Darwin TV

||

Charles Darwin - Richard Dawkins

This debate took place on channel 4

July 2008


John c1 said:

COMMENTS ON DAWKINS C4 PROGRAMME 040808

1. Dawkins was wrong to state that evolution proves there is no God. All it does is provide a good description of how life on earth has evolved from very simple basic organisms. How they arose, we still do not know.
2. He established that several of the children in the science class he took had beliefs rooted in religious history and teachings. He tried to encourage them to question how the world is and became as it is. However he kept stating that ‘we know’ the world is millions of years old, etc. This seemed just as dogmatic as the beliefs he was attacking. His approach did not encourage imaginative questioning. It was a thinly shielded attack on specific religious beliefs and teachings.
3. I think the two questions he was trying to raise were: how old is the earth and how did the variety of life we see today arise. The age of the earth is only relevant in this context in terms of the timescale over which evolution has taken place. Fossil records from layered strata deposits, development of enhanced capability species at higher strata levels, radio carbon dating, the relationship between species and modifications with isolation (as noted by Darwin) and the dying out of species are all consistent with a long term slow evolutionary development. This provides the simplest description of the world as we find it today.
4. This does not prove there is or is not a God. It does call into question specific descriptions in particular religious texts. These provided the best appreciation of the world in the time when they were written. To take advantage of more recent work to understand the world, how is arose and how it works does not cast doubt on the value of basic tenents of religious teachings – only specific features of religious texts. This would be more convincing and persuasive that a frontal attack.


Omrow said:


Professor Dawkins was shelled by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight.

He had to concede there may be a God after all.

After that he has never made any attempts to confront thoe who can really grill him.

Now Dawkins sticks to convincing school kids.

Safe.


I watched Professor Richard Dawkins on Channel 4.

Dr Dawkins was "preaching" his belief about evolution of
men from monkeys as a "fact", when clearly it is still only a
"theory".

Like any religious zealot would, Dawkins was trying
to "convince" some school kids of his beliefs.

Perhaps Dawkins was "affraid" to take on some
men of science who express a few suspicions about the Darwin's theory.

These scientists would have been too tough for the doc.

I can say that in that one hour TV program, Dawkins was
trying his best to somehow avoid scientists who are his critics.

Of course, children had no chance against the doc.

I think Dawkins knew that.

Which is why he did not try the same tactics with the scientists.

So, me and some of my university friends did have
a good laugh while watching Dawkins promote Darwins ideas to kids.


Professor Dick Dawkins was not doing science.

Dick was simply preaching his faith in a theory that men came from monkeys.

Evolution is only a theory but Dawkins has every right to have faith in it as any other person.

But Dr Dick has no right to lie and claim that everyone accepts evolution as a FACT.

We know there are many great scientists who DO NOT accept evolution as an established fact. Some scientists have great doubts about the theory.

As long as it remains a theory, it can be proven to be false at some time in the future.

But Dick D would not listen to reason. He is as fanatic as any suicide bomber on his mission.

Dick Dawkins is an extremist scientist.

He gives bad name to science.

Shame on his intellectual power.

If he was really honest, Dawkins would debate the matter with his scientistfic rivals who doubt evolution.

But D Dawkins would not dare do that. He presents his so-called "evidence" only to kids as well as to those who already have blind faith in the monkey story. In other words, Dick always preaches to the converted.

His reasoning is lousy, and his methods very unscientific.

No wonder he is losing in schools, universities, and among honest scientists and philosophers.

Dick is simply happy that some faithful follow him.

So what. People follow the luney party as well. Why not Dick.


Charles Darwin was a dreamer who wanted a bit of attention.

Isn't it strange that scientists have still found no convincing proof of his "theory".

Evolution of men from monkeys still remains "a theory" over a hundred years after Darwin.

And some people suspect that it is likey to remain a "theory" for another 100 years.

Scientific community is divided over the issue.

Some back it. Others doubt it.

Scientists are not yet agreed that evolution is a FACT.

Until Evolution moves from being a "THEORY" to being a "FACT", it cannot be used against God.

Darwin thought that his wild guess would be established in a few years when proofs come to light.

The poor chap is still turning in his grave.

Monkeys are waiting.


Atheists are generally incapable of using simple logic.

If you listen to their leader Professor Dawkins, you cannot help but notice that he uses some of the most pathetic use of brain in order to advance his theories.

"We found bones dating from 2 million years ago, therefore, we don't need God anymore."

"Bible contains errors, therefore Jesus was phoney."

I mean, who buys this sort of rubbish?

Answer? Atheists.

Atheists blindly follow Dick Dawkins no matter how absurd his reasonsing.


Atheists need a bit more evolving.

Give Atheists a few million years and they will use logic better.

They seems to be still incapable of using their brain properly.

Even Dawkins makes a mess of reason.
He uses poor arguments in a desperate bid
to try to convert everybody to his absurd supersitions.

Its sad to see a "Professor" make a mockery of himself.


Most Atheists fear a good intellectual debate.


Mr Whizz said:

"Most Atheists"? or just one or two atheists that you are vaguely aware of.

It's precisely as a result of good intellectual debate that makes one an atheist!!


Omrow said:

I came across an interesting claim made in a major German newspaper SPIEGEL on 23 September 2008.

Adnan Oktar says in an interview with Daniel Steinvorth that evolution is false and based on deception:

quote: 'All Terrorists Are Darwinists' - Darwin's theory of evolution is the Devil's work.


Channel 4 has censored my criticism on Dawkins.

I proved that he was lying on the Darwin documentary. I think this was too much for the followers of Dawkins and those who believe in the tale of evolution. I suspect their ground was shaken. Hence they censored me. Free speech no more on Channel 4.

My entire evidence against Dawkins was censored here. You cant see it anymore.


Sidedpanic said:

Dawkins DEVOTES his time to proving there is no god whatsoever. Dawkins is a talented man and a great writer. The God dellusion is brilliantly written but not a brilliant book. His arguments always go from relevant questioning - faith insight or blindness? or a questioning of the spiritual. Both of which are fine, but then he always descends into atheist propaganda. He consistently talks about top scientists never being truely religious i.e. einstein, but never mentions those who actually are - even one of the most influential people working on the big bang theory is a catholic priest still to this day - and he never gave quotes where einstein spoke of his belief in god. I mean seriously if you are so selectful in quotations the pope would become a die hard atheist. My main problem with dawkins though, as mentioned above me, is his constant attack on a specific range of beliefs and religion.. fundamentalist christians - yes someone who is uneducated enough to not believe in evolution, can be made to look an idiot, well done - but when a different catholic priest to the one mentioned above but was also a physicist confronted Mr. Dawkins on a group discussion about the supernatural, he had nothing to say. His logic is incomplete. This is not to say anyones is complete but he speaks as if in facts to those who cannot raise the relevant argument. I just think it's a shame that a talented writer and evolutionary scientist has gone down the slippery slope of celebrity in order to convince people out of blindness.
I would like to point out, I myself am nothing more than a free thinker. So I will count myself out of the 'dillusion'.


--