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

Skip to comments.

Robert Winston criticises dangerous 'science delusion' (Dawkins et al "irresponsible" "dangerous")
The Guardian ^ | September 12, 2008 | James Randerson

Posted on 09/18/2008 9:41:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Lord Robert Winston has renewed his attack on atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, whose arguments he said were "dangerous", "irresponsible" and "very divisive".

The science populariser and fertility expert said...

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: antichristian; antitheist; atheism; atheistsurpemacist; creation; evolution; intelligentdesign; religiousintolerance

1 posted on 09/18/2008 9:41:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

ping!


2 posted on 09/18/2008 9:42:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Great post!

Once again, we’re in agreement.


3 posted on 09/18/2008 9:46:16 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Lord Robert Winston has renewed his attack on atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, whose arguments he said were "dangerous", "irresponsible" and "very divisive".

More to the point that are ignorant and wrong. It's frustrating when people write books that were pre-refuted by literature already existing that they are too arrogant to read and digest, as is the case with these village idiots. It's no wonder the better class of atheists are beside themselves with frustration at the philosophical naivity of the Dawkins/Dennett/Hitchens/Harris intellectual dwarfs.

4 posted on 09/18/2008 9:46:16 AM PDT by Liberty1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

Thank you. It’s nice to see mainstream scientists start to push back.


5 posted on 09/18/2008 9:56:57 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970

Not to mention recently former atheists like Anthony Flew:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2048535/posts


6 posted on 09/18/2008 10:06:26 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Puh-leeze. This guy is kind of like the people who say that it’s “divisive” and “mean” to (for example) connect Obama to Reverrund Wright.


7 posted on 09/18/2008 10:09:11 AM PDT by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

So you think it’s ok for materialists like Dawkins et al to pretend their religious assumptions are scientific?


8 posted on 09/18/2008 10:30:59 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


9 posted on 09/18/2008 10:56:05 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Christopher Hitchens

Mr. Hitchen's rebuttal will be forthcoming, once the hangover wears off.

10 posted on 09/18/2008 11:15:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Here they come boys! As thick as grass, and as black as thunder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

When I disbelieve that Mohammed flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse, am I making a religious assumption?


11 posted on 09/18/2008 11:32:17 AM PDT by notfornothing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Speaking of rebuttals, did you notice that Richard Dawkins FINALLY agreed to debate Dinesh D’Souza? And on al-Jazeera no less! Apparently, al-Jazeera asked Dawkins to come and debate the existence of God, but he didn’t know he would be facing D’Souza, the man he had been dodging all this time. To back out would make him look like the coward that he really is, so once he learned who he would be facing, he called back in a panic and demanded some format changes. For more, see the following...LOL! :

http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera


12 posted on 09/18/2008 11:43:02 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: notfornothing

==When I disbelieve that Mohammed flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse, am I making a religious assumption?

That all depends on the reason why you disbelieve it.


13 posted on 09/18/2008 11:46:18 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

LOL!

I loved D’Souza’s book. Simple and to the point.


14 posted on 09/18/2008 11:47:13 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Because there’s no evidence to believe it. If someone could present evidence, then I’d be glad to change my mind.


15 posted on 09/18/2008 11:52:24 AM PDT by notfornothing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
I thought it was awesome too. Have you seen D’Souza’s debates with Christopher Hitchens? Classic!
16 posted on 09/18/2008 11:56:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; notfornothing

When I disbelieve that life developed naturalistically via proposed mechanisms that are flatly contradictory to actual, empirical scientific knowledge, am I making a religious assumption?


17 posted on 09/18/2008 11:58:35 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Here they come boys! As thick as grass, and as black as thunder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
actual, empirical scientific knowledge

Such as......

Are you saying that disbelief in the story about Mohammad requires subscribing to religious dogma?

18 posted on 09/18/2008 12:02:38 PM PDT by notfornothing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: notfornothing
Such as......

Such as the fact that you can't polymerise amino acids in an ocean, for one, which is the basic theory behind naturalistic abiogenesis. Also, the fact that any amino acids produced in any "Miller-Urey" type early-earth lightning bolt action would be a racemic mix totally unsuitable to incorporation into life proteins. Or the fact that the only "evidence" to date for any kind of possible auto-organisation of potential life molecules involves carefully-chosen experimental conditions which have no relevance to anything appearing on earth. I can name others, this is just off the top of my head in a thirty second thought-flash. Naturalistic abiogenesis is utter flaming nonsense.

Are you saying that disbelief in the story about Mohammad requires subscribing to religious dogma?

I'm not saying anything about the Mohammed story. I don't care about the Mohammed story. It's called "getting you back on topic".

19 posted on 09/18/2008 12:48:24 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Here they come boys! As thick as grass, and as black as thunder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Evolutionary theory starts “in the middle”; the fact that life exists is assumed as a starting point, much as the science of physics rests on the assumption that matter exists, without speculation about where it came from.

Re: being off topic- my original post was about the dubious assumption that skepticism about religious dogma is itself religious dogma. You brought abiogenisis into it.


20 posted on 09/18/2008 1:04:23 PM PDT by notfornothing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: notfornothing

abiogenisis ——> abiogenesis


21 posted on 09/18/2008 1:06:02 PM PDT by notfornothing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: notfornothing
Evolutionary theory starts “in the middle”; the fact that life exists is assumed as a starting point, much as the science of physics rests on the assumption that matter exists, without speculation about where it came from.

Nice try, but both are involved in the overarching philosophy of evolutionism, which is what I critique. Anyone familiar with the literature knows that discussions of abiogenesis fit neatly and extensively into the overall discussion of evolution and origins - the attempt to single out natural selection, define it solely as "evolution" and then argue that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution is simply intellectually dishonest circular reasoning.

Re: being off topic- my original post was about the dubious assumption that skepticism about religious dogma is itself religious dogma. You brought abiogenisis into it.

That's because the underlying issue to what the thread is actually about is evolutionism, upon which the topic of abiogenesis bears directly.

22 posted on 09/18/2008 1:39:13 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Here they come boys! As thick as grass, and as black as thunder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

I’m sorry, I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that evolution necessarily entails belief in abiogenesis. Otherwise, why resort to the term “evolutionism” as an “overarching philosophy” that necessarily includes evolution (as I understand it, the change in allele frequencies over time)? It seems to me that introducing a new term and then saying that *that’s* what you’re critiquing is just moving the goalposts.

Personally I think the only scientifically tenable position is to remain agnostic about the ultimate origins of life. Certainly the fact that science hasn’t conclusively demonstrated that abiogenesis occurred isn’t proof that it didn’t occur.

As far as what the underlying issue of the thread is, I guess we just read the article two different ways. I took it as a criticism of the methods of people like Dawkins (a criticism I agree with) and some oblique references to the nature/nurture debate and the role of science in technology. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


23 posted on 09/18/2008 2:44:52 PM PDT by notfornothing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

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