11 Replies to “Richard Dawkins — His Fingers In So Many Pies

  1. 1
    Deuce says:

    Wow, took a look at the movie’s homepage. There is, of course, reasonable debate to be had over whether or not Jesus was divine, whether or not he was resurrected, etc. But only people way out on the kooky fringe take the position that he never existed. Does Dawkins actually buy into the premise of the movie he’s helping to make? If so, and it sure seems like he’s got his fingerprints on it, then for all his carping about other people’s gullibility, he really literally is on the level of a flat-earther.

  2. 2
    nostrowski says:

    Or Dawkins is simply obsessed.

  3. 3
    Srdjan says:

    “Michael Moore-like documentary”

    That says it all.

  4. 4

    Discover Magazine Calls Dawkins on the Carpet (Sort of)

    The current Discover magazine describes Richard Dawkins as “evolution’s fiercest champion, far too fierce;” and, “too intent on prevailing in intellectual combat for his own good.” A friend of Dawkins is quoted as saying, “Personally, I think he…

  5. 5
    jzs says:

    From the site

    “And God simply isn’t there.”

    Sounds like a claim. I’m sure since they’ve surveyed all of space and time, they can say this as a Fact and not just their belief.

    Moreover, say god(s) as described in any book don’t hold water for whatever reason. That doesn’t mean that god(s) doesn’t exist, just that we don’t approve of the commentary.

  6. 6
    Charlie says:

    Another Dawkins finger:
    Listen to him respond to George Gilder:

  7. 7
    jonejinx says:

    Money quote:
    Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes.
    Should we be asking why they’re so afraid of us?

  8. 8
    jzs says:

    I’d sure enjoy hearing Dawkins debate someday. Maybe IDers should start a list of all debate offers made to evolutionists?

    Dawkins’s retort to ID is to say ‘but then you have the problem of explaining where the intelligence came from..’. Why doesn’t he use that logic on his own beliefs, and come to the conclusion that he may have a problem of explaining where the primordial stuff came from? Do evolutionists just say ‘ahh, but that’s abiogenesis, not evolution!’ and thereby define the problem away?

  9. 9
    jasonng says:

    “Dawkins’s retort to ID is to say ‘but then you have the problem of explaining where the intelligence came from..’.”

    He said it a few times during the show, as his reason for ruling out a priori the possibility of a design inference to explain biological complexity. Apparently he doesn’t realize (or would rather not admit) that ID is about finding design and not identifying the designer. It doesn’t matter if the designer is the “first cause” or not, what matters is whether design is present.

  10. 10
    jayman says:

    The “who designed the designer” argument is an incredibly bad one, but it’s effective for Dawkins & others because it takes more than 10 seconds or two sentences to refute. Therefore it is a useful soundbite, or “meme” as he would have it.

  11. 11
    DaveScot says:

    Sound bite response to Dawkins “Richard, many good answers in science lead to even more difficult questions. That’s not a valid reason to ignore a good answer.”

    If you have more time to respond: “For instance, discovering the genetic code that’s common to all living things led to the question of how the first organism using the genetic code came to be. Should we ignore the genetic code because we don’t how it was created? Of course not.”

Leave a Reply