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

← [UPDATE] - Tuesday's Connector of the Day – Richard Dawkins

[UPDATE] - Tuesday's Connector of the Day – Richard Dawkins - Comments

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 1 by Jos Gibbons

Boy, this interview is going to be dumb.

his own theory
It's every biologist's theory, not his. Insofar as any ideas on evolution are unique to RD, these are ideas such as the gene-centric view he has previously defended. This author is clearly trying to downplay the unanimity in favour of evolution amongst those who have examined the evidence.
[TGSOE has been countered by] a new 54 page foreword penned by the group's president Ray Comfort that refutes Darwin's theory
(1) That's not a response to the TGSOE, although like the TGSOE it is anniversary-inspired. (2) Refutes the theory? It barely even tries to refute anything, just to smear Darwin. What little it chooses to argue against is a straw man no-one has believed, Darwin or anyone subsequently. (3) Darwin's theory is not the modern one, just as atomic theory has progressed since Dalton.

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:22:00 UTC | #416067

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 2 by aquilacane

"will stop at nothing to provoke intelligent and honest debate"

That was nice. Didn't even use strident.

P.S. PCs suck

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:16:00 UTC | #416086

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 3 by Enlightenme..

Refutes..
DUH!

I suppose we've gotta comment on the questions the contributors want put to RD.

Alan Perlman's has got a funny in just about every sentence, including that he thinks Scientific American "acknowledged that there just was not enough time for evolution as Dawin proposed"

..due to The Big Bang it seems!
He also draws comfort from QM and the 2nd law.

I'm beginning to think we should re-introduce NOMA
in a limited form for 'refuseniks'.

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:47:00 UTC | #416118

Graeme's Avatar Comment 4 by Graeme

I uploaded a question over an hour ago, but its still saying "Your comment is awaiting moderation"
Has any one else had this problem?

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:05:00 UTC | #416126

SaintStephen's Avatar Comment 5 by SaintStephen

The long stream of comments following this article is a stunning snapshot of our world. So many people, so much ignorance... for example:

You walk and see a cellular phone on the street. Do you think that it was created by wind and water thru ages? No. And a moment later you see a dog, incredibly more sophisticated thing than a phone. Do you think that dogs were created by winds, waters, electricity thru the ages?

This person could be handed a copy of The Blind Watchmaker or Climbing Mount Improbable and be sent on his way.

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:26:00 UTC | #416134

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 6 by crookedshoes

Saint Stephen, I agree. I couldn't be more stunned by the string of comments after this article. It is depressing to feel the import of a total dearth of reason and logic. The implications are depressing, the comments themselves are depressing, depressing, depressing, depressing.

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:39:00 UTC | #416161

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 7 by Sally Luxmoore

Is Richard having to spend all day writing reasoned responses to all this?

Couldn't they at least group the questions into similar areas, so that he can do a 'group' answer aimed at all relevant questions?

Do we get to see his answers?

Poor Richard - what a thankless task!

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:46:00 UTC | #416164

Mike D's Avatar Comment 8 by Mike D

I couldn't hardly stomach reading the list of questions. Shocking, ignorant and depressing barely describe many of them. Some cross the line into insanity or mental retardation. I mean, it's like argueing with a person that insists the sky is below us and earth above. Some of the posts are absolutely incoherent. I'd rather have my teeth pulled than have to answer this brain-washed idiocy.

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:16:00 UTC | #416200

RMIV's Avatar Comment 9 by RMIV

Crookedshoes and Mike D...I feel the same about the comments on the page. I wish these people would put the time and effort into developing their intelligence.

One of my favorite quotes I heard is from Brian Cox say on a Cern Podcast "Knowledge of the Universe is not a luxary".

I think this is why we have to fight so hard, Eductaion is not optional. We have to do it for the survival of our species.

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:09:00 UTC | #416342

Sonic's Avatar Comment 10 by Sonic

My favorite comment -

To think that all creation evolved to its current state without God overseeing the building process is pretty stupid. Just look at the structure of the atom, the way the universe is structured, the way the earth is tilted at 23 degrees axis, I could go on on on. Yet you would say that all of this has come about by mere luck.
If someone sees 23 degrees of tilt as evidence in favor of a designer, then what amount of tilt would they see as evidence against a designer?

This is the fine-tuning argument, but without the fine-tuning or the argument.

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:48:00 UTC | #416348

Bala's Avatar Comment 11 by Bala

Did Dawkins ever ask students to rip the 50 pages out of the Ray comfort book? Seems unlikely!. Looks like Ray not only proved himself an idiot, but a liar too!

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:33:00 UTC | #416356

Ewald's Avatar Comment 12 by Ewald

Direct link to the video:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/11/24/ctw.connector.richard.dawkins.cnn

Either way, is there any chance of a response, here on RD.net or elsewhere, by Richard Dawkins, concerning Ray Comfort's last remark? Did Dawkins indeed encourage ripping Comfort's introduction out of the book and if so, what reasoning was there behind that?

By the way, I fear Ray Comfort's campaign has not chosen the first edition of On the Origin of Species to reprint, as that comes with the lack of 'by a creator'..

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:12:00 UTC | #416382

keddaw's Avatar Comment 13 by keddaw

If Richard can be called an anti-creationist then surely 'refutes' can be replaced with 'denies'.

a new 54 page foreword penned by the group’s president Ray Comfort that refutes Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:54:00 UTC | #416404

wbreim's Avatar Comment 14 by wbreim

wow the caliber of questions was just APPALLING! it's almost as if rhe interviewer picked the most absurd, ridiculous joke-questions to throw at dawkins. what a waste of time with dr. dawkins!

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:09:00 UTC | #416813

Sally Luxmoore's Avatar Comment 15 by Sally Luxmoore

OK, so they left out the vast majority of the most idiotic and crazy of the questions, leaving an interview that broke no new ground, but which was probably still informative for many viewers.

But why spoil the whole thing by feeling the need to end it with a quote from Ray bloody Comfort?!

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:50:00 UTC | #417048

the great teapot's Avatar Comment 16 by the great teapot

wbreim,
You're joking, right?
You did read the question which weren't read out? He spared a lot of people a lot of embarrasement. Not that they would realise it.

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:59:00 UTC | #417140

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 17 by aquilacane

It would come from a scientist not an idiot. Love that.

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 17:09:00 UTC | #417410