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

← God seekers go public

God seekers go public - Comments

Mbee's Avatar Comment 1 by Mbee

Is this all a response to Expelled hitting the mark?

Tue, 13 May 2008 05:53:00 UTC | #170210

wiz220's Avatar Comment 2 by wiz220

Oh dear... These guys just don't quit! I suppose they see now how they must manipulate the public which generally has a very shoddy understanding of science.

Tue, 13 May 2008 05:53:00 UTC | #170211

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 3 by irate_atheist

Fill in the usual comment:____________

Tue, 13 May 2008 05:56:00 UTC | #170213

bugaboo's Avatar Comment 4 by bugaboo

"scientists have been quietly and patiently working in the laboratory to test the predictions of intelligent design".

What predictions?

This is getting tiresome.

Tue, 13 May 2008 05:57:00 UTC | #170214

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 5 by Tyler Durden

"The more we learn about the organization of life, the more clearly it reveals design."


Tue, 13 May 2008 06:01:00 UTC | #170216

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 6 by Tyler Durden

If Darwinism really is plausible, it must instead be the case that Darwin leapt to something of substance - something that really explains how, contrary to our intuitions, the remarkable gadgets we see in biology can be chalked up to mindless inevitability.

False Dichotomy.

Do these guys really believe they're scientists? Just because they have a website and can spell b-i-o-l-o-g-y

"Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken."

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:10:00 UTC | #170220

SPS's Avatar Comment 7 by SPS

My question for the believers is:
What difference is there between a belief in god/design and the imagination?

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:12:00 UTC | #170222

Eventhorizon's Avatar Comment 8 by Eventhorizon

This just proves what a brick wall science is to their theories and its one that they'll never scale.
It seems a good thing that they realise the only way they'll ever be taken seriously is if they find scientific evidence for a creator. The ball is well and truly in our court and they're having to jump the net to get it!
Let them waiste their money looking for something they'll never find. Ha!

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:14:00 UTC | #170224

Forti's Avatar Comment 9 by Forti

Why would they need 'labs and real scientists' anyway? They should have more faith.

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:15:00 UTC | #170225

annabanana's Avatar Comment 10 by annabanana

I really wish that all of the religious whackos would quick hijacking words that are associated with rationality and reason and morphing (and possibly coining) them into words that would cause a novice to believe the associated subject to be something other than rubbish. "Biologic", "Scientology", "Intelligent Design"...

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:18:00 UTC | #170226

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 11 by irate_atheist

10. Comment #179373 by annabanana -

Hear hear!

This month's oxymoron award goes to "Christian Science Monitor".

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:23:00 UTC | #170230

BW022's Avatar Comment 12 by BW022

In science extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even the general public now requires more than normal evidence when folks make claims such as cold fusion, cures for X, etc. Ordinary folks didn't really buy relativity and atomic theory until the atomic bomb was set off. Most folks didn't really get how much biologists understood about genetics until we sequenced the human genome.

So how big of a discovery does one think scientific proof of God would need to be before anyone will scientifically accept it? Perhaps praying makes Higgs particles appear and disappear?

Do they think that real scientists won't shred any weaker evidence in seconds? Do they think scientists won't point out that in science you have to prove the positive and that disproving other ideas doesn't make yours any more valid? Don't they understand that that in science (or court) your background, sources of funding, previous claims, secrecy, sources of publications, lack of peer reviews, etc. are all going to be dragged over the coals?

Do they honestly think that more selective quoting from science papers is going to get them through the next Dover trial? That teachers, parents, and school boards who aren't already in Jesus-land are going to buy any of this when a real scientists -- with real accomplishments -- call this stuff nonsense? Do they really think they can find some unknown process and claim God is doing it, in which the real scientists won't figure it out in a few months or else be able to say "And how does that prove God did it?"

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:23:00 UTC | #170231

The Reverend Dark's Avatar Comment 13 by The Reverend Dark

I have to wonder what percentage of their budget is for research and what percentage is for advertising/outreach.

The Reverend Shayne Dark

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:24:00 UTC | #170232

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 14 by Oromasdes1978

What the fuck....?

Is their idea of "Peer Reviewed" just some red stamp on the paper saying "Goddidit"!

I would REALLY love to see these idiots provide the justification for some magnificent "Intelligence" arsing around throughout the ages thinking "Yes, another Ice Age will do, I can kill off so many animals, make way for some new ones that are more likely to survive in the freezing conditions then I can kill those animals by drought, mwhahahahahahaha!"

What utter dribble, the more I learn about evolution the more I think these guys are that word that Irate wishes us to fill in his comment section! :)

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:30:00 UTC | #170235

TheSwede's Avatar Comment 15 by TheSwede

"scientists have been quietly and patiently working in the laboratory to test the predictions of intelligent design".

They've been sitting for over three years now doing nothing but staring into an empty container... waiting... waiting...

*POOF* and something appears out of thin air! A brand new animal created by an intelligent agency, with its distinctive features already intact �" its a fish with fins and scales, but looks like a bird with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc!

It has been proven scientifically! Hallelujah!!

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:32:00 UTC | #170236

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 16 by Quetzalcoatl


technically Dembski and Behe WOULD qualify as peers.

And what Ice Age? Everyone knows the evidence for Ice Ages is a lie created by Satan to make us believe that the world is older than 6,000. Open your eyes, man!

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:33:00 UTC | #170238

Oromasdes1978's Avatar Comment 17 by Oromasdes1978


Have I been channeling Satan again? I guess that accounts for all the bad language and want to discover more about evolution!

If Dumbski and really...hahahhahahaha.....remember the Dover trial..hehehhehehhehe! ever qualify as peers I will have to call upon your services and unleash the army! :)

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:41:00 UTC | #170240

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 18 by Quetzalcoatl


I'm afraid you have been channeling Satan. You forgot what we were taught in school- "Kids! Say no to Satan!"

Or something like that, anyway.

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:45:00 UTC | #170242

annabanana's Avatar Comment 19 by annabanana

You forgot what we were taught in school- "Kids! Say no to Satan!"

Damn! All this time, I thought it was "Say no to drugs". I didn't know we were supposed to say no to satan. I've been saying yes to him for years...I guess I have to switch up my routine...yes to to satan...

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:47:00 UTC | #170245

SilentMike's Avatar Comment 20 by SilentMike

This will never be over. You have to figure with all that money and public support they'll eventually win and achieve their goal of dragging the US back into the dark ages.

Wouldn't that be a lot of fun?

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:55:00 UTC | #170247

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 21 by Quetzalcoatl


you mean you're not already on drugs? Huh. You learn something new every day.

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:58:00 UTC | #170249

EvidenceOnly's Avatar Comment 22 by EvidenceOnly

The behavior of all these GodDidIt IDiots is proof of evolution :)

Each time they run into the brick wall of reality we call scientific evidence they morph their story to keep their nonsense alive longer.

First creationism, then intelligent design, then blaming Darwin for all evil in this world, then expelling all intelligence from their own ranks, then claiming freedom of opinion in science class for teachers and students, then setting up false biology research centers. What's next?

For the pious who claim patent rights to morality, they obviously belief that the highest level of morality is lying for Jesus.

Should we call this the Lying for Jesus Disorder (LJD)?

Could science come up with a cure for this terrible disease?

Tue, 13 May 2008 06:59:00 UTC | #170250

annabanana's Avatar Comment 24 by annabanana


you mean you're not already on drugs? Huh. You learn something new every day.

No, despite my ranting and flailings when participating in these threads, I am not currently on drugs, but now since I know that it's ok, perhaps my arguments will be improved.

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:03:00 UTC | #170255

black wolf's Avatar Comment 23 by black wolf

So, a group of great expert scientists from different fields work together for at least 2.5 years to develop a single testable hypothesis based on undefined predictions (or make predictions based on an untestable hypothesis). And deliver neither of the two to the public because they're still 'not ready'. I wonder what their funding from the DI actually is, 150 bucks a month? Probably their lab work is so irreducibly complex and utterly unevolvable that they actually have no idea what it is.

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:03:00 UTC | #170254

konquererz's Avatar Comment 25 by konquererz

I'm actually curious as to WHAT they can do in a lab at all. What predictions can you make in a lab regarding intelligent design?

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:08:00 UTC | #170259

Quetzalcoatl's Avatar Comment 26 by Quetzalcoatl


I agree. It's hard to imagine what experiments you could do to confirm that something is irreducibly complex, and therefore designed.


I'll keep my fingers crossed. ;)

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:13:00 UTC | #170260

black wolf's Avatar Comment 27 by black wolf

I'm actually curious as to WHAT they can do in a lab at all. What predictions can you make in a lab regarding intelligent design?

I guess something like 'we should find things we can't explain in the light of evolution that could only have been put together by the designer'. Then they examine a bacteria culture under the microscope and go, 'I have no idea what that stuff is, but it's clearly alive. Since I can't explain it, it's designed'.
Therefore a design hypothesis must be: 'whatever I can't explain because I'm too lazy to read the papers already published is designed'.
Predicting, defining and explaining ID in a nutshell.

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:15:00 UTC | #170261

Darwin's badger's Avatar Comment 28 by Darwin's badger

What predictions can you make in a lab regarding intelligent design?
"We predict that when you look at the inner workings of a biological organism, it'll really, really look like it was designed by an intelligent being."

Along those lines, I expect. Should be a good exercise in spotting the logical fallacy.

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:15:00 UTC | #170262

Shaden's Avatar Comment 30 by Shaden


I'm sure they just ordered one chicken and one egg to be delievered to their lab. A full report of which one came first to follow...

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:19:00 UTC | #170266

annabanana's Avatar Comment 29 by annabanana

I'm actually curious as to WHAT they can do in a lab at all. What predictions can you make in a lab regarding intelligent design?

Good point. If all organisms are intelligently designed, what will tinkering around in a lab do to show this without the designer showing up and saying what he/she/it did and how he/she/it did it?

Tue, 13 May 2008 07:19:00 UTC | #170265