Dawkins haunted by the ghost of (ulp!) Ben Stein

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 26, 2017

Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Oh, look, everybody’s got a haunt, right? But they are not equally damning. From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views:

On the story about evolutionary atheist Richard Dawkins getting disinvited as an event speaker by a progressive Berkeley radio station (see here and here), Discovery Institute chairman of the board Bruce Chapman points out the best irony. While Dawkins protests his “de-platforming” over past comments on Islam, in 2009 he helped get Ben Stein de-platformed as a commencement speaker at the University of Vermont over — you guessed it — Stein’s take on evolution and his role in the film Expelled. More.

Of course. Dawkins thought he would be eaten last on the progressive menu but he was really just an hors d’oeuvres. The progressives’ war is ultimately on reality and Dawkins is no real use to them because, at bottom, he believes that there is some sort of reality, even if our consciousness of it is an illusion.

See also: Evolution News and Views on Dawkins dumped from Berkeley: Did it serve him right?

Mark Steyn on Richard Dawkins getting dumped at Berkeley

Dawkins dumped from Berkeley due to “hurtful words”

and

How naturalism rots science from the head down

Comments

LocalMinimum,
Taking a break from teaching “Calculus for Delinquents?”, maybe?
I hope everything's ok. He has mentioned being very busy lately.daveS_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

rvb8:
The heavy hitters, such as they were, are gone, and you remain.
I am more than enough to take on the likes of you, Bob O'H, Pindi and all evolutionists. But that is only because you and yours have nothing but lies, misrepresentations, cowardly equivocations and bluffs. There aren't any "heavy hitters" from your side. Just a bunch of mouthy losers.ET_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

where is Kairosfocus BTW?
Taking a break from teaching "Calculus for Delinquents?", maybe?LocalMinimum_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT}

Dr Behe responds to Judge Jones- basically jones was a clueless dolt on an agenda. He didn't know what science entailed and had no place ruling on science. And he was fooled by a literature bluff. I am still not sure why the lawyers for the defense didn't object to that tactic. It seems to me that they were also incompetent when it came to ID vs evolutionism.ET_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

rvb8- ID didn't fail in the courts. The courts failed ID. Geez read the transcripts- Judge Jones was fooled by a literature bluff and took the word of the anti-IDists over that of the ID experts. It still remains that evolutionism is untestable nonsense whereas ID makes testable claims.ET_{July 27, 2017
July
07
Jul
27
27
2017
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

ET @11, correct, no one has proved ID needs the supernatural, mainly because ID is not recognised as anything that needs proving. Creationism is accepted, as it is the religious answer to nature. Evolution is accepted, as it is the naturalist answer to nature. ID is recognised nowhere, except here, and one or two other sites. Having failed in the 'Wedge' strategy to meet any of its goals to become a, 'player' in the academic world, it resorts to the courts, (where it repeatedly failed), and leguslatures (where its victories-two- are embarassments to those states, and non-binding.? The heavy hitters, such as they were, are gone, and you remain. I do miss BA77; and where is Kairosfocus BTW?rvb8_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

Richard Dawkins blocks people left and right on Twitter. I called BS on one of his tweets years ago. He angrily responded and blocked me boohoo. Your a dick Richard.ppolish_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

rvb8- You are clueless. No one has ever demonstrated that ID requires the supernatural. And IDists have flat out stated that it doesn’t. And ID is not anti-evolution so obviously you have an equivocation problem. Please don’t talk about evidence as you have proven that you don’t understand the conceptET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

ET @8, don't take your argument to court, it will, and has failed. 'Evidence'! A wonderful word, implying something that can be measured, seen, leaves an imprint, or causes an effect, (the trees move because the wind blows, etc) Now the 'evidence', for evolution is abundent; fossils, DNA, morphology, homology, biogeography, etc etc:) The 'evidence' for a creator; one (or several) book/s:)rvb8_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

BTW, ID does not require the supernatural and the DESIGN exists in this universe and as such can be studied. To refute any design inference all you have to do is step up and demonstrate blind, mindless processes can produce what IDists say required an intelligent designer. ID's claims can be tested whereas the claims made by evolutionism cannot be tested.ET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

They are, what? No one knows how to test the claim that natural selection or any other blind, mindless process could produce any bacterial flagellum. And no one is working on it. The same goes for any and all protein machines. So you are either deluded or just plain lying.ET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

ET @ 5
If the burden of proof rests with the claimant then why doesn’t that also apply to evolutionists who can’t even figure out how to test their claims?
It does and they are.Seversky_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

chris haynes @ 4
This discussion is about the Origin of Life. Creationism claims that he origin of life involved supernatural causes
Where "supernatural" is undefined and is effectively equivalent to "unknown".
Anti-Creationists claim that it did not, and that life’s origin involved only reactions of inanimate chemicals.
If no intelligent agency was involved then the only apparent alternative is some sort of natural process.
These are the only two explanations offered, and thus constitute a dichotomy. In a dichotomy evidence against one explanation is evidence in favor of the other. Thus any evidence against the naturalistic explanation is evidence in favor of the Creationist one
They are the only two explanations currently available but that doesn't mean that they are the only two possible. They may both be wrong so it is not a proper dichotomy.
Scientists do not currently have the knowledge or ability to offer any data regarding supernatural events. This is because Scientists have not developed any means of showing either that God does not exist, nor any means of inducing Him to Cooperate in an experiment.
Since "supernatural" is undefined there may be nothing there to study. On the few occasions where there has been an attempt to study an allegedly supernatural phenomenon such as ghosts nothing has been found apart from the odd deception. There needs to be better reasons than that to commit scarce resources to an investigation. Much the same is true of God from a scientific perspective. If you want science to look for something, give it something specific to look for.
By contrast. Science has reached a point where any any possible chemical reaction can be performed in a properly equipped laboratory. Thus Scientists have had the means of demonstrating a theory of chemical origin of life.
They may have the means but they don't yet have a theory.
In fact a huge international Research Effort, involving Nobel Prize Winners, attempted for over 90 years to make life in a laboratory. It was a total failure. And that is compelling evidence that 1) a naturalistic origin of life is not possible, and 2) that the Creationist explanation is correct.
There is ongoing research into abiogenesis but I think it is an exaggeration to call it a "huge international Research Effort". It is also way premature to suggest that they have exhausted all possibilities. If abiogenesis occurred, it may have taken millions of years to happen so, even if we had a theory, it's probably going to take a lot more than 90 years of laboratory time to replicate an event that took place over that sort of timescale.
BTW, I notice that you didn’t respond to my request. Let me repeat it. If you know of a Biology Department at any university that has any empirical evidence that refutes the Creationist claim that life originated through Divine Intervention, please let us know what they got.
Once again, burden of proof. If you want science to look for evidence of a Divine Creation Event, you need to provide reasons for thinking there is something there to look for and some idea of what is is.Seversky_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

If the burden of proof rests with the claimant then why doesn't that also apply to evolutionists who can't even figure out how to test their claims? :roll:ET_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Evidence for Creationism? No Problemo. This discussion is about the Origin of Life. Creationism claims that he origin of life involved supernatural causes. Anti-Creationists claim that it did not, and that life's origin involved only reactions of inanimate chemicals. These are the only two explanations offered, and thus constitute a dichotomy. In a dichotomy evidence against one explanation is evidence in favor of the other. Thus any evidence against the naturalistic explanation is evidence in favor of the Creationist one. Scientists do not currently have the knowledge or ability to offer any data regarding supernatural events. This is because Scientists have not developed any means of showing either that God does not exist, nor any means of inducing Him to Cooperate in an experiment. By contrast. Science has reached a point where any any possible chemical reaction can be performed in a properly equipped laboratory. Thus Scientists have had the means of demonstrating a theory of chemical origin of life. In fact a huge international Research Effort, involving Nobel Prize Winners, attempted for over 90 years to make life in a laboratory. It was a total failure. And that is compelling evidence that 1) a naturalistic origin of life is not possible, and 2) that the Creationist explanation is correct. Hope that helps. BTW, I notice that you didn't respond to my request. Let me repeat it. If you know of a Biology Department at any university that has any empirical evidence that refutes the Creationist claim that life originated through Divine Intervention, please let us know what they got.chris haynes_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

Having invited Stein, the University of Vermont should have gone through with it. Stein should have been allowed to deliver the address just as Dawkins and others should have been free to voice their objections. As for Creationism, the burden of proof, as always, rests with the claimant. If someone claims the world was created by God then it is for them to provide the evidence, that's if they are concerned with persuading others of the merits of the claim.Seversky_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

As part of his campaign to ban speakers who dispute his dogma, Dr Dawkins asked: "Was anybody in the Biology Department (at the University of Vermont) consulted before you issued an invitation to a notoriously mendacious propagandist for creationism?” If anyone here has consulted the Biology Department at UVM, or any other university, it would be interesting to actually get an answer to this: Is there any empirical evidence that refutes the Creationist claim that life originated through Divine Intervention? Please let us know what they came up with.chris haynes_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

In his campaign to ban speakers who dispute his dogma, Dr Dawkins asked: "Was anybody in the Biology Department (at the University of Vermont) consulted before you issued an invitation to a notoriously mendacious propagandist for creationism?” Actually if anyone here were to consult the Biology Department at UVM, or any other university, it would be interesting to ask this: Is there any empirical evidence that refutes the Creationist claim that life originated through Divine Intervention? Please let us know what they came up with.chris haynes_{July 26, 2017
July
07
Jul
26
26
2017
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply