This post was originally written as a response to Barry’s recent post; however, Barry correctly pointed out that I had significantly mis-read him – I was reading much too fast. Apologies to Barry, and to those who read the earlier version of the post. I have now re-written it to not refer to (my careless misreading of) Barry’s position. I hope it still provides something helpful. As a YEC, when listening to opposing positions, I sometimes hear a combination of criticism of the YEC framework, combined with talk of logic and evidence as an alternative to having an interpretative framework. This is philosophically very naive. It is talk which is especially prominent amongst the New Atheist crowd. Listening to them, Read More ›

A sample for you of one of the products of unguided, undesigned, blind forces, working together for the survival of genes, with no objective meaning or purpose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhcZ6b2FSsk Can we get a meme going here? If you’ve got a blog/Facebook/Twitter etc., then post your example!

Richard Dawkins’ autobiography has been reviewed in the London Spectator: http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/9025021/an-appetite-for-wonder-by-richard-dawkins-review/. The reviewer’s verdict? “He relies just as much on a leap of faith as those religious believers he so keenly affects to despise. His theory also cannot explain how those selfish genes eventually came to evolve the one species on earth which is marked out by a unique capacity for self-obsessed egotism.”

Let’s take again that quotation out of Richard Dawkins’ “The Greatest Show on Earth (pp. 332-333)”, published as many ages ago as the year 2009, quoted at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/in_debate_brita_1064521.html Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes. Now, what here Dawkins calls a “remarkable fact”, turns out only three years later to be known (such that even he agrees, as the above link shows) to be totally false. It’s not even close; it’s as large an error as one could make in a propositional statement. Not only that, but, this totally false statement is in an Read More ›

Here’s a good one, over at Evolution News: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/in_debate_brita_1064521.html Dawkins, 2009: DNA… it’s full of junk… which is just as Darwinism predicted… how embarrassing for those creationists who say it shouldn’t be! Dawkins, 2012: DNA… it’s not full of junk… which is just as Darwinism predicted… nothing for the creationists to take advantage of here, move along! Those of us who doubt Dawkins’ rationality find this response to a new discovery to be exactly what our prior theories predicted. 🙂

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/16/new-genus-of-south-asian-fish-named-after-richard-dawkins/ [Rohan] Pethiyagoda, an ichthyologist and internationally acclaimed conservationist, said extensive studies in India and Sri Lanka showed that the level of diversity among such fish was “much greater than previously suspected”. This was partly the reason that the study group had chosen to name the new genus after the 71-year-old Dawkins, the British author of the anti-religion polemic, “The God Delusion”. Is this irony? Having been trumpeted as the masterpiece of the new atheist movement, most readers of “The God Delusion” found vastly less evidence of developed thought than they had expected. “Richard Dawkins has through his writings helped us understand that the universe is far more beautiful and awe-inspiring than any religion has imagined,” Pethiyagoda told AFP on Read More ›

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19336438 In the above story, the combination of an empirical investigation of the here-and-now – what creationists like myself like to call “operational science” – together with speculative Darwinian faith, leads to this final take-home quote:  “The high rate of mutations is dangerous for the next generation but is generating diversity from which nature can select and further refine this product we call man,” he said. “So what is bad for the next generation may be good for our species in general.” Got that? It’s similar to the way in which your team losing this week and then repeating the performance next week results in winning the league at the end of the season.  

For some, apparently Richard Dawkins is their guide to life, death and eternity. Here’s Dawkins on the Bible, supplied by UD News:  DAWKINS: The evidence [Jesus] existed is surprisingly shaky. The earliest books in the New Testament to be written were the Epistles, not the Gospels. It’s almost as though Saint Paul and others who wrote the Epistles weren’t that interested in whether Jesus was real. PLAYBOY: You’ve read the Bible. DAWKINS: I haven’t read it all, but my knowledge of the Bible is a lot better than most fundamentalist Christians’. Here’s the apostle Paul, author of 13 or perhaps 14 (the authorship book of Hebrews is uncertain) of the 27 books of the New Testament: For I delivered to Read More ›

“Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is it a public matter? Is it forgivable?” No, of course sex outside marriage is not a public matter, and yes, of course it is forgivable. Only a person infected by the sort of sanctimonious self-righteousness that religion uniquely inspires would apply the meaningless word ‘sin’ to private sexual behavior. It is the mark of the religious mind that it cares more about private than public morality. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1926-banishing-the-green-eyed-monster According to Dawkins, sexual morality and fidelity to marriage vows is an entirely private matter, and nobody else’s business. Married men who want to have sex outside of marriage should be allowed to do so, with no shame or disapproval from others. You don’t need Read More ›

The Bible says it, therefore I believe it Sal wonders why someone might say “the Bible said it, therefore I believe it”, unless they are “supremely gullible”. This is an epistemological question. I approve of the formula, so I’ll try and answer why. Firstly, let’s clear away some possible misunderstandings. The formula presupposes that the Bible really does say whatever the “it” is. Someone might choose to apply the formula to something the Bible doesn’t say. The Bible teaches the world ended last Tuesday, therefore I believe it – except that, it doesn’t. Those reading the Bible can be caught up in misunderstanding, misinterpreting, twisting, mistranslating, and the like. Such cases are not in view in this discussion. Secondly, the Read More ›

Richard Dawkins tells us that we should allow our thinking to be based solely on rational facts. If, on the other hand, you let a little emotion in, then this link might lead you to feel a bit of pity for the famed misotheist: http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/10/richard-dawkins-for-prime-minister/ It’s a model demolition job, on the ex-prof’s latest excuses. Dawkins apparently still has a loyal fan-base who believe that their master is  a serious philosopher. Seeing a live conversation with an actual philosopher would be a bit of a shattering experience for many of those fans. So Dawkins has to keep coming up with the excuses to maintain their loyalty. It’s a bit pathetic really – all the public efforts to explain why he Read More ›

Here’s some blurb for the latest attempts of the non-existent one to explain how you can be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”: The Magic of Reality – Richard Dawkins – Royal Albert Hall Wednesday 19 October 2011, 8.30pm Chaired by James Harding, editor, The Times. … The Magic of Reality – An Evening with Richard Dawkins will see him discussing his new book, The Magic of Reality, which uses stunning words and pictures to present the real story of the world around us, taking us on an enthralling journey through scientific reality. Richard Dawkins and Dave McKean have created a dazzling celebration of our planet that will entertain and inform for years to come. The question I’m interested in, is whether Read More ›

In this article in the Daily Telegraph (UK), we see some typical philosophical and cultural applications of Darwinism: People are unfaithful to their marriages Therefore, it is natural Therefore, it is right i.e. What is, is what is right. Since we are no more than nature, all that we do is thus natural – and who can object to that? Take away the Darwinian assumptions, and what is the basis of this article? There are none. But does the author ever examine those assumptions? Nope.

Science Daily reports “A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.” As my friend added, “This research was quite costly – they could have saved money by reading the Bible!” Link here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm I wonder how the New Atheists will take this research. There are two possible logical spins on it I can see, if you take the research’s conclusions at face value. You could say, “Belief is hard-wired – that’s why it’s so hard to reprogram people to think rationally!” But this avoids the key issue of why it would be hard-wired. That leads to the second possible response: “Belief Read More ›