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

← Knowledge regained

Knowledge regained - Comments

Nervous Wreck's Avatar Comment 1 by Nervous Wreck

Good article, but some common mistakes like stating we originate from apes.

We share a common anscestor.

Edit: We ARE apes.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:37:00 UTC | #232800

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 2 by Chris Roberts

Pussy-footing around this is not a great tactic.

Creation is wrong, full stop.

And if the Muslims are too child-like to accept this, then tough.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:38:00 UTC | #232803

Quine's Avatar Comment 3 by Quine

<!-- Be sure tags are closed -->Nails, is this too weak:

"Creation is not consistent with the facts we see in the world."?

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:49:00 UTC | #232815

InfuriatedSciTeacher's Avatar Comment 4 by InfuriatedSciTeacher

Pussy-footing around is a good tactic if and only if it gets someone to pull their fingers out of their ears long enough to listen to you. Perhaps GENTLY informing them that they're wrong and why? Admittedly there is a point where you just run out of patience.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:53:00 UTC | #232824

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 5 by DamnDirtyApe

Oh boy. This is going to take a lot of work.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:59:00 UTC | #232832

ksskidude's Avatar Comment 6 by ksskidude

This is not that hard to believe. I was watching a show this morning with my wife and one of the host on the show asked the question, or made the statement that people are still having trouble understanding why 9/11 happened in America.

If you have an understanding of radical Islamist, and you know that they were doing what they thought their god wanted them to do than its not hard to know why.

This article for me brings to light weher we msut start making changes among the believers of this world. Once they can start seeing evolution as true, maybe then they will start to ask more questions about the existence of a supernatural being.
It's bad enough that I have to sit and watch a candiadte for the second highest office in our country, who doesn't believe in evolution. If it were up to me, any perosn that didn't agree with today's scientific "truths", would be eliminated from any position of authority with our government. It undermines the scientific community and only leads to ignorance.
Now if they disagree and have actual evidence then that can be taken into consideration, but to deny the standards based off "I don't believe it" doesn't cut it!!!!

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:01:00 UTC | #232835

v4ri4bl3's Avatar Comment 7 by v4ri4bl3

"...since science can neither prove nor disprove God."

Well, if that is isn't an entirely inaccurate depiction of the scenario, I don't know what is. Why is it necessary to make this concession in order to make the pious comfortable with Science? I don't think I have ever heard it put accurately that: If God exists, there is potential for Scientific observation to support the claim; however, if God does not exist, it would be impossible to support such a claim with evidence. Because we all know--or at least SHOULD know--that there is no such thing as evidence for the NON-EXISTENCE of anything. Indeed, we base our default position, of disbelief, on the basis of there being absolutely no evidence.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:19:00 UTC | #232854

Duff's Avatar Comment 8 by Duff

Darwin posited descent with modification through variation and natural selection. However, those variations have to be good for the organism or it will eventually become extinct.

If muslims and fundamentalists wish to live in the 12th century they will find themselves modified - in this case disadvantaged compared to other humans - to a degree that will make it impossible for them to compete and they will eventually be selected against.

You don't survive with the fittest if you have none of the skills/science practiced by fitter humans. Religion poisons everything.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:38:00 UTC | #232871

KevinPhillips's Avatar Comment 9 by KevinPhillips

"Professor Richard Dawkins recently said that most Muslims were creationists..."

Is it news that Muslims are creationists? Was the Guardian newspaper shocked to learn that?

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:43:00 UTC | #232878

lol mahmood's Avatar Comment 10 by lol mahmood

Duff, have you seen the film Idiocracy? It proposes the idea that natural selection no longer favours those humans most fitted to surviving, but rather those who breed like rabbits, regardless of their intrinsic Darwinian 'value' (for want of a better word, 'cos I'm tired). A lot of faithtards of all kinds favour large families, I suspect atheists tend not to (this is me asserting without a scrap of evidence), so the religulous could well end up outbreeding the reality based community...

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:45:00 UTC | #232880

nalfeshnee's Avatar Comment 11 by nalfeshnee

Two points:

many Muslims retain the simple picture that God created Adam from clay, much as a potter makes a statue, and then breathed into the lifeless statue and lo! it became a living human ...

[an] objection that is sometimes posed is the following: doesn't evolution denigrate and insult all humans, but especially the prophets of God, by insisting that we all originate from apes?

Riiiight - so sharing a common ancestor with an intelligent animal such as an ape is somehow denigrating, but being made out of a lump of clay isn't?


...since science can neither prove nor disprove God.

And religion can, of course. I hate when people cite this as if it is something that reflects badly on science.

OK, science cannot "prove" made-up quackery that operates by its own made-up rules.

This is not something that reflects badly on science.

How about rephrasing like this?

"He's largely correct, and the Muslim world desperately needs to debate the matter properly without fear, since the Koran taken as a body of knowledge is laughably incompetent at saying anything of significance about the real world in which we live."

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:46:00 UTC | #232883

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 12 by Ivan The Not So Bad

" can neither prove nor disprove God."

But we can establish probability.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:50:00 UTC | #232886

init's Avatar Comment 13 by init

" can neither prove nor disprove God."

A lie repeated 1000 times becomes truth? I know the believers must believe this, and so they (as journalists etc.) repeat this lie, but when will it end?

Whole religion is based on 4 anti-science errors, including: cause/effect mismatch, imaginary causes, false causality, and the error of free will.

Another error inherent to religions is the belief in "moral order of the world". This can also be proved false through positivistic methods, and well - it can be proved apriorically false! Free will and moral order of the world are both errors, both can be proved false in many ways even A PRIORI, and - as if that was little - they contradict each other! What is still needed?

"The Kingdom of God", all happy & 0 suffering, "heaven" and Jesus-the first cosmonaut, no sinning, no egoism, no will - these are just childish imaginations, which require a bit of science and a bit of philosophy to reveal as false... Sorry but whoever still states "God can't be disproved" is compromised for me. And yeah, world was created, of course... If one thing was otherwise, everything would have to be otherwise! Even without full determinism this is still true! So where is this place for choosing, for Gods artistic job?

Last but not least: why believe in a God which you can remove? Why say it (sorry for no 'he') "exists" (or "can exist") if it is YOU who defines the word "exist" and "truth"? Does nothingness exist? ...

Please take into account that not only species, but also religion and philosophy is a subject to evolution! You can say "man was not planned" (he wasn't an arbitrary idea of God, he is what he must be, and not necessarily what is liked); but our beliefs had to be planned, in order to match what is true. Imagine that you are to start a game to which you give first two letters and an array of transitions, where each pair of letters is assigned a 3-letter substitution. You can choose the initial pair and the array; now, would you be able to construct a theological treaty in such way?

So this is all about "eternal truth" in our beliefs...
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his judgement?

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:00:00 UTC | #232900

D'Arcy's Avatar Comment 14 by D'Arcy

In contrast to their forebears, modern Muslims have a childlike view of science, especially evolution. This needs to change

Yes indeedy!

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:23:00 UTC | #232978

epeeist's Avatar Comment 15 by epeeist

Comment #245836 by init

" can neither prove nor disprove God."

A lie repeated 1000 times becomes truth? I know the believers must believe this, and so they (as journalists etc.) repeat this lie, but when will it end?

Whole religion is based on 4 anti-science errors, including: cause/effect mismatch, imaginary causes, false causality, and the error of free will.
It can show that the assumed properties of an interventionist god such as Allah are logically contradictory. It can show the probability of any kind of interventionist god is small, though it cannot eliminate such a god completely.

Neither can it disprove a deist god who just kick starts the universe and then never interferes again.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:38:00 UTC | #232988

~manic-depressive's Avatar Comment 16 by ~manic-depressive

The article got off to a good start by referring to Professor Richard Dawkins as, well, "Professor Richard Dawkins".

As for pussy-footing, well maybe you have to talk to children at their level.

"Coochie, coochie coo, you too were made out of *goo, whether you be Muslim, Christian or Jew..."

*goo - the primordial "soup"

Damn, there's something seriously amiss with me today. (Finding it harder to hide the craziness; I'm tired...)

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:29:00 UTC | #233031

mmurray's Avatar Comment 17 by mmurray

Some good comments on the CIF website.


Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:32:00 UTC | #233033

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 18 by Border Collie

Am I incorrect or is this guy talking about the same people who fly airplanes into buildings, stone women to death, blow up thousands of innocent people a year, etc.? I'd say they have a few major issues to deal with before we sit around wringing our hands about whether they understand evolution.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:18:00 UTC | #233059

Ed-words's Avatar Comment 19 by Ed-words

As Ivan Not So Bad suggested - -

Evolution makes a god's existence less probable.

But it destroys his "holy books"!

( Great comment - -#18 - Border Collie)

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:34:00 UTC | #233121

Philster61's Avatar Comment 20 by Philster61

If God,Allah,Yaweh existed.Surely science wouldve found even the tiniest piece of evidence to support it.Given the technology we have at our disposal today it shouldnt be to hard to come up with some sort of proof of Gods existence.I guess not.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:37:00 UTC | #233125

Lisa Bauer's Avatar Comment 21 by Lisa Bauer

Too many Muslims decide to make science and Islam compatible by embracing the monstrosity known as "Qur'anic science" -- to wit, that any number of modern scientific discoveries in embryology (the favorite), the Big Bang, plate tectonics, etc., were all "foretold in the Qur'an." Therefore, the Qur'an is from Allah, since "nobody could have known" these things 1400 years ago.

Here's a typical article full of this nonsense:

To give a flavor of just how utterly ridiculous this is, here's one example. This verse is supposedly a reference to the Big Bang: "Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?" (21:30) This one supposedly refers to the expansion of the universe: "And the firmament, We constructed with power and skill and verily We are expanding it." (51:47) I leave it to you to decide how "prescient" these are and how they PROVE that none but Allah could have written the Qur'an! *eyeroll*

Even when I was Muslim I was completely embarrassed by this simple-minded appropriation of scientific discoveries (instead of, say, actually taking an interest in science for its own sake), and rolled my eyes at the tortured readings of vague verses of the Qur'an in order to "support" these ridiculous contentions.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:02:00 UTC | #233142

Eric Blair's Avatar Comment 22 by Eric Blair

Ayaan Hirsi Ali reminds us that Islam has not yet gone through an Enlightment.

This means that unlike Christianity and Judaism, it has not found a way to tolerate the modern world, and that means the modern world can't tolerate Islam - at least in its most literal form. (My words, not hers.)

As far as teaching evolution in schools goes, Muslim students like everyone else need only show they understand the theory so they can pass the exams. Whether they believe it or not is their own business - though if they understand the principles of science most of them will sooner or later.


Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:24:00 UTC | #233184

hien's Avatar Comment 23 by hien

[quote]since science can neither prove nor disprove God. [/quote]

This is nonsense.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:57:00 UTC | #233222

Silvia's Avatar Comment 24 by Silvia

Just to notice that the author's name was omitted: Usama Hasan.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:24:00 UTC | #233236

sornord's Avatar Comment 25 by sornord

What's gonna happen when some nutbag cleric or other interprets the evolution explanation, no matter how "gentle," as infidels saying that Mohammad was an ape?

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:09:00 UTC | #233279

DoctorE's Avatar Comment 26 by DoctorE

Wow I did not know that muslims believe in the Adam & Eve creation fable.

Perhaps islam & christianity will join together as Christlam against science and knowledge at some point in time eh.

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:27:00 UTC | #233287

Pete H's Avatar Comment 27 by Pete H

7. Comment #245790 by v4ri4bl3 on September 11, 2008 at 12:19 pm

"...since science can neither prove nor disprove God."
Well, if that is isn't an entirely inaccurate depiction of the scenario, I don't know what is.

Good point. I read this 'neither prove nor disprove' thing so often that I end up accepting it through mere familiarity.

The state of science education may be appalling for Muslims but this popular platitude reveals a wider problem.

Science has long since proved that god doesn't exist. But too many people don't accept this, either from social proof, hesitancy to offend, or perhaps they're waiting for the official peer-reviewed journal article. But articles about discarded theories that no longer interest the scientific community aren't highly regarded by journal editors.

Disproof goes beyond the impossibility of evidence of non-existence. Religious people are concerned with the kind of god who magically affects individuals in the real world. This is the theory which has been disproved and discarded. The other kind of god, that just creates the laws of physics, is virtually irrelevant as a religious concept.

Believers necessarily expect personal supernatural intervention. Without this there could be no tests of faith, which are essential to stimulate the mechanism that entrenches beliefs to be resistant to personal scrutiny.

For an individual to eventually discard such beliefs they must have access to real alternatives, even if not initially integrated.
When the inevitable further tests of faith occur these ideas would be available to crowd out inconsistent rationalisations. This implies that general scientific education really is important. But there is a risk, as with the use of antibiotics: the religious beliefs that end up naturally selected for survival will tend to be the ones with a relatively high degree of immunisation against scientific knowledge.

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:41:00 UTC | #233293

Pertwee's Bouffant's Avatar Comment 28 by Pertwee's Bouffant

Riiiight - so sharing a common ancestor with an intelligent animal such as an ape is somehow denigrating, but being made out of a lump of clay isn't?

...a point of view that has always baffled me, too. I've known a few religious people who won't accept humans are animals even in the broadest sense.

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:37:00 UTC | #233308

Pidge's Avatar Comment 29 by Pidge

The burden of proof must be on the person making the assertion. So I really do wish that those who say things like "science can neither prove nor disprove god" would just accept that until there is evidence to support the existence of god, the default postition must be that there is no god for all intents and purposes.

Whether 'god' (in the sense of an omnipotent being etc.) exists is still an open question - for me I am 99.9% sure that this is a case hence why I am an atheist. If I were not preprared to change my mind however I would be as unscientific as the religious. But I am not going to believe in god unless there is evidence - and currently there is no evidence.

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 03:27:00 UTC | #233325

bilge242's Avatar Comment 30 by bilge242

As a point of fact, he was an ape! Let the Fireworks begin

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 05:20:00 UTC | #233349