Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)
Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: biblethumpers; cary; creation; crevolist; dawkins; evolution; excellentessay; funnyresponses; hahahahahahaha; liberalgarbage; phenryjerkalert; smegheads
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 2,651-2,678 next last
To: malakhi
Do you dispute the accuracy of Ichneumon's citations of the Galileo case in his #266? How do you not read that as a condemnation of science?

It was science that was being used as the excuse for the action on both sides. The scientific argument was the public face of the political battle. As so often happens in history, it was the official reason as opposed to the real one.

If Galileo had merely presented his theory, instead of trying to club the Church with it, the results would have been very different. Many in the Church had already accepted the heliocentric (sp?) theory.

Shalom.

351 posted on 05/25/2005 2:02:49 PM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
Uh huh. How many heretics did Galileo burn at the stake?

How many Christians have atheists and non-Christians killed throughout the ages? Your question is no more germaine to our discussion than mine.

It most certainly is germane. Galileo did not "attack the church" with threats of condemnation, excommunication, jail, or burning at the stake. Such restraint was not observed by the other side of this argument.

They didn't react to his science. They reacted to his politics.

Good grief. Galileo was a personal friend of the Pope, and hardly one for stirring a political pot. It is one of the best known facts of history that they reacted to his science, massively. The publication of his book created such a stir that they had no choice but to crack down on him. No matter how "political" or intemperate Galileo might have been, it is a totally miniscule issue beside the publication of his book. Everybody, but I mean everybody, should know this. It is fact of history that manifests down through the subsequent centuries in so many ways that it hard to believe there is anyone in the western world who could really believe what you are putting forth.

only the churches--rather as is now the case with creationists and biologists.

Broad brush bigotry again.

I don't understand how this response even makes sense in the context we were discussing. But at this point, I don't care. Please concentrate on one thing at a time until you can produce a cogent argument with some legs regarding facts you didn't make up in a daydream.

352 posted on 05/25/2005 2:04:01 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Apples to oranges. Anyone could go to the oracle, like plugging quarters into a machine, or paying the local psychic to tell your fortune. The Bible is completely different as its prophets were not at all as such. Also, from what I've read, the oracle was hardly absolute in its foretelling. From the following link -

Arguments over the correct interpretation of an oracle were common, but the oracle was always happy to give another prophecy if more gold was provided. A good example is the famous incident before the Battle of Salamis when the Pythia first predicted doom and later predicted that a 'wooden wall' (interpreted by the Athenians to mean their ships) would save them.

That kills her success rate right there.

You mentioned "writers" with regard to the oracle. The Bible is a compilation of 66 books written by over 40 different authors, some of them prophets, some of them not, but all commonly linked by their belief in YHWH, God of Israel, and their remarkably consistent message.

What is the Greek counterpart to that which lends support to the existence of the Greek gods, preserves their message and details the prophecies of those such as the oracle?

353 posted on 05/25/2005 2:05:25 PM PDT by agrace (All I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen. - Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Dinsdale
That amounts to hatred of science.

It's a matter of interpretation. It amounts to a hatred of being challenged by any means. What you would have to do to prove hatred of science is demonstrate that every scientific discovery of the time was condemned by the Church, or even that the Church forced laws to make scientific pursuits illegal. I don't know of any assertion. Instead, this one event, anecdotal evidence as it were, is used to prove a trend.

Shalom.

354 posted on 05/25/2005 2:06:03 PM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
It was science that was being used as the excuse for the action on both sides. The scientific argument was the public face of the political battle. As so often happens in history, it was the official reason as opposed to the real one.

Good grief--are you still at this? Maybe you should be talking to the guy who thinks that 500 people observed christ's resurrection, and were tortured to death by a mysterious cabal of conspirators for it.

355 posted on 05/25/2005 2:08:10 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So you would agree that it's a crime (or at least misbehavior) to question church doctrine?

I think it was, but that's beside the point.

I'm wondering what the moral equivalence is between someone publishing a theory, and a church imprisoning a person for disagreeing with them.

If I gave that impression, I'm sorry. What I was trying to say was that if Galileo had REALLY wanted to further the cause of science, he would not have used his discovery as a club to try to attack the Church.

I am not an apologist for the Church as a political power. People's politics can be motivated by their beliefs, but the Church, as an institution, should not be governing nor directing governments.

How is this behaviour of the church different from the behavior of the Taliban?

Conceptually, it is not.

Shalom.

356 posted on 05/25/2005 2:08:41 PM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: donh
Good grief. Galileo was a personal friend of the Pope, and hardly one for stirring a political pot.

This is not my understanding. I will go back to my sources and produce them for you. But it will not be this evening as I am about to leave and won't have any time to post any more on this topic tonight.

As for the bigotry accusation, it stands no matter what the rest of the conversation. To suggest that all creationists are bad and all biologists are good does not represent an open mind.

Shalom.

357 posted on 05/25/2005 2:11:17 PM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
From the clues given in the Bible (1 Kings 6:1), the Pharaoh at the time of Exodus was probably Amenhotep II (1427 to 1400 BC).  However, it could have been Amenhotep's predecessor, Thutmose III (1458 to 1427 BC)(Exodus 7:7 and Acts 7:23).

In either case, each left pretty extensive records, especially of his military adventures.  Remember also, the Egyptians recorded literally everything, including the sales of slaves.  Hundreds of such sales records exist from this period, but none mention anything to do with Hebrew slaves.  Indeed, the entire historic record is mute on this point.

358 posted on 05/25/2005 2:16:07 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: donh
Maybe you should be talking to the guy who thinks that 500 people observed christ's resurrection, and were tortured to death by a mysterious cabal of conspirators for it.

That's the account of Paul.

1 Corinthians 15: 1-8 (RSV)
Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached 
to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 
by which you are saved, if you hold it fast--unless you 
believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first 
importance what I also received, that Christ died for our 
sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, 
that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the 
scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the 
twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren 
at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have 
fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the 
apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared 
also to me.

You don't have to believe Paul's testimony if you don't want to. He was writing this letter to people who could have checked his story out. You and I can't do that, so we ahve to turn to other tests.

As for the gruesome deaths of the Apostles, those are a part of Church History. They are not well documented but have been handed down for nearly 2000 years.

Shalom.

359 posted on 05/25/2005 2:16:53 PM PDT by ArGee (Why do we let the abnormal tell us what's normal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
If Galileo had merely presented his theory, instead of trying to club the Church with it, the results would have been very different. Many in the Church had already accepted the heliocentric (sp?) theory.

Ahhgh! More of this balony. The heliocentric theory of the universe was in direct conflict with central teachings of the catholic church, whether many in the church believed it or not was irrelevant. What was relevant, for the church, was that the heliocentric picture of the universe undermined the notion, amongst the illiterate, that the church spoke with the voice of God regarding the disposition of the earth, because it undermined the notion that the earth was the center of the universe, and therefore, God's special concern.

If Galileo had sung sweetly as an angel, or smelled like fresh cat dung, it would have made precisely 0 difference--the idea, not the man, was what was dangerous and offensive to the church.

This is so unbelievably out to lunch.

360 posted on 05/25/2005 2:18:43 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"Are you asking if there's any reason, beyond accidental, for the association of specific codes with particular amino acids? There are some speculative ideas floating around about this, but little experimental evidence."

Yes, that is precisely what I'm asking - do you happen to know what any of these speculations involve?


361 posted on 05/25/2005 2:20:19 PM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: agrace

Post-event editing cannot be ruled out in any prophetic situation. You accept that did not happen in the Bible's case, though much of it predates its actually being written down (sometime during the Babylonian exile), giving the authors plenty of leeway at creative editing. Yet you do not accept it in similar situations with other religions.


362 posted on 05/25/2005 2:20:46 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Well, I'll agree with your list of predictions, but I note they all follow from common descent with or without any particular Darwinian (or non-Darwinian) mechanism to explain the dynamics.

This is part of what drives me mad about 'the debate'. Both sides consistenly obscure the distinction between the three meanings of 'evolution' I mentioned in my semi-defense of Behe. The first (allele and phenotype dynamics) is simply an observable fact; the second (common descent) is plainly a solid falsifiable (a single organism with a different system of codons would suffice) scientific theory and every observation to date supports it; the last (neo-Darwinism) is the one I'm not even sure manages to be a theory (though once one vacates 'random variation' the way the definition at http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/what_is_evolution.htm does) and leaves natural selection as a tautology (rather than 'so formulat[ing it] as to be far from tautological') which seems to be the tendancy, lest a falsification of a particular such formulation give aid and comfort to religious obscurantists, it's a 'fact' too (but not a very interesting one), provided one drops the insistence on its completeness and sufficiency as an explanation.

363 posted on 05/25/2005 2:21:00 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (Christ is Risen! Christos Anesti! Khristos Voskrese! Al-Masih Qam! Hristos a Inviat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Bite me.


364 posted on 05/25/2005 2:21:42 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: ArGee
As for the gruesome deaths of the Apostles, those are a part of Church History. They are not well documented but have been handed down for nearly 2000 years.

I see you have a grasp of this argument that nearly equals your grasp of Galileo's political acumen. The proponent I spoke of argued, as I said, that the 500, not the Apostles, were mysteriously put to death by a conspiracy of some sort.

365 posted on 05/25/2005 2:23:48 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: ArGee

So what about the previous claim that many of them were secretly tracked down and tortured then murdered by some mysterious cabal?


366 posted on 05/25/2005 2:24:20 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: donh


367 posted on 05/25/2005 2:24:20 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Junior
though much of it predates its actually being written down (sometime during the Babylonian exile)

Examples?

368 posted on 05/25/2005 2:26:54 PM PDT by agrace (All I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen. - Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Bite me.



369 posted on 05/25/2005 2:27:49 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
second (common descent) is plainly a solid falsifiable (a single organism with a different system of codons would suffice) scientific theory and every observation to date supports it

Common descent is not what it used to be. It is no longer thought by the mainstream of biological science that a single organism gave rise to all life. Which, by the way, if so, casts a serious measure of doubt on the single-system-of-codon falsification notion.

370 posted on 05/25/2005 2:28:01 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Yeah, well I'm Sparticus.

I thought you were Marilyn Monroe?

371 posted on 05/25/2005 2:29:05 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
I fail to understand the basis for calling evolution by random (used loosely) variation and natural selection a tautology; nor do I see how it fails to be predictive. It predicts, for example, high observed mutation rates in non-functional parts of the genome, and very low rates in genes of ancient lineage. The latter prediction has been confirmed many times, and the former is mostly confirmed, although the observation of highly conserved regions of DNA with no known function often gets IDers all excited (I remain confident they will be determined to be functional).

Ultimately, one would like to see a path from organism A to organism B by mutation and natural selection, with every step in between a viable organism. I'm confident eventually we will be able to reconstruct such a pathway, though we simply don't have the experimental capability of doing it yet.

372 posted on 05/25/2005 2:32:38 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: agrace

I always thought Pharaoh's dream falls into this category. The Egyptians never recorded seven years of feast followed by seven years of famine. Of course, if the whole thing were written down many centuries after the fact, no one would have to bother with such piddly little details.


373 posted on 05/25/2005 2:33:00 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: Junior
To the tune of another BOC song:

"Freepers don't fear the Crevos... You know that trolling is a creationist game..."

"Don't be like they are... (don't fear the crevos...)"

(Help me out here Junior.)

374 posted on 05/25/2005 2:33:32 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: nyconse
One of the most fascinating bits of science lately is that Palies now believe that all modern men (and women) are descended from one woman who came out of Africa-imagine that. It reinforces the biblical version of creation.

ah, no. Too much Discovery Channel, not enough Cell and Molecular Biology.

375 posted on 05/25/2005 2:34:34 PM PDT by King Prout (blast and char it among fetid buzzard guts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Remember though, Dawkins isn't someone to take seriously on evolution.


376 posted on 05/25/2005 2:34:46 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: agrace
The Bible is a compilation of 66 books written by over 40 different authors, some of them prophets, some of them not, but all commonly linked by their belief in YHWH, God of Israel, and their remarkably consistent message.

Oh dear. You think Leviticus and the Gospel of St. Matthew are consistent?

377 posted on 05/25/2005 2:35:22 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
It's Just a Theory

(with apologies to Blue Oyster Cult)

Darwin's time has come
Evolution now is gone
Creos don't like the theory
We're certain it's just plain wrong.
They can be like we are

Come on creos ... It's just a theory
No need to listen ... It's just a theory
Darwin's on the outs ... It's just a theory
All his links are missin'...

S. J. Gould is done
P.E. now is gone
Behe, Miller, Hovind
Will now tell us how it's done
Behe, Miller, Hovind...

Americans believe the creos ... Behe, Miller, Hovind
Americans believe the creos ... Tell us how it's done
And more are joining us everyday ... You can be like we are

Come on creos ... It's just a theory
No need to listen ... It's just a theory
Darwin's on the outs ... It's just a theory
All his links are missin'...

Evolutionary biology
Was here but now it's gone
We'll replace it with ID
Regardless if it's really wrong
We regard it as a kind of tool
It's just a wedge to get God in school
To see how many we can fool
Saying, "join the creos..."

Come on creos ... And then they came
Flocked in droves ... We ain't no slime
Turned the clock backward in time
You'll become like we are
No need for research
You'll become like we are

Come on creos ... It's just a theory

378 posted on 05/25/2005 2:36:17 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Junior
no one would have to bother with such piddly little details.

...and so a tradition was born....

379 posted on 05/25/2005 2:36:47 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Why not?


380 posted on 05/25/2005 2:37:06 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
He thinks he's Marilyn Monroe. He tells people he's Sparticus.
381 posted on 05/25/2005 2:39:07 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
though once one vacates 'random variation' the way the definition at http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/what_is_evolution.htm does) and leaves natural selection as a tautology

I am at a loss as to why we are "abandoning" random variation, and I don't believe I can cut through this thicket of verbiage to get at it. But I am not quite ready to toss it in the trash bin, and I don't believe most biologists are, either.

We obviously have random variation to provide a base population upon which selection operates. We are recently noticing that our centuries-old assumption that the randomizer had a uniform initial distribution before selection started whittling on it, might have been off the mark.

382 posted on 05/25/2005 2:39:08 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Awesome.


383 posted on 05/25/2005 2:39:40 PM PDT by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: billorites
In response to the headline I will say this...

I appreciate any gifts God gives me, because compared to Him I am certainly and unfailingly ignorant.

Okay, carry on.

384 posted on 05/25/2005 2:40:30 PM PDT by pollyannaish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narby

As I stated, pegleg and all.


385 posted on 05/25/2005 2:41:54 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: RightWingNilla
[I'm Sparticus.] I thought you were Marilyn Monroe?

Yeah, so?

386 posted on 05/25/2005 2:43:49 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Because "evolution" only applies to the development of life, remember? It can't be used to consider an all-encompassing explanation for the universe
387 posted on 05/25/2005 2:45:34 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: ArGee

He was writing to the people of Corinth, which was quite some distance from the Holy Land. Hell, people back then believed stories of dog-faced men in Africa and that one-eyed giants inhabited some of the islands of the Mediterranean.


388 posted on 05/25/2005 2:47:53 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
This Wikipedia article has a couple of speculations, with links, at the very end. One is that certain amino acids actually bind selectively to certain codons, even without tRNA. I'm interested, if rather skeptical. More likely is the second paper, whcih suggest that the number of amino acids was once significantly smaller, and that the codon - amino acid links branched. I find this much more plausible, since it gives one an evolutionary pathway from a simpler genome.
389 posted on 05/25/2005 2:49:32 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Manticore

The manticore was first described by the ancient Greek traveller Ctesias. He tells us that the manticore had a lion's body, human face and ears, three rows of sharp teeth in each jaw and poisoned spines in its tail, which it could shoot like a porcupine.

Oddly, I believe I've seen the same description used in these posts, but about each other, not manticores.

390 posted on 05/25/2005 2:52:15 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: donh
Galileo was expressing a technical opinion about the nature of the universe in disagreement with the church . . .

His disagreement was with most of the scientific world of his day, which was, and is today, welcomed by the church insofar as science aims for the truth. Galileo was defending the views of a Catholic priest who also happened to be a scientist.

391 posted on 05/25/2005 2:54:20 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; RightWingNilla
"Why has our society so meekly acquiesced in the convenient fiction that religious views have some sort of right to be respected automatically and without question?" Dawkins asks. "If I want you to respect my views on politics, science, or art, I have to earn that respect by argument, reason, eloquence or relevant knowledge. I have to withstand counter-arguments. But if I have a view that is part of my religion, critics must respectively tiptoe away or brave the indignation of society at large. Why are religious opinions off limits in this way? Why do we have to respect them simply because they are religious?"

"Religion is the opiate of the masses." Karl Marx

Dawkins is not a Marxist.

Your opinion, I don't share it. His views are remarkably similar to Marx vis a vis religion and he is an economic lefty to boot.

Please retract.

Not in this or any other lifetime.

Richard Dawkins is a Eurotrash leftist who happens to hate religion and love the TOE. Deal with it....

Or not.

And for a bonus:

"Dear Mr Bush (I'd say President Bush if you had actually been elected),

I've been asked to give advice to you on touching down in Britain. It is this. Go home. You aren't wanted here. You aren't wanted anywhere else either, but you may have been misunderinformed that Britain was the one place where you would be welcomified. Wrong. Well, presumably your best pal Tony welcomes you. But that's about it. Your motorcades, your helicopters, your triggerhappy guards will try to protect you from the people of Britain, who would otherwise spoil the photo-ops for the folks back home. But be in no doubt. We despise you here too. After you and Jeb stole the election (by a margin smaller than the number of folks you executed in Texas) you were rightly written off as a one-term president: a fair advertisement for Drunks For Jesus but otherwise an idle nonentity; inarticulate, unintelligent, an ignorant hick. September 11 changed all that. Not that you covered yourself with glory that day. You are said to admire Churchill. Can you imagine Churchill, at such a moment, panicking all around the country from airbase to airbase? Even nasty old Rummy bunkered down where he belonged.

Never mind, your puppeteers from the Project for the New American Century recognised the opportunity they had been waiting for. September 11 was your golden Pearl Harbor. This was how you'd get elected in 2004 (not re-elected, elected). You would announce a War on Terror. American troops would win. And you would be the victorious warlord, swaggering in a flight suit before a Mission Accomplished banner.

It worked in Afghanistan. But then those puppeteers moved on to their long-term project: Iraq. Never mind that you had to lie about weapons of mass destruction. Never mind that Iraq had not the smallest connection with 9/11. The good folks back home would never know the difference between Saddam and Osama. You would ride the paranoid patriotism aroused by 9/11 all the way into Iraq, and hand out oil and reconstruction contracts to Dick Cheney's boys. That escapade is now backfiring horribly, as many of us said it would. No wonder young American travellers are sewing Canadian flags to their rucksacks. What we in Britain won't forgive is that you have dragged us down too. Go home."
Richard Dawkins
Scientist

This leftist puke is all yours. Congrats.

392 posted on 05/25/2005 2:56:08 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Bite me.

Written by the future Veteran of a Thousand Bites, no doubt.

393 posted on 05/25/2005 2:57:29 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

His ankles can take it.


394 posted on 05/25/2005 2:58:47 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Junior

frightening speed.


395 posted on 05/25/2005 3:01:08 PM PDT by King Prout (blast and char it among fetid buzzard guts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

I must confess, I wrote these and several others some time ago (I keep them on my website). Occasionally I get the opportunity to trot them out again.


396 posted on 05/25/2005 3:04:02 PM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs

Now thats funny!


397 posted on 05/25/2005 3:04:39 PM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat [Born in California, Texan by the Grace of God.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: ArGee

Why should it matter what Galileo's motives were, or why should it matter whether he was right?

The supression of ideas by authority is the greatest single crime that can be committed. Worse than rape or murder, because crimes against the body affect a limited number of people. Crimes agains free speech are crimes against the mind, the greatest gift we have.


398 posted on 05/25/2005 3:06:12 PM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM

Thank you.


399 posted on 05/25/2005 3:08:15 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: Junior

ah. cheater. I approve.


400 posted on 05/25/2005 3:09:45 PM PDT by King Prout (blast and char it among fetid buzzard guts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 2,651-2,678 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson