This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← What I Think About Evolution

What I Think About Evolution - Comments

nrvous's Avatar Comment 1 by nrvous

Ha ha, The Onion! They're so crazy!

(Oh, wait...)

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:08:00 UTC | #43654

BaronOchs's Avatar Comment 2 by BaronOchs

What I like about this site is I know I can just sit back and watch this get torn to pieces :-)

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:14:00 UTC | #43656

CJ22's Avatar Comment 3 by CJ22

Doesn't want to alienate his core voters, doesn't want to look like a dimwit.

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:15:00 UTC | #43657

nrvous's Avatar Comment 4 by nrvous

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.


I am always mystified by those who accept the facts of evolution but still try to claim divine causality. In a way, I have more respect for those who simply cling to insisting that Genesis is all literally true. Why, after all, would God go to all the trouble of creating some sort of primordial sludge in order to spawn simple microbes and then algae, fungi, arthropods, etc. etc. all the way up through dinosaurs then mass exttinction followed by the agonizingly slow trudge to mankind (and everything else we see around us). Why would he not simply wave his magic wand and *ping* instant Special Chosen Organism!

(And, respectufully, Sen. Brownback, yes we do have a unique place in the world. And so does everything else.)

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:17:00 UTC | #43658

The Buxter's Avatar Comment 5 by The Buxter

"Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."

Just sad... plain sad!
Especially because of the beginning of the article - for a moment I thought he was going to accept science, and put on the old "science and religion covers different aspects of life" cliché. Instead he just used it to reject evolution anyway. Guess I should have seen it comming, when he said that ofcourse he believe in micro-evolution.

Sometimes I'm glad I live in Europe...

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:21:00 UTC | #43659

troodon's Avatar Comment 8 by troodon

"In our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves."

Hey Sam, that was a good start. It's just the other 832 words of un-fossilized coprolite....

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:25:00 UTC | #43663

BaronOchs's Avatar Comment 7 by BaronOchs

BAEOZ I think it's "Begging the Question"

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:25:00 UTC | #43662

Fedler's Avatar Comment 6 by Fedler

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.(empasis added)

There MUST be a god, there MUST be a god, there MUST be a god... (repeat ad nauseum until you believe it).

Oh, dear Senator Brownback. Seeking to get votes from both sides of the campaign trail you have really shot yourself in the foot (what's left of it at least). I wonder, Senator, how you know that the material order and the spiritual order were 'created' by a god? Theologians and atheists alike have been searching for the evidence. Good thing it's found in politics.
As science continues to explore the details of man's origin, faith can do its part as well.

Sure, just don't expect us to call it science or based on fact.
Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Which basically means you're right, as long as you owe it all to religion and God. Thanks, Senator. You lost my vote. Oh, wait, that would imply you had it to begin with.

On behalf of most Americans, I would like to apologize on behalf of Senator Brownback for being such a moron. His statement is so full of presuppositions. Yes, he's from THE Kansas, the one and the same.

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:25:00 UTC | #43660

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 10 by Quetzalcoatl

So basically, anything that proves man is special he accepts, otherwise, not interested.

The learned Senator speaks of dignity and humility, but fails to realise that the most dignified thing Humanity can do is to accept the fact that it is nothing special, and treat itself and the world accordingly.

Instead he resorts to extravagant double-speak. It's sad, in a way.

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:26:00 UTC | #43665

mnmnj's Avatar Comment 9 by mnmnj

"Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science."


Hmmm, so it is okay to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, just as long as you don't say the Earth isn't the center of the universe?

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:26:00 UTC | #43664

Hip_Priest's Avatar Comment 11 by Hip_Priest

My favourite response so far:

Sam Brownback talking about evolutionary biology. That's a bit like saying: "Here's Paris Hilton talking about partial differential equations"


http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmMzNTY1YWJlOTZjMjAzYWFlMzE2Zjc5NzcxMGY1NDI=http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmMzNTY1YWJlOTZjMjAzYWFlMzE2Zjc5NzcxMGY1NDI=

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:30:00 UTC | #43666

mr_sneed's Avatar Comment 12 by mr_sneed

and this guy is running for president???? You have got to be kidding!!! I hear he washes the feet of other church goers,what a nut!!

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:31:00 UTC | #43667

krogercomplete's Avatar Comment 13 by krogercomplete

One of the best examples I've seen of assuming God to be true and then reasoning forward from that. The quintessence of open-mindedness: I am happy to consider all the evidence. . .to the extent that it does not conflict with my assumption about God. Some good quotes below.


"The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God."

". . .using the gift of reason that God has given us."

"Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology."

". . .many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality."

". . .the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science."

"The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man's essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose."

"Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. . .aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected . . ."



I'm all for science; it can tell us some wonderful things about the world. But everyone knows that God created the universe, so any aspect of science that conflicts with that obvious truth can easily be dismissed. So much for moving from evidence to conclusion.

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:34:00 UTC | #43669

Luthien's Avatar Comment 14 by Luthien

Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.


We should all email this man with the dictionary definition of confirmation bias...

...in fact, this should be added to the dictionary as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:38:00 UTC | #43671

LeeLeeOne's Avatar Comment 15 by LeeLeeOne

hmmm....

"Sam Brownback is a Republican senator from Kansas."

Kansas.... hmmmm ....

Can you say "Intelligent Design?" A JP degree does not automatically give the recipient common sense.

Are his the ancestors from the German Reformed Church of Pennsylvania?

Can you say fundamentalism?

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:43:00 UTC | #43672

ricey's Avatar Comment 16 by ricey

Written by Brownback's press agent to appeal to his congregation - the voters. Whether or not he believes this stuff is beside the point.

Damage limitation for the thinking sector of the electorate that were shocked when he put his hand up to say he didn't believe in evolution.

Shameless political jargon.

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:47:00 UTC | #43673

room101's Avatar Comment 17 by room101

Idiot...this is one of our presidential candidates, mind you...

Anyway, I hope what Jon Stewart said is true (during a segment on "The Daily Show" that featured these 3 nitwits raising their hands when asked who didn't believe in evolution).

"In case you missed it, raising their hands were Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee. They will be missed."

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:50:00 UTC | #43674

Mash's Avatar Comment 19 by Mash

Biologists will have their debates about man's origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table


I'm extremely curious what people of faith can bring to the table. Bible lines? A how-not-to-do-it? Tea?
I can't see them being anything else than annoying--

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:51:00 UTC | #43676

phoucault's Avatar Comment 18 by phoucault

To think I live in this guy's state...

At my high school the vast majority of kids think along the lines of Brownback: Not Genesis, but divine causality. However, I suppose it was their blatant stupidity that drive me to reading Dawkins. Perhaps there is a God!

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:51:00 UTC | #43675

Hip_Priest's Avatar Comment 20 by Hip_Priest

Those aspects of evolutionary electrostatic induction theory compatible with the truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine the truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic a-zeus-ic theology posing as science.

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:52:00 UTC | #43677

Shuggy's Avatar Comment 21 by Shuggy

Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
So when science and religion do conflict, you'll cling to religion and oppose science? You are the Weakest Link, Goodbye!

I hear he washes the feet of other church goers,what a nut!!
Aww, that's rather sweet. I warm to him a little on hearing that. (They - usually - only do it in the week before Easter, because it's something they believe Jesus did, if he lived. It's a gesture, not serious foot-hygiene. If he did it every Sunday I'd be concerned.)

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:57:00 UTC | #43678

Bookman's Avatar Comment 22 by Bookman

Sen. Brownback has (sadly) proved himself to be perfectly qualified for the job of President of the United States. How is he any different from Reagan or George W. Bush?

Thu, 31 May 2007 13:58:00 UTC | #43679

mmurray's Avatar Comment 23 by mmurray

Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order.


Leaving aside the accident question -- he should read Stephen J Goulds book about the Burgess Shale but maybe he doesn't believe in fossils -- what is this rubbish about a unique likeness. Hasn't he ever seen an ape or a chimp ? Why do we share so much DNA with other living things ? Even if you just look at the human skeleton and the skeleton of most other mammals (eg whales) you can see the similarities: two legs, two arms, five fingers/thumbs at the edge of each leg and arm ...

What a load of rubbish. The NYTimes should be ashamed to allow this to be published. Would they publish a similar article questioning chemistry versus alchemy, astronomy versus astrology?

Michael

Thu, 31 May 2007 14:07:00 UTC | #43682

PeterK's Avatar Comment 24 by PeterK

Clownful blatherings.

Thu, 31 May 2007 14:16:00 UTC | #43685

PaulJ's Avatar Comment 25 by PaulJ

Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him.
It's a mystery....
The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.
Evidence? No, of course I'm not going to look at the evidence. I've already made up my mind.
I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.
Because if that wasn't the case (God forbid...) I wouldn't be important.
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man's origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
Or in other words, I'm in favour of any scientific inquiry that doesn't come up with results that might contradict what I already know to be true.

This is the most awful, closed-minded trash I've seen in, oh, days.

Thu, 31 May 2007 14:19:00 UTC | #43686

mnlandon's Avatar Comment 26 by mnlandon

The good thing is that the improbability of him getting elected is about as large as the improbability of a divine creator.

Thu, 31 May 2007 14:32:00 UTC | #43689

Donald's Avatar Comment 27 by Donald

I thought it was a well written defence - grammatical and smoothly coherent through the blatantly circular and subversive reasoning.

I wonder who wrote it for him.

Thu, 31 May 2007 14:34:00 UTC | #43690

scottishgeologist's Avatar Comment 28 by scottishgeologist

"because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God"

He obviously takes it as axiomatic that God exists. No question about it. No debate. Zilch. All else springs from that. Why? Because it just is - here, I 've got the learned journal itself, the Bible.......

Brownback? Like is he into scat or what?

And as for that foot washing stuff, hey now we're talking. That hot little redhead in the front pew, dangling her high heel shoe on her dainty crimson painted nylon covered toes.... f***, I'd do more than just wash her feet....

Actually, this fetishistic practice deserves an entire thread, or maybe even forum to itself. Charismatic evangie types are really into it. Here is a particularly grim pic of it:

http://www.new-wine-scotland.org/IMG_1923.JPG

"Wendy gets her feet washed" is the caption.

And this particularly un-appetising incident happened as part of an evangie delusion-fest, mere yards from Scotlands most ancient and revered academic institution.....

http://www.new-wine-scotland.org/default.htm

Grim, absolutely grim....

Thu, 31 May 2007 14:37:00 UTC | #43691

Filius Nithardi's Avatar Comment 29 by Filius Nithardi

@Hip_Priest

Those aspects of electrostatic induction theory compatible with the truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine the truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an a-zeus-ic theology posing as science.

Haha, that totally cracked me up!

Thu, 31 May 2007 14:44:00 UTC | #43692

CruciFiction's Avatar Comment 30 by CruciFiction

Well, I'm just sick to death of hearing from those faith-heads who try to always square the circle for the rest of us in respect to reason v. faith.

Brownback's piece is more irrational pathetic nonsense of word-babble that would make any theologian proud. This irrational defense of irrational religious faith reminded me of the excellent debate with Peter Atkins [in March 2007] where he asserted, more than once, that religion serves only the "why" question, which in fact is totally useless to us -- and that ALL "why" questions can better be, and should always be, rephrased as "how" questions. I strongly concur.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,777,Debate-between-Alister-McGrath-and-Peter-Atkins,AtheistDebateorg

Some of my favorite author quotes on "faith":

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill." ~ H.L. Mencken, New York Times Magazine, 11 September 1955

"Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give themselves to keep believing when reasons fail." ~ Sam Harris

"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)

"Faith is the antithesis of proof." ~ NY State Supreme Court Justice Edward J. Greenfield, 1995

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true." ~ Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] (1835-1910)

"Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind." ~ Rev. Donald Morgan (b. 1933)

"Faith," said St. Paul, "is the evidence of things not seen." We should elaborate this definition by adding that faith is the assertion of things for which there is not a particle of evidence and of things which are incredible." ~ E. Haldeman-Julius

"Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject -- otherwise there's no need for faith." - Unknown

"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." ~ Dan Barker

"Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to." ~ George Seaton

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." ~ Richard Dawkins

Thu, 31 May 2007 14:48:00 UTC | #43693