Richard Dawkins' Compound Ignorant Mistakes

This might be an opportune moment to remind people of the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document." To wit....

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions....


Governing Goals
• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
https://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document

Seems pretty obvious that those folks accept "only one answer" - Creationism.

"Intelligent Design" is not science. There is no evidence for it, only easily defeated claims about "irreducible complexity" and misunderstandings about the Cambrian diversification. It's just Creationism and dogmatism.

Removable Mind said:

Apparently for some there’s no need for science because they believe, and totally without evidence, that there is only one necessary answer to every possible question regarding any and everything about the universe.

Click to expand...

Your words, which have been drummed into you and your groups' heads by Dawkins and the other haters attempting to claim, very dishonestly, very reprehensibly, that science and faith are mutually exclusive.

Galilei has been called the "father of modern observational astronomy", the "father of modern physics", the "father of science", and "the Father of Modern Science". (Wikipedia.org)
He was a devout Catholic throughout his lifetime.

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

MrWonderful said:

You believe Magic Nothing made everything.... it's all so... simple for you. Magic Nothing and here we are.

Listen to a lecture by Professor John Lennox as he shreds Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.
You are sure to learn something if you are one who enjoys learning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63-fkyDtOc

Click to expand...

First there was nothing...and then it exploded. That's essentially the atheist position. Ironically, atheism requires as much faith as religion. And I'm an atheist.

MrWonderful said:

HERE'S your problem. YOUR ATHEIST FRIENDS AND YOU endlessly whine about "quote mining," just as I said you do. I think that quoting someone is perfectly legitimate, provided it is accurate, it is interpreted honestly, and not taken out of context. Do those things, and quote "mine" me any time. Atheists just never do it properly because atheists are consummately dishonest.

As I said, atheists don't ever whine about ANOTHER atheist "quote mining." Find me a published example and you win $500. Go, fish.

Click to expand...

I'm an atheist and you're the first person I've ever seen whine about "quote mining."

What the hell is "quote mining" and why is it so problematic to you?

MrWonderful said:

I may as well play chess with a pigeon as try to explain anything to an atheist. I will expose your misinformation above, point by point:

1. Your claim of "without evidence" does a great disservice to the English language, reason, rationality, and science.
Countless books explain the evidence. Papers and lectures have explained the overwhelming evidence of brilliant design.

2. NOBODY but YOU ATHEISTS make the claim of "only one answer." ONLY YOU.
People of sound mind understand and embrace science, and common sense.

3. I repeat again, for many of you did not seem to get it the first few times I explained, the Ivy League Colleges were FOUNDED by Christians, whose love for learning, and science, and wisdom, moved them to spread learning, and science, and wisdom.

4. How many colleges in America have "atheism" in their Charters? Please name them and provide the *evidence* you so passionately blather about so abusively and irresponsibly.

Click to expand...

The tirade here does not magically create evidence for the existence of God. God isn't testable. There's no experiment you can run, no calculation you can make, no predictive value to test the claim. If there were, you wouldn't call it faith, would you?

What I don't understand is just how irrationally angry that makes you. Why does your faith bring you to assail the very concept of evidence? Does lack of evidence for God undermine your faith?

Religion isn't science, and there's no need to try and turn it into science. There's no conflict unless you decide there has to be one.

MrWonderful said:

You believe Magic Nothing made everything.... it's all so... simple for you. Magic Nothing and here we are.

Click to expand...

No, that is precisely what theists believe, that their god made their universe from nothing.

Waddy said:

First there was nothing...and then it exploded. That's essentially the atheist position. Ironically, atheism requires as much faith as religion. And I'm an atheist.

Click to expand...

No, you misrepresent it a bit. I don't know any atheist or agnostic that claims that what exploded came from nothing. If it was nothing, it could not explode. The questions are, where did that compressed matter that exploded come from, what compressed it, etc.

The atheist says "I'm not sure", and speculates. The theist says, "I'm sure there was God and God did it". Where God came from they can't answer, so they are actually grasping for a believable starting point just like the atheists. The atheists are looking for answers; the theists want to think they know the answers. Neither has a complete solution.

<alt>doxygen said:

No, you misrepresent it a bit. I don't know any atheist or agnostic that claims that what exploded came from nothing. If it was nothing, it could not explode. The questions are, where did that compressed matter that exploded come from, what compressed it, etc.

The atheist says "I'm not sure", and speculates. The theist says, "I'm sure there was God and God did it". Where God came from they can't answer, so they are actually grasping for a believable starting point just like the atheists. The atheists are looking for answers; the theists want to think they know the answers. Neither has a complete solution.

Click to expand...

That story in Genesis about God creating everything and everyone is a creation myth. Every culture has one. The Big Bang theory is the scientists' creation myth.

Grand Mal said:

That story in Genesis about God creating everything and everyone is a creation myth. Every culture has one. The Big Bang theory is the scientists' creation myth.

Click to expand...

Big Bang isn't a myth, creation or otherwise. It's a logical extension from the observation that everything in the universe is expanding. It follows that at one time in the past, it must have been all together in one place.

Manc Skipper said:

Big Bang isn't a myth, creation or otherwise. It's a logical extension from the observation that everything in the universe is expanding. It follows that at one time in the past, it must have been all together in one place.

Click to expand...

It's a best guess based on observation, something that could explain what's happening. To me it's the same as primitive nomads staring at the night sky and making a story that explains what they're seeing.
It might well be proven one day, but it's still a best-guess at this point.

Grand Mal said:

It's a best guess based on observation, something that could explain what's happening. To me it's the same as primitive nomads staring at the night sky and making a story that explains what they're seeing.
It might well be proven one day, but it's still a best-guess at this point.

Click to expand...

It's so easy to declare such things about a subject you obviously know absolutely nothing about. Anyone who would compare the big bang to such things lacks even superficial knowledge of the evidence gathered.

Tell me, why would you say such things about science you have never learned? Do you also discount the entire periodic table because you personally can't see atoms? Personally, I don't know the first thing about Roman history which is precisely why I don't declare things like "There's no evidence Julias Caesar existed."

Deuce said:

It's so easy to declare such things about a subject you obviously know absolutely nothing about. Anyone who would compare the big bang to such things lacks even superficial knowledge of the evidence gathered.

Tell me, why would you say such things about science you have never learned? Do you also discount the entire periodic table because you personally can't see atoms? Personally, I don't know the first thing about Roman history which is precisely why I don't declare things like "There's no evidence Julias Caesar existed."

Click to expand...

Ya know, it's my policy when some internet warrior gets in my face with personal insults to just ignore it, and probably ignore them in the future, but for some strange reason I'm going to indulge you with a response. The extent of my indulgence depends on your future responses.
Your reference to atoms is a good example. The planetary model of atoms (Bohr model) we were taught in school has been replaced a couple times. Its useful as a 'way of thinking about it' but no particle physics is done based on it anymore. Science being science, as more information becomes available and better technology brought to bear changes are made cheerfully and unapologetically. That's how it's going to work in cosmology too.
Why you would make such a condescending statement to me about not seeing atoms is beyond me, unless you're another one of those juvenile squabblers and hair-pullers and I never noticed it before.
As for Julius Caesar, we have pictures.

Grand Mal said:

Ya know, it's my policy when some internet warrior gets in my face with personal insults to just ignore it, and probably ignore them in the future, but for some strange reason I'm going to indulge you with a response. The extent of my indulgence depends on your future responses.
Your reference to atoms is a good example. The planetary model of atoms (Bohr model) we were taught in school has been replaced a couple times. Its useful as a 'way of thinking about it' but no particle physics is done based on it anymore. Science being science, as more information becomes available and better technology brought to bear changes are made cheerfully and unapologetically. That's how it's going to work in cosmology too.
Why you would make such a condescending statement to me about not seeing atoms is beyond me, unless you're another one of those juvenile squabblers and hair-pullers and I never noticed it before.
As for Julius Caesar, we have pictures.

Click to expand...

Your "indulgence" managed to fail entirely to address the point. Comparing the big bang to "primitives" telling "stories" means you are unaware of the array of observable evidence that supports the big bang.

So let's continue on Caesar. You say we have pictures. Paintings, sculptures, busts, etc, to be more precise. There's probably innumerable records, orders, declarations, and books that also support his existence. For over a thousand years the primary method of telling time in a big chunk of the world was called the Julian calender. Untold millions of lives were directly shaped by what he did, and countless more by the echoes that the Roman Empire left through history. Imagine a person completely unaware of all of that declaring "there's no evidence that Julius Caesar existed. He's just a legend, a story told by primitives." How would you even begin to respond to that?

Would you even bother?

Deuce said:

Your "indulgence" managed to fail entirely to address the point. Comparing the big bang to "primitives" telling "stories" means you are unaware of the array of observable evidence that supports the big bang.

So let's continue on Caesar. You say we have pictures. Paintings, sculptures, busts, etc, to be more precise. There's probably innumerable records, orders, declarations, and books that also support his existence. For over a thousand years the primary method of telling time in a big chunk of the world was called the Julian calender. Untold millions of lives were directly shaped by what he did, and countless more by the echoes that the Roman Empire left through history. Imagine a person completely unaware of all of that declaring "there's no evidence that Julius Caesar existed. He's just a legend, a story told by primitives." How would you even begin to respond to that?

Would you even bother?

Click to expand...

Observable evidence supported the myth in Genesis. And the Big Bang theory. That's the point. Observable evidence supported the planetary model of atoms, too, but then Max Planck observed that the colour change in heating and cooling metal didn't happen gradually, like it should, but happened like transfer of energy in packets, in quanta.
I'm aware of the observable evidence that says the universe is expanding. It's the same evidence that told those nomads that the sun revolved around the earth- the only conclusion that explains the observation.
The evidence doesn't support the theory. That would imply the theory came first. The theory supports the evidence, which is why the science is incomplete.
Got no time for Julius Caesar

Grand Mal said:

Observable evidence supported the myth in Genesis. And the Big Bang theory. That's the point. Observable evidence supported the planetary model of atoms, too, but then Max Planck observed that the colour change in heating and cooling metal didn't happen gradually, like it should, but happened like transfer of energy in packets, in quanta.
I'm aware of the observable evidence that says the universe is expanding. It's the same evidence that told those nomads that the sun revolved around the earth- the only conclusion that explains the observation.
The evidence doesn't support the theory. That would imply the theory came first. The theory supports the evidence, which is why the science is incomplete.
Got no time for Julius Caesar

Click to expand...

It's not the same evidence, and anyone claiming such is either ignorant or dishonest.

Deuce said:

Your "indulgence" managed to fail entirely to address the point. Comparing the big bang to "primitives" telling "stories" means you are unaware of the array of observable evidence that supports the big bang.

So let's continue on Caesar. You say we have pictures. Paintings, sculptures, busts, etc, to be more precise. There's probably innumerable records, orders, declarations, and books that also support his existence. For over a thousand years the primary method of telling time in a big chunk of the world was called the Julian calender. Untold millions of lives were directly shaped by what he did, and countless more by the echoes that the Roman Empire left through history. Imagine a person completely unaware of all of that declaring "there's no evidence that Julius Caesar existed. He's just a legend, a story told by primitives." How would you even begin to respond to that?

Would you even bother?

Click to expand...

All of that stuff is forgeries, and Constantine rewrote Roman history to suit himself. Same thing with all the stupid claims re the books of the New Testament. There is no proof of some 'Julius Caesar' person, it's all fake, according to so many 'rationalists'.

And, Dawkins already had his ass handed to him over this 'first there was just random chaos n stuff' argument, and proved once again he has no skills at logical debate at all, but he does have his own mob of cult followers, which seems to make him happy.

Zachariah said:

All of that stuff is forgeries, and Constantine rewrote Roman history to suit himself. Same thing with all the stupid claims re the books of the New Testament. There is no proof of some 'Julius Caesar' person, it's all fake, according to so many 'rationalists'.

And, Dawkins already had his ass handed to him over this 'first there was just random chaos n stuff' argument, and proved once again he has no skills at logical debate at all, but he does have his own mob of cult followers, which seems to make him happy.

Click to expand...

I've never heard the phrase "first there was just random chaos n stuff." That sounds like a decidedly unscientific phrase someone fed you.

Deuce said:

I've never heard the phrase "first there was just random chaos n stuff." That sounds like a decidedly unscientific phrase someone fed you.

Click to expand...

Take it up with Dawkins; he blathered on and on about everything being 'random and chaotic' in his losing debate with an 'Intelligent design' advocate, but then it all suddenly acquired a goal or something. It's his confused argument, not mine. The ID guy handed him him his ass. He's not very smart or logical.

Zachariah said:

Take it up with Dawkins; he blathered on and on about everything being 'random and chaotic' in his losing debate with an 'Intelligent design' advocate, but then it all suddenly acquired a goal or something. It's his confused argument, not mine. The ID guy handed him him his ass. He's not very smart or logical.

Click to expand...

I think your perception is biased towards the religious doctrine that is ID. You clearly don't understand the slightest bit of Dawkins' discussions if you think he was telling you the universe acquired a "goal."

Zachariah said:

Take it up with Dawkins; he blathered on and on about everything being 'random and chaotic' in his losing debate with an 'Intelligent design' advocate, but then it all suddenly acquired a goal or something. It's his confused argument, not mine. The ID guy handed him him his ass. He's not very smart or logical.

Click to expand...

I suspect you are making this up to troll. Nobody can be this ignorant and illogical.

<alt>doxygen said:

No, you misrepresent it a bit. I don't know any atheist or agnostic that claims that what exploded came from nothing. If it was nothing, it could not explode. The questions are, where did that compressed matter that exploded come from, what compressed it, etc.

The atheist says "I'm not sure", and speculates. The theist says, "I'm sure there was God and God did it". Where God came from they can't answer, so they are actually grasping for a believable starting point just like the atheists. The atheists are looking for answers; the theists want to think they know the answers. Neither has a complete solution.

Click to expand...

Neither has a complete solution but one lies about having one.

The atheist says "I don't know".

Deuce said:

The tirade here does not magically create evidence for the existence of God. God isn't testable. There's no experiment you can run, no calculation you can make, no predictive value to test the claim. If there were, you wouldn't call it faith, would you?

Click to expand...

Because you call my response a "tirade" does not make it so. The evidence for God's existence is ubiquitous. You simply reject it out of your pride and condescension. You think yourself the most supreme being in the universe. Guess what?

Deuce said:

What I don't understand is just how irrationally angry that makes you. Why does your faith bring you to assail the very concept of evidence? Does lack of evidence for God undermine your faith?

Click to expand...

I didn't assail the very concept of evidence. You spin everything to suit your agenda. That's unintelligent and anti-scientific.

You conveniently ignored my challenge of you to cite the colleges with "atheism" in their charters. That's because there aren't any.
Also read Who Really Cares by a former liberal scholar. He proves conclusively how stingy and ungenerous atheists and other Leftists are and how it hurts them personally, as well as their families and friends.

Zachariah said:

And, Dawkins already had his ass handed to him over this 'first there was just random chaos n stuff' argument, and proved once again he has no skills at logical debate at all, but he does have his own mob of cult followers, which seems to make him happy.

Click to expand...

And exceedingly wealthy from the sales of all his books, most recently as far as I know is "The God Delusion." Dawkins, the world's premier atheist, asserts there IS no God.
This refutes the claims by other atheists intent on watering down their intolerance and condescension by their claims "all we say is we don't know." That is not remotely true.
Agnostics claim they don't know. Atheists have faith that they/you DO know that there is no God. It's just a very weak faith that can't hold on to its own.

Angel said:

Ad Hominem Tribute

Richard Dawkins is an asshole of the first water. Make that "arsehole," out of respect.

I affectionately refer to him as "Dopey Dick Dawkins," or simply "Dopey Dick," in recognition of his level of religious understanding.

Anyone who defends this Dick's religious bigotry deserves mention in this tribute.​

Click to expand...

A post that tells us a lot about you and nothing about Dawkins. Not really required though, as there is already ample evidence of your childishness.