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

DarwinLoves's Profile

DarwinLoves's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by DarwinLoves

More Discussions by DarwinLoves

Latest Comments by DarwinLoves

Go to: Conservapedia v Wikipedia

DarwinLoves's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by DarwinLoves

#20 of the "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" says this:

"Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution, Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution."

This relates to the article posted on March 8th titled "Public Acceptance of Evolution" in which it was stated that "fewer than half of American adults can provide a minimal definition of DNA."

So ~30% of Americans believe evolution is false because they don't fully comprehend basic biological concepts, much less the process of natural selection... Ignorance is a GREAT excuse for believing in Creationism and conservatives are eager to take what they can get... It's pathetic and scary at the same time.

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:48:00 UTC | #22810

Go to: Science, Faith, and Evolution

DarwinLoves's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by DarwinLoves

etny: Nicely stated! I share your sentiments.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:07:00 UTC | #22629

Go to: Public Acceptance of Evolution

DarwinLoves's Avatar Jump to comment 3 by DarwinLoves

I am ashamed for my country, the U.S.! I am absolutely disgusted by the revealing results of this study. I recently received my BS in biology this past spring, so I especially feel like I have been slapped in the face. My scientific background has had a significant impact on my views and ideals as an atheist. Atheists will never be understood, appreciated, or respected in the U.S. until scientific literacy is strengthened in the school systems. Unforunately that won't change the working knowledge of adults now or any time soon. I feel as if my country still believes that the Earth is flat and I am surrounded by morons... Luckily, this group is an outlet and a haven which gives me hope that some people in this world actually think for themselves and seek knowledge when the realize they don't have it!

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 19:01:00 UTC | #22604

Go to: Discussion of The God Delusion

DarwinLoves's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by DarwinLoves

I know that the content of their "review" was so shoddy that it does not deserve serious debate, but...I cannot help but dissect some of their statements for the purpose of discussion.

Jason Steger (man with glasses): "But he doesn't mention that science has caused an awful lot of destruction in the twenty first century." (He says this without stating any examples to back this up. I honestly think he was just rambling, using random statements that might resemble a legitimate argument. In addition, why specifically focus on the 21st century?)

In any case, I wonder what kind of destruction he might be referring to. A theist may view embryonic stem cell research as science causing destruction. But other sources of stem cells are not controversial and are useful research tools. I don't consider the use of machinery and weapons (for instance those used in war) as default examples of "destruction caused by science." Instead, I consider it: men not using knowledge, technology, and science wisely for the benefit of humanity.

On the contrary, I would say that science and technology have helped humanity in many more ways than they have caused harm. For instance, the discoveries of medicines, irrigation systems, transportation. Heck, civilization itself has been founded on the knowledge of physical properties of matter! If it were not for science and innovation, the super powers of this world (referring to countries) would all resemble countries in say, Africa.

For discussions sake, can anyone think of instances in which "science has caused destruction"?

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:58:00 UTC | #16032

Go to: Discussion of The God Delusion

DarwinLoves's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by DarwinLoves

Mediator: "...He has written a surprisingly intolerant book."

It is true that RD is intolerant of people who use "faith" as a crude answer to all opposing views (and likewise of people who do not use scientific evidence as a basis for those views). But for an atheist, that stance is NOT surprising at all. (I venture to say that we have all felt the frustration of people who will not recognize the validity of scientific reason.) Besides, most theists are intolerant of atheistic views; it goes both ways. We must simply agree to disagree in most cases. And according to RD, agnostics have no place in the middle.

RD explains himself in TGD:
"I might retort that such hostility as I or other atheists occasionally voice towards religion is limited to words. I am not going to bomb somebody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement." p. 281

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:30:00 UTC | #16029

More Comments by DarwinLoves