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

New Statesman ^ | 28 August 1992 | Richard Dawkins

[Khepera]

Why do they need help?

[Khepera]

Comfort where they can? Like on a fluffy pillow kind of comfort? Thats nice is it not? Still, their situation must be disturbing to them if they think about it at all.

The fact that they may not think about it would not surprise me.

[berned]

I can prove your # 59 false by the Bible. In addition to the Bible giving us God's account of Creation, it also tells us some things which are verifyable (but equally as unexplainable as the Creation).

God explained how he created a small group of people called Jews. Then he said that a Messiah would come from THAT race of people, and no other. He gave many details of this Messiah's life and death (committed to writing, in the form of Prophesy -- hundreds and hundreds of years before Christs birth)

How the Messiah would be born in one particular town -- Bethlehem. How he would be a descendent of one particular family line -- David. Prophesies about WHEN He would walk the earth, WHEN He would die. HOW He would die, etc.

Then Jesus came along in exactly the right time and place and manner. He lived and did the very things that were prophesied about Him.

If Mauve the Cat had a similar plan to verify his existence, I might believe in him too!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Perhaps the world really did bounce into existence in 8000 BC.

The world is only 43 years old.

[Woahhs]

It's kind of how like how studying electron flow in a circuit does not depend on the ultimate source of either the electricity or the components of the circuit.

I understand the rationale. Cults always have a rationale to explain their mistakes too. I'm just not buying any paradigm that hides under the banner of "science," yet gets to drop anything that doesn't support the doctrine.

Aside from that, I think your response is engaging in "distinction without difference."

[kpp_kpp]

i'm sorry but you're wrong. the answer is 42.

[Dimensio]

No, I wasn't speaking of "flufy pillow" comfort.

Why is it disturbing? We die and that's it. Poof. All gone. The experience will be identical to what we experienced before we were conceived.

I don't necessarily consider it pleasant to know that I only have a finite and relatively short time in which to experience this thing called "life", but I'd hardly call it "disturbing".

[Woahhs]

Then why was the term "law" appropriated to name certain concepts? What distinction does it signify?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL! But I have a calendar with marks on it!!

[Dimensio]

I understand the rationale. Cults always have a rationale to explain their mistakes too. I'm just not buying any paradigm that hides under the banner of "science," yet gets to drop anything that doesn't support the doctrine.

What mistakes? Evolution deals with populations of organisms. Explaining how life ultimately originated is not within its scope! It does not matter if the first life forms somehow came together from reactions in a pool of biochemicals or if they were seeded on this planet by aliens or if a divine entity zap-poofed them into existence; none of that would falsify evolution. The ultimate origins of life is irrelevant to evolution. Your argument is like saying that gravitational theory is unsound because it does not theorize on how matter came into existence.

[gdani]

We die and that's it. Poof. All gone.

Of course, you have no more evidence to back your claim than a Christian does to back his or her's.

Although I will admit that yours is the most logical and there is no real evidence to the contrary (unfortunately).

[RaceBannon]

It's a thought that dismisses Christianity. Jesus died for the sins of the world. Adam is the first man, and he was the first sinner. If we do away with Adam, we do away with the need to believe on Jesus.

Evolution does away with Christianity

[Dimensio]

Ha! Queen Maeve created the Bible and the accounts within as a test of our faith, She wanted to see how many would believe that a self-referential text constitutes "proof" of itself! You forget, since the universe was created last Thursday, anything we "think" happened before then (such as events two-thousand years ago in Bethlehem) never actually happened.

Repent and join the Church of Last Thursdayism today, lest ye be a slave to our feline masters (or worse, cast into the Eternal Litterbox which is never cleaned) on the great coming of Next Thursday.

[lews]

I agree, science should never be hindered by any ideology. The problem is, most evolutionists don't believe this. They, like you, begin with the assumption that all religion is false and dismiss any line of evidence that may assert that it (religion) is true. You accuse religionists of trying to control science while you commit the same error. For science to ever uncover the ultimate truth in the matter it must be free to study ALL avenues of evidence regardless of where it leads. You never know, it just may lead to God.

[Woahhs]

It's possibly the most erudite and elegant demolition job on junk science I can ever recall reading.

Perhaps you should read Phillip Johnson's book. I hear it does a fabulous job on that very subject.

[RaceBannon]

KR dating is not used to date fossils, but rocks.

[Dimensio]

Well, given that consciousness appears to be a result of chemical reactions within the brain and that those chemical reactions stop once the brain shuts down, there really isn't any other conclusion I can imagine without evidence that either there is something else behind human consciousness than those chemical reactions or that at the moment of death the consciousness "transforms" into something that has not yet been observed.

[Dimensio]

They, like you, begin with the assumption that all religion is false and dismiss any line of evidence that may assert that it (religion) is true.

Wrong. The theory of evolution does not state in any way that "all religion is false". Evolution, like all branches of science, deals with observations. It is not the fault of evolutionary scientists if observations seem to contradict existing religious tenets.

[kpp_kpp]

your (not necessarily you specifically) continuation to demand "natural world" evidence of things most certainly deemed "un/supernatural" is pointless.

you can no more "prove" the existence of another realm/dimension that you can disprove it. there is as much "natural" evidence of its existence as there is "natural" evidence against its existence - none.

either stance is taken purely on faith.

[PatrickHenry]

i'm sorry but you're wrong. the answer is 42.

You people make me sick. The obvious answer is 69. The answer to everything is 69.