Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (ID propaganda)

[With Motion]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

His publishers? No, sorry, The Root of All Evil was a television series written and presented by Richard Dawkins.

wikipedia

In January 2006, Dawkins presented a two-part television documentary entitled The Root of All Evil?, (a title in which Dawkins had no say and with which he has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction)[58]

58. ^ "The Jeremy Vine Show", BBC Radio 2, January 5, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-11.

[Reverend Smooth]

Steampunk Patashu

RmntcArtst

What is your personal view on ID vs. Evo?

Evolution is sound science, ID isn't. ID is religious in nature, relations and in principle, evolution isn't.

There is no versus, as the processes are only tangentially linked anyway. You could believe in ID AND evolution with no problem.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

With Motion

Blind Guardian the 2nd

His publishers? No, sorry, The Root of All Evil was a television series written and presented by Richard Dawkins.

wikipedia

In January 2006, Dawkins presented a two-part television documentary entitled The Root of All Evil?, (a title in which Dawkins had no say and with which he has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction)[58]

58. ^ "The Jeremy Vine Show", BBC Radio 2, January 5, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-11.

Then he could have not done the show, but seeing as the show is about how the world would be better off without religion you can pretty much say that he has a pretty ******** low opinion of it.

[With Motion]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

With Motion

Blind Guardian the 2nd

His publishers? No, sorry, The Root of All Evil was a television series written and presented by Richard Dawkins.

wikipedia

In January 2006, Dawkins presented a two-part television documentary entitled The Root of All Evil?, (a title in which Dawkins had no say and with which he has repeatedly expressed his dissatisfaction)[58]

58. ^ "The Jeremy Vine Show", BBC Radio 2, January 5, 2006. Retrieved on 2008-04-11.

Then he could have not done the show, but seeing as the show is about how the world would be better off without religion you can pretty much say that he has a pretty ******** low opinion of it.

ofcourse, I just thought I'd point it out.

[A Confused Iguana]

Reverend Smooth

Steampunk Patashu

RmntcArtst

What is your personal view on ID vs. Evo?

Evolution is sound science, ID isn't. ID is religious in nature, relations and in principle, evolution isn't.

There is no versus, as the processes are only tangentially linked anyway. You could believe in ID AND evolution with no problem.

Then what of the centerpiece, irreducible complexity (IC): systems so complicated that they simply could not have evolved? Ignoring how the IC argument is essentially an argument from ignorance, the principle motivation to support the concept of an intelligent designer is the failure of evolutionary theory and methodological naturalism to explain these systems. Evolutions fails, therefore design; it would be intellectually bankrupt to support ID — as it is conceived by it creators — and evolutionary theory. Of course, we can accept evolutionary theory and still maintain that this is the work of a supernatural agent — like theistic evolution — but the core of ID is that evolutionary theory itself is not up to the task.

[Redem]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

His publishers? No, sorry, The Root of All Evil was a television series written and presented by Richard Dawkins.

Producers then, I mis-typed.

I know it's a series of tv programs.

The point stands.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Have you read the God Delusion? His arrogant approach to religion is presented pretty clearly in that.

Arrogant? No. I have read it, and it rarely deals with religion, so much as theology.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

As someone interested in human biology I've run across Dawkins a few times in book form, and any book he's written that's not about animal biology or human anatomy is a complete waste of time, because he thinks that zoology qualifies him to talk about other subjects as a monolith of knowledge. I dislike him because of the crap he comes up with, crap that most of the public believe because they don't know better.

He is a biologist, and capable of educating himself on something outside of the speciality of his PHD studies.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Then he could have not done the show, but seeing as the show is about how the world would be better off without religion you can pretty much say that he has a pretty ******** low opinion of it.

The title was decided after the documentary was filmed, by which point he was presumably contractually obliged.

The point of the show, of course, was that religious moderation wraps religious extremism in a protective blanket, and leads to a lot of the evil in the world.

[kimgofelements]

Don't be unfair to another person.For god's sake's.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

A Confused Iguana

Reverend Smooth

Steampunk Patashu

RmntcArtst

What is your personal view on ID vs. Evo?

Evolution is sound science, ID isn't. ID is religious in nature, relations and in principle, evolution isn't.

There is no versus, as the processes are only tangentially linked anyway. You could believe in ID AND evolution with no problem.

Then what of the centerpiece, irreducible complexity (IC): systems so complicated that they simply could not have evolved? Ignoring how the IC argument is essentially an argument from ignorance, the principle motivation to support the concept of an intelligent designer is the failure of evolutionary theory and methodological naturalism to explain these systems. Evolutions fails, therefore design; it would be intellectually bankrupt to support ID — as it is conceived by it creators — and evolutionary theory. Of course, we can accept evolutionary theory and still maintain that this is the work of a supernatural agent — like theistic evolution — but the core of ID is that evolutionary theory itself is not up to the task.

That's not an argument at all. neutral Saying "THIS IS TOO COMPLICATED, IT COULDN'T HAVE EVOLVED" is ironic seeing no-one is considering just how complicated the mechanics of an all powerful, all present and all knowing being that transcends time and space would be.

[A Confused Iguana]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Then he could have not done the show, but seeing as the show is about how the world would be better off without religion you can pretty much say that he has a pretty ******** low opinion of it.

His thesis is that the unsophisticated and uncritical mind can do all manner of harm as a result of anti-rational thinking. I find it very hard to disagree with his point here.

The problem is not the religion, the problem is certain believers. Professor Dawkins is right to point out that anti-rational and uncritical thought is dangerous, he is wrong to think it would just go away if we simply removed religion.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Redem

Blind Guardian the 2nd

His publishers? No, sorry, The Root of All Evil was a television series written and presented by Richard Dawkins.

Producers then, I mis-typed.

I know it's a series of tv programs.

The point stands.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Have you read the God Delusion? His arrogant approach to religion is presented pretty clearly in that.

Arrogant? No. I have read it, and it rarely deals with religion, so much as theology.

Blind Guardian the 2nd

As someone interested in human biology I've run across Dawkins a few times in book form, and any book he's written that's not about animal biology or human anatomy is a complete waste of time, because he thinks that zoology qualifies him to talk about other subjects as a monolith of knowledge. I dislike him because of the crap he comes up with, crap that most of the public believe because they don't know better.

He is a biologist, and capable of educating himself on something outside of the speciality of his PHD studies.

He's a biologist, not a philosopher, and a biologist who is wrong on many points also. He's a reductionist also, who has no idea of how religion interacts with people on a social level, yet thinks he's apt to comment on it. Just because he is capable of educating himself on the subject does not mean he has. As a biological scientist he has inadvertantly ******** his perspectives of how one must assess society empirically. The fact that Dawkins has shifted from zoology to commenting on human action (which he knows nothing about) pissed me off to begin with, but he now thinks he was so good at commenting on human action (which he wasn't) that he should now branch into why people should not believe in God (when, if he knew anything about assessing human behaviour, there is no such thing as what people "should" believe).

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

A Confused Iguana

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Then he could have not done the show, but seeing as the show is about how the world would be better off without religion you can pretty much say that he has a pretty ******** low opinion of it.

His thesis is that the unsophisticated and uncritical mind can do all manner of harm as a result of anti-rational thinking. I find it very hard to disagree with his point here.

The problem is not the religion, the problem is certain believers. Professor Dawkins is right to point out that anti-rational and uncritical thought is dangerous, he is wrong to think it would just go away if we simply removed religion.

Ironic that he's guilty of unrational though himself by thinking removing religion will set the world right, hm?

[Harvested Sorrow]

A Confused Iguana

The problem is not the religion, the problem is certain believers. Professor Dawkins is right to point out that anti-rational and uncritical thought is dangerous, he is wrong to think it would just go away if we simply removed religion.

I don't believe he thinks it would just go away if we removed religion; he's been questioned on this before and admits that no, the end of religion is not the end of irrationality. He views religion as a problem since the tenets of many religions support being anti-rational and not using critical thinking by telling people that they must take various things to be ultimate truth on faith alone with no evidence to back it up, which makes them a breeding ground for irrational thought, and thus, removing it would be a step in the right direction. I have trouble disagreeing with him on this matter, beyond thinking that he has the tendency to conflate religion with theism, like most people seem to.

[Harvested Sorrow]

Blind Guardian the 2nd

A Confused Iguana

Blind Guardian the 2nd

Then he could have not done the show, but seeing as the show is about how the world would be better off without religion you can pretty much say that he has a pretty ******** low opinion of it.

His thesis is that the unsophisticated and uncritical mind can do all manner of harm as a result of anti-rational thinking. I find it very hard to disagree with his point here.

The problem is not the religion, the problem is certain believers. Professor Dawkins is right to point out that anti-rational and uncritical thought is dangerous, he is wrong to think it would just go away if we simply removed religion.

Ironic that he's guilty of unrational though himself by thinking removing religion will set the world right, hm?

Please show me where he has ever claimed that removing religion = instant fix.

I'm also curious about your credentials when it comes to discussing sociological and anthropological subjects since you made some rather strong statements in your previous post about him that indicate an in-depth knowledge of the subject on your part.

[Blind Guardian the 2nd]

Harvested Sorrow

Please show me where he has ever claimed that removing religion = instant fix.

I'm also curious about your credentials when it comes to discussing sociological and anthropological subjects since you made some rather strong statements in your previous post about him that indicate an in-depth knowledge of the subject on your part.

Oh, it's not an instant fix. Perhaps I should have said he's ignorant for thinking it would have fixed anything.

My credentials? I'm a Social Anthropology student at the University of Brunel in London, England. I study under Adam Kuper, a leading anthropologist who has met many of the great anthropologists of the 20th century such as Claude Levi-Strauss, Margaret Meade and Evans-Pritchard. While I may not be an accomplished publisher of Academia, I can at the very least cite you numerous texts which I have used in my studies which show how very little Dawkins knows about human interaction and social behaviour, but THINKS he knows about human behaviour because of his background in evolutionary science.

[A Confused Iguana]

Harvested Sorrow

A Confused Iguana

The problem is not the religion, the problem is certain believers. Professor Dawkins is right to point out that anti-rational and uncritical thought is dangerous, he is wrong to think it would just go away if we simply removed religion.

I don't believe he thinks it would just go away if we removed religion; he's been questioned on this before and admits that no, the end of religion is not the end of irrationality. He views religion as a problem since the tenets of many religions support being anti-rational and not using critical thinking by telling people that they must take various things to be ultimate truth on faith alone with no evidence to back it up, which makes them a breeding ground for irrational thought, and thus, removing it would be a step in the right direction. I have trouble disagreeing with him on this matter, beyond thinking that he has the tendency to conflate religion with theism, like most people seem to.

He is very cumbersome and heavy handed in his prose. A philosopher he is not. Still, he makes for interesting reading.

I'd like to know what is wrong with being a reductionist? Essentially, if reductionism is false then there must exist some dualistic property in the universe. Which is the bigger leap?