Richard Dawkins is the Best Argument for Religion (article)

[GuyNextDoor]

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. From what I have read, he regards religion as unprovable. He also regards religions as sources of conflict and hindrances of progress, peace, and scientific research. Dawkins is English and popular among English atheists. He refuses to debate disbelievers in evolution on grounds that he won’t give them the publicity. It would be consistent for Dawkins to regard those of us with congenital handicaps as biological mistakes.

The only reason why he refuses to debate with disbelievers of evolution because he knows clearly that these disbelievers are going to ask him to show them any observable evidences of Darwinism’s “change of kinds” taking place, which he apparently can’t. No one can. We don’t need thousands of evidences or examples. Just ONE observable evidence.

Fossil records do not contain evidences, they merely show tiny traces of DNA here and there which is not proof of evolution at all. Was Dawkins or any scientists alive millions of years ago to watch that particular fossil evolve when our lifespans are only decades long?

A single celled organism like a bacteria becoming a slightly different and more resilient bacteria is still a bacteria, that’s not evolution at all. A fish adapting to a different environment and its offspring growing slightly different features is not evolution. A fish is a fish is a fish. Period. A ‘change of kinds’ evolution is a change in species.

Dawkins claims of not giving disbelievers of evolution any publicity by refusing to debate with them is just a cover. What he is afraid of is having the evolution theory dismantled before his very eyes by disbelievers. His target crowd are those believers in evolution who took the theory for a fact and yet believed in religion, but he can never hope to convince the disbelievers of evolution. The only rebuttal for this group of people he can muster up is “irrational”, which is not a lot to talk about. A person who believes only in an evolutionary theory instead of a proven fact, who has no evidences at all to prove it is just like us, an ‘irrational’ group of people.

 

[Jerbear]

The only reason why he refuses to debate with disbelievers of evolution because he knows clearly that these disbelievers are going to ask him to show them any observable evidences of Darwinism’s “change of kinds” taking place, which he apparently can’t. No one can. We don’t need thousands of evidences or examples. Just ONE observable evidence.

Fossil records do not contain evidences, they merely show tiny traces of DNA here and there which is not proof of evolution at all. Was Dawkins or any scientists alive millions of years ago to watch that particular fossil evolve when our lifespans are only decades long?

A single celled organism like a bacteria becoming a slightly different and more resilient bacteria is still a bacteria, that’s not evolution at all. A fish adapting to a different environment and its offspring growing slightly different features is not evolution. A fish is a fish is a fish. Period. A ‘change of kinds’ evolution is a change in species.

Dawkins claims of not giving disbelievers of evolution any publicity by refusing to debate with them is just a cover. What he is afraid of is having the evolution theory dismantled before his very eyes by disbelievers. His target crowd are those believers in evolution who took the theory for a fact and yet believed in religion, but he can never hope to convince the disbelievers of evolution. The only rebuttal for this group of people he can muster up is “irrational”, which is not a lot to talk about. A person who believes only in an evolutionary theory instead of a proven fact, who has no evidences at all to prove it is just like us, an ‘irrational’ group of people.

First, yes that is evolution. The example you just provided of a bacteria or any organism adapting to its environment is evolution. It may not be macro-evolution, but it is micro-evolution. To make the claim that small chances cannot accumulate over vast amounts of time is similar to saying that small steps cannot result in traveling long distances over time.

Second, DNA has a half-life of approximately 521 years. So after 10 half lives (5210 years), we are only looking at 0.098% of the DNA even being present anymore in the fossils. So if you are looking at 100,000 years, you would only have 1.662 x 10^(-56)% of the DNA left. The transition from one type of animal to another completely different type of animal takes much more time than a few thousand years. To assume that scientists are using DNA fragments in fossils to support macro-evolution is ridiculous. DNA is used to analyze and chart the genome of different organisms on earth and comparing them to ourselves in order to determine similarities and how closely related we are to each other. DNA is compared between all the different animals of the world and seeing which ones are closest related to which other animals in order to determine how closely all animals are to each other.

Third, there are many transitional fossils of one type of creature evolving into another type of creature. If you need just one then do a google search for transitional fossils. We have fossils of fish creatures transitioning into land animals with limbs such as Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Ventastega, and many many more. There are also mammal like reptiles that we have evidence for existing such as Archaeothyris, Dimetrodon, Lycaenops, Thrinaxodon, etc.

You clearly do not understand what theory means in science. Science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty, rather they use evidence to support an idea. A scientific law is simply an idealistic relationship that exists, while a scientific theory is the most widely accepted explanation for the evidence gathered. You have both the law of gravity, which states that the gravitational attraction is equal to the inverse squared of their distance and you have the theory of gravity which uses Einstein’s theory of relativity by saying that gravity is the result of the bending of the fabric of space-time. Sure, laws and theories are subject to change because they are created from subjective human minds, but that does not mean they are simply randomly thrown out there by scientists making a wild guess. Richard Dawkins does not debate creationists because in the eyes of the scientific community, there is no debate about it. You might have a few devoutly religious scientists who see evidence through their religious lenses when analyzing data, but they are the extreme minority. If Dawkins was to debate someone on evolution vs creationism, he would have an abundant supply of research done on the topic to use. Problem is that he is often asked questions that have not been discovered yet and people then claim that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he admits to not knowing the answer to something that has not been figured out yet, or the person asking him questions does not fully understand evolution and throws out claims about creatures popping into existence by random chance, when that’s not even what the theory of evolution claims and that is exhausting to address the same misconceptions over and over, especially when people are so confident in their misconceptions.

 

[DerekTM]

That is a perfect response, Jerbear.

 

[rasbat]

Who are “they”? Dawkins is speaking for himself. He is not an atheist “pope”

“They” are all of those who are zombies of the modern soulless materialist worldview. I would not give Dawkins the dignity of an atheist pope he is too much of a puppet produced and controlled by his own sad culture to be in charge of anyone.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

First, yes that is evolution. The example you just provided of a bacteria or any organism adapting to its environment is evolution. It may not be macro-evolution, but it is micro-evolution. To make the claim that small chances cannot accumulate over vast amounts of time is similar to saying that small steps cannot result in traveling long distances over time.

Second, DNA has a half-life of approximately 521 years. So after 10 half lives (5210 years), we are only looking at 0.098% of the DNA even being present anymore in the fossils. So if you are looking at 100,000 years, you would only have 1.662 x 10^(-56)% of the DNA left. The transition from one type of animal to another completely different type of animal takes much more time than a few thousand years. To assume that scientists are using DNA fragments in fossils to support macro-evolution is ridiculous. DNA is used to analyze and chart the genome of different organisms on earth and comparing them to ourselves in order to determine similarities and how closely related we are to each other. DNA is compared between all the different animals of the world and seeing which ones are closest related to which other animals in order to determine how closely all animals are to each other.

Third, there are many transitional fossils of one type of creature evolving into another type of creature. If you need just one then do a google search for transitional fossils. We have fossils of fish creatures transitioning into land animals with limbs such as Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Ventastega, and many many more. There are also mammal like reptiles that we have evidence for existing such as Archaeothyris, Dimetrodon, Lycaenops, Thrinaxodon, etc.

You clearly do not understand what theory means in science. Science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty, rather they use evidence to support an idea. A scientific law is simply an idealistic relationship that exists, while a scientific theory is the most widely accepted explanation for the evidence gathered. You have both the law of gravity, which states that the gravitational attraction is equal to the inverse squared of their distance and you have the theory of gravity which uses Einstein’s theory of relativity by saying that gravity is the result of the bending of the fabric of space-time. Sure, laws and theories are subject to change because they are created from subjective human minds, but that does not mean they are simply randomly thrown out there by scientists making a wild guess. Richard Dawkins does not debate creationists because in the eyes of the scientific community, there is no debate about it. You might have a few devoutly religious scientists who see evidence through their religious lenses when analyzing data, but they are the extreme minority. If Dawkins was to debate someone on evolution vs creationism, he would have an abundant supply of research done on the topic to use. Problem is that he is often asked questions that have not been discovered yet and people then claim that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he admits to not knowing the answer to something that has not been figured out yet, or the person asking him questions does not fully understand evolution and throws out claims about creatures popping into existence by random chance, when that’s not even what the theory of evolution claims and that is exhausting to address the same misconceptions over and over, especially when people are so confident in their misconceptions.

You clearly do not understand what Darwin meant by ‘Change of Kind’ or the Scientific Method.

The explanation of micro and macro evolution is nearly a good save, however what Darwin meant of the Change of Kind is the changing from one species to another eg. chimpanzee to a Homo Sapien.

The Law of Gravity is a fact while the Theory of Evolution is not.

The question is: Does the Theory of Evolution pass muster according to the Scientific Method?

In the Scientific Method, there are 4 different steps you must take to prove your theory. They are:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Evolution Theory has only reached Step #2.

This means that from observations that were made (Step #1), the formulation of a hypotheses was made to explain how we got here. It is at this step that we stall because the hypothesis for the observations does not pass scrutiny. As more is learned by observation, the hypothesis can be refined. We therefore have a continual process of going from Step #1 to Step #2 and back again.

In science, this will usually get you to Step #3 eventually. For evolution though, it has not, and they are not even close. Under normal circumstances, the hypothesis would be discarded as rubbish. However, when it comes to evolution, the personal stakes are way too high. Without the idea that we evolved, we are forced to conclude that we arrived by special creation, from the hands of a Creator, and that means He’s God, and we are not.

The most important question of all is: Using the standards set by the Scientific Method, can you show me one observable evidence of Darwin’s Evolution of a Change of Kind?

Just 1.

 

[Jerbear]

You clearly do not understand what Darwin meant by ‘Change of Kind’ or the Scientific Method.

The explanation of micro and macro evolution is nearly a good save, however what Darwin meant of the Change of Kind is the changing from one species to another eg. chimpanzee to a Homo Sapien.

The Law of Gravity is a fact while the Theory of Evolution is not.

The question is: Does the Theory of Evolution pass muster according to the Scientific Method?

In the Scientific Method, there are 4 different steps you must take to prove your theory. They are:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Evolution Theory has only reached Step #2.

This means that from observations that were made (Step #1), the formulation of a hypotheses was made to explain how we got here. It is at this step that we stall because the hypothesis for the observations does not pass scrutiny. As more is learned by observation, the hypothesis can be refined. We therefore have a continual process of going from Step #1 to Step #2 and back again.

In science, this will usually get you to Step #3 eventually. For evolution though, it has not, and they are not even close. Under normal circumstances, the hypothesis would be discarded as rubbish. However, when it comes to evolution, the personal stakes are way too high. Without the idea that we evolved, we are forced to conclude that we arrived by special creation, from the hands of a Creator, and that means He’s God, and we are not.

The most important question of all is: Using the standards set by the Scientific Method, can you show me one observable evidence of Darwin’s Evolution of a Change of Kind?

Just 1.

So many errors in this post, trying to figure out where to begin.

First, science cannot ever prove anything to be a fact of nature, but rather only highly support a claim. To say that the Law of Gravity is a fact is to have misconceptions about the nature of science. Just like theories, laws are subject to change with the collection of new data/evidence or reinterpretations of old data/evidence. Newton’s law of gravity was almost dismissed in 1846 when data did not match what was expected for planetary motion. Many scientists believed the law of gravity might possibly be wrong or only useful within limited conditions that we see here on earth. It wasn’t until a creative scientists thought possibly the law was still not disproven and another large body was potentially acting upon other bodies. This is a clear example why you cannot say that the law of gravity (or any scientific law) is a fact or proven. Like scientific theories, laws are invented with subjective human minds trying to make sense of data/evidence, which means that they are prone to human error and being wrong or incomplete.

The next mistake you made is continuously refer to the scientific method when there is no ahistorical and universal scientific method that exists. I’ll refer you to some articles written by nature of science professors and researchers:

• The Nature of Science: Understanding How the “Game” of Science is Played (Clough, 2004)
• Teaching Science with History (Abd-El-Khalick, 1999)
• Some Implications of Language in Science Education (Munby, 1976)
• The Effects of Teachers’ Language on Students’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science (Zeidler and Lederman, 1989)
• Science Processes (Finley, 1983)
• Beyond the Scientific Method (Klapper, 1995)
• Why is Science So Successful? (Clough)
• Galileo’s Account of Pendulum Motion: A historical example of how scientific laws are idealizations of nature (Matthews, 1994)
• Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? (Medawar, 1990)
• The Explanation of Laws (Campbell, 1953)

Scientists might talk about the scientific method but they don’t refer to it as a set process that scientists must do, a checklist if you will. You may say that you heard scientists talk about the scientific method, but all thats meant by that is simply the process of doing science, which isn’t a set process like you portray it. Educators are moving away from teaching the scientific method for this reason as children are developing misconceptions like you have.

Next, you misuse the word hypothesis. There are multiple definitions for the word hypothesis which include a prediction (this is what most people assume), an immature theory, and an immature law. Some argue that there are 6 definitions to the word, rather than just these three.

Next, we can observe micro-evolution & manipulate populations to show how it works. We don’t live long enough to observe macro-evolution as it takes a much longer timescale to observe. I don’t see why macro-evolution, which is simply the accumulation of micro-evolution, is impossible when we can observe micro-evolution & when many transitional fossils that have been found which scientists can use to clearly support macro-evolution.

Finally, I will point to you the fact that much of science is not done via direct observation in a lab with dependent and independent variables. Scientists are unable to directly observe most things in physics and astronomy. Scientists collect data and then make sense of it. We have all this technology because of indirect observations scientists have collected and made sense of, which the government and companies take advantage of. This is no different than scientists collecting data about the life forms on earth and making sense of the data.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Scientists might talk about the scientific method but they don’t refer to it as a set process that scientists must do, a checklist if you will. You may say that you heard scientists talk about the scientific method, but all thats meant by that is simply the process of doing science, which isn’t a set process like you portray it. Educators are moving away from teaching the scientific method for this reason as children are developing misconceptions like you have.

I will have to agree that there are a few scientific methods used in the field of science. The scientific method I have posted is the most basic and common set process used by scientists where the Theory of Evolution theory does not make its mark in it. As a matter of fact, the Theory of Evolution does not make its mark in any scientific method I known of, unless someone is able to point out one particular method that did that. I am literally pleading here to be shown that, because if one is to say that any theory or science does not need any scientific method at all is absurd.

First, science cannot ever prove anything to be a fact of nature, but rather only highly support a claim. To say that the Law of Gravity is a fact is to have misconceptions about the nature of science. Just like theories, laws are subject to change with the collection of new data/evidence or reinterpretations of old data/evidence. Newton’s law of gravity was almost dismissed in 1846 when data did not match what was expected for planetary motion. Many scientists believed the law of gravity might possibly be wrong or only useful within limited conditions that we see here on earth. It wasn’t until a creative scientists thought possibly the law was still not disproven and another large body was potentially acting upon other bodies. This is a clear example why you cannot say that the law of gravity (or any scientific law) is a fact or proven. Like scientific theories, laws are invented with subjective human minds trying to make sense of data/evidence, which means that they are prone to human error and being wrong or incomplete.

What you are telling me is very assuring. Because if science cannot be used to prove anything as a fact, then apparently whatever data used by scientists, atheists & theists even, cannot be taken as fact since it only draws conclusions from a collection of data/evidence and it is subjected to change over time. Thus it also takes a certain amount of faith for believers of evolution to believe in something that has not been presented as cold hard fact. It is still somewhat a belief system.

So if an atheist, theist or someone like Dawkins come along calling the religious community as being irrational, surely that must apply to them as well since as you said: "science cannot ever prove anything to be a fact of nature"