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 Read More…
Author: David Anderson
See: http://david.dw-perspective.org.uk
Other projects:
WordShell - command-line management for WordPress
UpdraftPlus - WordPress backups, restoration and site copies
Out of the mouths of infants
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!
“Dawkins believes what he wishes to believe”
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 Read More…
A “remarkable fact”
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, Read More…
That’s exactly what we predicted
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 Read More…
Trading on borrowed capital
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 Read More…
“So what is bad for the next generation may be good for our species in general.”
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 Read More…
Why is Dawkins making this so easy for us?
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 Read More…
Atheism and sexual deviancy
“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 Read More…
“The Bible says it, therefore I believe it”
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 Read More…
Dawkins for Prime Minister!
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. Read More…
Will Richard Dawkins be honest?
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 Read More…
Darwinian ethics
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 Read More…
The root of all evil?
How did those who believe that godlessness is the answer to society’s problems comment on the Brit riots?
Predisposed to believe
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 Read More…