Do You Think That Richard Dawkins Is Being Too Evangelical About Evolution?

Question

We normal people think that the theory of evolution is at best unproven and at worst a load of C**p. And that is a capital C.

Answer 1

Richard is an Atheist. He uses his position to spout atheist propaganda. It is comparable to if Einstein made reading the Talmud a requirement of Quantum Physics.

Answer 2

You say "evolution is at best unproven and at worst a load of C**p"

That's as opposed to the idea of God and the theory of Intelligent Design which are proven facts, are they?

If I understand Richard Dawkins' point of view correctly, he sees a significant proportion of the population being brainwashed into believing what amounts to a fairytale, rather than a rational, scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

I tend to agree with him.

For those who haven't read enough on the theory of evolution to be able to form an opinion, let's lighten it to a debate about the form of planet Earth.

Theory A) states that the Earth is a sphere that spins on its axis once per day and orbits the Sun once per year.

Theory B) states that the Earth is a flat disc that rests on the backs of 4 huge elephants that in turn stand on the back of a gigantic turtle, that swims through space.

How would you feel if your children were being taught theory B) in school science classes as equally valid as theory A)?

This is what we are facing with the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate. The former is a valid scientific theory, supported by 150 years of research. The latter is a hypothesis invented with the sole aim of establishing God as the creator of life on Earth. And of course, the first thing that such a hypothesis must be able to do, is prove the existence of God. Since it cannot hope to do this, it should not be considered alongside Evolution in a scientific context.

Answer 3

Einstein once said "Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame." - I agree

First off, evolution is a fact it happens every day - even inside us.

Microbes become resistant to drugs in as little as a few days because the drug kills all the microbes that are affected or will be affected and a few alway survive the survivors microbes live on and reproduce , they are now said to be resistant to the 1st drug and you must be given a second drug to get better. It's simple survival of the fittest, it does not mean best or strongest.

Darwin, simply proposed a theory to explain how this happens. Dozens of other theories have been proposed and have been shot down because they were either proven wrong or disproven in some other way based on merit.

Still other theories were very close or complemented Darwins' original theory and are now integrated into human kind's understanding of the universe.

Furthermore, computer scientists are now using the mathematical models to develop a mathematics and scientific way of describing evolution, when that basic research is completed (in probably another 20 or 30 years) we will have a comprehensive description of how evolution works , a mathematics to describe and prove it.

The nature of the mathematics even suggest that it might be possible to predict what the results of evolution might be in the future.

It's just the case that right now the mathematics involved are too complicated for humans to understand at this time.

HOWEVER, you make a very good point, Richard Dawkins and several other renowned scientists have recently made very provocative and frankly unconstructive statements decrying the role of religion in society and this is a direct result of the undue political influence of the evangelical community on the political process of the United States and more generally the very disasterous effects that a minority religious viewpoint (al Quaeda) can hold against a society given the advent of WMD usage and the unfortunately creative use of non-conventional weapons.

Religion and religiosity are used as tools to manipulate people and have been for all of human history.

Dawkins and others are "Evangelical" in their view because they see a future based on fear and suspicion not rational discourse. They sense an urgency of mission for various reasons. I personally find their viewpoint is unacceptable because they are too strident in their views against religion.

Personally I feel that rational examination of problems and consenus on action are the only way to survive ourselves in the long term. Given the perilous level of scientific advancement and the increasing ease with which we can destroy ourselves and given the historical misuse of religion to justify bad actions , it doesn't speak well of homo sapiens as a long term investment.

From Dawkins perspective, they imagine a not unrealistic nightmare scenario, envision for a moment a world where the US had a president who promises to unleath "the appocolypse" and to "massively" retaliate against a nuclear terrorist attack against the US beleiving it is their duty to represent Christiandom.

Let us further imagine the day that Mr. Bin Ladin or some other fanatic, or an enemy of both parties used a crude nuclear weapon in some US city. All it would take is the president to make a single irrational decision if he/she became unhinged or vengeful and ordered a massive nuclear strike against even as few as a dozen sites in the Middle East.

Other countries would probably be forced to respond, We would then respond to their attacks - if we could. In a day or two human history would be changed forever.

Civilization would almost certainly collapse. Billions would die of starvation and radiation poisoning within a few weeks. Crops would fail, economic collapse. It would be bad all around and whether you believe or not you would have your apocolypse. No saving grace, no gates of heaven opening up for the good and the just. Just megadeath an cities full of the unburied dead. For decades if not centuries it would be a world that would remind us of an ultraviolent bad Mad Max rerun.

Do you suppose that ANYTHING I just mentioned about such an attack is really all that far fetched, It's not happy , it's maybe not really probable but it's not utterly unbelievable either.

That is what motivates Mr. Dawkins and others to their opinions.

What for instance could we say a thousand years later when some survivor asks why did Country A attack Country B, they won't care about the Bush Doctrine or what Mr. Bin Ladin wished this for the Muslim peoples of the word. They will just know that we screwed ourselves for a reason which can never be justified, they won't care why.

Also, for a very qualified and good examination of the similarly unforgivable dangers of a RATIONAL use of WMD see "The Fog of War".

Answer 4

Yes, and I think he is doing a grave disservice to science.
Science is about truth. Dawkins (and others like Steve Jones) propogate the false idea that creation is unscientific simply because it starts from a different philosophical standpoint.

The fact is that all scientists have exactly the same evidence - which exists in the present. Evolutionists and creationists choose to interpret the evidence from within different worldviews.

The evolution/creation debate is not science v religion, it is the science of one religion v the science of another religion.

Dawkins wants to define science on his own atheistic terms. Creationists, in general, have a much more open approach, and want the public to see both points of view. Let people see for themselves whether evolution of creation is a better explanation of the evidence we see.

PS. Evolution (microbe-to-man) is definitely not a proven fact - and definitely cannot be seen to be occuring every day. If that were the case then there would be no debate!
What we see every day is natural selection. Evolution requires a vast increase in genetic infomration over time. The proposed mechanism is mutations, yet no observed mutation has ever added information. On the contrary - mutations cuase devolution.

The confusion of natural selection and evolution is a deception cleverly and successfully perpetrated by Dawkins et al.

Answer 5

I love all Dawkins's work, but I do accept that he has a tendency to mix up two completely separate things.

One is evolution. Dawkins is completely correct to say that evolution is as proven as anything can ever be in science. There is a mountain of evidence, very convincing explanations for that evidence, and no evidence that conflicts with evolution. Dawkins's books, including The Selfish Gene and An Ancestor's Tale, go some way to explaining that evidence - you would be well advised to read one of them.

The second is religion. I happen to agree with Dawkins on religion - but you don't have to agree with him on this to accept evolution as truth. It is quite possible to be religious and accept evolution, as some prominent people do, including 10,000 Christian clergy who have signed a letter supporting evolution and its teaching in schools (see http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm ).

Answer 6

There are mountains and mountains of evidence behind evolution. It's as factual as it gets in the world of science. Any open minded individual who's not clouded by religion can see that. If by normal, you mean closed minded and uneducated, then yeah it's unproven and a load of crap.

Answer 7

I'm not sure it is totally the right method that Dawkins is using, but he is just trying to stop creationist C**p (with a capital C) being passed off as science.

Normal people?

Answer 8

I believe in evolution but I allow for the belief in God. I think that Richard Dawkins is being a bit over the top when he says that religion should not be tolerated at all. Yet I see his point that had he not been arguing this, we wouldn't be discussing the topic in the same light.

Answer 9

I don't know him. I don't know what he's talking about.

I "abso-bloody-lutely" do not believe in evolution. I cannot picture myself as a descendant of a specie lesser than me.

Come to think of this, if we indeed evolve from this specie how come we haven't seen any that of that happening now? I agree it's a capital C! And maybe he's a Neanderthal...?

I believe I am created by a Supreme Being through my parents. They may not be perfect as I am not perfect but my faith in this will not and cannot falter.

Answer 10

Unproven as evolution is, I think in some backhanded way it could be feasible. I don't think it's as black and white as a debate between theism and atheists.