"...that evidence for “evolution” is “A, B and C” then the next generation is taught that (if they even admit it—think peppered moths, human gill slits, etc.) “A, B and C” has been discredited and the real evidence for “evolution” is “D, E and F” then the next generation is taught that “D, E and F” has been discredited and the real evidence for “evolution” is “G, H and I,” etc."What are you talking about? "Recall that Richard Dawkins accepted the Darwinian theory of evolution because he was taught it before he ever read it—or because of the manner in which he was taught it..."Thats true for teaching any kid anything, which is why kids shouldn't be taught obvious falsehoods like 6000 year old Universe/Earth for example and only accepted scientific theories. Hence the anti-creationist movement in Public schools. "[...] and because he recognized the, according to him, convenient byproduct of making God unnecessary"Well, it makes God unnecessary in development of species and discredits literal biblical time frame of Earth history.
Thanks for checking in:"think peppered moths, human gill slits, etc."aDios,Mariano
Thanks for checking in:"think peppered moths, human gill slits, etc."More like "a" and "b" rather then "A" and "B"."z1" to "z9546019" are fossils (interpretation of those can change and sometimes does as we discover more). HoweverA genetic similarities, B ERVs, C different and more complex organisms in progressive layers ...List go on, and interpretation of those uniformly support evolution.BTW gill bar is present in mammalian embryos.PS. I would love you to explain: 1)ERVs (human + apes)without common ancestry2)if you are YEC, why does fossils appear distributed in layers from simple organisms to more complex ones "on the top" (Noachian Flood)
I'm getting really tired of the straw man argument that all Christians think that the earth is only 6000 yrs old. We don't all think that! Neither does the Bible teach that.
I don't understand the point of this post - what point are you trying to make? That dawkins was brought up as an Anglican and taught about Darwin and evolution? And? that covers a fair portion of the British population. Dawkins does write as a biologist and not making any claims to be a theologist. Unlike the clergy who stick their nose into medical issues where they regularly overstep the mark. For example, N. Ireland is part of the UK but whilse abortion is legal in most of the UK it isn't in N. Ireland. So, if they get a say in medical issues then Dawkins gets a say in the impact of evolution. And while you haven't read his book - clearly - you should stop ignoring the point he is making which is not that God does not exists, it's a defence of science, particularly in education, and not blind faith. At least try and be a little objective.
Marcus,Dawkins isn't say everyone who believes in a god believes the earth is 6000, but that he feels the number who do think so is increasing and he wants to point out the facts. What's wrong with that?
1)ERVs (human + apes)without common ancestryThey were created that way. 2)if you are YEC, why does fossils appear distributed in layers from simple organisms to more complex ones "on the top" (Noachian Flood)a) That distribution is far from consistent. I suppose when they DON'T appear that way, it just doesn't matter, right? b) That's the way they happened to fall and be fossilised. Truth is stranger than fiction. This is Darwinism of the gaps.And the fact that you cited gill slits makes me laugh. Like out loud.Peace,Rhology
Rhology, you have not responded to the points. All you have done is made unsupported assertions that clearly show you do not understand them at all.Also, human embryo do have gill slits, but are properly referred to as pharyngeal arches or pharyngeal slits. ~Atomic Chimp
AC,He didn't ask for detailed evidences, he asked for an answer. As for evidences, I'd point out that God said it went down that way. And that you as a naturalist (if you're a naturalist) have no way to go back in time to see whether what I say is incorrect. You just have your naturalist PREsuppositions, and naturalism is incoherent and irrational, so there's plenty of reason to reject a purely naturalistic acct. Also, you do realise that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a dead issue?
I sense some heavy drinking was involved in your last post Rhology. At least for your sake I hope it was.
Don't mind Rho, he's nuts. You'd have better luck discussing an issue with the Time Cube guy.
"Dawkins does write as a biologist and not making any claims to be a theologist". On the contrary he makes religious (anti religious) statements all the time in his so called scientific writings. Something 99% of scientists feel no urge to do in their reported writings. the fact he does not use the actual word theologist is no proof at all."Dawkins isn't say [sic] everyone who believes in a god believes the earth is 6000, but that he feels the number who do think so is increasing and he wants to point out the facts."Stretching a point beyond its normal meaning to defend him here. In fact he he treats most as though they do make such a claim and then dismisses those that do not advocate such a position as merely lacking the 'moral' 'courage' to make the full step to becoming atheists. I have never seen evidence that the number or proportion of theists in the world advocating a 6000 year old earth is increasing let alone such evidence forthcoming from Mr Dawkins. I have heard it voiced as an opinion or belief by the likes of Mr Dawkins sometimes, but I have seen absolutely no evidence that such a worldwide shift in belief is ocurring and the need for Mr Dawkins to 'point out the facts'.I was educated at a secular school in the UK. This means I did not experience the American education system, but had to put up with indoctrinating science. I was taught evolution in a very Dawkins type of view was a scientific fact and that to question that was illogical, stupid and mad. I was taught that man, quite specifically identified as homo sapiens, had been on the planet for millions of years.I was taught that man was descended from apes. I was taught that the peppered moths actually changed from a white species to a black species. I was taught that all embryos are and look very similar in their early stages in the womb/egg. I'm not making any of this up they were all taught as undisputed facts, these would even make the most ardent evolutionists shudder.However what I find is that as each earlier bedrock of Darwin's original theory or evidence for it is undermined it is discarded and replaced by something else of by a modification of the original theory, but the theory itself is never questioned.Its true I am no phd and I'm not going to try and argue with those of you that are, but I know I was told lots of things as 'facts' which were nothing of the sort and I wonder how many other 'facts' therefore must also be questioned in future.and please do not try to tell me I have made any of the elements of my educational experience up, they all happened, in fact even more, but I can't be bothered to continue writing them ad nauseum.And when I was at school Mr Dawkins was peddling exactly the same line he is doing so now, no change, as far as he is concerned the changes in the scientific facts 'understanding' make no change, and no attempt to address any of them, unlike many better academics in the field who are more interested in science and less interested in their ego, personal fame and selling their books to make so much money.
How many people here, authors of the blog included, actually intend to read this book? Just curious.
Those of you who try to refute evolution clearly do not understand the concept. Or you are in denial about it, blinded by faith (great name for a christian band?), or simply too uneducated to know what it is you are attempting to argue against.Please do yourself a favor. Open your mind and obtain some education. Also, read some Dawkins.
Rhology: "[ERV] were created that way. "Well that explains everything. "a) That distribution is far from consistent. I suppose when they DON'T appear that way, it just doesn't matter, right? "What? Where? Evidence please"b) That's the way they happened to fall and be fossilised. Truth is stranger than fiction. This is Darwinism of the gaps."All the animals (those not on the Ark) that died in the flood just arranged themselves in layers? How?"And the fact that you cited gill slits makes me laugh. Like out loud."Well they do have gill slits.
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2131Sex, flies and videotape: the secret lives of Harun Yahya, Muslim creationist, cult leader, Dawkins' nemesis, messiah. Halil Arda tracks down the real Harun Yahya Inspired by the high profile of its Christian American counterpart, Muslim creationism is becoming increasingly visible and confident. On scores of websites and in dozens of books with titles like The Evolution Deceit and The Dark Face of Darwinism, a new and well-funded version of evolution-denialism, carefully calibrated to exploit the current fashion for religiously inspired attacks on scientific orthodoxy and “militant” atheism, seems to have found its voice. In a recent interview with The Times Richard Dawkins himself recognises the impact of this new phenomenon: “There has been a sharp upturn in hostility to teaching evolution in the classroom and it’s mostly coming from Islamic students.”Denial of evolution is not just a Christian activity.
“There has been a sharp upturn in hostility to teaching evolution in the classroom and it’s mostly coming from Islamic students.”The old tale about leading a horse to water... works when one does not push it to drink/think