• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Richard Dawkins is a eugenicist

NWO_Spook said:
As are yours, for he asserts no such thing.
Click to expand...

Sure he did. He said there was no god involved in the origin of life on earth even if aliens from another planet or something else was. Furthermore, he claimed there is no scientific evidence anywhere that intelligence was involved in the design.
 
marke said:
Sure he did. He said there was no god involved in the origin of life on earth even if aliens from another planet or something else was. Furthermore, he claimed there is no scientific evidence anywhere that intelligence was involved in the design.
Click to expand...

It is correct that there is no such evidence.

I will grant that the level of luck earth and humanity seem to have is very very suspicious. lots of highly lucky things mean we are here at all and only just as another few million years would result in there not being enough CO2 for trestrial plant life...
 
marke said:
Sure he did. He said there was no god involved in the origin of life on earth even if aliens from another planet or something else was. Furthermore, he claimed there is no scientific evidence anywhere that intelligence was involved in the design.
Click to expand...

Well, that's quite a goal post shift and there's nothing wrong with his statement there, for it is reasonable. He did not say that ignorance was involved in he design as you claimed, for it assumes there was design in the first place, which he would not do, as there is no scientific evidence for such a belief system.
 
NWO_Spook said:
Well, that's quite a goal post shift and there's nothing wrong with his statement there, for it is reasonable. He did not say that ignorance was involved in he design as you claimed, for it assumes there was design in the first place, which he would not do, as there is no scientific evidence for such a belief system.
Click to expand...

Agnostics who claim they don't know anything sure do seem to like to criticize those who do know some things.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
What a vile and disgusting person. Can we please start ostracizing bigots like Dawkins from the secular humanist community and stop putting them on intellectual pedestals?
Click to expand...
:roll:

For those who can't read, this is what he actually wrote:

It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.

For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work. Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.

A eugenic policy would be bad. I’m combating the illogical step from “X would be bad” to “So X is impossible”. It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight it on moral grounds. Deny obvious scientific facts & we lose – or at best derail – the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom