The Daily "140" Insight: Richard Dawkins on Evolution

"Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun."

Richard Dawkins 

Image credit: tjipdejong's photostream

Comments

[Allan W Janssen]

We call religious nuts "fanatics" and "extremists" and "foundamentalists" so what can we call people like Richard Dawkins who are just as fervent about atheism?
Opportunists?

[Mark Susskind]

They would be fanatics, extremists, and fundamentalists, too, I have even called them zealots. One could call them secular fundamentalists{etc.} or anti-religion zealots{etc.}, but it's only labeling. Why we are compelled to label people is a mystery to me.

[Daniel]

I call them the voice of reason.

[man]

Mark Susskind, people are 'compelled' to label others in order to cause seperation amongst the population. (Sort of like 1984) Some of our culture has been influenced due to the evil desires of corrupted man. Both major political parties are corrupted on a need to know basis, by powerful families/groups pulln the strings, in order to obtain complete control and continue their evil ways while unknowingly striving for greater evil. They think they are the good ones.... if only they really knew. Their logic is totally off, which makes them easily corrupted.

[man]

As for the THEORY of evolution, it is all speculation. I will only accept such theory if the 'missing link' was ever found. For all i know humanoids have been here a very long time. As for homo-sapians, probably not so long.

[Cassandra]

"We call religious nuts "fanatics" and "extremists" and "foundamentalists" so what can we call people like Richard Dawkins who are just as fervent about atheism?
Opportunists?"

Bigots.

Atheism is a prejudice, with all the same symptoms of any other prejudice. Atheists reject the testimony of people of faith about their experiences, just as homophobes reject the testimony of gays and lesbians about their experiences. Atheists chose to reject experiential evidence solely on the grounds of who is having the experiences. Like other kinds of bigots, it is common for atheists to express their desire for a world where what they reject is completely absent, by force if necessary, regardless of anyone else's rights or opinions.

That is bigotry.

Atheism isn't based on science, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, since God, by definition, is something beyond what is material and quantifiable, outside the limits of science.

There is no "reason" in atheism either. 99% of humanity experiences that thing that in English is called God, atheism declares that all of those billions of people are just wrong, for no reason. That is not reason. Occam's razor indicates that if most people are experiencing something, something exists for them to experience, while the idea that most of humanity is delusional is the least likely scenario.

One thing that always strikes me when I read Mr. Dawkins' remarks, or those of other fundamentalist atheists on the web -

how much they sound like "ex-gays" in the kinds of arguments they make, the defenses they make, the kinds of distortions they use, and the contempt for anyone who won't do as they say.

[SB]

When I see the empirical proof that life started from non-life I might climb aboard. Until then I have to ask "What if life didn't/couldn't start from non-life?" Life's origin is scientifically the fundamental starting point not to be dismissed.

That leads to the point: is it evolution by chance or is it evolution by design? Life's origin will define the correct qualifier.

Somewhat understanding cellular chemistry and biology I would consider it a fantastic leap of faith (foolish)to put all my eggs in any one speculative basket.

[Marcio Gualtieri]

"We call religious nuts "fanatics" and "extremists" and "foundamentalists" so what can we call people like Richard Dawkins who are just as fervent about atheism?
Opportunists?

Posted by: Allan W Janssen | May 20, 2010 at 09:09 AM"

I can't figure why expressing an opinion contrary to yours offend you so much. As Richard Dawkins, I don't believe in God myself and the fact that you do does not offend me a bit.

[Nilu]

To believe in God and spiritualism is sheer psychological escape by the minds that lack robust intelligence and urge to inquire with openness. It is an easy and intellectually lazy refuge that many like to have. The religious bigots tend to live in their belief-caves away from the light of truth and reality.

Someone inquired whether we were the creation of God. J. Krishnamurti, the great thinker, replied: "It’s the other way around. God is our creation and not that we are his creation. I wish we were, then we would have been different!"

[SB]

"To believe in God and spiritualism is sheer psychological escape by the minds that lack robust "

The same could be said about the person who encapsulates and limits the universe(s) to their knowledge of it.

[Daniel]

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Isaac Asimov

[Artunin]

Intelligent design : The theory from ancient hebrew texts, is the middle ground.
Science may very well prove the existence of god, with a theory of everything. Although I doubt it will be formula of physics alone. And if the gravaton is found, how many more questions do we ask ?
PS SB where can I read more of your writing>

[Ramkumar]

@ Cassandra. I regret to say that in a site like daily galaxy
Which provides articles that helps in uncovering the secrets of the universe, Ur comments are too senseless that no wonder Atheists are making mockery of believers. Pls re analyze Ur comments below

1)99% of humanity experiences that thing that in English is called God, atheism declares that all of those billions of people are just wrong, for no reason..

What sought of experience?How can we conceive some thing as truth just because majority are believing .Before Bruno majority believed that earth was the centre of the universe. (Poor Bruno was burned at stake and every discovery of an extra solar planet by kepler and corot is a nail in the coffin of religion ) if scientific truth were decided upon majority vote there would have been no progress in understanding the laws of physics and universe .It progressed from the contributions of Hypatias and not by the burning of library of alexandria by religious fanatics who were the majority at that time

Atheism is a prejudice (cassan)

All most all the religious guys cling to a particular religion by birth and consider it as truth for their ancisters,fore fathers believed so .That is the real prejudice.

I find that most of the believers are not intellectually fulfilled and are just text book beleivers..may be with partitioned brain structures ..

In a site like daily galaxy instead of providing ridiculous arguments ..at least u could have talked about anthropic principle or against dawkins support of Lee smolins' cosmological natural selection a theory which is still in its infancy(and had not reached its convincing level)to have at least a sensible level of criticism against atheists ..

Pls find the below video of a girl suffering from temporal epilepsy .There are millions of believers who considers this as a talk with God ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqLvV21tsdw&feature=player_embedded

[Daniel]

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism, exposing the fraudulent claims on which the creationism movement is based.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

[Marcio Gualtieri]

""To believe in God and spiritualism is sheer psychological escape by the minds that lack robust "

The same could be said about the person who encapsulates and limits the universe(s) to their knowledge of it.
Posted by: SB | May 21, 2010 at 04:39 AM"

"We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact. The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths; of exquisite interrelationships; of the awesome machinery of nature." - Carl Sagan