender of liberism, human-secularism, and abortion. I thought all religion was myth. Then I realized I was a FOOL.

The Berean
March 13th, 2006, 10:05 AM
Richard Dawkins on recent UK TV program

In a TV broadcast recently throughout the United Kingdom (and no doubt soon to be shown on American television as well), the world’s leading spokesperson on evolution, atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, made these remarkable and shocking statements:

“I’m very concerned about the religious indoctrination of children. I want to show how faith acts like a virus that attacks the young and infects generations after generation …

It’s time to question the abuse of chilfhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. And I want to show how the scriptural roots of the Judeo-Christian moral edifice are cruel and brutish. What in the 21st century are we doing venerating a book [the Bible] that contains such stuff? [instead we should be venerating the birthday of Darwin, right? RBB].

The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all of fiction – jealous and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist, an ethnic cleanser urging His people on to acts of genocide. …

When it comes to children, I think of religion as a dangerous virus. It’s a virus which is transmitted partly through teachers and clergy, but also down the generations from parent to child to grandchild. Children are especially vulnerable to infection by the virus of religion.”
[perhaps taking them away from parents and having the State raise and educate them is the answer. RBB]

-----------

Anyone notice that Dawkins gave Islam and Allah a pass?

I wonder why? :think:
bob b,

I'm surprised that anyone pays any attention to Dawkins's tired rantings anymore. He's been doing this for decades and yet, other than other staunch atheists, what has he really accomplished in his quest to rid the world of evils of religion. It's sad really. He's obviously an educated and intellegent man though the Bible calls such men fools. He used to be one of my "heros" in my atheist days.

hatsoff
March 13th, 2006, 10:16 AM
Wow, Bob B seems to have lost it. He's flooding the board with spam, much like Chandru or James Hartline. Has he always been like that? If so, I've never noticed till now.

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 10:44 AM
The program I believe you're referring to, "Religion - The Root of All Evil?" recently aired on BBC as a two-part documentary critically examining religion in modern society. Episode one, "The God Delusion." explored the unproven traditions that are treated as fact by religious faiths, and the extremes to which some followers have taken them. Your post seems to refer to the second part of the series, "The Virus of Faith."

Considering that the lame sitcom, "The Book of Daniel," was yanked from the air so that blood-thirsty Christians (http://www.hollywood.com/news/detail/id/3474509) issuing death-threats didn't storm a tv station in Indiana, I doubt this will get much airtime in the U.S. Interesting to note that the title "The Root of All Evil?" was not Dawkin's own choice, and he wasn't in favour of it, but that Channel 4 insisted on it to create controversy.

The first episode can be watched online in its entirety here (http://youtube.com/w/Richard-Dawkins---Root-of-All-Evil-Part-1?v=CPaD6D54L4o&search=dawkins)


Sounds to me like one of the more creative "suits" at NBC got some teenager to call the station in order to hype a show that is boring, boring, boring to most viewers who prefer American Idol or any of the many reality shows. Follow the money.

"Blood-thirsty mobs" storming the TV station in Terre Haute, Indiana. :rotfl:


Would you disagree with this, Bob? The indoctrination of children happens every day, in cultures all over the world. The Bible, Koran, science books; anything that is presented to young children as fact will most likely be accepted as truth. As an athiest, Dawkins argues against the indoctination of innocent children with what he views as myths.

Right. Better to indoctrinate them in "humans are only animals" and "survival of the fittest". Wasn't that motto on the shirts of the murderers at Colombine?


If you were to look into the hearts of the majority of Christians as children, I believe one of their primary reasons for accepting Christianity was to escape the fires of hell preached to them by the parents/church.

LOL. What century are you living in?


Re: Darwin's birthday; what would a textbook on intelligent design look like..? Chapter 5, the human eye: God did that. Chapter 6, Sexual Reproduction in Humans: Don't bother looking for explanations, God took care of that also.

A textbook on intelligent design would do what any biology textbook should do: explain how the marvellous and intricate mechanisms in nature function in well designed ways using physical laws that are also well designed to support life..


I believe Dawkins' analogy is apt when looking at indoctrination as a whole. When you look at yourself, the most core values and beliefs you hold come from your parents. As a result, you will be more likely to pass them on to your own children.

Wrong. My core beliefs became corrupted in college by an educational system which seems hell bent on erasing all vestiges of religion from society and substituting atheistic myths posing as science. Best example: "random mutations plus natural selection". Fortunately my training and experience in control systems and my reading about DNA some 23 years ago allowed me to spot a technological fraud that is today becoming more and more obvious to not only many scientists but to many laypersons as well.


Look at Catholicism, since everyone hates Catholics on this forum.. Would you consider Catholicism to be a virus, since most people born Catholic will not only die Catholic, they'll pass it on to their children. Where's the outrage; or is only when Dawkins applies the same logic to your particular flavor of Christianity..?

All forms of human devised religious beliefs suffer from error. Fortunately, Catholics as well as many other Christians denominations hold to the primary essence of Christianity.

The real enemy are the atheists and other anti-Christian cults.


In episode one, Dawkins interviews Yousef al-Khattab (Joseph Cohen), an American-born Jew who settled in Israel before converting to Islam. So, no, he doesn't give Islam a pass. Dawkins is an athiest, he doesn't play favorites when it comes to religions (myth = myth = myth).

If Dawkins had included Allah in his rants he would be dead by now.

Johnny
March 13th, 2006, 11:07 AM
I like Dawkin's writings on evolution and sociobiology, but his rants against religion really turn me off. He isn't the first to refer to the religious meme though. There has been a good deal of writing on it before him.

eisenreich
March 13th, 2006, 11:58 AM
Sounds to me like one of the more creative "suits" at NBC got some teenager to call the station in order to hype a show that is boring, boring, boring to most viewers who prefer American Idol or any of the many reality shows. Follow the money.

"Blood-thirsty mobs" storming the TV station in Terre Haute, Indiana. :rotfl:
I was being facetious; I thought it was humorous, though, the amount of protesting that went on before the show had even aired. I doubt that Dawkins' show will be played in the U.S. for the same reason you did: profit continues to trump all as far as corporate execs. are concerned.


Right. Better to indoctrinate them in "humans are only animals" and "survival of the fittest". Wasn't that motto on the shirts of the murderers at Colombine?
I'd be careful going down this route.. Are you sure no one has ever been killed because of their religious beliefs? Didn't Moses kill 3,000 Israelites for worshipping a golden calf? Oh, a modern example.. Wasn't there some recent disagreement about a particular set of cartoons that continue to kill dozens of people every day?

One headline you will never see, "Athiest Richard Dawkins murders rival agnostic scientist over heated debate concerning Puncuated Equilibrium"..


If you were to look into the hearts of the majority of Christians as children, I believe one of their primary reasons for accepting Christianity was to escape the fires of hell preached to them by the parents/church.

LOL. What century are you living in?
"Americans (74 percent) say they believe in hell and two-thirds in the devil (67 percent)." - source 10/28/05 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173838,00.html)
Just because many Christians in the U.S. are too ignorant to understand the futility of Pascal's Wager, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it.


A textbook on intelligent design would do what any biology textbook should do: explain how the marvellous and intricate mechanisms in nature function in well designed ways using physical laws that are also well designed to support life..
The premise behind intelligent design is that humans could not possibly have evolved the way evolution proposes (irreducible complexity). Therefore, it would be impossible for us to understand how these changes occurred (because God did it). Unless you can explain what God had in mind when he was working on the human eye..

There are breakthroughs in science in medicine every day; they save people's lives and help us understand our bodies more accurately and efficiently. As a self-proclaimed science-lover, Bob, it sounds to me like you would be in favor of abandoning the established scientific method in order to give God the benefit of the doubt. Or am I wrong there?


Wrong. My core beliefs became corrupted in college by an educational system which seems hell bent on erasing all vestiges of religion from society and substituting atheistic myths posing as science. Best example: "random mutations plus natural selection". Fortunately my training and experience in control systems and my reading about DNA some 23 years ago allowed me to spot a technological fraud that is today becoming more and more obvious to not only many scientists but to many laypersons as well.
When I used 'yourself,' it was meant to be the more general, sweeping definition. I understand there are exceptions (like you and Berean), I was referring to the majority of Americans who absorb the ideals and beliefs of their parents.

Its obvious you have a very negative view of the education system, but perhaps its possible that things have changed since you were enrolled in classes..? I don't know where you went to school, but during my liberal arts education, I never had any "athiestic myths" forced upon me. If I wanted to learn more about a particular topic, I was free to use the resources available.

If you think you discovered 'the smoking gun' that's going to topple the scientific community regarding evolution, by all means, get a book out there. I don't think ToL is considered a certified scientific journal.


If Dawkins had included Allah in his rants he would be dead by now.
Maybe that's something ToL can get behind and pray for :)



I'm curious eisenriech, what is your purpose here at TOL? Just curious. Not all people become Christian as children. I was an atheist until age 30. I used to be just like Dawkins in my mindset. His "religious" crusade to fee all people of the chains of religion was my motto, too. I thought Christianity and all religion, was a bunch of hooey. I was a staunch defender of liberism, human-secularism, and abortion.
My purpose here? It passes the time at work and I love some of the characters here on the board, even though I rarely agree with them. I also enjoy stimulating debate, trying to bring fresh perspectives to a topic that's been debated to death for 2,000 years.

Point taken about your path to faith. I became interested in religion/theology last fall, after my best friend of 18 years found his faith. Since then, I've been hooked, reading everything I can about the topic. Maybe its my nature, but the more I read the bible, the history of the church, the process of canonization, etc., the more ridiculous it becomes.


I thought all religion was myth. Then I realized I was a FOOL.
That's quite the 180. Could you expand on this comment further? PM if you don't feel comfortable, as I'm sincerely interested in your transformation.

redfern
March 13th, 2006, 01:03 PM
I like Dawkin's writings on evolution and sociobiology, but his rants against religion really turn me off. He isn't the first to refer to the religious meme though. There has been a good deal of writing on it before him. Consider someone unacquainted with the Creationist-evolutionist arguments, yet familiar with both the methods of science and the standards that Christians are supposed to adhere to. If their first exposure to the Creationist side was from reading Bob’s posts on science here at TOL, I think they might opt, with good reason, to agree with Dawkins.

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 01:21 PM
Consider someone unacquainted with the Creationist-evolutionist arguments, yet familiar with both the methods of science and the standards that Christians are supposed to adhere to. If their first exposure to the Creationist side was from reading Bob’s posts on science here at TOL, I think they might opt, with good reason, to agree with Dawkins.

Flattery will get you nowhere with me. ;)

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 01:49 PM
I'd be careful going down this route.. Are you sure no one has ever been killed because of their religious beliefs? Didn't Moses kill 3,000 Israelites for worshipping a golden calf? Oh, a modern example.. Wasn't there some recent disagreement about a particular set of cartoons that continue to kill dozens of people every day?

Better examples than Terre Haute, Indiana. And if you expect me to defend Islamic terrorists try again with someone else.


One headline you will never see, "Athiest Richard Dawkins murders rival agnostic scientist over heated debate concerning Puncuated Equilibrium"..

Some people do fear the punishment.


"Americans (74 percent) say they believe in hell and two-thirds in the devil (67 percent)." - source 10/28/05 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173838,00.html)

Sounds like the evolutionary indoctrination strategy isn't working too well.


Just because many Christians in the U.S. are too ignorant to understand the futility of Pascal's Wager, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it.

Sounds like the mantra of your hero, "Anyone who disagrees is either stupid, ignorant or wicked".


The premise behind intelligent design is that humans could not possibly have evolved the way evolution proposes (irreducible complexity).

Right on!!!


Therefore, it would be impossible for us to understand how these changes occurred (because God did it).

Right off !!! The atheists in the ID movement wouldn't agree that ID is about God. One can falsify evolution scientifically quite easily without bringing religion into it. That's what I did 23 years ago.


Unless you can explain what God had in mind when he was working on the human eye..

The old "poorly designed eye" canard, used primarily by those who don't have a clue about such things. My favorite challenge is to dare them to propose a better solution to the conflicting objectives. We engineers know about "design tradeoffs", many don't.


There are breakthroughs in science in medicine every day; they save people's lives and help us understand our bodies more accurately and efficiently.

The old "point to progress in objective operational science to support subjective historical musings" canard. We went to the Moon so evolution must be true. :rotfl:


As a self-proclaimed science-lover, Bob, it sounds to me like you would be in favor of abandoning the established scientific method in order to give God the benefit of the doubt. Or am I wrong there?

I am a science lover and a psuedoscience hater. Sorry about that.


When I used 'yourself,' it was meant to be the more general, sweeping definition. I understand there are exceptions (like you and Berean), I was referring to the majority of Americans who absorb the ideals and beliefs of their parents.

The old "most people are stupid" argument, used mostly by ignorant teenagers. Quite normal.


Its obvious you have a very negative view of the education system, but perhaps its possible that things have changed since you were enrolled in classes..?

I guess they have (worse).


I don't know where you went to school, but during my liberal arts education, I never had any "athiestic myths" forced upon me. If I wanted to learn more about a particular topic, I was free to use the resources available.

It wasn't until college that the full force of antiChristian sentiment became evident. Christian beliefs were openly mocked, even in sociology class. Much like you are doing.


If you think you discovered 'the smoking gun' that's going to topple the scientific community regarding evolution, by all means, get a book out there. I don't think ToL is considered a certified scientific journal.

The information is already there in the journals and the reaction against NeoDarwinism is growing. But as historians of science tell us, some ideas die hard, and the proponents usually die still believing in ideas that logically should have been discarded years before they actually are.

You may be young enough to actually see it happen in your lifetime.


Maybe that's something ToL can get behind and pray for :)

God expects His people to do a lot themselves, but prayer certainly wouldn't hurt.


My purpose here? It passes the time at work and I love some of the characters here on the board, even though I rarely agree with them. I also enjoy stimulating debate, trying to bring fresh perspectives to a topic that's been debated to death for 2,000 years.

Darwin isn't that old.


Point taken about your path to faith. I became interested in religion/theology last fall, after my best friend of 18 years found his faith. Since then, I've been hooked, reading everything I can about the topic. Maybe its my nature, but the more I read the bible, the history of the church, the process of canonization, etc., the more ridiculous it becomes.

That may be because you still believe in evolution.


That's quite the 180. Could you expand on this comment further? PM if you don't feel comfortable, as I'm sincerely interested in your transformation.

I am sure everyone's "transformation" is unique to them. You should be more concerned with your own rather than with others.

Jukia
March 13th, 2006, 02:37 PM
Right off !!! The atheists in the ID movement wouldn't agree that ID is about God. One can falsify evolution scientifically quite easily without bringing religion into it. That's what I did 23 years ago.



.


And still no invitation to Stockholm, what a shame.

Johnny
March 13th, 2006, 02:42 PM
The old "poorly designed eye" canard, used primarily by those who don't have a clue about such things. My favorite challenge is to dare them to propose a better solution to the conflicting objectives. We engineers know about "design tradeoffs", many don't.Why not have the optic nerve form behind the photoreceptors like in octopus instead of passing through them?

Don't you find it a bit odd to say that God also must make "design tradeoffs" in a universe He created?


The old "most people are stupid" argument, used mostly by ignorant teenagers. Quite normal.And I could argue the old "teenagers are ignorant" argument is used mostly by those youth has long abandoned. The fact of the matter is that most people are just plain ignorant about science. That's why creationism and frauds like you still get attention.


The atheists in the ID movement wouldn't agree that ID is about God.Can I have some names of atheists in the ID movement? Is it not true that most of the leaders of the ID movement are theists?


I am a science lover and a psuedoscience hater. Sorry about that.Then surely you "hate" creation science. Creation science cannot be science by definition. But it pretends to be. That would fit the bill of pseudoscience.

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 03:05 PM
Why not have the optic nerve form behind the photoreceptors like in octopus instead of passing through them?

Would you rather have an eye like they do?


Don't you find it a bit odd to say that God also must make "design tradeoffs" in a universe He created?

I find it odder to think that he wouldn't have to once the laws of physics were decided upon.


And I could argue the old "teenagers are ignorant" argument is used mostly by those youth has long abandoned. The fact of the matter is that most people are just plain ignorant about science. That's why creationism and frauds like you still get attention.

You're just frustrated because you can't refute me. ;)


Can I have some names of atheists in the ID movement? Is it not true that most of the leaders of the ID movement are theists?

I take their word for the statement. Check with them.


Then surely you "hate" creation science. Creation science cannot be science by definition. But it pretends to be. That would fit the bill of pseudoscience.

There are some people who call themselves "creation scientists" who have some bad ideas. The same is true of evolutionists. My main complaint with evolution and evolutionists revolves around the insistence on "random mutations plus natural selection" despite the evidence against such a mechanism having no limitations. This is what I call pseudoscience. I feel the same toward the "canopy" idea of some creation scientists. There are of course other such examples.

Jukia
March 13th, 2006, 03:09 PM
My main complaint with evolution and evolutionists revolves around the insistence on "random mutations plus natural selection" despite the evidence against such a mechanism having no limitations. .

And we all know that you determined this some years ago. Too bad that the majority of the biologists in the world have not read your seminal paper. Oh, wait, there is none. Sorry I forget who I am reading.
If you do get a call from the Nobel committee be sure to let us know. If you are a bit short of cash I for one would chip in to send you.

redfern
March 13th, 2006, 03:16 PM
From Bob:
Flattery will get you nowhere with me. I am aware that one of your techniques to deflect criticism is to laugh it off. But from my viewpoint, and that of some others, your response amounts to, “So I get caught lying trying to defend my theology. That’s no big deal.”

To you, maybe not, “Christian”.

Johnny
March 13th, 2006, 03:41 PM
Would you rather have an eye like they do?No. Rearranging the optic nerve position does not require having an eye "like they do". It was a good attempt at deflecting the point, but it doesn't answer my question. Elimination of the blind spot would simply involve having the optic nerve form behind the photoreceptors.


I find it odder to think that he wouldn't have to once the laws of physics were decided upon.But he decided on the laws. Therein lies the difference between human engineers and God.


You're just frustrated because you can't refute me. I don't have to refute you. You didn't even bother to provide an argument. Instead, you provided your opinion that people who say that the general population is largely ignorant of science are young and ignorant. You did not provide support for that position, nor did you provide any support for the position that people are not ignorant of science. If you would like me to support my argument, I will. I think that you know that I am correct, but you want so desperately for the public's ignorance to be evidence of something, perhaps a failure of evolutionary theory or of it's proponents. Nonetheless, as most are creationists in some form, you cannot bring yourself to point out their ignorance.


I take their word for the statement. Check with them. I will. Give me their names. You also failed to answer my questions: Is it not true that most of the leaders of the ID movement are theists?


There are some people who call themselves "creation scientists" who have some bad ideas. The same is true of evolutionists. My main complaint with evolution and evolutionists revolves around the insistence on "random mutations plus natural selection" despite the evidence against such a mechanism having no limitations. This is what I call pseudoscience. I feel the same toward the "canopy" idea of some creation scientists. There are of course other such examples.Classic bob. I did not ask you what your main complaint with evolution was. Since you apparently have problems figuring out what a sufficient response would look like, a good answer to my point would be something that either indicates creation science is valid science or that you do not support creation science. Otherwise, you cannot proclaim that you love science and hate pseudoscience without necessarily hating creation science.

I can demonstrate that creatoin science is pseudoscience. You, on the other hand, must resort to redefining science if you are to support creation science as valid science.

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 03:57 PM
Be my guest.

Johnny
March 13th, 2006, 04:04 PM
Be my guest.Very well. And don't think no one notices that you failed to respond to the rest of my post. We are left to speculate as to why you have not. I'm still waiting on the names of those athiest IDers. I'm also waiting on your response to the optic nerve dilemma.

My next post will detail why creation science is pseudoscience, at best.

SUTG
March 13th, 2006, 04:31 PM
My next post will detail why creation science is pseudoscience, at best.

I think that secret might be out already. :chuckle:

I just thought I'd drop in to this thread, and point you all to this (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7365) interesting and on-topic debate on the issue between Daniel Dennett and Richard Swinburne. Swinburne makes a good point about the Detective Sory, but doesn't really follow through.

bob b
March 13th, 2006, 05:27 PM
Very well. And don't think no one notices that you failed to respond to the rest of my post. We are left to speculate as to why you have not. I'm still waiting on the names of those athiest IDers. I'm also waiting on your response to the optic nerve dilemma.

Most of your posting is of no interest to me because you have a tendency to muliply topics like unwanted house guests.

You should know better about the fallacy of the optic nerve non-problem. Discussions of this are not rare on the internet yet professionals never mention it as a problem in books on evolution. Neither do MDs. The design works best for all animals because it is the optimum for all animals when one considers any feasible alternatives.

I have never seen an argument against God based on so-called "design imperfections" in nature that had any real substance to it. All of the hundreds of "vestigial organs" lists have now been laid to rest as biological science has progressed.