The ever abrasive atheist Richard Dawkins, has compared creationists to Holocaust deniers in a recent interview. While it is every person’s right to believe what they wish to believe, linking creationists to Holocaust deniers is completely over the top. Simply because many people don’t believe in the theory of evolution, does not make them necessarily stupid or evil as Richard Dawkins would have you believe.
It should be noted, that it still is the theory of evolution, and not the law of evolution. There should be no more blind adherence to the theory of evolution, than the book of Genesis. While many noted people of faith do accept the theory of evolution, others believe that God may have been involved in the missing mechanism of evolution. Or they may believe that God set life in motion, creating the first organisms, and allowing it to evolve into man. There are very few Christians who believe the simplistic seven day creation story as Richard Dawkins would have you believe.
Richard Dawkins even goes so far as to say he can disprove the existence of God, with his silly flying spaghetti monster. If there is no God, then he reasons there can be only evolution. But many scientists, including a Cambridge expert on the Big Bang, are saying they can’t explain the creation of the universe, at least without resorting to the religious side.
Of course Richard Dawkins has a long hatred of Christianity, and never misses a chance to attack people of faith. In the past he has compared teaching religion to sexual abuse, and stated that anyone who believes in creation is ignorant, stupid, insane or perhaps wicked. It would seem that the theory of evolution is simply a platform from which Richard Dawkins enjoys attacking Christianity, and occasionally Muslims.
“If there is no God, then he reasons there can be only evolution.”
I suppose so, but if there is a God that doesn’t mean there is no evolution. Although, as you almost point out, while there IS evidence for micro evolution there is zero evidence for macro evolution. God is still good to go by way of explanation.
Dawkins is quite explicit in trying to presuad an audience the truth. The theory of Evolution through Natural Selection, is the law of nature. A Theory is the closest to a law, as the evidence illustrates that it is the most likely explanation. In Charles Darwin’s time he was testing the “Hypothesis” of Natural Selection. The Theory of Evolution is as true as the Laws of our current understanding of the Laws of physics.
Luckily for me, I was brought up moderate Anglican, so we just focus on the Good work by Jesus and how we can be better individuals, than talking much on that Old Testament.
The creationists are WRONG, and THEY must reconcile their faith with the Theory of Natural Selection through Natural Selection. Otherwise they are fools for not recognizing the truth in this wonderful world we live in.
evolution has no explanation for how the very first life on this planet was formed. Their best theory is that life formed after a puddle of mud was struck by lightning. Creationists believe a being or entity that has powers and/or tools beyond our comprehension engineered life. Such a being would be Biological Engineer. Dawkins is wrong on the creation side and ignorant to be so closed minded.
It should be noted, that it still is the theory of evolution, and not the law of evolution
This is where I decided to stop. You truly are an imbecile.
Meh.
Who cares what yet another militant atheists says today to sell books; however, listening to their last words can teach you infinitely more valuable things.
Thomas Paine: “I would give worlds if I had them, that The Age of Reason had never been published. 0 Lord, help me! Christ, help me! . . No, don’t leave; stay with me! Send even a child to stay with me; for I am on the edge of Hell here alone. If ever the Devil had an agent, I have been that one.”
Voltair: “I am abandoned by God and man; I shall go to hell! I will give you half of what I am worth, if you will give me six month’s life.”
David Strauss: “”My philosophy leaves me utterly forlorn! I feel like one caught in the merciless jaws of an automatic machine, not knowing at what time one of its great hammers may crush me!”
Thomas Carlyle: “I am as good as without hope, a sad old man gazing into the final chasm.”
Indeed.
revanche:
Not sure about the last two, but Paine never recanted, and Voltaire refused to ‘abandon Satan and turn to God on his deathbed (as the attending priest asked of him) allegedly stating that it was ‘no time to make new enemies’.
Yet another liar for Jesus.
Creationism/Evolution – whatever. There are bigger things to worry about.
It should be noted that scientists/scholars are like everyone else. They want to make a splash in their given field. If they can’t come up with earth shattering new discoveries then they quite often go public and try to be “personalities”. They find an admiring niche of like minded people and spend their lives making themselves famous or semi-famous by preaching to that particular chior.
Richard Dawkins is an asshole. As a scholar (not a scientist). He has done some work that has given him notoriety amoungst the “lifetime accademic” crowd but nothing that would ever given him a place in any history book.
So he’s gone to playing the personality card. He picked an opponent that basically can’t or won’t fight back — God and earns some cheap fame by preaching to the antireligious choir.
This is an old tune and Dawkins will make his money off it. But it doesn’t make him any great intellect.
He’s just another snotty, bitter, old academic piss-ant looking down his nose and sneering at the peasants.
Shorter jj: I don’t know a thing about science, nor how it is undertaken, nor the people that do so. Please allow me to provide some simpleminded observations that are not even a distant relation to the truth.
Hey Philosorapter, look on the bright side. Dawkins is proof that some people can get social science degrees and still manage to find work OUTSIDE the fast food industry.
Ron, you are a full-blown f*cking idiot. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? You’re comment reads like you’re wearing a smug, sh*t-eating grin, and it sure sounds like you’re about to make a gloriously, magnificently false revelation.
Go for it. Be all the idiot you want to be. You can do it.
Obviously, “You’re comment…” should be “Your comment…”
Athiesm never interested me.Militant athiesm is unnecessary and a paradox since most of the worlds laws are based on the ten commandments.LOL!Human rights have their basis in religion.As does marriage,holidays(yeah all thase days off you get?),hmm what else?Youd be suprised how much of any society is based on faith,no matter what faith that maybe.Stalin was an athiest.So was Hitler.Athiests havent proven squat to anyone,and have become a faith themselves.LMAO!
Aww, I made the pretentiously self described “philosorapter” angry. ROTFLMAO!!
Liberals and atheists are like poo flinging monkeys. They just fling insults and never bother trying to argue against Christians and conservatives.
You think I’m angry because I used the “f-word”? Are you 12 years old, or just a high-functioning retard?
I still didn’t hear your revelation about Dawkins. Please tell us all how “social science degrees” is even remotely related to Dawkins. I’m not angry; in fact, I’m on the edge of my seat. I’m anxiously awaiting you ripping off the mask and announcing your grand stupidity to the world.
Make your idiotic claim so we can gloriously shoot it down. It’s what you masochistic dumbasses do.
“most of the worlds laws are based on the ten commandments.”
Yes, all those laws about honoring your parents and not coveting your neighbour’s ass and so on. I mean, it reads just like the criminal code, doesn’t it?
Don’t murder, don’t steal — those are the only ones that you can relate to the ten commandments. Gee, lucky we had Moses come down from the mountain to lay those ones on us. I mean, no non-Judeo-Christian civilization ever figured those out.
Oh, with the exception of all of them.
LOL!
M@:
You forgot the commandment about not cooking a goat in its mother’s milk. That’s a big one with the kids these days.
I seem to remember a constitutional amendment about shellfish, too, while we’re on the subject.
Funny how people who think our whole society should be built on their own personal sky superhero’s rules like to call us “militant atheists”, isn’t it?
I see that the Canadian Cynic crowd are taking the simplistic approach again. Many parts of the Old Testament obviously do not relate to modern life, and quoting an obscure passage does mean that the whole document should be chucked.
But returning to the discussion, one only has to look at the history of law in the west to prove that the Ten Commandments had a major influence. Many of the original laws were based on the inherent morality of the Ten Commandments. Instead of deriving laws that simply focused on the earlier idea of retribution, or laws that empowered a tyrant, these laws focused on personal rights.
From the early Christian Kings and the introduction of common law, to the later courts of equity, all were based on treating your fellow man and neighbour well. All of which was originally laid out in the Ten Commandments. Even the most important document in western history, the Magna Carta begins with, “First, that we have granted to God.”
Of course all these subtle connections will be missed, and obscure parts of the bible will continue to be quoted. Yes, cooking a goat in its mother’s milk has no impact on modern life, but the message of the Bible, and the influence of it’s message should not be missed.
You certainly have a rosy view of how societies were organized in both the ancient and the medieval worlds. But that’s as may be. I was responding directly to, and even quoting for your convenience, what one of your commenters said. You should start, I think, by correcting him, not me.
Well, I do admit that my argument was a bit simplistic, but the basis of what the earlier commentator said was somewhat correct. When Europeans colonized much of the world (an act I won’t defend), they spread the idea of western law with them. Many of these countries, then based their legal system on ideas that originated in Europe.
On the flip side, many Asian counties have their own rich histories and have created their own legal systems. So while the commentator may have been wrong in that sense, he was right in the sense that much of the world does follow a legal system descended from the ten commandments.
I suppose part of the question is how you define “much of the world”. Geographically, maybe you have a point.
But in terms of population, the lion’s share of the world’s legal systems have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.
Beyond that, I will go so far as to say that YECs (not necessarily all religious people, but definitely YECs) are either stupid and evil or stupid and profoundly ignorant. And perhaps a comparison to Holocaust deniers is apt: both groups deny events for which there is insurmountable evidence, in order to peddle an alternate history wherein their own worldview is supported.
The difference, of course, is that the Holocaust happened, but is now finished. The process of evolution continues, and willful denial or ignorance of that fact actively harms our culture and our species as a whole.
What is evolution and how does it play a roll in God’s creation, and what Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins missed
By wsmith1213
What is evolution and how does it play a roll in God’s creation, and what charles darwin and Richard Dawkins missed.
Richard Dawkins points to all the different variations of species as “proof” of evolution but ignorantly rules out any existence of God, because he mistakenly assumes that our origin is from evolution or some bird brained theory that life and single-celled organism could possibly spring to life from lightning striking a puddle of mud. This is closed minded and limited thinking.
What Mr. Dawkins and the rest of the evolution started life crowd need to open their minds to is the very real possibility of a being or entity that has powers and/or tools beyond our comprehension engineered life. Such a being would be Biological Engineer.
A biological engineer that created a self replicating species would want to tweak or upgrade it as time goes on and would obviously build some sort of mechanism into the species for making changes, this would look like evolution. Another possibility, is that the creator would make the species self-adjusting to its environment, this would be true evolution. That’s it. William Smith