Support NeoGAF

[jaxword]

And why do bananas fit perfectly into their hands?

I love this argument. The logical next question is why penises fit perfectly into hands. Using the creationist logic (if [object fits] then [proof of design] ) that means God designed the penis to be masturbated all the time.

Onan may have a few comments about that.

 

[Parl]

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

Well that's usually how guesses work. Nice idea, but there's no need to guess when it comes to explaining the variety and geographic distribution of species current and past.

I'd recommend reading some good books on evolution, ones which carefully explain the evidence that we've discovered over the centuries, from the many different fields of human curiousity, sought to discover the truth rather than presume it. So far, noboby has proposed a theory that doesn't either directly contradict huge quantities of this research, or just simply doesn't explain what we seek to explain. That is, except, Darwin's theory of evolution.

A true test of a theory are the predictions is makes, and in the 150 years since the theory was proposed, none of its many predictions have been contradicted by the mountains of evidence we've since discovered on the subject of species - this is the scientific method in a nutshell.

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't get it. If you believe in intelligent design, then at least you agree evolution is real. You disagree with the motor (the part that is up for revision, of course, and you do not believe in SCIENCE here), but you believe in change in gene frequency over time.

I really believe this is people just not understanding evidence and argument.

If someone says, "No, god put everything on earth the way it is today as it is today," then you don't believe in evolution. In which case you'd just be uneducated. But if you believed in "evolution by design," you do believe in evolution.

I've often thought that ID could be the actual truth. Like who knows, it could be? So I don't really persecute people who believe in it. As long as they admit it's not science.

 

[jaxword]

So I don't really persecute people who believe in it. As long as they admit it's not science.

While that sounds good on paper, it has an unfortunate misuse: The "admittance" is nothing of the sort. It's an attempt to equalize faith with science. Which gives it ground to start encroaching into education. Which, in turn, makes it a political issue, since the politicians will pander to those who want to force legislate their religious beliefs as fact.

So this REALLY is about politics in the end. It's not about facts or science--the attackers of Dawkins, "I saw one debate and he's a dick" types, aren't out to learn anything, they're out to discredit someone so they can push their political agenda of getting their religion more power.

And that's a very, very dangerous behavior to allow.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

"Evolution is not just a theory, it's TRIUMPHANTLY a theory." Read about what the word "theory" means among people who are actually educated here. Protip: It does not mean what you think it means.




Maybe if people didn't try to bandy about their horrific ignorance to try to deface someone who actually knows what they're talking about in the world of, ya know, facts then he wouldn't come across as so "arrogant."

People like you think he's arrogant because he's directly shitting on a standard of belief you have. Unfortunately for you, his is supported by facts and yours is supported by fairy tales and factually incorrect holy books.

Just because YOU are so incurious that you refuse to dig deep down and be honest with yourself as to the reality of your foundation for belief, doesn't mean others have to sit around and allow ass talkers like Rick Perry free reign to shit on reality. No, the Earth ISN'T 6000 years old. Yes, homosexuality IS genetic - you are born with it. Yes, evolution is a gloriously beautiful and simple explanation for why we came to be - and it's also a fact.

If you don't like these things, too fucking bad. You don't have a goddamn say in the matter, no matter how much you protest. Suck it up.

"Triumphantly" a theory? What does that even mean? It's arbitrary and unnecessary.
But the rest of your post mostly kicks ass.
Might want to check your facts on homosexuality though- unless you know something we don't know.

 

[Zenith]

Might want to check your facts on homosexuality though- unless you know something we don't know.

Actually, you might want to.

 

[Mortrialus]

Actually, you might want to.

As in BUB should? Has it actually been shown that homosexuality is genetic?

 

[Dali]

While that sounds good on paper, it has an unfortunate misuse: The "admittance" is nothing of the sort. It's an attempt to equalize faith with science. Which gives it ground to start encroaching into education. Which, in turn, makes it a political issue, since the politicians will pander to those who want to force legislate their religious beliefs as fact.

So this REALLY is about politics in the end. It's not about facts or science--the attackers of Dawkins, "I saw one debate and he's a dick" types, aren't out to learn anything, they're out to discredit someone so they can push their political agenda of getting their religion more power.

And that's a very, very dangerous behavior to allow.

Pretty much. I remember in middle school when my science teacher got to the evolution portion of our curriculum. She made a disclaimer about how she was about to get into some stuff that may be offensive to some students, but she was just going to teach the text as it was in the book. She didn't really explain in what ways the material would be offensive only simply saying it may be at odds with what some of us were taught at home. So she goes and explains evolution and using it as a theory to explain the origin of man. At the end I was like... "uhhhhh wtf? Where's the offensive stuff. I was promised controversy." Wasn't until later that it hit me some people actually believed in that Adam and Eve story and what she had just taught us may directly contradict what other kids were taught in Sunday school. I mean I was taught the same stuff (only from a Muslim perspective, which is still essentially the same) but I never really believed it.

Anyway my point is, leave religion out of the lesson. It's a science class ffs. Let kids get their alternative PoV from church and let them get a science lesson free of literary bs when in a science class.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Actually, you might want to.

Enlighten me. Which gene or set of genes is responsible? I honestly haven't heard of this discovery.

 

[Sage00]

I've often thought that ID could be the actual truth. Like who knows, it could be? So I don't really persecute people who believe in it. As long as they admit it's not science.

Because it has at much weight as saying Evilore created the universe? Or we all live inside a massive invisible replica of Big Ben? All of these things are as possible as ID, which is to say still possible yet an infinitely small possibility since nothing can be completely disproven.

But you'd be right to say anyone who suggested either of those is a loony. We let religious zealots avoid that on a grandfather clause (since they've been saying it since a pre-science age), but it's high time that goes too.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I don't believe in god and I find Dawkins to be an arrogant douche of the highest magnitude. Who makes repeated statements that can charitably be called moronic.

Yes, evolution is a gloriously beautiful and simple explanation for why we came to be - and it's also a fact.

Is this sarcasm? Evolution has nothing to do with "why." It also has nothing to do with the origination of life.

 

[Chuckie]

"Evolution is not just a theory, it's TRIUMPHANTLY a theory." Read about what the word "theory" means among people who are actually educated here. Protip: It does not mean what you think it means.

I knew that already, but that site describes it very very clearly!
I'm gonna use it when the 'Its just a theory' ever comes up.

 

[6.8]

So you are telling me that one of my ancestor's parents were monkeys, Richard?

 

[Chinner]

So you are telling me that one of my ancestor's parents were monkeys, Richard?

last time i checked my great grandma was not a monkey mr dawkins.

 

[danwarb]

I don't believe in god and I find Dawkins to be an arrogant douche of the highest magnitude. Who makes repeated statements that can charitably be called moronic.



Is this sarcasm? Evolution has nothing to do with "why." It also has nothing to do with the origination of life.

I thought it was obvious enough. How humans along with the multitude of other species on earth came to be, from a common ancestor. He's talking about evolution, not the origin of life.

How = why unless you presuppose a god.

 

[SmokyDave]

I don't believe in god and I find Dawkins to be an arrogant douche of the highest magnitude. Who makes repeated statements that can charitably be called moronic.

Unless the second sentence is missing a '?' at the end, could you provide examples of Dawkins making statements that could charitably be called 'moronic'?

last time i checked my great grandma was not a monkey mr dawkins.

My gran has a serious mustache so I'm not so confident.

 

[Pie and Beans]

I don't get it. If you believe in intelligent design, then at least you agree evolution is real. You disagree with the motor (the part that is up for revision, of course, and you do not believe in SCIENCE here), but you believe in change in gene frequency over time.

I really believe this is people just not understanding evidence and argument.

If someone says, "No, god put everything on earth the way it is today as it is today," then you don't believe in evolution. In which case you'd just be uneducated. But if you believed in "evolution by design," you do believe in evolution.

I've often thought that ID could be the actual truth. Like who knows, it could be? So I don't really persecute people who believe in it. As long as they admit it's not science.

This isn't true though. Intelligent Design is actually at odds with evolution because not all evolution is for an intelligent purpose. Its affected by surroundings, its continual, and more. If 'Intelligent Design' were to be true, there'd have to be a system in place in everything's DNA allowing some magic hands to come in and decide when that insect needs bigger mandibles and so forth all throught the passage of time. That system clearly doesn't exist.

The fact of evolution is that organisms gradually change over time. The theory behind evolutions ranges from survival of the fittest to taking into account the factors that force a biological organism to mutate/evolve.

Intelligent Design doesn't deserve to even be considered in the same sentence as evolution. Its just revisionist religion piggy-backing facts while ignoring others in an attempt to still seem relevant with fuzzy logic and convenient denials of certain holy passages.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

last time i checked my great grandma was not a monkey mr dawkins.

I traced my family history back 600 years to a small village in Finland and still no evidence of a monkey in my family. I'm starting to have real doubts about evolution.

 

[Gr1mLock]

Ah the brave new world. Where 'feelings' override reality.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I traced my family history back 600 years to a small village in Finland and still no evidence of a monkey in my family. I'm starting to have real doubts about evolution.

I'm a monkey's uncle.

 

[JGS]

I expect to see a platform change for Perry now that Dawkins hath spoken on the matter.

It's so conveniently timed with the next Book of Dawkins too!

 

[Antagon]

last time i checked my great grandma was not a monkey mr dawkins.

She was a Mallard, wasn't she?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

My gran has a serious mustache so I'm not so confident.

Does she make you kiss her big monkey mandible?

 

[Dirtyshubb]

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.

This has to be one of the hardest things to watch in my life, seriously!

Her argument is just so shit its hard to actually come back at it with anything other than insults.

She is basically saying that because there apparently isnt any evidence of evolution she is going to believe in something that has absolutely no evidence backing it up, unlike evolution!

She is also saying that her other reasoning for her choice is that only through believing in creationism can you treat humans with respect and appreciate people with disabilities?!

I mean, maybe its because I am from the UK and creationism was something I only learned about a few years ago but to know there are people this deluded out there amazes and frightens me.

As for Dawkins comments in the OP, I understand seeing things from other's perspectives but to try and have this absolute bollocks in schools ect has to be stopped at all costs, it is only going to hold people back and will prevent people from changing opinions based on new evidence that comes out throughout the years.

Thats the beauty of science, we will probably never know exactly how everything works but it is always striving to better understand and is adaptable enough to be able to change ideas that have been thought of as correct for hundreds of years with little resistance, especially in comparison to beliefs that are more religious based which for the most part is never willing to change.

 

[To Far Away Times]

This isn't true though. Intelligent Design is actually at odds with evolution because not all evolution is for an intelligent purpose. Its affected by surroundings, its continual, and more. If 'Intelligent Design' were to be true, there'd have to be a system in place in everything's DNA allowing some magic hands to come in and decide when that insect needs bigger mandibles and so forth all throught the passage of time. That system clearly doesn't exist.

The fact of evolution is that organisms gradually change over time. The theory behind evolutions ranges from survival of the fittest to taking into account the factors that force a biological organism to mutate/evolve.

Intelligent Design doesn't deserve to even be considered in the same sentence as evolution. Its just revisionist religion piggy-backing facts while ignoring others in an attempt to still seem relevant with fuzzy logic and convenient denials of certain holy passages.

*Warning* Video contains an animal dissection.

If anyone still believes in intelligent design, they should watch this video, it pretty much shuts the door on that theory.

 

[linsivvi]

... Joke post?

If I get a dollar every time someone questions or doesn't get a blatantly obvious sarcastic comment on the internet, I'd be the richest man on earth.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

If I get a dollar every time someone questions or doesn't get a blatantly obvious sarcastic comment on the internet, I'd be the richest man on earth.

Joke post?

 

[linsivvi]

Joke post?

You owe me a dollar.

 

[ruttyboy]

I've only ever met one person who seriously questioned evolution. It was a friend of mine so I took the time to sit down with them and explain it whilst answering the questions they had. Took about half an hour and at the end of it they agreed that they had been wrong and they no longer had any issues with accepting evolution as it made perfect sense.

I genuinely believe that anyone who is willing to take the time to actually learn about evolution will agree with it. It really is one of the most simple (and elegant) ideas there is.

Because of this, education is the battleground, those who are unwilling to accept evolution know that if they allow people to be taught it, they will accept it.

 

[JGS]

*Warning* Video contains an animal dissection.

If anyone still believes in intelligent design, they should watch this video, it pretty much shuts the door on that theory.

The video makes some rather rudimentary assumptions.

1. It's a myth that ID requires a purpose. In the context of design, there was no purpose for man.
2. It assumes the nerve would be better served being 2 inches long.
3. The debate was silly because they cut up a giraffe to prove a point about ID. Why?
4. It was sad that all thouse students (Assuming this was college) wasted time in a science class discussing the non-existence of God rather actually discussing the anatomy of a giraffe which should have been the primary driver of the conversation, not "God is a bad designer if he designed this".
5. They admitted that their information was based on a handful of dissections and yet they are supposed to figure out the nerve being as long as it is is worthless to purpose.
6. It's a myth that ID requires the absence of evolution. It only requires the absence of abiogenesis which the dissection did nothing for.

 

[Log4Girlz]

The video makes some rather rudimentary assumptions.

1. It's a myth that ID requires a purpose. In the context of design, there was no purpose for man.
2. It assumes the nerve would be better served being 2 inches long.
3. The debate was silly because they cut up a giraffe to prove a point about ID. Why?
4. It was sad that all thouse students (Assuming this was college) wasted time in a science class discussing the non-existence of God rather actually discussing the anatomy of a giraffe which should have been the primary driver of the conversation, not "God is a bad designer if he designed this".
5. They admitted that their information was based on a handful of dissections and yet they are supposed to figure out the nerve being as long as it is is worthless to purpose.
6. It's a myth that ID requires the absence of evolution. It only requires the absence of abiogenesis which the dissection did nothing for.

What intelligent design requires in a designer, which there is no evidence for. Maybe it was Batman.

 

[Gr1mLock]

This has to be one of the hardest things to watch in my life, seriously!

Her argument is just so shit its hard to actually come back at it with anything other than insults.

She is basically saying that because there apparently isnt any evidence of evolution she is going to believe in something that has absolutely no evidence backing it up, unlike evolution!

She is also saying that her other reasoning for her choice is that only through believing in creationism can you treat humans with respect and appreciate people with disabilities?!

I mean, maybe its because I am from the UK and creationism was something I only learned about a few years ago but to know there are people this deluded out there amazes and frightens me.

As for Dawkins comments in the OP, I understand seeing things from other's perspectives but to try and have this absolute bollocks in schools ect has to be stopped at all costs, it is only going to hold people back and will prevent people from changing opinions based on new evidence that comes out throughout the years.

Thats the beauty of science, we will probably never know exactly how everything works but it is always striving to better understand and is adaptable enough to be able to change ideas that have been thought of as correct for hundreds of years with little resistance, especially in comparison to beliefs that are more religious based which for the most part is never willing to change.

I swear within ten seconds i got the urge to punch her in the teeth so hard that i had to restrain myself from punching my monitor.

 

[Ichabod]

The video makes some rather rudimentary assumptions.

1. It's a myth that ID requires a purpose. In the context of design, there was no purpose for man.
2. It assumes the nerve would be better served being 2 inches long.
3. The debate was silly because they cut up a giraffe to prove a point about ID. Why?
4. It was sad that all thouse students (Assuming this was college) wasted time in a science class discussing the non-existence of God rather actually discussing the anatomy of a giraffe which should have been the primary driver of the conversation, not "God is a bad designer if he designed this".
5. They admitted that their information was based on a handful of dissections and yet they are supposed to figure out the nerve being as long as it is is worthless to purpose.
6. It's a myth that ID requires the absence of evolution. It only requires the absence of abiogenesis which the dissection did nothing for.

Well said, old chap.

 

[Narcosis]

I've only ever met one person who seriously questioned evolution. It was a friend of mine so I took the time to sit down with them and explain it whilst answering the questions they had. Took about half an hour and at the end of it they agreed that they had been wrong and they no longer had any issues with accepting evolution as it made perfect sense.

I genuinely believe that anyone who is willing to take the time to actually learn about evolution will agree with it. It really is one of the most simple (and elegant) ideas there is.

Because of this, education is the battleground, those who are unwilling to accept evolution know that if they allow people to be taught it, they will accept it.

I don't know if you're from America or not, but I didn't even see evolution taught in any of my classrooms until college. I learned about it as a kid from reading books about dinosaurs, mammoths and sabre toothed cats on my own. How sad is that in a first world nation?

 

[Uchip]

I don't know if you're from America or not, but I didn't even see evolution taught in any of my classrooms until college. I learned about it as a kid from reading books about dinosaurs, mammoths and sabre toothed cats on my own. How sad is that in a first world nation?

yea
should be taught with your ABC's
E is for Evolution!

 

[Pie and Beans]

oh good JGS is here.

For someone that likes to pick apart things on assumptions, perhaps assuming a cut together 4 minute TV clip to demonstrate one aspect of dissecting a giraffe was those student's entire lecture in which they learned nothing else about biology is a mistake on your part?

Also did you enjoy they part where everyone chuckles and smiled when she mentioned 'Intelligent Design'? I did

A nerves basic purpose is for communication, sending 'data' along synapses to deliver a message to the brain and the corresponding body parts. There is no purpose to it being massively long and looping around the entire body. Its not an intelligent design, its crude, very basic and completely goes against the logic of any craftmanship or other force involved in the process.

There is no evidence for Intelligent Design, at all. in the existence of all biology. As far as science is concerned, its a failed theory with no facts to support it. Bring some evidence to the table, and a scientist will slap his wide-open mouth and say "excellent!". But alas...

 

[ruttyboy]

I don't know if you're from America or not, but I didn't even see evolution taught in any of my classrooms until college. I learned about it as a kid from reading books about dinosaurs, mammoths and sabre toothed cats on my own. How sad is that in a first world nation?

I'm from the UK and I don't want to make assumptions about what is/isn't actually taught in school, but I can tell you that the reports we get don't paint a pretty picture.

I've been watching a bit of that video someone posted above with the interview with the creationist woman. My respect for Dawkins has gone through the roof, just for his self control, she's lying to his face, and when he very politely points this out she either flat out denies it or changes the subject.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

What intelligent design requires in a designer, which there is no evidence for. Maybe it was Batman.

Is it really so hard to believe that someone or some thing could create life on this planet?
Hell, in 100 years, instead of growing sea monkeys, kids will be buying a kit for creating different life forms. They will become little 7 year old gods.

 

[iapetus]

I find both Dawkins and Perry equally abhorrent.

I dislike a lot of Dawkins' attitude, many of his preconceptions and don't find a lot of what he does to be constructive, but the difference here is that he's largely right, and Perry is largely wrong. I prefer the asshat who's correct to the asshat who's wrong any day of the week.

Wrong, evolution is a theory. It is an inference used to explain a set of observations, which makes it a theory.

A theory is a wonderful thing to be, of course. Anyone who describes something like evolution as 'just a theory' is demonstrating their own utter ignorance of the scientific method.

That said, there's a case for saying that evolution itself is a fact. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain that fact.

Why we still got mankeys?

Because Mankey gets high-level attacks like Close Combat, Punishment and Final Gambit at much lower levels than Primeape, and so it might be worth holding off on evolving it. Duh.

how does he know that God did not spark evolution which spark humanity? evolution exists either way, though

He doesn't, but he sees no evidence for that, and as you say, evolution happens either way, so people who doubt it for irrational reasons are still irrational.

If you understood any aspect of evolution, then you'd know that the concept is thoroughly incompatible with "design".

This is normally where I'd say 'garbage'. I'm assuming he's talking about a situation where some creator has designed a system that uses evolution, possibly with certain goals in mind. If you think that's incompatible with evolution, you'll have to explain to me why we still got genetic algorithms/programming.

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.

Speaking as someone who has, The Selfish Gene >>>>> The God Delusion.

"Evolution is not just a theory, it's TRIUMPHANTLY a theory." Read about what the word "theory" means among people who are actually educated here. Protip: It does not mean what you think it means.

I don't think he's making the 'just a theory' claim here. He's just (correctly) distinguishing between 'theory' and 'fact'. The importance of a theory is weakened just as much by people who confuse it with fact as it is by people who see it as 'just a theory' - both detract from the inherent power of a theory.

 

[ReBurn]

I find it amazing how much people are caught up in this whole evolution vs. creation thing. At least it makes for some mildly amusing low-brow trolling, which Dawkins and Perry both seem to excel at.

 

[Kermit The Dog]

The video makes some rather rudimentary assumptions.

1. It's a myth that ID requires a purpose. In the context of design, there was no purpose for man.
2. It assumes the nerve would be better served being 2 inches long.
3. The debate was silly because they cut up a giraffe to prove a point about ID. Why?
4. It was sad that all thouse students (Assuming this was college) wasted time in a science class discussing the non-existence of God rather actually discussing the anatomy of a giraffe which should have been the primary driver of the conversation, not "God is a bad designer if he designed this".
5. They admitted that their information was based on a handful of dissections and yet they are supposed to figure out the nerve being as long as it is is worthless to purpose.
6. It's a myth that ID requires the absence of evolution. It only requires the absence of abiogenesis which the dissection did nothing for.

How does it feel to be impossibly wrong about everything?

 

[daviyoung]

Is it really so hard to believe that someone or some thing could create life on this planet?
Hell, in 100 years, instead of growing sea monkeys, kids will be buying a kit for creating different life forms. They will become little 7 year old gods.

They're not creating them, they're nurturing them. It's like sitting on a chicken's egg. Once it hatches you've got a chick. But you didn't create it.

 

[Uchip]

Is it really so hard to believe that someone or some thing could create life on this planet?
Hell, in 100 years, instead of growing sea monkeys, kids will be buying a kit for creating different life forms. They will become little 7 year old gods.

So you're implying that they put the Bunsen burner on and left the lab for three and a half billion years? lol

 

[Pandaman]

How does it feel to be impossibly wrong about everything?

its easy when you're only talking to the people who already agree with your conclusion.

Speaking as someone who has, The Selfish Gene >>>>> The God Delusion.

dont forget to squeeze in 'ancestors tale' between those two.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Is it really so hard to believe that someone or some thing could create life on this planet?
Hell, in 100 years, instead of growing sea monkeys, kids will be buying a kit for creating different life forms. They will become little 7 year old gods.

I'm not saying it was aliens...but it was aliens.

*londomollarionhistorychannel.gif*

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

They're not creating them, they're nurturing them. It's like sitting on a chicken's egg. Once it hatches you've got a chick. But you didn't create it.

No. I'm talking about actual creation. The sea monkey thing threw you off. My bad. It was the only example I could think of. We (Craig Venter) can already create artificial life forms. In 100 years I see no reason why some company can't sell "creation kits" to children.

 

[Ichabod]

I'm not saying it was aliens...but it was aliens.

*londomollarionhistorychannel.gif*

This made me lol. I love that guy! We need pics of dat hair stat.

 

[Uchip]

No. I'm talking about actual creation. The sea monkey thing threw you off. My bad. It was the only example I could think of. We (Craig Venter) can already create artificial life forms. In 100 years I see no reason why some company can't sell "creation kits" to children.

creating life and designing life are not the same thing and what you are saying doesnt really have anything to do with evolution

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

creating life and designing life are not the same thing and what you are saying doesnt really have anything to do with evolution

Who's talking about evolution?
And we can "design" life, so I have no doubt creating life won't be too far behind.

 

[V_Arnold]

To be religious, you must be ignorant. Anyone who underlines this like Dawkins does is a-okay in my book.

It is quite the opposite. But you will realize it sooner or later, do not worry.