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

Skip to comments.

Darwin, the Idol of Richard Dawkins and His Followers
Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 2-1-2019 | Jerry Bergman, PhD

Posted on 02/01/2019 11:19:10 AM PST by fishtank

Darwin, the Idol of Richard Dawkins and His Followers

February 1, 2019 | Jerry Bergman

Richard Dawkins’ God is Charles Darwin

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

Besides owning almost every book Richard Dawkins has authored, including his newest 15th book (2017), I have watched him in many video interviews. I consider the most honest interview he gave to be the one with Ben Stein in the movie Expelled.[1] Dawkins is very frank about his beliefs and is not afraid to buck against society’s norms. His upcoming book, Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide to Atheism (2019), is aimed at children.

(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; darwin; dawkins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: humblegunner

Evolution is the development of a species. one species does not become another. A cat does not become a dog. A cucumber does not become a carrot. There are all manner of cats, dogs, carrots, and cucumbers. They are still cats, dogs, carrots, and cukes. There is no evidence that any species became a different species.


41 posted on 02/01/2019 2:07:59 PM PST by Louis Foxwell (The denial of the authority of God is the central plank of the Progressive movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Here is your conclusion:

“Hence, the offspring of those apes and monkeys would have also evolved...and so on and so on.

Or to put it another way, the general human horniness would have left no monkey behind. “

Which is totally without basis since human/monkey matings would produce no offspring.


42 posted on 02/01/2019 2:37:20 PM PST by TexasGator (Z1z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

You changed the meaning of “evolve”, therefore your argument is fallacy. Please try again.


43 posted on 02/01/2019 2:43:48 PM PST by VinnieCCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

Anton,,,
Of the Satanic Bible?

Never heard of him.


44 posted on 02/01/2019 2:46:18 PM PST by Big Red Badger (Despised by the Despicable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator
At least you get credit for trying.

Here's my conclusion:

A species evolves in a slightly more developed state. It breeds with the species slightly beneath it and from which it evolved. They produce a more evolved (that is an offspring which is slightly more evolved than the ape but not quite as evolved as the more evolved parent). Interbreeding continues with older less evolved species dying off and the newer hybrids continuing to breed and moving the whole basket of what are now hybrids up the evolutionary ladder.

Because the least evolved females continue to bear more evolved offspring and they die, the whole mixed/hybrid tribe(s) keeps moving up over time.

No humans yet...

Get the picture?


45 posted on 02/01/2019 2:53:22 PM PST by RoosterRedux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WashingtonFire

"Darwin was notorious for being incredibly flatulent. Everyone he met said he stank"


Maybe that is somehow enigmatically related to the way his book "evolved" from this


       


to this


       

46 posted on 02/01/2019 3:11:21 PM PST by Songcraft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

“Here’s my conclusion:

A species evolves ...”

I didn’t think you were an evolutionist. My bad.


47 posted on 02/01/2019 4:28:56 PM PST by TexasGator (Z1z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Your post is supposed to be funny? Child abuse is funny?


48 posted on 02/01/2019 5:20:40 PM PST by Recovering Ex-hippie (WINNING! !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
"If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?"

All mules come from horses and jackasses, so are we just imagining there's such a thing as mules, or is it the horses and jackasses that are imaginary?

49 posted on 02/01/2019 5:37:41 PM PST by Paal Gulli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

That’s a great answer. Just because something “evolved” to fit into another niche doesn’t mean it had to force out what it evolved from. It is a poor argument by creationists. BTW - I am a creationist. Not that it was all created in just 6 24-hour days, but it was created.


50 posted on 02/01/2019 5:45:49 PM PST by 21twelve (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Question For evolutionist

Created species by genetic manipulation do exist that's why you can even now patent

And certainly as science advances completely genetically engineered species from scratch will exist..

Science will be capable of pure intelligent design species

So by what Scientific methodology will you be able to test whether a species is intelligently designed/created or Naturally evolved

If you don't have such a test something was created versus something evolved you can't make the assertion that you've proved anything

2nd question

how does evolution address gay(and all are other new none reproducing new gender) as gay don't reproduce they can't be passing on that genetic trait to create more gays.

Non reproducing you can't for participate in the natural selection lottery

51 posted on 02/01/2019 7:58:11 PM PST by tophat9000 (Tophat9000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

hmmm; as opposed to organized religions, for instance...?

Yes, exactly, except that some religions, such as Islam, are cults. No Truth involved.


52 posted on 02/02/2019 12:35:16 PM PST by alstewartfan ("If I should live to be seven I might forget Stephanie." Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bigbob

Ultimately, it comes down to whether you believe that inanimate matter can spring to life, and that that “paramecium” can develop hearts, brains, kidneys, sex organs, wings, etc. over millions of years.
I call rubbish.


53 posted on 02/02/2019 12:38:00 PM PST by alstewartfan ("If I should live to be seven I might forget Stephanie." Al Stewart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Boghossian: What would it take for you to believe in God?

Dawkins: I used to say it would be very simple. It would be the Second Coming of Jesus or a great, big, deep, booming, bass voice saying “I am God.” But I was persuaded, mostly by Steve Zara, who is a regular contributor to my website. He more or less persuaded me that even if there was this booming voice in the Second Coming with clouds of glory, the probable explanation is that it is a hallucination or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield. He made the point that a supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent. It doesn’t add up to an explanation for anything. A non-supernatural Second Coming could be aliens from outer space.

[Peter Boghossian begins to speak and is in full agreement with Dawkins, arguing, for example, that if the stars spelled out a message from God, we would first have to rule out alternative explanations, like an alien trickster culture.]

Dawkins then agrees with Boghossian.

Boghossian then asks him: So that [stars aligned into a message] couldn’t be enough. So what would persuade you?

Dawkins: Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming. - https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/richard-dawkins-admits-that-nothing-can-persuade-him-god-exists/


54 posted on 02/06/2019 4:46:56 PM PST by daniel1212 (Trust the risen Lord Jesus to save you as a damned and destitute sinner + be baptized + follow Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

God would only need to speak in a still small voice into Dawkins’s heart, convince him of his sin, call him into the Life, and of course then Dawkins would be a believer.

If Dawkins is among the elect, then he would be brought to faith at some point.


55 posted on 02/07/2019 9:01:41 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 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