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

← Review of a Review

Review of a Review - Comments

GordonGoblin's Avatar Comment 1 by GordonGoblin

How do they not get embarrased by the nonsense that they write?

"Oh here comes Dawkins with evidence again, we already ignored your evidence, try us when you have something new, faith maybe"

I'm looking forward to reading my copy as soon as it arrives!

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:07:00 UTC | #394634

RPizzle's Avatar Comment 2 by RPizzle

I can't wait for the book either. I'm not reading so much as a word from it until it hits my door.

I just love how the creation "scientists" are already trying to tear down the book before it is even released. Very scientific of them...

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:24:00 UTC | #394636

Roger Stanyard's Avatar Comment 3 by Roger Stanyard

Andrew Sibley is a young earth creationist who clearly has not read Richard's new book.

He's part of the Creation Science Movement which runs the bat-rogering crazy cretinist "museum" in Portsmouth.

He's also a windbag who spends an inordinate amount of time "monitoring" the web site of the British Centre for Science education (for reasons unknown - I think it's because I described his latest book as "crapola" after he tried to get me to buy a copy.)

BTW, Richard, please accept my congratulations from bring out every creationist windbag and non-entity to "debate" their opinions all over the Internet!

I'm having a lot of fun doing so with them.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:30:00 UTC | #394638

Lithium_joe's Avatar Comment 4 by Lithium_joe

Did you watch the youtube video appended on that page?

Lying to camera and keeping a straight face - it's a skill, I'll give them that...

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:37:00 UTC | #394640

NewEnglandBob's Avatar Comment 5 by NewEnglandBob

Evidence of evolution and how creotards treat it:

fossils - ignore and maybe it will disappear
DNA - ignore - ditto
ecology - ignore "
ethology - ignore "
geology - ignore "
biochemisty - ignore "
zoology - ignore "
botany - ignore "
virology - ignore "
microbiology - ignore "
embryology - ignore "
anthropology - ignore "
bio-geography - ignore "
comparative anatomy - ignore "
evo devo - ignore "
many other research fields - ignore "

They are so pathological in the lies and deceit.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:14:00 UTC | #394641

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 6 by Jos Gibbons

“Uncommon Descent Serving the Intelligent Design Community” – it is ironic that they name themselves as if they dispute life’s common origin, when that’s the one thing on which they agree with us. It’s also ironic that they use the flagellar motor, when that was one of their first lies to be refuted. (Don’t take my word for it – take Behe conceding the point). But I’ not here to review their website logo – I’m here to debunk the rubbish they can write while reviewing a review and not the book itself, and ask the author what’s new in the book, rather than, say ... read the book? Let’s begin.
(1) Similar skeletons can hardly be of common designer when you realise the similiarities are stark raving mad. The panda’s thumb is a modified palm bone. The bat’s wing is a modified hand/foot. The horse’s hoof is a modified toenail. What’s the point? Why would a designer fake exaptation?
(2) There is nothing anachronistic about beavers, dragonflies and vertebrates having Jurassic, Carboniferous and Cambrian ancestors. Anachronism would be where the deduction of fossil chronology from height gives inconsistent answers when rocks from different places are used, and that never happens.
(3) They complain about the reviewer insulting them, but don’t seem to care that this is different from Dawkins insulting them; or, more importantly, that they haven’t offered any counter-arguments. They *claim* he has misrepresented them, to be sure; but they don’t even bother giving an example.
(4) As much as the title “The Selfish Gene” may suggest otherwise, that book deals with cooperation. Dawkins literally wrote the book on “some of the new philosophy taking place in biology” they think he doesn’t understand.
(5) What have epigenetics or lateral gene transfer got to do with anything? They mean evolution works differently from what was once thought, to be sure; but they also mean evolution actually happens! Not only are they not pro-ID facts; they are anti-ID facts.
(6) “[...] he might be more willing to engage in a respectful and reasoned debate and dialogue. One may wonder whether Dawkins’ position is looking more and more like one of those extinct Cretaceous dinosaurs that fill the British Natural History Museum.“ Oh, so *they* can use ad hominem.
Wait ... that’s it? The *whole* argument? Not one helpful thing to say in response to – well – the book. They only even tried to respond to one line of evidence it uses; they only made scant stabs at anti-evolutionary evidence, none of which is pro-ID, even if it did refute evolution irrevocably; they seem to know nothing of what Dawkins actually knows!
I have repeatedly said before that pro-us articles have anti-us comments below them and vice versa, but at UD both the articles and comments are anti-us. I can never be pessimistic enough to accurately predict the world. :(

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:51:00 UTC | #394645

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 7 by God fearing Atheist

From the article:

Perhaps if Dawkins understood some of the new philosophy taking place in biology involving cooperation, epigenetics and lateral gene transfer, and not simple struggle for survival, he might be more willing to engage in a respectful and reasoned debate and dialogue.

I have often seen the same trumped up charges** that RD does not understand cooperation (I suppose they mean "group selection"), epigenetics amd lateral gene transfer and hence his ideas are out-of-date and wrong.

1) I hope "The Greatest Show on Earth" addresses these points.

2) If not, I am looking forward to "TGSoE part 2" which will.

** And its not just from IDiots either. Scientists often take shots at RD too -,4077,Comment-The-Dawkins-dogma,New-Scientist and I think I remember Robert Winston also gibbering about epigenetics.

EDIT: Fixed link

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:26:00 UTC | #394651

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 8 by DamnDirtyApe

Uncommon Descent - Here's Adam Rutherford from the excellent BBC series 'the cell' attempting to engage with them

He evidently got bored of their repetitions and wandered off.

I think its bloody hilarious that they have a flagellum on the top bar of their site. It suggests they still believe that counts as evidence of intelligent design.

Grief, a quick look on youtube can refute that claim in about 5 minutes or so.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:34:00 UTC | #394652

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 9 by Mark Jones

The views displayed on this blog are indicative of the evils of believing something *religiously*. By that, I mean, not following the *evidence*. Many creationists *aren't* stupid, but are driven to wilfully misrepresent the nature of the world by their beliefs.

Andrew Sibley says in the comments: is a probabilistic inference to the best explanation, as are evolutionary explanations. The problem for biology is to determine which is the best explanation, sometimes the answer is clear, sometimes it isn’t. For those who like to think that science gives absolute answers such probabilistic solutions are not very satisfactory.

But as a meteorologist I have to write weather forecasts on the basis of over 50 solutions. Uncertainty is a fact of scientific life, so all I can say is ‘deal with it.’

"For those who like to think that science gives absolute answers". Who ever thinks that? Certainly no scientists, by definition.

Of course we are looking for the most probable explanation, and as a corollary of that we must favour simplicity in the origin.

Presumably his 50 solutions for his weather forecasts all involve god? If not, I'd like to know why not? Why is the 'probabilistic inference to the best explanation' for life, god, but for the weather system, nature?

He might say that life is so much more complex than the weather system, and that is true, I think. Is this a good reason to discard a simple natural solution supported by numerous strands of independent knowledge (evolution) for a complex supernatural solution? In the absence of evidence of design (such as maker's hallmarks) we must favour a natural solution, as demonstrated by meteorology. There was a time when we would have considered the movements of the clouds entirely divine, but that would be silly now, wouldn't it? Likewise for the origins of life.

Of course, it's possible his weather forecasts are simply based on god moving his furniture, in which case I withdraw the above; he would clearly be beyond reason in that discipline as well as in biology.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:37:00 UTC | #394654

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 10 by Steve Zara

At least the article gets one thing right:

If this is the level of debate then it is clearly not about science, but about a struggle for supremacy over control of the educational institutions and direction of society

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:47:00 UTC | #394656

Dark Matter's Avatar Comment 11 by Dark Matter

God Fearing Atheist,

I tried to click on link to New Scientist but my PC couldn't locate the page.

It is very depressing that a respected "science" journal feels the need to buy into the false debate of "teach the controversy" or sympathise with the Neville Chamberlain school of accommodation with those that can never or ever should be accommodated. I wonder if Sir Robert Winston believes that an accommodation could have been reached with the Nazis' or can be reached with Holocaust deniers?

Also very depressing to see such backward Cretinism on display in the comments of Allen Factor and co on the Economist website - how educational standards have flat lined in recent years.

Still, evil thrives when the good do nothing so I'll add a comment or 2 on the websites to demonstrate that utter idiocy and pathetic pig-ignorance will never go unchallenged.

Dark Matter.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 12:59:00 UTC | #394657

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 12 by God fearing Atheist

11. Comment #412664 by Dark Matter

Sorry. Fixed it. (Cut and paste doesn't always work :-( )

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:01:00 UTC | #394658

epeeist's Avatar Comment 13 by epeeist

Comment #412661 by Mark Jones: is a probabilistic inference to the best explanation, as are evolutionary explanations.
Wow, that sounds sciency.

Yes, one does use inference to the best explanation (abduction) to raise hypotheses during the discovery phase of a research programme. And I am sure he does this as a meteorologist.

However, once one has hypotheses then one must test them and this phase is not abductive. Rather it is deductive-nomological or inductive-statistical.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:17:00 UTC | #394659

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 14 by Border Collie

Just another rebel without a clue ...
'Respectful' debate? Translated ... we are obligated to respect their bullshit as we are being covered with it (and pretend that it doesn't reek) while they are not required to do anything, except squeal like pigs under a gate and constantly play their victim cards.

Epeeist ... "Wow, that sounds sciency." That is one of the most perfect comebacks I've read in my 5.9 decades! If you don't mind, I'll be using it fairly regularly.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:44:00 UTC | #394660

firstelder_d's Avatar Comment 15 by firstelder_d

A lot of the comments are pretty stupid. Vestigial organs are proof of creation? wtf?

15 Borne 09/04/2009 (not this site)
I’d say Dawkins is on his last leg.
He essentially takes breeding – something we’ve known about for 1000’s of years – and tries to make it support evolution.

Yes, why is this so hard to figure out? Stupid gods fogging up the works. Breeding proves animals can change dramatically over time, therefore the 'macro' evolution crap, is well, crap. So imagine that instead of a breeder picking dogs for being good-looking, they were out in the wild, and the best at living out there, were naturally picked, and had the most offspring... not.. that... hard. Idiots.

Oh and 'last leg' lol.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:48:00 UTC | #394661

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 16 by DamnDirtyApe

'Dawkins is on his last leg'.

Leg of what? You're not even stating an argument.

... sorry, just trying to use their strategy. :D

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:51:00 UTC | #394662

emilem's Avatar Comment 17 by emilem

The ID camp seems to expect from RD et al to provide some other proof that evolution is true. That is, proof other than that which has already been proven. To use his wonderful Latin and Roman example and to paraphrase it: "If the classicists use the Roman Coliseum and Forum once more to prove that the Roman empire existed, they must really be on their last leg."

They just prefer to go through life with their eyes shut because opening would mean confronting the facts.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:56:00 UTC | #394663

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 18 by Jos Gibbons

Comment #412668 by firstelder_d
Comment #412670 by emilem

It's as if they algorithmically form assertions like this:

Start --> Evidence of evolution --> Claim it's evidence of creation instead

Amazingly, this actually works on their fellow creationists. Are even conspiracy theorists that mistaken?

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:01:00 UTC | #394664

lawrencephaedrus's Avatar Comment 19 by lawrencephaedrus

"From the review there are no new arguments, just more of the same polemical rhetoric and the same tired old evidences. If this is the best RD can do then Darwinian evolution is clearly on its last legs."

i.e. "We read the review - no need to get into details, Dawkins is wrong, Jesus rode on a dinosaur, tra-la-la-la-la"

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:03:00 UTC | #394665

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 20 by Steve Zara

Comment #412670 by emilem

What the ID camp want is some acknowledgement that their reasoning is scientific. Some of it looks vaguely scientific. But it is based a profound lack of understanding of how evolution works. If you look at Dembski's work, it is full of detailed mathematics that supposedly shows that for natural selection to work is so improbable that it isn't reasonable to assume there is no intervention. But all this work is based on assumptions that have no foundation, such as Dembski's supposed "law of conservation of information". But Dembski will provide no justification for this law. So what he has done is to start off with the assumption that Natural Selection can't generate information and, after a lot of maths, end up with the conclusion that Natural Selection can't generate information!

It's all pseudoscience.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:47:00 UTC | #394668

Steven Mading's Avatar Comment 21 by Steven Mading

We really need to stop giving false respect to people who are lying, like those at the head of the ID movement. Sure, the masses they preach to are ignorant of what's going on and are believing what they're told, but the people at the top of the movement spend lots and lots of time inundated in the information they chose to deliberately ignore. Stop calling them deluded or misinformed. They are not. They know perfectly well what they're doing, and it's called propaganda. This review of a review is NOT a person being deluded. It's a person being dishonest. Lying is not the same thing as delusion and it's about damn time we called these assholes out for what they're doing and stopped being so damned respectful of them by coyly pretending we think they're merely honestly deluded.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:15:00 UTC | #394672

Koreman's Avatar Comment 22 by Koreman

It's about time that Mandelbrotism gets attacked too. The irreducible complexity of fractals is undeniable so it must be a magician who makes them and these cannot be the result of silly simple functions based on things like z=c yi. Schools should ban fractals from maths.

That is, if 'irreducible complexity' is the final argument creationist can come up with in their stupid crusade against windmills. Epic fail in respect to evolution of course.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:21:00 UTC | #394673

gruebait's Avatar Comment 23 by gruebait

I am saddened to hear that "Darwinian evolution is clearly on its last legs."

I supposed all references to evolution in text books will have to be excised, replaced by a single page that says, "goddidit", and is otherwise blank. At least, that will streamline the whole education enterprise.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:37:00 UTC | #394674

Moq's Avatar Comment 24 by Moq

I don't visit the websites of Holocaust deniers to see the finer points of their deranged argumentation, nor read their fictional articles.

I see no reason to visit the biological equivalent and ruin my weekend.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:40:00 UTC | #394676

JackR's Avatar Comment 25 by JackR

Look. Creationists are blinded by a desperate, pitiful, weak-minded need to believe in a God who made man the special little flower they need to think man is. That means they need to believe man was designed. That means they need to believe all other living things were designed too (because if not, then why assume man was?) That means they need to strap on foot-thick intellectual blinkers no matter how good the evidence or arguments against their belief are. That means we will never, ever convince them that they are not only wrong but hugely, tragically, embarrassingly so.

Their need is so huge, so all-encompassing that it renders them immune to embarrassment or shame. It certainly renders them immune to persuasion. They are not interested in evidence unless it can be twisted - no matter how grotesquely - into something they can sell as indicating design. They are not interested in logical arguments unless the logic can be skewed enough to look as though it might indicate design.

These people are intellectual cripples, and there is nothing - not even God almighty - that can heal them.

The only creationists who stand a chance of finding the truth are those who have reasonable intelligence and intellectual integrity yet who have had the misfortune to have this mad bullshit foisted upon them by their elders, and who have had the truth hidden from them. Those are the people I hope will get hold of Richard's book.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:06:00 UTC | #394679

Nunbeliever's Avatar Comment 26 by Nunbeliever

Ok, this one is not really even worth commenting on... but just for the record! F**K you Andrew Sibley.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:11:00 UTC | #394680

nalfeshnee's Avatar Comment 27 by nalfeshnee

Dudes and dudesses, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

If you want to know about the vast sum of scientific and other resources available to the ID community, just click on the "Resources" tab on the Uncommon Descent website:

That's right, they are "coming soon" ... and have been since the website went live, years and years and years ago.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:23:00 UTC | #394683

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 28 by DamnDirtyApe

27. Comment #412691 by nalfeshnee on September 5, 2009 at 5:23 pm

Although that said, I suspect their paypal 'donate' link works just fine.

I see scam potential in that site.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:45:00 UTC | #394685

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 29 by mordacious1

27. Comment #412691 by nalfeshnee

There are "reasons" why the resources have not been available, those given by the webmaster are as follows:

I ran out of gas. I, I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts. IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD.

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:53:00 UTC | #394687

pkruger's Avatar Comment 30 by pkruger

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:06:00 UTC | #394691