Also, Minchin’s quote is fallacious with regard to large scale evolution. Why? Because if Darwinism has taught us anything, it’s that evolution is assumed to be true. It wasn’t always so, but in our post modern world it has become “fact.” Once a theory is assumed to be true, it’s rather easy to twist facts to suit theories instead fitting theories to suit facts. To that end, Darwinian theory defies Minchin’s claim. Evolutionists have married the vein. Now everything they find is fitted into the theory which is already assumed to be true.

Once Dawkins was asked what it would take to convince him that evolution is a fractured model for how life works. He basically said that he’d have to find something in the geologic column, which didn’t belong. But that has already happened…more than once. And what about so-called living fossils? Yet, another example of facts being twisted to fit evolution instead of the other way ’round. Did Dawkins, his colleagues, or his many hangerons reverse their position in light of these facts? Of course not. What this shows is that no amount of evidence to the contrary would confute their ideas. Since they assume evolution is absolutely correct, any and all evidence to the contrary does nothing more than convince them even more as to the validity of their position.

Having said that, Dawkins is wonderful at pointing out the problems with other philosophies. He’s also a brilliant and witty writer. But he’s completely impotent when it comes to his own hypocrisy, straw man making, question begging, appeals to authority, special pleading and the other devices he employs to prop up his own claims. As far as I’m concerned he’s just as dangerous as the religious fundamentalists….He’s no less extreme, just at the other end of the continuum.

i agree with you that the creationists putting forth their beliefs are ridiculous, as this is simply what they want to believe, and it is an easy copout to say their story is true. science admits to not knowing what began life… YET, but works towards discovering the truth, instead of putting a story together and falsely “educating” young children to these “facts”.

science seeks truth, faith seeks to maintain its own falsehoods

“Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” – Tim Minchin, “Storm”

TDT

The creationists are equally blind, even worse, actually because they are moved more by fear and a “wanting” to believe what “feels” good, what makes the ego more secure and feel safe. They couldn’t care less about reality, about whethere their beliefs truly hold water.

Dawkins is simply talking about probabilities, mutations, the “guidance” system, that there is one–everyone can see this! The evidence is everywhere!

Yet, when we look for what the “originating” factor is, we cannot find it! Science has “NOT” found it, Religion has merely speculated and worse, created it as a theory, a religious ideology.

So what does it take to know not only what we are talking about here and to know what we are looking for? Psychological maturity! The answer is not in the processes! For those are already “after-effects,” expressions that have been already expressed! It explains nothing about how the developmental trajectory began! How organization is happening, how the smallest things can know to organize themselves if they, on their own, cannot think!

Perhaps I should have been clearer. Dr. Dawkins has stated that he will not waste his timely publicly debating creationists and the like.

You are to be commended. Although from what you write, I deduce that English is your second language, you express yourself better than many native speakers.

Thanks for the post.

.THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is by far the greatest accomplishment of humanity….because within its formula it accepts the limitation of our observations, thus everything is just a THEORY…so one theory can stand better than another because more empirical observations/calculations can support its conclusions…and we hold on to that theory until a better one comes. That is how Einstein’s THEORY OF RELATIVITY encompasses Newtonian mechanics….

It is so laughable, but before all of modern human accomplishment when we only relied on our eyes and perceptions…before we built billion dollar equipments to penetrate into the depths of the universe (Hubble) and into the depths of matter itself (CERN)….we still had THEORY…except it was crude and defined by our limitation to observe the world around us: YES, RELIGION WAS A THEORY….but it is over….IT IS AN ANCIENT THEORY OF LIFE…THAT IS NOW IRRELEVANT AND CANNOT STAND TO THE SCRUTINY OF REASONING……We should not spend a dime arguing with people who luck prerequisite to understand the SCIENTIFIC METHOD…instead we should spend these resources to make sure that more of the young minds that come into this world have the opportunity for education…

I get mad when I see so much effort spent on convincing people who had all the opportunity to enlighten themselves, but through pride and willful ignorance remain in the darkness.

I immigrated to the west from Africa, and barely spoke a word of English nor had a proper education…yet after 20 years….educating and taking care of myself….and with an ounce of curiosity and common sense….I can end up watching a lecture by Richard Dawkins ….and have tears of realization run down my eyes….so why should we spend so much resources trying to convince people who had million times more opportunity in life to enlighten themselves than me?

And why should he when there can be no rationality to faith as the two terms are contradictory.

Also, unlike your patently uninformed mischaracterization, when he doesn’t know, a true scientist states that he doesn’t know, in sharp contrast with evangelists and the like who can’t and don’t. Scientific theories (look up with this term means in science; you might be surprised) change with the discovery of new evidence. Try reading about the history of global warming for example. That’s more than I can say for the stagnant, shallow and ignorant religious and theological beliefs of you and others like you.

Dr. Dawkins is correct to regard theology as a non-subject (biblical scholarship and comparative religion excluded). No one knows anything more about “God” than anybody else, Richard Dawkins and your Mr. Craig included.

If modern day atheism stands for putting reason and evidence before mere belief and dogma, I’m all for it.

P.S.: In case you haven’t heard, “so” has only one o.

God, but you’re pathetic!