Richard Dawkins’ Sunday Sermon

Reading from his new book at Kepler’s tonight.

 

Wired just published a provocative discussion, sparked by Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion. It issues a challenge to scientists who are on the fence, in denial, or in the closet. And it raises some troublesome questions about how we inculcate children.

  • Gisela Giardino 9y

    This discussion is turning into an exemplar illustration of Hegel´s dialectic process... Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis

    We would rename them, though, into: Theism, Atheism and Syntheism.

    I am glad to have found a word to label my postiion on the subject:

    I am a syntheist.
    -which casually sounds pretty much like "Sine (without) - Theist"

    Thank you for fostering this insight! :D
  • Colin Purrington 9y

    I thought it was a lonely bottle of gin, disguised as water.
  • Steve Jurvetson 9y

    Alieness: that's a cool name, and I think I might finally understand what you were getting at with the false dichotomy of believing and thinking.

    Embracing “I don’t know” is a wonderful suggestion. Karl Popper posits that there is no truth, and thus nothing can be known for sure, yet, the scientific method compounds our learning and understanding over time. It's a process for the evolution of paradigms – or memes – over time.

    P.S. Update: Our host for the dinner with Dakwins, David Cowan, has posted links to the full audio and video of the talk.

    Here is the text of David's introduction, with a personal tale of revelation and epiphany.
  • Ken Douglas 9y

    It would have been great to hear this "live" - many thanks for posting the lnks to the audio, video and transcriptions

    Very much enjoyed the comments above too
  • Colin Purrington 9y

    The Dawkins Foundation has a lot of clips from his presentations.

    richarddawkins.net/search,ALL,page1,n,Video,n,n

  • Gisela Giardino 9y

    I´ve just came across this reading, an excerpt from the book "the Question of God". Never read it before. Thought of sharing it here, the author´s approach to the debate -bah, to the human life dilemma itself- sounds to me quite interesting. Perhaps to you too.

    "Whether we realize it or not, all of us possess a worldview. A few years after birth, we all gradually formulate our philosophy of life. Most of us make one of two basic assumptions: we view the universe as a result of random events and life on this planet a matter of chance; or we assume an Intelligence beyond the universe who gives the universe order, and life meaning. Our worldview informs our personal, social, and political lives. It influences how we perceive ourselves, how we relate to others, how we adjust to adversity, and what we understand to be our purpose. Our worldview helps determine our values, our ethics, and our capacity for happiness. It helps us understand where we come from, our heritage; who we are, our identity; why we exist on this planet, our purpose; what drives us, our motivation; and where we are going, our destiny. Some historians of science such as Thomas Kuhn point out that even a scientist's worldview influences not only what he investigates but also how he interprets what he investigates. Our worldview tells more about us perhaps than any other aspect of our personal history. [...]

    "Are these worldviews merely philosophical speculations with no right or wrong answer? No. One of them begins with the basic premise that God does not exist, the other with the premise that He does. They are, therefore, mutually exclusive -- if one is right, the other must be wrong. Does it really make any difference to know which one is which? Both Freud and Lewis thought so. They spent a good portion of their lives exploring these issues, repeatedly asking the question "Is it true?"."

    -bolding is mine-

    -----
    Happy Thanksgiving to you all.
  • Gisela Giardino 8y

    Me again. I found this excerpt from Dawkin´s book, so I thought of sharing the link here for anybody interested:

    Why I Am Hostile Toward Religion
    I oppose fundamentalist religion because it is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless eager minds.
    By Richard Dawkins


    The page has a related link to an interview to him too, here.
  • Steve Jurvetson 8y

    Alieness: thanks! Hey, this should get your antennae all a twitter:

    “The equivalent of the moth’s light-compass reaction is the apparently irrational but useful habit of falling in love with one, and only one, member of the opposite sex. The misfiring by-product – equivalent to flying into the candle flame – is falling in love with Yahweh (or the Virgin Mary, or with a wafer, or with Allah) and performing irrational acts motivated by such love.” (p.186)

    Dawkins was addressing the question of why something “so wasteful, so extravagant” as religion would have evolved to be so pervasive. He concludes that it is primarily a by-product, a misfiring of a useful trait making the mind susceptible to certain viruses of thought:

    “Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival: the analogue of steering by the moon for a moth. But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses.” (p.176)

    “Religious leaders are well aware of the vulnerability of the child brain, and the importance of getting the indoctrination in early.” (p.177)
  • Gisela Giardino 8y

    Whoah! ...those moth connection-metaphors are awesome! Perhaps I may start to like this sir dawkins after these quotes... or dislike him less...

    (no, seriously I don´t dislike you, Richard! -just in case you may read this someday!)

    And, see, about the love thingy, it´s just what I was meaning to say with my comment here [may need to read the caption and whole thread to understand my last words there]

    Mis-fires... yes, definitely, we are a bunch of genetic misfires with a given self-consciousness and an intellect enough which to realize these imperfections with... Plus a primitive system -"feelings"- which to be able live by with, hang on and sublimate the ultimate frustration such intellectual awareness of our genetic bugs brings. The recursive and circling nature of being human.

    ?

    ha! =)
  • Shoshin Seishu 8y

    To use the term "atheism" is, of course, an instance of de facto religious sectarianism because it only has meaning and/or relevance to/with theistic religions, which Gore Vidal terms the "Sky God" religions of Judaism, Christianity, & Islam. To use the term "atheism" to discuss NON-theistic religions such as Buddhism is, therefore, nothing less than an instance--& a revelation, of Sky-God or theistic bias & serves to undermine any serious discussion of superstition of any sort or stripe, be it theistic or non-theistic. In any event, the implicit assumption, & power relations, inherent in the utterance "atheism & ...(other) faiths." is a brash reminder of the (still) near-hegemony with(in) which Sky-God theisitic superstitions operate.

    We need only refer to the classic formulation by Feuerbach to understand the mechanism driving all superstitions predicated on beliefs in the supernatural: Sky God religions represent instances of reverse anthropomorphism. The hilarous--(& grossly insulting, particularly to all other sentient life forms) proposition, in the Sky God religons/superstitions that God created humankind in his image is, therefore, correctly restated that humankind created "God" in her/his image.
  • Gisela Giardino 8y

    I am reading this article: 13 things that don´t make sense for scientists, and I naturally linked it in my mind to this thread and the afore exposed "I just don´t know" possible position in regard to some intrincate problems as the "God" issue is.

    The article is very interesting, it talks about the not so constant constants in science, for example (something I always recall as the paradox of "Relativity" -to be based on a constant-) ... and btw it mentions a study being done down here in Mendoza, Argentina.

    Perhaps some of you may find this interesting to read too.

    Aur revoir...
  • Shoshin Seishu 8y

    Totalizing "paradigms" (replete with their attendant tropes or metaphors), such as Hegelian dialectics are a (snooze--wake me up when that part of the discussion is over) thing of the past & have little or no descriptive--let alone explanatory, utility & power. As Christopher Jencks has so often commented: It's (discourse about the phenomenal world) all about chaotic "order," atomism, fragmentation, anti-epistemology, &, among so many other things, bold skepticism of & irreverence toward any "authoritative" statements about the world in which we live (& please discard those anachronistic references to weltenschaung & its alleged deterministic origins & trajectory across the life span)!
  • Rainer Ebert 8y

    Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Animal Ethics, and we'd love to have your Richard Dawkins photos added to the group.
  • mrccos 8y

    Please add this to the group pool at RDFRS

    Thanks,
    /Mike
  • robert holmgren 8y

    “Religious leaders are well aware of the vulnerability of the child brain, and the importance of getting the indoctrination in early.” (p.177)

    Sounds sneaky. No one else seems to notice this except religious leaders. The rest of the rational world begins education somewhere in a person's 20s, a good deal after the human brain has matured. Is that what you believe?
  • Steve Jurvetson 8y

    menlo - Gosh, no. I believe that in other areas, we try to teach children how to learn. We don't try to brainwash them with concepts that defy common sense or evidence.

    “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” – Yeats

    P.S. For mrccos & the rationalists:
    "After more than a year of expensive negotiation, we are delighted to announce that both the US and the UK versions of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science have been granted charitable, tax-exempt status in their respective countries."

    richarddawkinsfoundation.org
  • nels1 7y

    it is finally revealed...Dawkins IS God:)
  • Truth in science 11mo

    If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.
    Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ......

    Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
    The only two options are:
    1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
    2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
    Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.
    Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.

    Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
    All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
    A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.
    A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
    So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.

    Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.

    To explain further ....
    If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.
    Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
    An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
    If someone were to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.
    However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
    So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
    In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose. In other words .... a Creator God.

    Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
    That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, matter/energy, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, love, sense of beauty, justice etc.
    All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.

    To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
    Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes, it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.

    For example .....
    If we have intelligence then, that which ultimately caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
    Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law. Foolish indeed!

    What about infinite time?
    Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.

    Atheism = NOTHING created EVERYTHING, for NO REASON.
    Makes perfect sense .... NOT!
    www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments- gods-existen...

    Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
    But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
    The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
    Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

    Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
    This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
    That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
    But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
    A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.

    Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

    Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
    Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
    Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!

    Another idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never-ending cycle.
    However, the idea that the universe can simply rewind itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense.
    It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
    There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
    Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord. The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out. Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from? If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped. The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.

    Such ridiculous atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.

    Atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.

    Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ”.
    Sorry, atheists apologists may not know …. but we do know, we certainly know what is impossible …. And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.

    Atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, while they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.

    A further nail in the coffin of atheist pseudoscience is existence of order.
    The development of order requires an organizational element. To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided. Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
    The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.
    Natural laws are a type of information which guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it. They are an inherent property of matter/energy, natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws. They cannot exceed the parameters of those laws.

    A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from? In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principle at all.
    Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
    Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and we would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
    This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy scream …. ‘purpose’. Atheists say the exact opposite.
    Furthermore, if we add the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive.
    The atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

    It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
    There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
    It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.

    Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
    Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
    However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.

    Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific notions:

    A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.

    A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).

    That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.

    That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

    That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.

    That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.

    That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of
    Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.

    That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).

    That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.

    That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.

    That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.

    That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.

    The claim of Dawkins and other atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus. They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs. However, when challenged, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause. Whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments. That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history.

    Evolution is on the rocks - some recent evidence:
    www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7635944904973/
    Fossil museum:
    www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7641367196613/

    So much for atheism .... What about progressive (macro) evolution?

    There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.
    Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
    However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by breeders to be strictly limited.
    This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new structures and features (macro-evolution).
    Darwin ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.
    Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.
    That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

    Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
    Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
    This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,
    However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

    A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
    That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.
    The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

    The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.

    The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
    A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
    This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

    So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
    Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
    However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

    People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
    Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

    Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
    Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
    Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

    To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

    In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.

    If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
    skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

    So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
    If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

    Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

    Conclusion:
    Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
    The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
    However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
    Want to join the club?

    What about the fossil record?

    The formation of fossils.
    Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
    Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
    So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
    The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
    You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
    Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
    The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

    Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
    In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
    You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

    Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
    www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7635944904973/

    All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

    The Cambrian Explosion.
    Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
    Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

    See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
    www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/127020466 04/in/set-72...
    Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/7215 7641367196613/

    What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
    The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
    Piltdown Man (a fake),
    Nebraska Man (a pig),
    South West Colorado Man (a horse),
    Orce man (a donkey),
    Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
    Archaeoraptor (a fake),
    Java Man (a giant gibbon),
    Peking Man (a monkey),
    Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
    Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
    The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
    Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
    The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
    Etc. etc.
    Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
    All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

    Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

    Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
    www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
    www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-scie nce-paper-ju...

    Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
    Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
    Is that 'science'?

    The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

    Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

    Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

    South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

    Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

    Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

    Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

    Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

    Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

    The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

    Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

    Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!
    The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.
    Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.
  • Steve Jurvetson 11mo

    Truth in science — Perhaps the word atheist is misleading. What is the word for a "non-believer of astrology"? Need there be one? If we call it a "non-astrologist" just for parsimony of discussion, we need not criticize them for their "belief" in non-astrology. The absence of belief is not a belief. Maybe they just never were exposed to the system. There is no reason to criticize the "non-astrologist", even if they defend their lack of belief within a culture that is dominated by believers. The same could be said for me as a "non-Mormon" or any other thing that I don't believe. There are an infinite number of things I don't believe, both named and unnamed. When framed in this way, there is no reason to label and stereotype the non-believer since there is no unifying generalization uniting the "non-astrologist" (as just one example).
  • Truth in science 11mo

    Steve Jurvetson

    Atheism is not simply a lack of belief. It is a conscious choice between believing in 2 options.
    A supernatural first cause of the universe .... or a natural first cause of the universe.
    Theists believe in the former and reject the latter.
    Atheists reject the former, and therefore choose to believe in the latter.
    So atheism is as much a statement of belief in naturalism, as it is of unbelief in supernaturalism.

    The comparison with not believing in astrology is a red herring, astrology is not a fundamental issue. It is not an either/or issue.
    Unlike atheism, non-belief in astrology needs no intellectual justification, because it doesn't require any alternative belief.
9,418 views
15 faves
33 comments
Taken on October 29, 2006
  • ƒ/3.2
  • 8.6 mm
  • 1/13
  • 200
  • Flash (off, did not fire)
  • Show EXIF
This photo is in 11 groups
This photo is in 2 albums

Additional info

  • Viewing this photo Public
  • Safety level of this photo Safe
  • S Search
    Photo navigation
    < > Thumbnail navigation
    Z Zoom
    B Back to context