A Excerpt of Dawkins' Book Inspires Idiocy


Times Online has posted an article which in an excerpt - a sneak peek at Richard Dawkins' newest effort The Greatest Show On Earth. The post in and of itself is a great little taste of what to expect from Show, but the comments the post inspired are riddled with the usual atheist/creationist bickering, support for Dawkins as well as abject rejection and disdain. I picked out a few of the more interesting comments to share/discuss. Keep in mind that these are the comments as they were posted, any spelling and grammar errors are theirs.
Mr. Dale wrote:

It would be interesting to find out what Dawkins actually believes.

He seems to believe in absolute morality, which is near impossible in the atheist world view.

Recognises the argument from fine tuning for God's existence but down plays it somewhat eventhough he himself uses argumentation from inference for his views.

Attacks the denial of history but in the God Delusion denys the existence of Jesus - a fact.

He recognises that the philsophy of science has just about proved science to be a faith based enterprise BUT attempts make little of this.

He seems to like the culture of Christianity, is pleased when some of its teachers agree with him but simultaneously can't seemingly quite bring himself round to agreeing with them!

I sense in his writing a man who doesn't really know what he believes, except for evolution.

August 25, 2009 10:24 PM
My only response to this is - how could you possibly take the evidence for the existence of Jesus and consider that a fact while simultaneously rejecting evolution on the basis that there are not enough evidence to back it up? I understand that this fella didn't specifically deny evolution in his comment, but I've seen it over and over again in other instances.

Evidence for Jesus is overwhelming! Evidence for evolution? I'm just not convinced...

That's because you don't care about evidence. Evidence is a means to an end. If the evidence says what you want it to say, you're all about it. If it doesn't say what you want it to say you reject that evidence. If you applied the same strict restraints on everything else that you apply to evolution, you would reject a vast majority of everything we know to be true.
Sylvia Baker wrote:

To reply to some of those who have responded to my earlier posts:

Richard Dawkins is presenting what is, in his opinion, the best interpretation of the evidence. For the debate to be open and fair, creationists should be permitted to do the same.

Species diversity can be fully explained by those taking a creationist position. They believe that living organisms are pre-programmed to be able to adapt to environmental conditions but that there are set boundaries to the possible extent of this variation. This view was held by Linnaeus in the 18th century and Mendel in the 19th. It was this creationist position which motivated and directed their work and which therefore gave rise to modern genetics. Modern-day creationists build on their work.

Creationists have no problem with the idea of natural selection. It presents no threat to them at all and may be involved in producing variety. However, there are many evolutionists who would deny that it has a role in evolution because they do not see any evidence that it does. It probably mainly acts to stabilise populations; this was known before Darwin.

It would help the debate greatly if people were more familiar with what crestionists are actually saying.

August 25, 2009 1:19 PM
The difference between a scientific explanation for something and what Sylvia is doing here is Sylvia is making shit up that sounds plausible without offering any kind of scientific data to back up her claims. While at one point people looked and a chimp and thought 'we seem a lot like those guys' that initial thought is not what links us scientifically to chimpanzees. Decades of study in biology and genetics have provided us with the scientific data which indicates that we are very closely related to chimpanzees. You have the first bit, you're just missing the decades of confirmed experiments and data collected from countless unaffiliated sources. Dawkins isn't ignoring a similarly valid scientific theory, Dawkins is ignoring unsubstatiated scientifically presented mythology.

Ok, one more -
Bob Ganert wrote:

Mr. Dawkins, Had opportunity to spend some time to contemplate your recent writings concerning your views on evolution. And although I can follow your flow of argument I cannot accept it.
Yes admittedly we live in a secular society. But to deny the facts of history pointing to the reasonableness of a created universe is regrettably sad on your part.
It has been said that if a lie is repeated often enough and load enough it can be believed. Your reteric and analogies using the Roman deniers and then holocost deniers and then to move the reader to accept your dogma that Christians (the 40%'ers) are on par with with such is wayward in the least, if not abomniable.
I agree with you in that we live in a age of compromise. Where all view points are said to be “respected”. The sad thing about it all is that the proponents of Satanic doctrine is given such prominent press.
Evolution does happen all around us. It is a fact. But if you would study the Bible you would conclude it is the Word of God. In the Holy Scriptures. Once endorsed by the King of England. It has the genealogy of famous men such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus of Nazareth.
Perhaps next you will be denying the existence of the Lord Jesus Christ. History is measured from this man. You should read His words. One day you will meet Him face to face.

August 25, 2009 12:11 AM
...Satanic doctrine? Denying facts of history that point to a created universe? What facts? Is this one of those 'well first you have to accept that the bible is a factual record' things because I don't and the reason I don't is that I understand at least minimally what constitutes something as a historical record and the Bible doesn't cut it. You'll have to re-define history just like you have to re-define science in order to prove your points - essentially eliminating the institutions which you are trying to gain acceptance for your views within.