You can visit my new homepage, True Freethinker, via this feed

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Richard Dawkins - Manipulating for Atheism

Please note that this essay is being moved and will be shortly reposted at True Freethinker

9 comments:

  1. Creationists come in several varieties, both Old Earth (non-Biblical literalist) Creationists and New Earth (Biblical literalist, Earth not more than 10k years old) Creationists. You pretend that all Creationists are of the YEC variety, because the existence of OECs undermine your argument.

    If ID is not a form of Creationism, how then do you explain the provenance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists"? If you've never heard the phrase, you can look it up.

    To put a finer point on it, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, the working draft of the book "Of Pandas and People" contained this definition:

    "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."

    Immediately after the Edwards decision which outlawed the teaching of Creationism in public schools, the authors of "Pandas" revised it to contain this definition:

    "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."

    Where's the difference? If, as you claim, ID is not simply a form of Creationism, then how do you explain these definitions, which were written by the creationists themselves?

    Isn't it obvious that the authors of this book simply relabeled Creationism as "Intelligent Design"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

    The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.

    The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

    "I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

    The Quest for Right series of books, based on physical science, the old science of cause and effect, has effectively dismantled the quantum additions to the true architecture of the atom. Gone are the nonexistent particles once thought to be complementary to the electron and proton (examples: neutrons, neutrinos, photons, mesons, quarks, Z's, bosons, etc.) and a host of other pseudo particles.

    To the curious, scientists sought to explain Atomic theory by introducing fantastic particles that supposedly came tumbling out of the impact between two particles, when in fact, the supposed finds were simply particulate debris. There are only two elementary particles which make up the whole of the universe: the proton and electron. All other particles were added via quantum magic and mathematical elucidation in an attempt to explain earthly phenomena without God.

    Introducing the scheme of coincidence, which by definition, "is the systematic ploy of obstructionists who, in lieu of any divine intervention, state that any coincidental grouping or chance union of electrons and protons (and neutrons), regardless of the configuration, always produces a chemical element. This is the mischievous tenet of electron interpretation which states that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

    The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a consequence, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

    The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com

    ReplyDelete
  3. Professor Dawkins can be quite justifiably described as an Atheist Supremacist as well. . .

    'The Atheist Supremacist's Song'

    aka 'I Am The Very Model Of An Atheist Supremacist'

    I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
    I'm an Intellectual, Evangelical, Godless Evolutionist
    I know the crimes of Christians, and I quote their fights historical
    From Jerusalem to Ireland, in order categorical

    I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters biological
    I understand equivocation, both scientific and theological
    About the "Holey Bible" I'm teeming with a lot o' news
    With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews

    With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
    With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
    With many fearful facts about Christians and those darn Jews

    I'm very good at bigotry and anti-religious insults
    I know the scientific names of beings animalculous
    In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
    I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

    In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
    He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

    I know God's mythic history, from Osiris to the (Day of Yule)
    I answer to my critics, I've a petty taste for ridicule
    I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus
    In comics I will fight those other gods who are so fabulous

    I can't tell undoubting Muslims from Bahá'ís or Zoroastrians
    But know the croaking chorus from those corpse-cold Unitarians
    Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's Rapical
    And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical

    And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
    And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
    And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense oh so Biblical

    Then I can write a bashing book of Biblical enormity
    And tell you ev'ry detail of Creationism's deformity
    In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
    I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

    In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
    He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

    In fact, when I know what is meant by "Babylon" and "churlish"
    When I can tell at sight a Mormon from a Whirling Dervish
    When such affairs as prayers and "crackers" I'm more wary at
    And when I know precisely what is meant by "Eat your hat"

    When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern funnery
    When I know more of tactlessness than a novice in a nunnery
    In short, when I've a smattering of fundamental strategy
    You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G

    You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
    You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
    You'll say a better atheist had never ever spat at G

    For my religious knowledge, though it's narrowy and shallowy
    Has only been brought down to the early Nineteenth century
    But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
    I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

    But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
    He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist

    ReplyDelete
  4. Robin Edgar,
    You’re a mad man, keep up the good work (and set that to music).

    C. David Parsons,
    Interesting info.

    John the Skeptic,
    Thanks for the good comments and information.
    I was actually not pretending anything.
    The term “Creationists” and “Creationism” has, for decades, referred to correlating the Bible with science in whatever form - YEC or OEC.
    So yes, ID is a form of Creationism. I have never claimed that it was not and I have previously stated that it is. Yet, now we are using creationism (lowercase) as a generic term.
    But who was the creator, how did the creator create, all at once – gradually, etc., etc., etc. are the questions that differentiate ID proponents beyond that which differentiates YEC from OEC.
    This is why there are ID proponents that are atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Moonies, etc.
    ID does not necessarily equal biblical. It only does so for those ID proponents who are also Christians.
    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dawkins says he tried to carve an olive branch from science fiction.

    Seems not to have worked.

    I'll propose an alternative:

    www.starlarvae.org

    ReplyDelete
  6. Two major out-of-context quotes from Dawkins in a single post!

    Too bad the recipient of the Casey Luskin Award for Prevarication has already been named for 2008. (Well, not named personally, to safeguard his reputation.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello, I just wanted to tell you, I've read some of your posts and I'm really liking your blog.
    I think Richard Dawkins is possibly the most overrated atheist out there, he is in fact a hypocrite that doesn't realize he's the atheist equivalent of a religious fanatic.
    Yet, he says he's the good guy and religious people are the bad guys.

    One thing that I've realized most (if not all) Richard Dawkins critics have missed are the arts.
    They all go into a scientific discussion about the existence of God. Dawkins mentioned that the world would've been much better without religion... Well, if there hadn't been any religion in the first place, there wouldn't be such beautiful works of art like la Pietá, The Last Supper, The Sistine Chapel, The Divine Comedy, and the list goes on and on.

    Of course, probably Richard Dawkins has never cared about art, I don't think he's ever cared about anything rather than selling his books and making money (just as atheists hate that "the church makes money out of the followers", see the irony?)

    It would be great if you could make one post that doesn't focus on science, one that you could see such holes in Dawkins' way of thinking from different angles such as arts or philosophy (for example, he always says there's no proof of God and that's why no one should believe. Yet there's no proof of life in other planets either and that doesn't mean there isn't... Something a little hypocritical for him to say after all these panspermia comments).

    Anyway, keep up the good work!

    Sincerely,

    A non-religious person who believes in evolution and also in the existence of a god.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Olorin,
    Thanks for your readership and comment.
    A mere assertion does not demonstrate un-contextual quotation.
    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  9. Morius,
    I am so glad that you are enjoying my chicken scratch :o)
    I will keep what you recommended.
    I should say that you may be surprised that Prof. Dawkins really enjoys the Christian arts in particular.
    For example, you should read where he states, “I'm a cultural Christian.” He particularly likes singing Christmas carols and sees in them historical/cultural meaning. I can understand his point but think it odd that he would sing such words while thinking that they are devoid of meaning.
    I could not you imagine myself singing, “Oh nothing. Oh no-one. Random change explosion. Oh bio-genesis. Lighting stuck a pond. Here we are and then we’re gone.”
    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.