academic freedom Intellectual freedom Intelligent Design Naturalism

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

Spread the love

Further to Dawkins dumped from Berkeley due to “hurtful words,” neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and editor David Klinghoffer weigh in:

Egnor:

Dawkins gets expelled: You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh

Why, one asks, is it fine to criticize Islam, but not Darwin? Dawkins has fought mightily to “de-platform” intelligent design scientists and anyone who harbors even a shimmer of doubt about Darwinian theology. But now he’s shocked — shocked — that defenders of another religion get to silence heretics too.

Atheism and its Darwinian creation myth have gained ascendancy in the Western world over the past century, and in several unfortunate nations, have grasped state power. It’s been an ugly ascent, complete with gulags and holocausts and inquisitions. But there are other forces in play, and other religions in ascent as well, and they have a history of centuries of conquest.

Klinghoffer:

Dawkins banned in Berkeley Well boo hoo

Fellow atheists are in an uproar, including one past holder of our Censor of the Year award. Well, boo hoo, but Dawkins has fallen into a trap that he and his pals helped set. Why do I say that?

You have no doubt observed yourself that our culture is riven by a conflict pitting two irreconcilable views of the world. I’m very interested in the way that a range of seemingly unrelated opinions – on science, politics, religion, etc. — tend to hang together, at least in the American context.

One worldview is animated by the idea of a unique human dignity. The other, citing evolution among other things, rejects human exceptionalism with outrage.

While laundering the crying towels (News): Well yes, come to think of it. If human consciousness is an illusion, so is learning. Then why does Dawkins’ view matter more than that of a rioting punk armed with pepper spray?

Naturalism, meet logical conclusion.

There’s something else to see here too: When Dawkins was young, intellectual heft and achievement mattered on campus. Today, overwhelmingly, what matters is victimhood and entitlement.

Whether or not you think his product is any good, it’s not a product many current universities even feel they need in any form. Support them at your own risk and expense.

See also: How naturalism rots science from the head down

100 Replies to “Evolution News and Views on Dawkins dumped from Berkeley: Did it serve him right?

  1. 1
    critical rationalist says:

    Karl Popper from The Open Society and Its Enemies.

    “The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

    Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

    I don’t recall Dawkins denouncing all argument, or forbidding others from listening to it. If I recall correctly, most of his criticism takes the form of argument. Nor do I recall him teaching others to answer arguments using violence.

    Note: not agreeing with an argument or pointing out that an argument is absent or irrational is not denouncing argument or forbidding others from listening to it. For example, I’ve suggested that ID doesn’t actually solve the problem of knowledge in organisms. It just pushes it up a level without improving it. That conclusion is based on argument, not the absence of it.

    In fact, I would suggest that ID proponents are actually opposed to any such explanation because doing so would exclude their preferred designer, who is by definition an inexplicable mind that exists in an inexplicable realm and operates via inexplicable means and methods. And it results in promoting the idea that we can draw no conclusions about a supposed “designer” via argument. That is denouncing argument.

  2. 2
    goodusername says:

    Dawkins has fought mightily to “de-platform” intelligent design scientists and anyone who harbors even a shimmer of doubt about Darwinian theology. But now he’s shocked — shocked — that defenders of another religion get to silence heretics too.

    From what I’ve seen Dawkins has always been a strong free speech advocate and has always defended the right of those with controversial views to speak at universities, including those he disagrees with. I can’t find any instances of Dawkins trying to de-platform anyone. Anyone know what Egnor is referring to?

  3. 3
    rvb8 says:

    Egnor and Klinghoffer sound, for lack of better phrase, ‘vindictively childish.’

    You may disagree with Dawkins, you may even loath him, but his stance has always been, ‘open to debate.’

    He criticised Islam because Islam needs it, desperately. Criticism of Islam only comes from rare areas of today’s society: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, conservative news sites,Freedom From Religion Foundation, and a few other individuals and groups.

    Dawkins is one of those rare individuals willing to call Islam out on its many hypocracies, and vile teachings. This is absolutely necessary in a secular society.

    Unless of course ID sees an attack on Islam, as an attack on religion, or, as an attack on ID?

    Also, Dawkin’s ‘attacks’, are actually not ‘attacks’. They are merely observations, pointing out the out dated teachings of a religion that is stuck in the medieval world.

    Just as the West collard, and subdued Christianity, and Judaisim, so Islam desperately, desperately, needs collaring by rational thought.

    Is it any wonder ID is on the rise in the Islamic world, and that Turkey has banned the teaching of Evolution, prior to university?

  4. 4
    News says:

    rvb8 at 3: Homework assignment

    Look up this string of words

    je suis Charlie

    and ponder its meaning in the light of what really happened later.

    Naturalism, the religion of Europe and of Berkeley, is one that few people will take risks for. That’s understandable and inevitable. They are just animals, in their own eyes. What can be expected?

    Berkeley is beginning to understand its naturalist master and will not defend it against another.

  5. 5
    Daniel King says:

    News at 4: Homework assignment

    Learn how to write coherent prose.

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    Why, one asks, is it fine to criticize Islam, but not Darwin? Dawkins has fought mightily to “de-platform” intelligent design scientists and anyone who harbors even a shimmer of doubt about Darwinian theology. But now he’s shocked — shocked — that defenders of another religion get to silence heretics too.

    This site is filled with criticism of Darwin. It promotes articles and books by leading figures in the ID movement, noting how well they appear to be selling. You seem to have no difficulty publishing your views in various media so playing the victim is unconvincing. You may be offended when your ill-founded criticisms of Darwin are themselves subject to criticism but there is no right not to be offended, something which unfortunately some on the so-called “regressive Left” seem to have trouble understanding.

    Atheism and its Darwinian creation myth have gained ascendancy in the Western world over the past century, and in several unfortunate nations, have grasped state power. It’s been an ugly ascent, complete with gulags and holocausts and inquisitions. But there are other forces in play, and other religions in ascent as well, and they have a history of centuries of conquest.

    This ignores the uncounted millions who have died in religious conflicts over the millennia. The only real difference was that the dictators of the twentieth century had much more efficient means of killing people en masse than those of earlier centuries. Does anyone doubt that, had they been available to past generations, they would have been used and that the casualties would have been correspondingly even higher?

    It also ignores the fact that the Old Testament bears witness to many atrocities committed by the Israelites at the behest of and with the full approval of their God.

    One worldview is animated by the idea of a unique human dignity. The other, citing evolution among other things, rejects human exceptionalism with outrage.

    “Unique human dignity”? Where was the respect for “unique human dignity in the treatment meted out by God and his minions to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites and others violently dispossessed of their territory, property and lives at that time? Where was the respect for the “unique human dignity” of almost the entire population of the planet at the time of the Great Flood?

    Matthew 7: 1-5

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    This site is filled with criticism of Darwin.

    All of academia should be too, yet it isn’t. And that is the point.

    Geez the “evidence” for the alleged evolution of vision systems is the same now as it was in Darwin’s day. And it doesn’t even count as evidence to the educated.

    Where was the respect for “unique human dignity in the treatment meted out by God and his minions to the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites and others violently dispossessed of their territory, property and lives at that time?

    Those peoples squandered it

    Where was the respect for the “unique human dignity” of almost the entire population of the planet at the time of the Great Flood?

    Squandered

  8. 8
    Dionisio says:

    Seversky @6:

    God is the sole Creator of life, hence only He can dispose of it as He wishes.

    Try again.

  9. 9
    News says:

    Daniel King at 5: Unsupported and unproductive snark gets people banned around here. Say something or get lost.

    Check out Trolls Wanted, if that happens.

  10. 10
    Dionisio says:

    Seversky @6:

    This ignores the uncounted millions who have died in religious conflicts over the millennia.

    Did you know that the greatest crime recorded in human history was committed by very religious people with very strong religious motivations?

  11. 11
    Dionisio says:

    News,

    I saw the real trolls near the beautiful Norwegian fjords. Those creatures there seemed much nicer than their cousins here.

    🙂

  12. 12
    chris haynes says:

    The greatest crime recorded in human history?

    based on the numbers, that would be abortion, the deliberate killing of innocent human beings for purposes of convenience. 60 million, just in the USA, it dwarfs all other crimes put together, does it not?

    Of course, Dr Dawkins and his ilk support abortion, even putting out such ghoulish nonsense such as claiming that pigs are more human than unborn children.

  13. 13
    Dionisio says:

    chris haynes @12:

    I agree that’s a horrendous crime.

    However, I meant another, which helps to explain the crime you pointed at and all the others.

  14. 14
    Pindi says:

    ET:

    “All of academia should be too, yet it isn’t. And that is the point.”

    What’s the point? What is stopping academia from criticising Darwin?

    How did the Amalekite babies squander their right to human dignity?

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Pindi:

    What is stopping academia from criticising Darwin?

    Retribution, ie losing one’s job.

    How did the Amalekite babies squander their right to human dignity?

    By being Amalikite

  16. 16
    Daniel King says:

    News:

    Daniel King at 5: Unsupported and unproductive snark gets people banned around here. Say something or get lost.

    News had an opportunity to post a substantive reply to my challenge that she explain her comment @4.

    This was her reply.

    Power corrupts.

  17. 17
    Dionisio says:

    DK @16,

    Be glad News is gracious to let your posts remain for so long. Other moderators would have rightly removed them immediately without notice. No one would have known you ever posted anything, unless you play by the rules and do it correctly.
    If one doesn’t understand a comment, perhaps it’s better to ask specific questions about the text that is not understood.
    Perhaps that’s some homework.

  18. 18
    Pindi says:

    Hi ET,

    So the anti Darwin academics are too scared to speak out in case they lose their jobs? Wow.

    Just wondering, on the Amalikites, Dionisio and News, do you agree with ET that the babies had squandered their right to human dignity?

  19. 19
    Dionisio says:

    God is the sole Creator of life, hence only He can dispose of it as He wishes.

    None of us has any right whatsoever to judge our Creator. God is absolutely sovereign.

    God is patient to let us get away with our own rebellious attitude for some time. But not forever.

    God is gracious to offer us the way to reconcile with Him and thus enjoy His glorious presence eternally, through saving faith in Christ.

    But many will reject God’s gracious offer, because they don’t want to be in His presence. Hence God will let them follow their own chosen way leading to eternal absence from God’s grace.

    Perhaps this world is the closest to God’s amazing grace that many people will ever be, because the grace of God still manifests in this spiritually lost world.

    However, that shall end along with the current age of grace. Then those who choose to reject God’s gracious offer to reconcile with Him will remain without God’s grace eternally.

    Only those who genuinely repent and thankfully accept God’s gracious offer for reconciliation, by grace alone through saving faith in Christ alone, enjoy God’s glorious presence eternally.

  20. 20
    Pindi says:

    Dionisio @19: so I guess the answer to my question is “yes”.

    It’s extraordinary to me, the things that Christians force themselves to accept in order to preserve the notion of God. Somehow the slaughter of an innocent baby is deemed to be an example of God’s love and grace. Extraordinary.

  21. 21
    Dionisio says:

    The comment by News @4 seems clear to me, despite the fact that my reading comprehension is relatively poor.
    However, if somebody doesn’t understand it but wants to, perhaps a way to look for clarification is by asking specific questions. I noticed they don’t charge any fees for asking questions in this website. 🙂
    If someone doesn’t understand a comment, but doesn’t care about it, then just skip it and move on.

  22. 22
    Dionisio says:

    John 9:27 (ESV)

    He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become His disciples?”

    John 9:31 (ESV)

    We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, God listens to him.

  23. 23

    Abortion sure has killed a lot of babies. No doubt about that. Unless, of course, you refuse to admit that they are babies…which is the usual a/mat position.

  24. 24
    Dionisio says:

    Seversky @6:

    Since you referenced a NT verse at the end of your comment…

    Judge not. Jesus prohibits one kind of judging, but approves a different kind. Condemning others for their faults is failure to exercise forgiveness (6:14, 15); only a gentle and humble criticism that first recognizes one’s own greater faults can help. There is also a necessary, discerning kind of judgment that does not condemn but distinguishes unbelief from belief (v. 6). The method of discernment is given in v. 16.
    …….
    [Commentary from Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries]

    Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. John 7:6

    what is holy. A reference to the evidences of the kingdom, such as the healings and the exorcisms, which may explain why Jesus did no miracles for unbelievers. But “what is holy” would also include the preaching of the kingdom; believers should not continue to preach to people who have rejected the gospel with contempt and scorn (10:14; 15:14). The Book of Acts illustrates the principle in practice (Acts 13:44–51; 18:5, 6; 28:17–28).
    …….
    [Commentary from Reformation Study Bible provided by Ligonier Ministries]

  25. 25
    Pindi says:

    TWSYF, maybe God decided that the aborted babies, like the Amalikite babies, had squandered their right to human dignity.

  26. 26
    Seversky says:

    ET @ 7

    All of academia should be too, yet it isn’t. And that is the point.

    Are we talking about Darwin, the man, his original theory or the current theory of evolution? Not that it matters. There has been criticism of all three and there is still vigorous debate inside and outside the field of biology about the current

    Geez the “evidence” for the alleged evolution of vision systems is the same now as it was in Darwin’s day. And it doesn’t even count as evidence to the educated.

    The evolutionary pathways that led to current visual systems stretch back millions – eve billions – of years. You’re complaining because science hasn’t cracked it in 150? If you’re that desperate, ask your God. He should be able to explain it easily. Otherwise you’ll just have to be patient like the rest of us.

    Those peoples squandered it

    Says who? We never get to hear the Amalekites, Midianites or Canaanites side of the story, do we? All we get is the killers’ version of events as being the truth, which sounds more like the verdict of a Soviet-era show trial.

    Squandered

    Even the small children? Nice sort of God you believe in.

  27. 27
    Seversky says:

    Dionisio @ 8

    God is the sole Creator of life, hence only He can dispose of it as He wishes.

    Do parents have the right to dispose of their offspring as they choose? Do you have the right to kill your children or grandchildren if you choose? I say you do not and neither does your God. What do others think?

    Try again.

    Think again.

  28. 28
    Seversky says:

    Dionisio @ 10

    Did you know that the greatest crime recorded in human history was committed by very religious people with very strong religious motivations?

    Okay, I’ll bite. What was that?

  29. 29
    Dionisio says:

    Seversky @27:

    Your commentary seems to denote your apparent lack of attention to details. But perhaps it was just an exception, not the norm. Maybe you rushed to respond. Take your time. Every word has contextual meaning.

    Did you read carefully the text you quoted?

    Did you sincerely try to understand it well?

    Can you briefly explain what you understood?

  30. 30
    Pindi says:

    Seversky@ 28:

    “What do others think?”

    I think if I was going to invent a god myth I would do way better than what is on offer from the Christian god.

  31. 31
    Dionisio says:

    Seversky @28:

    You did not respond correctly the question you quoted.

    A ‘yes’/’no’ answer is obviously required.

    Either “Yes, I knew it” or “No, I didn’t know it”.

    Try again.

  32. 32
    rvb8 says:

    Daniel King @5,

    have you posted here before? If not, great effort to get a banning threat on your first effort.:)

    Dawkins was dumped from a speaking engagement at Berkley because the ‘snowflake’ brigade that infests US academia at present, didn’t like him saying, ‘Islam is a disgrace!’

    Now, we could spend eons discussing liberal Islam, or Western Islam, or Sufi, Shia, and mild denonminations, but its religion, so logic goes out the window.

    Dawkins criticised Islamic narrowness, its tendency to be absolutely intolerant to all and any examination.

    This anti-examination policy of this religion fits perfectly with ID’s, ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy in education.

    Don’t question the prophets, Dembski, Wells, Behe. Don’t examine the tedious ideas; IC, Specified Complexity, (please somebody, sometime, give me a one sentence definition of this weird idea). Don’t look too closely at the bare emperor; he has no clothes you know?

    Pindi @30,

    I worship my dead cat, ‘Snookums’. He demands nothing, expects nothing, gives nothing, and does nothing;

    sound familiar?

  33. 33
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    Are we talking about Darwin, the man, his original theory or the current theory of evolution?

    What current theory? Please link to it. Thank you.

    The evolutionary pathways that led to current visual systems stretch back millions – eve billions – of years.

    That is your opinion and an untestable opinion at that. Also hiding behind time is an admittance the claim is not scientific. Also no one knows if any evolutionary pathway could produce vision systems. The claim is totally untestable.

    We never get to hear the Amalekites, Midianites or Canaanites side of the story, do we?

    True, your whole “argument” is based on ignorance, just like your “theory” of evolution.

    Even the small children? Nice sort of God you believe in.

    Except I never said anything about believing in God.

  34. 34
    ET says:

    Pindi:

    So the anti Darwin academics are too scared to speak out in case they lose their jobs?

    It has happened

  35. 35
    ET says:

    rvB8- Irreducible Complexity in biology has been fully examined and guess what? You and yours don’t have any scientific explanation for it. And that is why you act like you do.

  36. 36
    Dionisio says:

    ET,

    Please, don’t expect any serious explanation from the politely dissenting interlocutors here, because they don’t seem to know even what they are saying and don’t seem to have the desire to understand it well.

    In another discussion thread that was started by a very technical article written by gpuccio, only a couple of politely dissenting interlocutors dared to argue against gpuccio’s technical ideas, but it seems like they did not have any strong scientific counterargument that could withstand gpuccio’s detailed concepts. Some of the comments by Darwin’s fans seemed incoherent and sometimes even void of substance.
    We should feel compassion to those confused folks.

    Here’s a link to that interesting thread that gpuccio started and maintains:

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-proteins-dna-binding-proteins-satb1-and-satb2/#comment-636372

  37. 37
    MatSpirit says:

    News @ 9: je suis Daniel King.

    “Unsupported and unproductive snark”?

    King’s comment # 5 is 100% supported by your failed attempt at coherent thinking in comment # 4.

    You claim to be a journalist, then you use a quotation expressing solidarity with the innocent journalists who were murdered in cold blood by religious believers in the name of their religion. Then you complain that secular people won’t do the same for their beliefs!

    If you can’t learn to think coherently, then please find a profession more suitable to your talents. Surely there are some ditches that need to be dug in Canada.

  38. 38
    Allen Shepherd says:

    I love reading this site and enjoy the back and forth. But the snark of this conversations seems to serve no useful end. In a sense you are speaking past each other just taking jabs. I think you can do better.

    I beleive God had a reason for the Amalikite destruction, as he said “Their cup of iniquity was full”. What might that mean? There were groups that practiced child sacrifice and other more ghoulish acts, etc. It is not completely clear, but apparently God had his reasons. I beleive the other destructive events could be explained in a similar fashion.

    There are assumptions here, but not unreasonable one. I don’t think so much snark is necessary though.

  39. 39
    Mung says:

    “Their cup of snark was full”

  40. 40
    Pindi says:

    ET @34, my point is that if the only threat preventing this tidal wave of anti Darwin academics from speaking is losing their jobs, then they are not the kind of people that one could describe as having the courage of their convictions. Think of all the people in history who have spoken and published in risk of losing their life or liberty. Your heroes are silent in case they lose their jobs!

  41. 41
    Pindi says:

    Allen Shepherd, seriously, you are ok with saying God apparently had his reasons for wanting babies to be killed? You don’t think he could have come up with a better solution for dealing with some bad men than killing their babies? Isn’t he meant to be omnipotent?

    And following on from my comment above, how do you know he doesn’t “have his reasons” for wanting babies to be aborted?

  42. 42
    Daniel King says:

    Dionisio @17:

    DK @16,
    Be glad News is gracious to let your posts remain for so long. Other moderators would have rightly removed them immediately without notice. No one would have known you ever posted anything, unless you play by the rules and do it correctly.
    If one doesn’t understand a comment, perhaps it’s better to ask specific questions about the text that is not understood.
    Perhaps that’s some homework.

    Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

  43. 43
    Daniel King says:

    Waiting for the Ban Hammer to fall on MatSpirit @37

  44. 44
    ET says:

    Pindi- you don’t have a point. Why does any academic support Darwinian/ neo-Darwinian evolution? It definitely isn’t because of science. Your heroes are forced to lie and threaten people in order to “win”. sad, really

  45. 45
    rvb8 says:

    A question, for Mr Shepherd, and others defending that egregious charcater known as, God.

    He had His reasons for killing babies? Really? Any guess as to what those Godly reasons might be?

    Let’s not even go into, ‘the flood’, where apparently everyone was guilty of something, even the babies.

    Thank god I’m an atheist materialist, imagine praising such a being as God?

  46. 46
    ET says:

    rvB8- Being an atheist materialist means you have more faith than any Christian could possibly have.

  47. 47
    Seversky says:

    Allen Shepherd @ 38

    I beleive God had a reason for the Amalikite destruction, as he said “Their cup of iniquity was full”. What might that mean? There were groups that practiced child sacrifice and other more ghoulish acts, etc. It is not completely clear, but apparently God had his reasons. I beleive the other destructive events could be explained in a similar fashion.

    You should hope that these acts were done for a good reason because it would be far worse if they were done on a whim.

    The problem you face is that the God of Christianity is presumed to be all-powerful and all-knowing, which means that He has the power to do otherwise. We know from Exodus that he had the power to harden Pharaoh’s heart, in other words, He has the power to influence how people think or feel. If He was displeased with the way certain peoples behaved or even almost the entire population of the world, why not simply change that behavior with a Jedi-like wave of His hand? What possible justification can there be for mass-killing on the scale described in the Bible?

  48. 48
    rvb8 says:

    ET @46,

    well, I have faith in my family, my friends, not so much my country, but it’s not so bad.

    I have faith in human curiosity, (unless hamstrung by religion), I have fith in human justice, (unless hamstrung by religion), I have faith in human science, (unless hamstrung by religion), and I have faith in human music, art, and creativity.

    ET, if this is more ‘faith’ than Chrisitians have then so be it, I’m happy, however, I strongly doubt my faith in these things is greater than your faith in a mythical being.

    You must have faith that the character known as Jesus is God’s son, as well as being God at the same time. You must have faith that the virgin birth happened, meaning incidently that Mary was a surrogate mother, and that Jesus had two dads.

    Your faith is streets ahead of any atheist’s. It’s just that atheists have faith in things that are worthwhile.

  49. 49
    ET says:

    Too funny, rvb8, as it is clear that you don’t understand science nor do you know what it entails. Science definitely doesn’t support materialism so that is where your faith lies.

  50. 50
    Eugene S says:

    RVB

    How do you logically explain to yourself the existence of world-class scientists who believe or believed in God?

    Were they all fools or liars with some hidden agendas or were they suffering from split personalities or identity crisis?

    Is your world view too narrow to accept the fact that there exist world class scientists, who believe in God not in spite of being scientists but because of it?

    Ask yourself if you really accept a logical possibility of being in error yourself on this account?

  51. 51
    Eugene S says:

    Pindi #18

    Not all. Look here for example:

    https://dissentfromdarwin.org/

    In your pass time, count the number of biologists on the list.

  52. 52
    ET says:

    rvb8:

    I have faith in human curiosity, (unless hamstrung by religion), I have fith in human justice, (unless hamstrung by religion), I have faith in human science, (unless hamstrung by religion), and I have faith in human music, art, and creativity.

    Too bad that you don’t have anything that can account for the existence of humans. And that means you have faith that somehow materialistic processes produced us.

  53. 53
    ET says:

    I love how atheists think they can judge God. But the funniest part is they actually think their flawed judgement means something

  54. 54
    john_a_designer says:

    If I understand the situation correctly, the radio station which invited Dawkins decided to disinvite him because they discovered public statements of his with which they felt uncomfortable. They don’t have the right to disinvite him?

    What I find ironic is that Dawkins fans and defenders think that Dawkins has had his rights violated. Says who? What is their basis such rights? Is Dawkins the person who gives us our rights? How does one derive universal human rights from a naturalistic/materialistic world view? Can someone who embraces such a world view give a rational argument for grounding interpersonal morality and human rights? On what world view is our society based?

    According to Klinghoffer…

    …our culture is riven by a conflict pitting two irreconcilable views of the world…

    One worldview is animated by the idea of a unique human dignity. The other, citing evolution among other things, rejects human exceptionalism with outrage. Mixed with this rage is a certain characteristic spiteful preening, a pride in its superior sophistication in scorning the idea that there’s anything exceptional about humanity. This goes along with an intolerance for competing ideas, especially notable on campuses now — a readiness, almost an eagerness to take offense. Such attitudes come packaged together with a remarkable predictability.

    It is irrational to express outrage over rights that you cannot justify or ground rationally based on your world view.

  55. 55
    Axel says:

    Your #8, Dionisio :

    ‘Seversky @6:

    God is the sole Creator of life, hence only He can dispose of it as He wishes.

    Try again.’

    And what about the Blind Watchmaker, Areopagite ? Wouldn’t He have kind of sponsored God in some kind of naturalistic way… ? Hmmm …. ?

    And who says Darwinism isn’t a scientific theory ? Empirical evidence only appears to be empirical and evidentiary…

  56. 56
    Pindi says:

    ET, its not a matter of judging God. How can one judge something that doesn’t exist? What we are doing is pointing out the ludicrousness of your god hypothesis. An all knowing, all powerful, all loving being, who created the whole universe but can find no better way of dealing with a tribe of people fallen into bad ways than by committing genocide. Come on, you’ve got to see how ridiculous that is?

  57. 57
    critical rationalist says:

    @ET

    Too bad that you don’t have anything that can account for the existence of humans. And that means you have faith that somehow materialistic processes produced us.

    Humans exist because “that’s just what some designer must have wanted” doesn’t add to the equation. It just pushes the problem up a level without improving it.

  58. 58
    ET says:

    critical rationalist:

    Humans exist because “that’s just what some designer must have wanted” doesn’t add to the equation.

    Clearly you are not an investigator as saying something was the result of intentional design tells us quite a bit. Do you think we could learn more about Stonehenge by examining it as an artifact or as a natural formation?

    If living organisms are the result of intentional design that means there is a purpose to our existence- at the very least.

  59. 59
    ET says:

    Pindi- Nothing is as ludicrous as the materialistic position. As for ridiculous, well that is all I see in your posts.

  60. 60
    J-Mac says:

    It looks like atheists/materialists have found the best evidence available for the origins of life and evolution by attacking God’s right to execute justice…

    What’s the next step? God doesn’t exist because some people have homosexual tendencies? Maybe God doesn’t exist because you have a hard time believing that he exist?
    What a pity…

  61. 61
    Pindi says:

    ET, we don’t know what we know about Stonehenge by studying it as an artefact. We know what we know because we ask questions and develop theories about who the designers were, and when, where, how and why they did it.

    Does ID apply that approach to the design of life?

  62. 62
    ET says:

    Pindi:

    we don’t know what we know about Stonehenge by studying it as an artefact

    Of course we do. Humans have studied it as an artifact and all knowledge has been gained in that light.

    We know what we know because we ask questions and develop theories about who the designers were, and when, where, how and why they did it.

    Nonsense. We don’t even ask those questions until we have determined intentional design exists and it is studied. And we don’t know who the designers were. We don’t know how they did it. And we don’t know why. The when keeps changing. And that is a structure we can duplicate.

    ID is about the detection and study of design in nature. Those other questions don’t need to be asked to determine if ID exists.

  63. 63
    ET says:

    On the other hand evolutionism is supposed to be all about the how and yet no one knows anything about that.

  64. 64
    Pindi says:

    ET, ok, but ID has studied life and determined it is designed right? That job is done. Now are you are going to move on to the who, how, when, where and why?

    And yes, we do know who the designers of stonehenge were. They were human beings. What can ID tell us about who the designer was?

  65. 65
    ET says:

    Pindi- ID is not on your agenda. There are more important questions to answer. And saying “human beings” is a what not a who. However if that is OK with you then it is OK to say the designer of life on earth was not a human from earth.

  66. 66
    ET says:

    And Pindi- if your position could just step up and demonstrate that natural selection, for example, could actually perform as claimed then ID would be falsified. The point being is you are never going to refute ID by continuing on your path.

  67. 67
    Pindi says:

    ET, I didn’t say what the designer of stonehenge was not. I specifically said it was a human being. Please tell me what the ID designer is/was.

    I’m not interested in falsifying or refuting ID. I just want to know, now ID has established that life was designed, when its going to start with the who, when, how, where and why like archaeologists are doing with Stonehenge. It was your example and I think its a good one.

  68. 68
    ET says:

    Pindi:

    I specifically said it was a human being.

    Which human? And how do you know? Also by saying what you think it was you are also saying what it isn’t.

    I just want to know, now ID has established that life was designed, when its going to start with the who, when, how, where and why like archaeologists are doing with Stonehenge.

    Those questions have nothing to do with ID. And the current paradigm is supposedly all about the how and yet it cannot answer that- nor the when.

    However I am sure once ID is the reigning paradigm people will take up the challenge to try to answer those questions. Right now IDists have more important questions to answer.

  69. 69
    rvb8 says:

    Apparently Dawkins has been re-invited. I hope he accepts. He is an extremely eloquent debator, patient, and willing to give just enough rope to his opposition before pulling the rug from under their feet.

    I have seen him on too many youtube vids to know the radio staff at Berkley are in for a dour time; Heh:)

    As for judging God? That’s easy.
    I sincerely hope He does exist, so that when I confront this halfwit at the pearly gates, I will ask; ‘What the hell were you thinking? Snakes? Heaven? Hell? Eternal damnation? Sex is bad? Only one truth? etc etc.

    Oh, yes, God is going to get an earful from me!

  70. 70
    ET says:

    rvb8, Again you are sadly mistaken. Dawkins couldn’t even last in a debate against anyone who knew half of what Dawkins claims to know about science. Geez all someone needs to ask him is how can we test the claim that natural selection or any other blind and mindless process produced any bacterial flagellum and watch him squirm, then lie or BS.

    And BTW, you will never see any Pearly Gates. But I am sure that God isn’t worried by your willful ignorance.

  71. 71

    What can ID tell us about who the designer was?

    Physical observation tells us that a set of symbolic representations and non-integrable constraints (i.e. a language) were used to organize the heterogeneous cell. The originator of the cell was an entity capable of recorded language. Shall we pretend otherwise?

  72. 72
    rvb8 says:

    ET,

    Dawkins is a formidable debater. You enter an argument with him at your own risk.

    When I said ‘pearly gates’, do you imagine that is what will greet you?

    It’s just that Christianity as I remember it dwelt gloatingly on the pains of Hell, yet was threadbare when it came to descriptions of Heaven.

  73. 73
    ET says:

    rvb8:

    Dawkins is a formidable debater.

    That is your opinion and I don’t happen to share it. I know I couild easily make him look like a fool.

    When I said ‘pearly gates’, do you imagine that is what will greet you?

    No

    It’s just that Christianity as I remember it dwelt gloatingly on the pains of Hell, yet was threadbare when it came to descriptions of Heaven.

    Your ignorance is amazing.

  74. 74
    tribune7 says:

    –It’s just that Christianity as I remember it dwelt gloatingly on the pains of Hell, yet was threadbare when it came to descriptions of Heaven.–

    I guess that’s why you don’t like Christianity. In the New Testament there is rather little talk of Hell and even less of Heaven. Well over 90-percent deals with the here and now, or what’s going to come about in the here and now.

  75. 75
    Pindi says:

    UB: ok, that’s a start. An entity capable of recorded language. What next? I think with Stonehenge we realised that the entities that made it were able to use tools and transport materials and observed the sun and stars. We worked out roughly when it was made. The only entities around at that point that met those criteria were human beings. I think we also discovered where they had quarried the stone.

    What are the candidate entities that meet the criteria of the ID designer?

  76. 76
    ET says:

    Pindi:

    What are the candidate entities that meet the criteria of the ID designer?

    We don’t need to know that. Once we have determined intentional design exists that alone means there was a candidate. As for Stonehenge, just because humans were around doesn’t mean they were capable of such a feat.

  77. 77

    So your argument is that it is not possible for the faculty of language to appear in this universe until it appeared on earth with humans — or — is it your argument that humans not knowing the source of language means that unguided processes created it?

  78. 78
    Pindi says:

    No, I am not arguing either of those things. I am just asking a general question. Now that design has been established as the cause of life, are ID advocates, utilising the kind of approach we have taken with Stonehenge to establish the who, why, when, where, and how?

    ET brought up Stonehenge. It’s an instructive example, that led me to ask this question about ID. I mean, we certainly did not say “Stonehenge is designed” and leave it there.

  79. 79

    Yes of course, and what do you say to the man next to you who claims that Stonehenge is the product of wind and erosion? What do you say him?

    Or, are you going to push the idea that the only reason you believe Stonehenge is not the product of wind and erosion, is because humans were available to build it?

    – – – – – – – – –

    By the way, is it possible that the faculty of language appeared somewhere in this universe prior to it appearing on earth? Also, does a human lack of knowledge about a source of language prior to humanity mean that unguided natural forces somehow gain the ability to establish a language?

  80. 80
    Pindi says:

    If he had a theory as to how wind and erosion could have moved rocks many miles across the ground and then pushed them upon their ends and on top of each other, I would listen to it. But given the existence of creatures at the time who were known to be able to design and build things, he would have to have very good evidence as to how wind and erosion could have achieved it in order to convince me that it wasn’t man made.

    In answer to your questions about language, my answer to the first is yes. My answer to the second is no – human knowledge (or lack of it) does not cause unguided natural forces to do (or not do) anything.

  81. 81
    ET says:

    Unbelievable, Pindi. No one said that we just detect design and leave it there. I had posted exactly the opposite so obviously you have issues.

    The questions of who, how, when and why are SEPARATE from whether or not that which is being investigated was intentionally designed or not. And there are more important questions to answer. Keep ignoring that as if your willful ignorance is an argument.

  82. 82
    Pindi says:

    ET, what are the more important questions to answer? Given that we have already established design of life.

  83. 83
    ET says:

    Seriously? How to properly maintain it. How to properly fix it. What else is there to life besides physics and chemistry. What is the purpose.

    Just for starters

  84. 84
    vividbleau says:

    rvb8

    “Oh, yes, God is going to get an earful from me!”

    I’ve heard this kind of drivel from atheists before. Anyone mouthing this kind of nonsense obviously have not thought this through. The idea that HE has some “splaining” to do to you, me ,or anyone, is laughable and displays incredible hubris on the part of the one saying drivel like this. If God exists your not going to do any talking because you will be to busy to be soiling your pants.

    Vivid

  85. 85
    vividbleau says:

    Previous post correction. “You will be to busy soiling your pants” LOL

    Vivid

  86. 86
    rvb8 says:

    vividbleau,

    Tertullian was a Christian apologist living in the second century A.D.

    He was famous for his misogyny, strict adherrance to his interpretation of scripture, and a very unconvincing description of what he believed, would be one of the principle pleasures of Heaven.

    He thought that he would spend eternity gloating over the misery of the sufferers, (sinners) of hell.

    That’s right. He believed sitting in divine paradise with all the other redeemed, he could watch for eternity, the misery of others.

    No offence ‘vivid’, you sound like a modern day Tertullian.

    Understand, if Heaven is indeed peopled by you and your ilk, I will indeed implore God to forget my good deeds, and send me straight to burn.

    You see eternity in the company of you and people like you, (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, etc) would actually be my description of hell.

    Better the real devil, and my fellow sinners, than eternity in your company, and your petty, thin skinned, god.

    Of course this is all moot, as there is no god, and your childish fear is born out of an evolved fear of darkness, the night, and a desire to explain thunderstorms, and earthquakes.

    But you take comfort in your silly myths, just as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and countless others, take comfort in theirs.

    Hope you have the right god, there’s lots of competition.:)

  87. 87
    vividbleau says:

    rvb8
    You know nothing about me yet you feel free in your ignorance to tell me what I am like.If what you say about Tertulian is accurate he is going to be in for a big surprise as well. Your sermon would make a good Calvinistic Puritan proud with your holier than thou moralizing on display.If God exists I’m going to be soiling my pants as well. Unlike you I have thought it through.

    Vivid

  88. 88
    rvb8 says:

    viv @87,

    ‘If God exists…’?

    You’re not sure?

    Tertullian was Catholic, but you are right his preaching was largely anticipated by Puritan Calvinist teachings.

    I do think I know enough about you to apprehend you are religious, which is why your, ‘If God exists…’ quote is kind of similar to Peter’s denial of Christ. You might want to improve your faith a little.

    We are wildly off topic. But then again, discussing theology at a Christian web site is not wholly inappropriate.

  89. 89
    vividbleau says:

    rvb8

    I haven’t gotten into Christian theology. I am merely pointing out how ridiculous your statement about telling God a thing or too points to a muddled thinker if God exists. I mean you brought it up .

    Since you seem to be an atheist I am posing God as a hypothetical to you to assist you in doing thought experiments. Imagine a hypothetical all powerful, holy, righteous and just God that created you. And knows everything about you. That you have to account for every thought word and deed .You are stripped bare of all pretense and shown that every word deed and action that was done by you was done only to serve your self interest , that you have never done anything that was not motivated by your own self interest and love for yourself. In this hypothetical your not going to be running your mouth off. In this hypo I am in the same boat.

    Vivid

  90. 90

    If he had a theory as to how wind and erosion could have moved rocks many miles across the ground and then pushed them upon their ends and on top of each other, I would listen to it.

    You mean if Stonehenge wasn’t Stonehenge, but was some other place where there is evidence of wind and erosion moving massive stones miles across the ground and then standing them up on their ends on top on one another. But that wasn’t the question.

    The question demonstrates the inconsistency in your position, and you know that. So to avoid the issue, you’ve merely changed the question to something else. Apparently during the switch, your audience is expected to forget which end is up.

    In answer to your questions about language, my answer to the first is yes. My answer to the second is no – human knowledge (or lack of it) does not cause unguided natural forces to do (or not do) anything.

    You are correct on both counts. It is possible that the faculty of language existed prior to mankind, and any lack of knowledge on our part as to the source of that language doesn’t mean that unguided natural forces can suddenly do things that they are otherwise not known to do. You might want to keep that in mind.

  91. 91
    Mung says:

    You might want to keep that in mind.

    Unguided natural forces keep making me forget. =p

  92. 92
    ET says:

    rvb8:

    But you take comfort in your silly myths,…

    Clearly you take comfort in yours.

  93. 93
    Pindi says:

    UB, sorry I don’t understand. You asked what I would say to someone who had a theory that wind and erosion produced Stonehenge. I would say show me the evidence. But given we have a coherent theory supported by good evidence that humans made it, it would have to be a better theory than that. I don’t see any inconsistency.

    On the faculty of language, not sure what your point is. It’s obvious that a lack of knowledge on our part doesn’t cause anything to happen or not happen. Not sure how keeping that in mind is going to help me.

  94. 94
    ET says:

    What evidence do we have that humans designed and built it?

  95. 95

    ET @ 92: You got that right. Rvb8 is a true believer in all forms of a/mat mythology, apparently taking great comfort in all the wonderfful things a/mat mythology offers…namely, nothing.

  96. 96
    Pindi says:

    ET, I’m not going to do your work for you. Start with wikipedia

  97. 97
    ET says:

    LoL!@ Pindi- I know all about Stonehenge. I also know that there isn’t any evidence that humans designed and built it. All they have are inferences based on the fact that humans lived in the area. However I know there is a huge difference between living in the area and designing and building the monument.

    How do we even know the people of 4,000+ years ago had the capability to design and build such a thing?

  98. 98

    Ahh, so you want to argue that the only reason you don’t reckon that Stonehenge is the natural product of wind and erosion is because evidence suggests that humans were around at the time to build it. I’m sure you join in the high emotions of those first methodical researchers at the site. It must have been quite exciting at the time to survey and date the area, and finally put to rest that pressing question if Stonehenge was a natural effect of wind and erosion.

    Alternatively, we can reason that you know fully well — even from your own observations of the natural world — that wind and erosion were never a candidate explanation for Stonehenge. If this is the case, then your attack on ID (demanding the identity of the designer) can be put into perspective. You badger ID proponents for evidence that is a) outside of ID arguments, and b) you don’t require elsewhere to infer design. And c), you do this instead of engaging the evidence that ID actually presents.

    No inconsistencies there. 😐

  99. 99
    Mung says:

    Wind and erosion were present. What more do you need?

  100. 100
    ET says:

    Glaciers move rocks, big rocks. Perhaps Stonehenge was just dropped stones left behind after the glaciers melted. Floods also move rocks, big rocks. Then there are earthquakes and other non-telic phenomena to consider.

Leave a Reply