Dimwits on Dawkins on Darwin
Here are some of the comments from a recent Times Online article about Richard Dawkins. I have no idea what this one is even about:
Darwin on Dawkins would be preferable - evolutionary thinking would be divided overnight - DAWKINS -v- the rest of us !!!! Ian Payne, walsall,
Leon from Melbourne very nearly understands the phrase “mathematical precision”, but not quite.
The mathematical precision of space, galaxies and ourselves (DNA etc) is no more than chance; formed from a big bang lie in a nano second 1000 billion years ago. This is an insult to intelligence.The only worship today is material gain. Sell more Books Richard. God forgive us. leon, melbourne,
J Geraci has a defective irony gland.
Dr. Dawkins' arrogance is astounding. I can imagine how wonderful it must feel to know, without any doubt, that his view is the only correct one. Apparently he has a "curious ambivalence towards Christians who accept" evolution. That is, of course, the majority - including my Catholic Church. J. Geraci, Austin, Texas
Robin here has scientifically proven the existence of Sauron.
Atheist Supremacist Richard Dawkins displays plenty of ignorance and foolhardiness himself in his attacks on God, theists and religion. . . I invite Richard Dawkins to look skywards on August 1st and explain why the total solar eclipse so distinctly resembles the pupil and iris of an "Eye of God". Robin Edgar, Montreal, Canada
SD Goh is mounting an Appeal to Long-Winded Authority
Atheists can be so arrogant that they only believe what they want to believe. Augustine Ong with a PHD from King's Cllge.in Organic Chemistry, a Fulbright-Hays scholar at MIT, was Visiting Prof. at the Dysons-Perrin Lab,Oxford University, Pres.of the Malaysian Scientists Ass. is a staunch Catholic. SD Goh, PJ, Malaysia
I can’t work out if Dennis is arguing for an old Earth or against dinosaurs:
The Catholic Church were the first to work out he age of the Earth using the Bible (A continuous story that runs from creation to Christ) They concluded that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. So, Dinosaurs came into existence, lived, became extinct and fossilized all within 6000 years. Believe it ?? Dennis, Gaithersburg, USA
Greg, who we will meet again later, tries his best to promote creationism, but then remembers that he doesn’t believe in it.
Scott:"Creationism/ID is not science." In part science is the observation of nature. If nature has been influenced by intelligent forces (God in the first place, us latterly) then that is part of science also, else our observations will not be comprehensible. Catholics can accept evolution. Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
I think Richard is more used to questions about immigration. He gets confused easily. But he tries ever so hard, bless him.
The subjects of science and maths etc are meant to educate and train students in the scientific method, analytical thinking, logic, not to contrast beliefs and viewpoints. I can assure you, most people in the UK taking postgraduate technical phds and the like are not english. WAKE UP. Richard, Newcastle,
Kurt is ignorant of many things, notably “how to safely contain snakes”.
Humans create things all the time, including habitats for animals that have no concept of our existence, from bee hives to python cages at the zoo. Our fiction is rife with "superior aliens". Why is it so hard in science to AT LEAST CONSIDER that our habitat was designed by an architect, God? Kurt Heckman, Hagerstown, USA
The imaginary version of Expelled in Chucks Own Little World is much better than the real one. I imagine.
Too bad he gets owned by Ben Stein in "expelled". So much so that he files a lawsuit to stop the release of the movie in hopes that people won't see that he became a creationist for a few minutes. People reject God because they WANT to... very simple. "They did not LIKE to retain God in their minds" Chuck, Grand Blanc,
I think JL may be attempting sarcasm here.
WOW! This is exciting news! Now we can all have no hope in the future and all embrace the fact that nothing happens once we die! This is fantastic. I can't wait to ruin everyone's lives and shatter little childrens dreams with this news! JL, Deadwood,
Simone has been talking to JL.
I can imagine a primary school class in evolutionary theory based on Dawkins' book: "kids, to start with, there is no hope in the universe and when people die they just rot, no matter what mum or dad say about going to Heaven. And now let's talk about this fluffy chimpanzee..." Simone, derby,
Robin isn’t going to shut up without a fight.
What ignorance Linnet? It is a fact that total solar eclipses distinctly resemble a gigantic "eye in thy sky". The odds against this *purely symbolic* "Eye of God" occurring by random chance "coincidence" are astronomically high. Do the math. Intelligent Design *is* a plausible explanation here. . . Robin Edgar, Montreal , Canada
rustan has invented a new argument, which I shall call “Pascal’s Personal Ad”.
B.R.R. There are two ways and two outcomes.Outcome 1 (There is no God); Outcome 2(There is God); Way1: Believer, Way2: Disbeliever; Assumption: life after death is for keeps, then the LOSS of a disbiliever in the Outcome 2 is infinitely larger than the LOSS of believer in the Outcome 1. U decide! rustam, Stuttgart, Germany
I don’t know if the quote in this one it right, but it sounds like something Jesus might say.
I have read Dawkins and admit it is a most readable book. But it has done nothing to shake my faith. He has become a millionaire based on a lie that God does not exist. I am surprised that so many gullible readers have swallowed Dawkins completely."Be a believer and not an unbeliever" (Jesus) John J.M.Job, LLanfairpwllgwyngyll , Anglesey
A Don supports the downgrading of religion to the Class C Narcotic of the Masses.
Many people love living life in a structure that resolves difficult questions and also creates a community space to interact with others. As my tennis coach says to me "You play tennis better when you don't think" Religion may be the drug of the masses but what's wrong with that? Leave them alone. a don, Sydney, Australia
I have literally no idea what Guy is trying to say.
I wish people would leave Christians, Muslims and Jews alone. People who have deep cultural beliefs should be supported by others. When they are gone we will miss them. It's a shame for their children, but who are we to judge others beliefs? Religious faith should be encouraged as far as possible. Guy Smith, Bexley, UK
DM sets a challenge: spot as many different foodstuffs in his comment as you can. I can see four.
Ok so evolution is how we arrived where we are now , just one thing ..which evolved from the soup first ..the chicken or the egg?.. or should that be the egg or the chicken ? One day we`ll all find out ..roll on that day . DM, Craigavon,
Jessica considers all researchers arrogant:
The only "stupidity" here is for anyone to assume they can answer a question of faith which has existed for thousands of years. Do you truly think you know more than anyone else who ever lived? Now that is arrogant. As to stupidity being proven by a belief in God..someone should warn my patients. Dr Jessica S, Wrexham,
Michael Walsh makes up any bits of the world he doesn’t know about.
Mark, Brisbane, Australia: i hate to put it so bluntly, but: why not believe in god? god is impossible to prove and impossible to disprove, so basically: why not? faith in something greater than yourself & a sense of duty towards others has much to reccommend it, as does something to pray to, no? michael walsh, Manchester,
Peter really fucking hates his dog.
My dog is an intelligent creature, he believes in food and being loyal to me his master, but I don't think he believes in God (I've never heard him pray) Frankly I don't care, he'll be dead in a few years and I'll get another dog, he'll be just a memory People want to be like dogs, no more no less Peter B, Lincoln,
Matt from Omaha is making a stand for the silent majority of Christians who don’t believe in any of that “god” nonsense.
You know what I hate most? It's people that judge Christians as a whole group saying we are ignorant for belief in God. I believe that people who continually bash on groups with differing views than their own (both Christians and Atheists) are inherently ignorant. Matt, Omaha,
HT has not read the Qu’ran lately.
Surely, billions of Christians, Muslims, Jews can't be wrong saying something else each one of them for thousand years. Surely, God exists, Jesus is his son, Mohamed is his prophet, their land is promised, etc. All of them are right, all in the mind, all in the barrel of the gun. HT, Geneva,
“EO” writes under a pseudonym so that her friends don’t realise what kind of weird shit she believes. She’s not very good at it, though. I appreciate her typing like she’s one of the Wurzels, though.
There is absolutely no reason why a refusal to believe in a God for whom there is not the slightest shred of evidence should also mean that the theory that we continue, after the body dies, in some other doimension, should be thrown overboard. And DO learn how to use the adverb 'hopefully'. EO Eileen O Conor, Cordoba, Spain
Greg’s back, having carefully calculated the exact chances of God existing.
"to believe in a God...not the slightest shred of evidence" Even discounting people's personal experience of God (which *is* evidence): the probabilities of an orderly universe are so extreme that atheist scientists are desperately inventing multi-universe theories. So right now it is 50/50. Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
He could have worked it out for sure, though, as there are 6 billion humans and only 1 god, and as we all know, minorities do not exist.
"Religions could have adopted evolution as another evidence of the work of God " The only formal creationists are protestant biblical literialists. By far the majority of Christians are not literalists, and are open to Biblical interpretation. Dawkins is using strawmen: he is a hypocrite. Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
In fact, nothing outside Tyler’s apartment exists.
I am sick and tired of people shielding evolution behind the term "science" and believing that it settles it. There is about as much "scientific evidence" in support of evolution as there is in support of midichlorines being the catalyst for the force in Star Wars. Its "science fiction" Tyler, Greenfield, USA
Carmine invites Dawkins to kill her. She also cites her sources, in case people don’t believe that Jesus was crucified.
I believe in d Big Bang 2: God spoke and "BANG" there it was! I believe in God b/c Jesus walked d Earth 2000 yrs ago n there r witnesses 2 attest that. Mr Dawkins, u can criticize n laugh at Christians, no biggie, people criticized n laughed at Jesus 2, infact they even killed him. 1Cor 1:21 carmine cicchiello, adelaide, australia
Hindu philosophy apparently isn’t up to much.
@ Adam: all of them? As a Hindu philosopher once put it, the various religions are like the spokes of a wheel. As you move towards the centre of the wheel on your particular spoke, you also get closer to all the other spokes. Richard Flynn, Huntingdon, UK
Chris has missed one very small logical step.
Every book has an author. Chris, London,
Alan Eric worships the Zimbabwean Dollar.
If Darwin’s therory of evolution were true, the fossil record would be exploding with intermediates! I mean real differences, not the kind of changes found WITHIN species, but BETWEEN species. AND we would find intermediates alive today! Hawkins god is Father Time. He gets bigger when you add 0's. Alan Eric, san antonio, texas
Carmine is reading a lot into 1 Corinthians 1:21.
I believe in d Big Bang 2: God spoke and "BANG" it happened! I believe in God b/c Jesus walked d Earth 2000 yrs ago, he died n resurrected 3 days later. There were many witnesses 2 attest those events , not one of them was taken to court 4 spreading lies, either under Jewish law or Roman (there were 2 many living witnesses)! Mr Dawkins n company, u can criticize Christians all u want, but u r disregarding truth to ur eternal peril ! 1Cor1:21 carmine cicchiello, adelaide, australia
I have it on good authority that Dawkins will never debate against an invisible talking giraffe either.
Dawkins assumes that all creationists know nothing about the origin of species, that's why he won't share a stage with them. However surely he would share a debating platform with a creationist who also happens to be emimently qualified in appropriate fields of science. Interestly, no he won't. Russ, Nth Lincs.,
Al Bloom has found the three least-unanswerable questions in the world.
I know this probably won't change the fortress of ignorance that is the religious person's mind but how do you all answer these questions: Why did God create Dinosaurs? Why did he decide to make horses run faster, birds fly. etc. Why did he cover 2/3 of the Earth with water? You get the picture al bloom, london, united kingdom
Simon has been talking to JL as well, I think.
But it is not debated by anyone who knows anything about it. How ridiculous. One of so many reasons why Dawkins is so lamentably comic. He is destined to be forgotten; his lifes work crumbling into an empty nothing. Simon, Birmingham,
The answer to David’s question is “because he was making a show about creationism, genius.”
I am frustrated by Dawkins' refusal to engage with the idea that God works at a higher level than physically tinkering with His creation. He chooses to ignore approaches to religion that don't conflict with science. Why? The original Bible was written and edited by the Catholic Church btw. David Burke, Manchester, UK
I like to think the exclamation mark in Barry’s post is there because he is posting from an aeroplane and has just realised something is amiss.
where are the wings??! Barry Bethel, Tamworth,
Gary just made one small error in this post.
scientists keep saying how much 'evidence' they have for religion, but i've yet to see any. even if i did it wouldnt change my mind about it. as far as im concerned the bible is the exact words of God and any 'evidence' which contradicts it has to be, by definition, wrong. gary, cheam,
Charles doesn’t credit Muslims with much practicality.
‘I said something about Islam, but not as much..." " I know more about Christianity, so I emphasised it.’ He doesnt know much about it at all except that Christians wont saw his head off for mocking them. Dawkins is a coward. Charles, Columbia, USA
David credits Noah with lots, though.
Noah's Ark: 2 by 2 or just the DNA? How you look at it doesn't have to be dark-aged. David Smith, Stourbridge, UK
Robin keeps defending God by talking about eyes and hasn’t yet mentioned how they couldn’t possibly have evolved.
Leon, most people who believe in God are monotheists these days. This is certainly true of Christians, Jews and Muslims. They just have differing beliefs about God aka YHWH aka Allah. No atheist can authoritatively assert that, "There is no God." There IS evidence of God for those with eyes to see. Robin Edgar, Montreal, Canada
Greg’s back for yet more, and hasn’t read the Papal Bull lately.
"any semblance of intellect religion doesnt withstand the most basic of scrutiny" That may be true of protestant christianity, which is riddled with nonsense (like justification by faith alone), but not of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. ie. a Catholic priest invented the Big Bang theory. Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Guy has discovered two new planets.
Dawkins is as ignorant and arrogant as those he mocks. How can a tiny organic speck, on an irrelevant planet -1planet of 10, part of 100 billion stars in 100 billion galaxies presume to understand the whole of creation. Atheism/ religion - 2 sides of the same galactically irrelevent human viewpoint. guy , london,
Edward is not satisfied with arguing creationism, and wants something sillier to defend.
How can a scientist of such brilliance write so much sense and then totally destroy his credibility by exposing factual ignorance of the simplest kind.eg his piece on Dowsing was simply a joke I imagine.The desert peoples have been very happily dowsing for water for centuries! EDWARD SYNGE, TISBURY, UK
The important thing is that Mark was wearing an onion, which was the style at the time.
In old communist times, in Moscow a young party activist walks in into the old church. He spots an old women praying in a dark corner. "How can you believe in this nonsens?" he asks her. "Some people believe He exists, some people believe He does not" is her answer.(nothing to do with evolution). Mark, York, UK
Andrea provides not only an analogy, but a demonstration.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." CS Lewis Andrea B, Canterbury, UK
As a scientist, Dan knows all about different kinds of space.
Is intellectualism being ignorant of someones beliefs as well, as dawkins is when he will not give oxygen space to creationists. Nothing, science or religion, an be totally proved. Why "attack" those with beliefs. Wouldn't leaving them be more "intellectual". Hypoctritical. And i am a scientist. Dan, Mitcheldean,
I wonder if “Leatherhead” is Greg’s hometown or occupation. (The link here is my addition to his post.)
"Amazing in this day and age that some people still actually believe in stories of invisible god-creatures and magic heavens" That's because you've been fooled by Dawkins in to thinking that the concept of a supreme being/God is equivalent to fairies and unicorns. Silly you. Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Before you read this post, a quick Bible lesson. Order of creation events in Genesis: light, water, plantlife, the sun, fish, birds, animals, people.
Science and God are not necessarily opposites to be pitted against one another. It is quite possible that God could have created science and evolution. The order of events in Genesis is exactly the same as in evolutionary theory, it is only the timescale which differs. NM, Bristol, UK
Chris Nel does not own a calendar.
So his book has sold 1,5 million copies and translated into 31 languages. The Bible has been around for over 3000 years, is translated in most languages of the world, continues to sell millions each year. It will be loved and read when Dawkins is long forgotten & Jesus will still be changing lives! Chris Nel, Ripon, England
I actually met Jeff Richmond once. Nice guy. Made entirely from straw.
It's been scientifically proven that organisms control there own evolution. A hundred million years ago after several generations of fish staring up at the shore a fish grew legs. Other fish saw this and they grew legs to. Was God involved? that is the question to answer Jeff Richmond, Vancouver, Canada
I guess I must just not be smart enough to understand Drew’s strange, self-referential meta-proverbs.
Scourge? More someone who is flogging a horse that is deader than the proverbial. Next he'll declare that artists/poets can't possibly have a basis for their views of the world as science disproves their notions of beauty and aesthetic. His philosophy is bankrupt! Drew, Los Angeles, USA
For balance, a dumb post in favour of evolution.
If God exists and was truly supreme he would have devised evolution as a neat way for life to self-regulate and adapt without constant intervention or design. Only a stupid god would not do such a thing. Seems many religions think their god is stupid. Roger Thornhill, London, UK
Too noisy, is the problem with the Big Bang.
Many Christians are comfortable with Darwin. No atheists are comfortable with the Big Bang. Kevin Dunn, Perth, Australia
Martin would make a really crap lawyer.
"Creationists never come up with any proof, evidence." Evidence is not proof but facts to be interpreted which is why Dawkins does not have proof either. To interpret evidence requires belief about what the evidence shows. Belief therefore affects the conclusion. Dawkins has faith in his beliefs. Martin, Skye,
Greg has run out of things to say, but is going to keep posting anyway, dammit.
"..what created God?" God would be existence itself: your question is a nonsense. You are attempting to reason from nothingness, the perverted reasoning of the atheist, but it's not possible. There is no such thing as nothingness: the default is existence. The question is does it have personhood? Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
I’m pretty sure I can mock whatever the hell I like.
good grief - look at yourselves. Everyone of us has the right to believe in whatever we want and no one has the right to mock or deride what anyone else believes. If you believe in God then live your life accordingly. If you don't then don't worry about it. David, London, UK
I really hope RW is joking.
If the universe is infinite, every possible event has happened, or will happen somewhere in the universe. The existence of God is a possible event, ergo God exists. RW, Sta Eulalia, Spain
G P is Helping!
"...people still actually believe in stories of invisible god-creatures and magic heavens, made up by stoned hippies living in the desert a few thousand years ago. I want some of whatever it is that they're on!" Alastair, you can find it on any given day day; the Holy Spirit G P, Milton Keynes,
Let’s watch Greg get progressively dumber.
" please stop taking the moral high ground when neither side of the argument can successfully be proven." A true atheist is irrational, and an agnostic who doesn't give the benefit of the doubt is likewise. Since a God could prove His own existence religious do have an advantage. Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Yeah! Naleen really told those creationists who’s boss: they are!
I love to put a creationist in his/her place. How can you ignore the scientific work behind evolution and its evidences. But on the other hand, how did it all began? Evolution only shows what happened once a single cell got here but not how it got here. God made Earth billions of years ago. Naleen Lal, Northern California,
Simon is not crazy. Don’t say he’s crazy.
"Dawkins slaps creationists into ... soup" ... NO!!! All you people probably don't realise that the single cell evolution to man is still a theory - not proven! It's just easily accepted by the ignorant. So darwinism is also a faith, yes? PS. Dawkins is the devils work, who also exists Simon Chung, Edinburgh, UK
Virginia thinks people were designed and robots evolved.
Zim of Wolverhampton, you have just proven that evolution is rubbish by admiting that this is a stupid age! If evolution is true, we would not evolve to be stupid and no one will have the concept of God. We will all just behave like robots and react predictably. The evidence is crystal clear. virginia, Brisbane , Australia
There are many ways to state the first law of thermodynamics. This is none of them.
The 1st law of thermodynamics states matter & energy need no creator, they simply always existed. The second applies only to closed systems where we are gaining energy from nothing - in our universe we have the sun. Both are arguments FOR evolution, and AGAINST the existence of an intelligent god. Isabel, Bournemouth, UK
Greg has moved the bar of “evidence” yet lower. By now he has buried it in his yard.
"the Athiest stance is that there is no evidence for god, nothing, not a jot" Nonsense. Just 1 believer *is* evidence. My Uncle was a nuclear phycisist and said that he saw "the finger prints of God everywhere". Atheist multi-universe theories exist to avoid the otherwise inevitable conclusion. Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
Ah, but where does the Bible address that episode of The Next Generation with Locutus of Borg in it?
Belief in God is more that an intellectual exercise - it's lifestyle changing event. Where does Dawkins world view address the 20+ teenagers killed by knives in London? Living true to your faith changes people and would give these kids an alternative hope in their lives. Dawkin's worldview doesn't. Pete B, London, UK
I don’t think “hypocrite” means what Anne thinks it means.
The religious can publically talk against gay people, athiests and those of other religions. But the moment someone believes in something other than creationism, they are fiercely attacked. The word hypocrites comes to mind. Anne, Nottingham,
Andy has a pretty dystopian view of comfort.
Religion is psychological comfort by forcing groups of people to think and act the same. Have your religions I dont mind them . . . . but at least stop hurting other people. andy, London,
Reto kills people who work weekends.
Mr Darwin introduced the theory of evolution but also scientifically "proved" the intrinsic inferiority of Africans and other "dark" peoples as well as the superiority of the NW Europeans over other whites. Evolutionists cannot pick and choose what they like--have some intellectual integrity man! Reto, Cape Town, South Africa
Theodore Shulman has not quite got the hang of this.
If there is a god of comedy, PG Wodehouse is it. Theodore Shulman, NYC, USA
Ika is scary.
Dawkins can believe what he wants now, but the time will come when wishes he didn't believe in what he believes now..the end is near... ika, Darwin, Australia
Greg clearly has not actually bothered to read The God Delusion.
David:"we don't believe in a god or gods." ...which is not the definiton of an atheist; it is a form of agnostic. Go and join your chums at dawkin's website, where they will confirm that you have made a mistake on the definition of 'atheist'. And stop reading wikipedia. Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
I have no idea. Anyone?
Dawkins is wrong to espouse atheism. Religious belief is no more than another theory with a claim to verification, just as scientific theory is. Science is the winner because it can come up with its verifications in the here and now. Kevin Straw, Leicester,
Greg promises to do the world a favour, although only because Jesus made him sign an NDA.
David"Merging with the holy spirit...god module installed. " I appreciate the effort, but no. I can't say more without inappropriately giving positive clues to something you don't deserve to know, and I am not permitted to tell you:Matt7:6"Do not cast your pearls before swine". Time to clam up. Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK
I was going to mock David Jones for thinking there were Christians in 1CE, but then I remembered that of course the Bible had been around at least 1000 years by then.
Presumably for 1CE Christians, the notion of the trinity and sacraments like holy communion were dangerous in a strictly montheistic society. However, hiding behind a 'pearls before swine' injunction now to create a woo factor when the details are published by the church anyway is mere flamboyance. David Jones, Loughborough, UK