Support NeoGAF

[archnemesis]

Just curious; If intelligent design is true, why are there mass extinctions?

God had a change of heart?

 

[Nocebo]

lol that's exactly what I'm saying.

Any opportunity to correct lies through a public platform should absolutely be taken no matter how futile it may seem. You have no idea whatsoever who could be listening. Are you 100% sure that not a single one of Perry's followers will listen to differing perspectives? If so you must be omniscient.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

lol, okay...you pique my interest. What exactly are you? Are you a biologist or some other occupation of scientist? Where did you study and what was your concentration? I'm genuinely curious because you seem to project being an authority on this particular subject. At least based on your posts thus far.

Evolution by design is not a biological term because it's not scientific. The idea that evolution was guided in some manner is not testable and so is not science.

 

[that1dude24]

Just curious; If intelligent design is true, why are there mass extinctions?

God didn't think that species was interesting anymore.

Wait, do you honestly believe a grade school teacher is more intelligent than a quantum physics professor because they don't believe in evolution?

It's certainly possible for them to be more informed on that particular matter, yes.

 

[Vagabundo]

Essentially saying that anyone who believes in intelligence design is a moron and uneducated.
Some of the smartest and most well educated people i know believe in it.

Nope, but i have not had to hear about Perry for years.

I have a hard time not thinking the same thing. If I'm being kind I just think the are ignorant.

 

[diehard]

People with PhD's are laymen outside of their field you know.

you wouldn't let your mechanic install your dentures, don't put a PhD on a pedestal they haven't earned.

That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".

Evolution by design is not a biological term because it's not scientific. The idea that evolution was guided in some manner is not testable and so is not science.

Someone that is faith based isn't scientific, who would have thunk.

 

[reggie]

Fuck me, there are still people on this forum who don't 'believe' in evolution?

What's with the knee-jerk reactions to dawkins?
Nearly every thread that involves him has posts with variants of "I hate him and he's a prick" within a few minutes of posting, regardless of subject matter, regardless of the degree of involvement he has in the matter, and regardless of whether he's correct or not. It's really annoying.

It wouldn't even be that bad if the people who posted it added anything to the discussion, but it's usually all they have to say.

Rick perry should get called out on this. His willfully ignorant views on scientific theories are something of utmost importance to his platform, and it is rather worrying that he is close to being in a position of greater power than he currently has.

People are soft and can't be told they're wrong. They know they're wrong and have nothing to back up their claims so they resort to ad hominem attacks while also expecting you to 'respect' their beliefs, which is to turn a blind eye while they try to give equal/more credit to complete bullshit (aka creationism).

FUCK, makes my blood boil.

 

[linsivvi]

Wait, do you honestly believe a grade school teacher is more intelligent than a quantum physics professor because they don't believe in evolution?

I said there are smart people, like your quantum physics professor example, who might not believe in evolution. Not because they are not smart, but because they are irrational, which is a human fault.

I don't know how you get that idea from what I wrote.

Edit: The quote you bolded even specifically said there are smarter people who don't believe in evolution. It's like you are trying to pick a fight in the thread with everyone for no fucking reason.

 

[Qwomo]

That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".

Maybe not technically uneducated, but there's certainly dumb/silly/ignorant people out there with PhDs. A PhD just means you have a good work ethic.

 

[that1dude24]

That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".

Would you consider a person with a PhD in physics uneducated regarding baseball if they asked what quarter the game was in?

 

[Nocebo]

That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".

I hear Kent Hovind has a PhD.

 

[Zibrahim]

Evolution by design is not a biological term because it's not scientific. The idea that evolution was guided in some manner is not testable and so is not science.

I wasn't exactly trying the term as much as I was addressing the user. Furthermore, one could argue that evolution could be guided in some manner and can absolutely be tested. The effects of selective breeding can be measured. The effects of human impact on ecological systems can be measured. If evolution is happening constantly, there can be guides to it and it can be measured. But that's not what my comment was about

I said there are smart people, like your quantum physics professor example, who might not believe in evolution. Not because they are not smart, but because they are irrational, which is a human fault.

I don't know how you get that idea from what I wrote.

Edit: The quote you bolded even specifically said there are smarter people who don't believe in evolution. It's like you are trying to pick a fight in the thread with everyone for no fucking reason.

Sorry if I seem like I'm picking a fight, brah. I'm not. I just misread your statement, sorry.

Hugs??

 

[TacticalFox88]

God had a change of heart?

Okay this post had me in tears crying. THank you archnemesis

 

[jaxword]

lol, okay...you pique my interest. What exactly are you? Are you a biologist or some other occupation of scientist? Where did you study and what was your concentration? I'm genuinely curious because you seem to project being an authority on this particular subject. At least based on your posts thus far.

I'm the same as you, just a man.

Someone that is faith based isn't scientific, who would have thunk.

So you're saying "evolution by design" is faith-based, and this is something you stand for?

 

[Orayn]

I wasn't exactly trying the term as much as I was addressing the user. Furthermore, one could argue that evolution could be guided in some manner and can absolutely be tested. The effects of selective breeding can be measured. The effects of human impact on ecological systems can be measured. If evolution is happening constantly, there can be guides to it and it can be measured. But that's not what my comment was about

Well, yeah, but you're talking about real sources of "design" input that are all known quantities themselves. We run into trouble when the designer becomes some completely undefined entity who TOTALLY isn't a magic dude wiith a white beard.

 

[Feep]

dIEHARD is under serious fire. Are there any other faith-based-whatevers out there to aid him?

 

[diehard]

So you're saying "evolution by design" is faith-based, and this is something you stand for?

Stand for... faith? Yes i'm quite accepting of it.

Would you consider a person with a PhD in physics uneducated regarding baseball if they asked what quarter the game was in?

Of course, but i wouldn't not call them uneducated in the general sense of the word, which is the case here.

 

[Pandaman]

That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".

They just have no education relevant to the topic at hand. Completely different i guess...

 

[Nocebo]

That is beside the fact, under no terms would i call someone with a PhD "uneducated".

Under no terms? Even if the PhD was bought?

 

[linsivvi]

Sorry if I seem like I'm picking a fight, brah. I'm not. I just misread your statement, sorry.

Hugs??

Man hugs.

 

[Zibrahim]

Well, yeah, but you're talking about real sources of "design" input that are all known quantities themselves. We run into trouble when the designer becomes some completely undefined entity who TOTALLY isn't a magic dude wiith a white beard.

Dude, this statement is redundant. The guy I answered's statement had no implications of "a magic dude with a white beard" (I personally think he doesn't have one, but whatever)

I'm the same as you, just a man.

We may both have penises but I don't think we're the same, holmes. You didn't answer my question.

Man hugs.

 

[Orayn]

Dude, this statement is redundant. The guy I answered's statement had no implications of "a magic dude with a white beard" (I personally think he doesn't have one, but whatever)



We may both have penises but I don't think we're the same, holmes. You didn't answer my question.

Sorry, it's getting late and my posting ability has diminished. I probably shouldn't have access to a smartphone, NeoGAF app, and polarizing science threads when I should be sleeping.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

I wasn't exactly trying the term as much as I was addressing the user. Furthermore, one could argue that evolution could be guided in some manner and can absolutely be tested. The effects of selective breeding can be measured. The effects of human impact on ecological systems can be measured. If evolution is happening constantly, there can be guides to it and it can be measured. But that's not what my comment was about

Generally, I'm led to believe, the idea of evolution by design is that God intended for evolution to take place, rather than taking an active role. I don't think that idea is testable.

On the other hand if indeed he did take an active role, in the manner you suggest, then indeed it is possible it could be tested in some way. I'm not quite sure how one could do so at all, but it is plausible.

 

[jaxword]

Stand for... faith? Yes i'm quite accepting of it.

So, earlier in this thread you were critical of Dawkins and the reason you gave was "just hate pricks".

However, you've now stated quite clearly that instead of fact/evolutionary science, you prefer religious explanations for life, including faith and "evolution by design" which seems to be intelligent design under a different label.

That would suggest that the real reason you were drawn to this thread is not because of Dawkins himself, but because you see him as a representative of the opposition to your religious beliefs. Do you dislike people who disagree with your faith? It's alright to admit that's the real reason for arguing.

 

[Measley]

God didn't think that species was interesting anymore.

Pretty much. God gets bored and sends a huge ass rock to Earth to clean up the mess.

Wish I could do that.

 

[that1dude24]

Of course, but i wouldn't not call them uneducated in the general sense of the word, which is the case here.

If you're talking about dawkins, he was alluding to perry being uneducated, which is a reasonable description given his college transcripts. If you're talking about the posters in this thread I sincerely doubt they meant uneducated to apply to anything else than this subject, and possibly others tangentially related.

 

[diehard]

So, earlier in this thread you were critical of Dawkins and the reason you gave was "just hate pricks".

However, you've now stated quite clearly that instead of fact/evolutionary science, you prefer religious explanations for life, including faith and "evolution by design" which seems to be intelligent design under a different label.

That would suggest that the real reason you were drawn to this thread is not because of Dawkins himself, but because you see him as a representative of the opposition to your religious beliefs. Do you dislike people who disagree with your faith? It's alright to admit that's the real reason for arguing.

No i don't dislike people who disagree with what i believe. It gets pretty tiring seeing this dude's name on a thread title every week though, just because he says something about a political figure.

I have not even done any real arguing here, all i said is i think Dawkins is a dick. It's like his personal mission is to make sure nobody believes in evolution.

 

[Mama Robotnik]

Here is a theory: Dinosaurs were a highly intelligent race of telepathic and telekinetic creatures whose development for billions of years led them to reaching a development plateau. They decided that every avenue of their existence had been explored and lacking no other purpose or goals, collectively made the decision to end their existence. They used their telekinesis to summon the meteors and released the planet from its paradise stagnancy.

This explanation is as supported by scientific evidence as intelligent design. It would also make a better movie.

 

[Uchip]

It gets pretty tiring seeing this dude's name on a thread title every week

yea... sure is tiring
im breaking a sweat just reading the title

 

[jaxword]

all i said is i think Dawkins is a dick. It's like his personal mission is to make sure nobody believes in evolution.

Have you ever actually watched Dawkins in a debate? Your statement there really suggests you have no idea what he stands for.

 

[Nocebo]

It's like his personal mission is to make sure nobody believes in evolution.

Why do you say that? I think it's clear he has made a great impact with his books in educating people on evolution.

 

[Mama Robotnik]

Have you ever actually watched Dawkins in a debate? Your statement there really suggests you have no idea what he stands for.

I'd ask if he'd read any of Dawkins books and made any judgements on their academic merits, but I figure I already know the answer to that question.

A classic case of a shallow and pointless attack on the man as an individual, rather than even daring to confront the body of work.

 

[Hylian7]

No i don't dislike people who disagree with what i believe. It gets pretty tiring seeing this dude's name on a thread title every week though, just because he says something about a political figure.

I have not even done any real arguing here, all i said is i think Dawkins is a dick. It's like his personal mission is to make sure nobody believes in evolution.

.....What?! Did you even read the OP of this thread or is that just a typo?

 

[diehard]

.....What?! Did you even read the OP of this thread or is that just a typo?

typo. It's almost 2 in the morning.

 

[Hylian7]

typo. It's almost 2 in the morning.

Okay, fair enough, then I'm assuming "evolution" was supposed to be "creationism". Yeah, you are right, that is something he wants to do. There is no evidence for creationism, so people shouldn't believe it.

 

[Ratrat]

Wait, wait I thought Dawkins' career as a public intellectual was kaput!

 

[jaxword]

typo. It's almost 2 in the morning.

Alright, but that still leaves the question: have you ever actually watched Dawkins in a debate, or read any of his works fully?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Wait, do you honestly believe a grade school teacher is more intelligent than a quantum physics professor because they don't believe in evolution?

That seems like the opposite of what he said. Your post is a misnomer, anyway, if I'm understanding it correctly, because anyone who truly understands quantum physics is overwhelmingly likely to "believe" in evolution.

 

[diehard]

Alright, but that still leaves the question: have you ever actually watched Dawkins in a debate, or read any of his works fully?

I've seen him in a debate and i thought he came off like a smug asshole. No i have never read one of his books.

 

[Mumei]

I think that some of you (Ventron, diehard, possibly others I overlooked while skimming) would benefit from either watching this video or reading this book. Or this book.

I've seen him in a debate and i thought he came off like a smug asshole. No i have never read one of his books.

This, incidentally, is the reason why he does not advocate debating creationists.

 

[jaxword]

I've seen him in a debate and i thought he came off like a smug asshole. No i have never read one of his books.

Which debate was it? They're all on youtube or various video sites, so we can likely find it. Since you're basing your ENTIRE opinion of the man on one debate, you must remember which one it was, as it must have been very memorable.

There's plenty of others where he was a calm, collected debater, so I, and likely others here, would like to see the ones he failed to do so in.

 

[MehsterChief]

As much as I agree with Dawkins' general point of view, he comes off as an angry Internet nerd fighting for his opinion all the time.
If people choose to believe in God, let them be, as long as they don't hurt anyone.

He is the atheist version of some right-winged reborn christian from the Bible belt.

 

[Mortrialus]

This is ridiculous, not only is Dawkins arrogant, but he's also wrong too.



Yes, it's called Democracy. Other people may have a different favourite candidate to you, shock horror.

It actually is horrifying that people are so willing to gravitate towards the most uneducated, stupidest, unfit canidates. Also, Rick Perry is so anti-science he let the state of Texas execute an innocent man.

Wrong, evolution is a theory. It is an inference used to explain a set of observations, which makes it a theory. It's the best theory we currently have for explaining the origin of species, but that doesn't rule out a future discovery which may contradict the foundations of this theory, and we thus must create a new theory that is consistent with all observations ever made. This happens all the time in science.

Evolution is simultaneously a theory and a fact. I think Aronra summed it up best.

It is a fact that evolution happens, that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally under the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift have all been proven to have a predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by decedent groups and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineage backwards over myriad generations. It is a fact, that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes, exactly the same way lions are a subset of cats. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its basal form through reverse sequencing, and that these forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology and embryological development as well as through chronologically correct placement in successive stages revealed in the geologic column. It is a fact that every organism on Earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species, even according to the strictest definition of that term. It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly observed and documented dozens of times both in the lab and in naturally controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have always stood critical analysis in peer review. It also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity and that no would be alternative notion has met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.

...unless you work in the majority of occupations where evolution is irrelevant.

General education is important in elected officials. Also, while a politician's stance on evolution might not directly relate to governing, Dawkins is correct in that it is a litmus test for general education as well as ability to comprehend evidence and draw appropriate conclusions from them. When someone like Rick Perry or Ron Paul state they don't believe evolution, which is very basic biology and a fact, it is a very strong indicator that I cannot trust their judgement.

I agree with this, if he just shut his mouth after this he wouldn't seem so arrogant.

I seriously don't understand the claims of Dawkins being arrogant.

Honestly, I am so sick of science being treated as a religion,

?

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.

To my knowledge, no one treats science as a religion. There are people who hold it in high regard because of its position as the best methodology for understanding the material world. There has never been a single situation in the history of mankind where a faith based, supernatural explanation has been shown to be superior to a scientific one.

and being used to wage war against Christianity.

It isn't Dawkins' fault that Christianity is a morally bankrupt religion built upon unsubstantiated claims and fractal wrongness.

Edit:

Having skimmed through the thread, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one roasting him for his inane post. I saw it and I immediately had to address how wrong it was.

 

[likeGdid]

Just wondering here: making sure no one believes [creationism] = educating against ignorance = smug arrogance?

if I'm following the correct line of reasoning, that is.

 

[krioto]

I've seen him in a debate and i thought he came off like a smug asshole. No i have never read one of his books.

Yes, which debate was this?

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Anyone thinking Dawkins is arrogant should watch his interview with Wendy Wright.

From that, one would think he is the most patient man on the planet.

 

[IrishNinja]

If you understood any aspect of evolution, then you'd know that the concept is thoroughly incompatible with "design". The above is two mutually exclusive statements making up some hybrid pseudo-science philosophy that tries to reconcile modern scientific developments with a desire to hold on to a magical intent. It commits the gravest crime of science - it has no evidence - and therefore is a conclusion reached through no scientific reasoning.

to play devil's advocate, i kinda disagree here.

i believe some catholics (i wanna say pope john paul II as well?) resolve this by simply saying the process of evolution was created by god. it's not my belief either, but personally, i'm far more comfortable with this resolution than the horrifically low 38% figure we're at, by playing into this constant science v religion false dichotomy. if a theist wishes to indulge proven science in this manner, it's no worse than what say Aquinas did to resolve platonic thought with scholasticism - which, at best, allowed early philosophy to survive the dark ages. just a thought.

 

[SmokyDave]

Anyone thinking Dawkins is arrogant should watch his interview with Wendy Wright.

From that one would think he is the most patient man on the planet.

I don't think those people are the type to be swayed by facts and evidence.

 

[fabricated backlash]

I will admit that Dawkins tends to have a flair for the arrogant and grandiose in his speech that comes across more as intolerable smugness than genuine intelligence, but at least he's on the right side of the damn debate.

True, the arrogance of the rich is only surpassed by the arrogance of the intelligent.

But he is still right on all accounts. In fact his smugness is a direct outcome of the ridiculous caricature of illiterate counter scientific movements that rise to political power now.

I am genuinely convinced that creationism is among the greatest threats to freedom in western states. It took the european territories centuries and many deaths to finally get rid of the pestilent regime of religions over our everyday freedom. In fact, we're still not there, but to allow those imbeciles to threaten the status quo because of their willfull ignorance and disregard for facts is not acceptable.

to play devil's advocate, i kinda disagree here.

i believe some catholics (i wanna say pope john paul II as well?) resolve this by simply saying the process of evolution was created by god. it's not my belief either, but personally, i'm far more comfortable with this resolution than the horrifically low 38% figure we're at, by playing into this constant science v religion false dichotomy. if a theist wishes to indulge proven science in this manner, it's no worse than what say Aquinas did to resolve platonic thought with scholasticism - which, at best, allowed early philosophy to survive the dark ages. just a thought.

Since even the church wasn't able to deny the fact of evolution they simply saved their asses by shifting dogmas, like they allways did throughout history when the church was in need of a renewed justification of power.
It's a last ditch effort to become relevant. A move to save face after having lost the public support for their ridiculous fairy tale of apples and snakes.

Note that I am purely talking religions, not faith, as the two are not and never were the same thing.

 

[Speedymanic]

I know this isn't the right thread, but I've always wondered what the Islamic stance on evolution/creationism is?

I haven't ever seen it mentioned or discussed, so I've always assumed they believe in creationism but accept that evolution is also possible.

Am I off/wrong?