Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant (Religion bashing alert)

Times Online UK ^ | May 21, 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Creation ping list
See my profile for info

[TomB]

Evolutionists base their faith on a theory developed by scientists. The people who once thought the world was flat.

I don't think your example has it's intended effect. For your example to prove your point, scientists would still have to believe that the world is flat and refuse to believe any new evidence that the world is indeed round.

Science history is full of instances where scientists once thought one thing, only to have it proven wrong. But at that point, they (eventually, in some cases) accept the new facts and move on.

[VadeRetro]

Family names are (in Western cultures at least) carried by the male line. The studies showing "mitochondrial Eve" use genes that show only the female line. You can't prove you're related to your own father with mtDNA. That's Junior's point.

[wallcrawlr]

someone telling God how God is allowed to make the world.

I think you just arent taking Gods word for what it says. Gen 1:1, In the beginning God created...

God says he created. I'll take it thats exactly what happened. Its not putting God in a "box" its accepting what he tells us.

[flevit]

call it what you want, impressive way to rationalize away importance of a first cause.

[VadeRetro]

Science history is full of instances where scientists once thought one thing, only to have it proven wrong. But at that point, they (eventually, in some cases) accept the new facts and move on.

By doing this, not only accepting new evidence but actively seeking it all the time, science relentlessly converges on an increasingly accurate description of nature. It may never be perfectly right, but it gets very, very accurate. The people who argue that it's just some big pendulum that swings back and forth between flat-Earth and round-Earth are ignoring what is going on as a matter of their own convenience in argument. Creationism is full of intentional little errors of observation and logic like this one. Or, you could say it's full of bull.

[Manic_Episode]

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[flevit]

but I doubt you are so cavalier when YOU are the (seemingly) first cause of something. I bet you enjoy being complemented on your hard work.

[VadeRetro]

You can't prove you're related to your own father with mtDNA. That's Junior's point.

Another way of putting it, your mtDNA line can die out but your nuclear genes can be spreading around the world at the same time.

[Paisan]

Evolution definitely exists and is ongoing. Spotted owls learn to live next to Quickie Mart...

I don't think spotted owls learning to live next to the Quickie Mart is any evidence of evolution.
Should their off-spring begin to show signs of acquiring the attributes of say, a winged shopping cart, then you may have something there...

[VadeRetro]

The issue isn't whether there was a first cause and did its name start with a G. The issue is whether there is a lawful universe that apparently runs without miracles, and, if so, should some people who prefer miracles be allowed to misrepresent the evidence. I mean, we're talking about people who can't even quote honestly.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Look, I'm not gonna get into a debate about God and evolution.

I'm merely pointing out that the same people who believe that every change in the environment is "destroying the delicate balance of nature" also believe in the evolution of life to adapt to changes in the environment. Yet, they want us to curtail our activities in such a way as to freeze that same environment in place. And just for fun, they set up Christians as a convenient strawman.

[wallcrawlr]

best line of the day.

[L,TOWM]

Interesting how you "fixed the quote".

Is'nt that something the "knuckle draggers", "fundies" or whatever derisive term is your pet slander are regularly accused of doing?

I'm sure you do not hypocrisy when gazing upon it from afar. How does it look in the mirror?

[Tantumergo]

"Science depends on an objective study of verifiable phenomena."

This is precisely why Dawkins' faith in evolution is not science.

[L,TOWM]

That assertion is wrong on so many levels...

Did you ever study history? What standards of "empirical proof" did you apply to your history textbooks?

Do you believe that Julius Ceaser was stabbed to death in the Roman Senate? If so, upon what do base that belief?

[armymarinedad]

Science history is full of instances where scientists once thought one thing, only to have it proven wrong.

That is exactly my point.

[TomB]

That is exactly my point.

That science changes according to evidence? I think not.

Evolution has been studied for a century and the evidence only grows stronger.

If the evidence for evolution is as weak as implied, why aren't more scientists changing their minds, as they did with the "flat earth"?

[balrog666]

I have to say again that Dawkins nailed it, and it's utterly damning. It's why I tend to call ID the UNscience. It's about undoing--sabotaging-- someone else's hard work at discovery. It's an active tearing down of knowledge, a sweeping under the rug of evidence. "Luddite" isn't too strong a word at all.

Yep.

[PatrickHenry]

"Luddite" isn't too strong a word at all.

The problem is that Luddite isn't strong enough. Creationism/ID works at tearing down the foundations of science as diligently and as cunningly as the ACLU works to undermine the foundations of the US. One day they'll wake up and discover -- to their mutual surprise -- that they're both on the same team.

And as for your tagline, which I've quoted often (Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.) I don't thing that's strong enough either. Creationism is a cancer on Western Civilization.