Believe in Richard. He can change your life!

"For me and, I think, for Dawkins and many other naturalists, “nature” refers to the observable Universe. In other words, if something is other than pure chaos, if it has regularities or properties or a nature which distinguish it from other things as well as chaos, if that thing – and, therefore, its nature – are accessible to us, however remotely, then it is part of the natural world and can be studied." And what if there are inferences that something more than natural causes (given our universal experience with chance and physical laws) are necessary in order to offer an explanation for some very observable evidence? Perhaps something like the pervasive presence of semiotic information processing inside living cells? How many functional algorithms have we found outside the direct input of an agent? Shall we say that, in the face of the unknown (and no contrary confirmation otherwise), such legitimate inferences cannot be ignored? Or shall we make it a prerequisite that all theories going foreward must ignore these inferences for the good of the search for truth? Or even, should we (as you and others have) vent our spleen over religious text, and say that this reflects a meaningful response to the evidence? Upright BiPed

Seversky -- For me and, I think, for Dawkins and many other naturalists, “nature” refers to the observable Universe. I don't think there is anything controversial about that definition. The first problem arises when it is claimed that the observable universe explains itself when it observably doesn't. The second problem arises when those that hold the view that it will eventually be able to shown that it does fail to see that having this belief is philosophically inconsistent namely that it is the exercise of a five-letter word that starts with f and ends with h, and if you want to buy a couple of vowels they are a and i. tribune7

idnet.com.au @ 7

If one accepts naturalism, then evolution by a mechanism similar to what Dawkins describes must be true. They win their arguement only by defining out the possibility that there is an “outsider” to our cosmos. Stay open to the possibility of an outsider and the evidence says something completely different.

The problem is that there is no clear agreement on what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural". For me and, I think, for Dawkins and many other naturalists, "nature" refers to the observable Universe. In other words, if something is other than pure chaos, if it has regularities or properties or a nature which distinguish it from other things as well as chaos, if that thing - and, therefore, its nature - are accessible to us, however remotely, then it is part of the natural world and can be studied. That would include your "outsider" if it has any detectable presence at all in our Universe. If, on the other hand, it exists in some other domain, completely walled off from us so that we can never gain any information about it - even in principle - then, effectively, it does not exist and is irrelevant. Nothing in naturalism assumes that we already know all there is to be known. If anything, naturalistic scientists are better aware of the true limitations of our knowledge than most others. They are always open to the possibility of new discoveries. For most if not all of them, that is what makes science so exciting - so addictive. Seversky

Note that Richard Dawkins sees this as "the battle between science on the one hand and supernaturalism on the other". This is interesting because it reflects the definition that he and others hold ie that science is equal to naturalism. I would call it the battle of scientism with supernaturalism. These are philosophical differences. If one accepts naturalism, then evolution by a mechanism similar to what Dawkins describes must be true. They win their arguement only by defining out the possibility that there is an "outsider" to our cosmos. Stay open to the possibility of an outsider and the evidence says something completely different. idnet.com.au

Richard Dawkins: "...It is completely convincing.” I don't know what does darwinian dreamer Dawkins mean. His explanation of mimicry via natural selection in his books is everything else but "completely convincing". Darwinists first posited aposematism as "warning coloration". Even Darwin himself was perplexed why some insects are so colorful. Darwinist assume that colorful insects must be poisonous and signal it. So was the case of wasps. When turned out that birds are not deterred by wasps' stings they came out with their bad taste. Everything that looks like wasps are mimicking them according darwinian fancy. Wasps should warn by their yellow-black patterns their predators. Oddly enough wasp spiders having the same pattern attract their preys! Would you believe it? Such a mess is possible only in the world of "natural selection", the world of "survival of the fittest". Here is the link: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1640/1337.full No wonder that Franz Heikertinger had great fun of this darwinian speculations. Survival advantage of aposematism and mimicry is far beyond "completely convincing" More on Heikertinger rejection of natural selection in insect realm on my blog. http://cadra.wordpress.com/ VMartin

ID people must be stupid. They look at the universe, with its overwhelming appearance of design, and say, “Gee! That looks designed.” But Richard Dawkins isn’t like that at all. He looks at the universe, with its overwhelming appearance of design, and says, “That’s just an illusion.” Now THAT takes brains! allanius

“The sheer magnitude of the evidence in the case of evolution if you take the analogy of the detective is far, far greater, far, far more convincing than the evidence I think probably in any court of law ever. It is completely convincing.”

What an incredible over-exaggeration (of a lie, to begin with). It's almost sad. uoflcard

Hello BA Humans typically live in a rational universe; in that we don't consciously deny what is directly in front of our faces. We stop at the red light, we don't breathe under water, and we pick up the pencil before writing our names. At the same time, there is no denying we deny. Oddly enough, conscious denial never seems to travel alone. It's always accompanied by motivation. Dawkins' motivation is obvious. Upright BiPed

Since people who are delusional resolutely deny reality, then materialists such as Richard Dawkins and company are delusional, in the purest form of the meaning of the word, since quantum mechanics has revealed, in no uncertain terms, that reality is a "consciousness centered" reality that precedes the 3 dimensional "material" reality in the first place. i.e. It is impossible for a 3 dimensional material reality to independently give rise to that which it is absolutely dependent on for its own being (i.e. for its own reality) in the first place. Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/dr_quantum_double_slit_experiment_entanglement/ bornagain77

Mr. Dawkins must find it a fragile existence having to tolerate the intellectually impoverished who don’t just let go, and forever buy in to his magic chemical story. Out in public and away from his writing desk, he almost always seems to be desperate to say what he really thinks of those who don’t. But turnabout is fair play. Many of us get just as tired of his flowered salesman’s shtick (powerful process, sheer magnitude, elegant simplicity, etc) in place of the evidence. Actually he reminds me of the scene in old comedy “Used Cars” where a gruffy old mechanic is forced to try his hand in sales. The slick sales guy tells him ‘all you have to do is get them in the car and let it sell itself’. After trying repeatedly (and politely) to suggest that his elderly first customer take a car on a test drive, he finally looses his cool and shouts “just get in the f**ing car!” and shoves them inside. I suspect Richard Dawkins will fall to this some day. Perhaps his support for the UK petition (which is to legally bind parents from raising their children in their own religious tradition) is just such a scene. In any case, the appearance of design he speaks of is hardly an invention of “antievolutionist”. The inference is organic with respect to its origin, and has been around from time immemorial. It certainly wasn’t weakened in the past century by the discovery of pervasive semiotic information processing and (nano)machinery within living systems. Upright BiPed