The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. A Review.

New Statesman ^ | 28 August 1992 | Richard Dawkins

[Blowtorch]

I'm sorry I forgot, you may not be there. Well if you're not there then this will not be the experience you have.

Your self-righteous attitude is making me sick. Remove the beam from your eyes.

[Dimensio]

Really? I'm sure you could give an example of discrepencies...

[Dimensio]

Random? No. Useless? Well...your appendix?

[Khepera]

Whats the matter. Don't like what I say? Gee whiz... get a life.

[f.Christian]

The way the real story goes...

miraculously all the pure blood goes to the saved and all the bad blood is put in the donor to be fried-eradicated in hell---

then the resurrection/eternity...

"it is finished"

[Alamo-Girl]

You said: I do realize that many Christian churches do teach the doctrine of original sin, and also the interpretation that Adam's sin was what made man mortal, even though that contradicts the notion that eating of the Tree of Life would confer immortality.

If I may interject, Genesis chapters 2 and 3 speak of two trees being in the center of the Garden of Eden. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is what Adam and Eve ate and they were banished so that they would not eat from the other tree, which is the tree of life (Genesis 2:9) Notably, the tree of life is in the center of paradise (Rev 2:7)

Since other things of great importance exist both in the spiritual realm and the natural realm in the Scriptures (ark, temple, etc.) – it appears to me that Eden and Paradise are one and the same (spiritual realm) and that Adam was banished to the natural realm (death, decay, etc.) I believe this understanding would be consistent with this Jewish teaching: Physics & Kabbalah - Unifying Two Worlds

Just my two cents…

[RadioAstronomer]

bttt

[Khepera]

The only source of truth I need to read is the Bible. I'm not locked into any dark room. It may be you who is walking in darkness but how would you know? Why would you look for truth in mans words when you have the word of God to look to?

[JediGirl]

I believe what I say is true because God told me the truth. I will act on that and ignore any heathens who wish to argue foe what do they know but the smell of their own flatulance.

I believe what I say is true because my beliefs have basis in reality and not on an alleged conversation with "god" (which god?) and a pathetic crutch that keeps you from accepting that there's no life but what we have right now and that everything you wasted your life on up until now is fake, created by man and for man.

[JediGirl]

green eggs and

HAM

I do not LIKE them F.christian

ring around the roses

[edsheppa]

and my remarks about the document he signed don't qualify as ad hominem at all

Oh damn, you're right - your remarks were a well reasoned argument against his ideas on evolution! My bad.

[beckett]

Oh damn, you're right - your remarks were a well reasoned argument against his ideas on evolution! My bad.

I don't dispute much of his evolutionary theory, with the exception of his wholly unfounded and untestable claims about 'random chance.' Despite having said the following, when it suits him he declares that the world is full of evil, all of it found among people of faith.

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, p 133

Dawkins regularly makes claims about the universe that he can't prove, from memes to "blind pitiless indifference." As Marion Montgomery has said, "he presumes an absolute comprehension of the nature of man. Thus he becomes an excellent illustration of what I shall call the provincial mind. Alas, his is an intellectual malady conspicuous among our intelligentsia: the modernist mind presuming intellectual autonomy beyond limit."

We are not as smart and you and Dawkins and the other "provincial minds" on these threads think we are.

[beckett]

As for the document Dawkins signed --- an anti-American document masquerading as an anti-Israel document --- how does that qualify as ad hominem?

Is it ad hominem to point out a man's deliberate actions?

[Khepera]

I could say all the same things about you.

[JediGirl]

That's a very intelligent and insightful response.

[AndrewC]

We are not as smart and you and Dawkins and the other "provincial minds" on these threads think we are.

I must come to edsheppa's defense on that claim. I know that is very true of others, but my dealings with edsheppa do not have any evidence of such attitudes.

[beckett]

I must come to edsheppa's defense on that claim. I know that is very true of others, but my dealings with edsheppa do not have any evidence of such attitudes

All I know about him I learned from my contact today, since we have not communicated before and I am unfamiliar with his posts. If he is not among the callow confident on these threads, I welcome the news. But he might find it useful, before he goes defending Dawkins and criticizing those who attack him, to read more of Dawkins' work to learn just who the man is --- a man of the most irksome smug, pompous and snotty self-assurance, in a style only the British have mastered, who very much fits Montgomery's definition of a "provincial mind." Men like Dawkins and Dennett limit their worldviews to phenomenological simplicities and dazzle the easily impressed by rolling arcane, and, in the end, not very interesting, data about biophysics, biochemistry and geology, all the while ignoring the 800 pound ontological gorilla in the middle of the laboratory. They dare not address questions of being --- the only questions that really count --- because they know those questions are just as mysterious and confounding in a post-einsteinian universe are they were in a pre-socratic one.

[AndrewC]

You get no argument from me on the others.

[f.Christian]

I believe what I say is true because my beliefs have basis in reality and not on an alleged conversation with "god" (which god?) and a pathetic crutch that keeps you from accepting that there's no life but what we have right now and that everything you wasted your life on up until now is fake, created by man and for man.

329 posted on 7/4/02 11:11 AM Pacific by JediGirl

fake, created by man and for man...yeah---evolution IDEOLOGY!

Creation/God...Christianity---secular-govt.-humanism!

Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values GROWTH!

Evolution...Atheism-dehumanism---TYRANNY...

Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling all the residuals---technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION--crusade/WAR--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(govt.-schools/'science')...against God--man--society!!

[f.Christian]

Evolution is a dirty needle...the infected---AIDS!