We Are Going to Die

[light]

Not sure if there's a Richard Dawkins thread already but he poses some particularly interesting questions into numerous topics (religion being one path I'd like this thread to avoid going down). The end of this video is inspiring but at the same time condemning. Take a look:

 

[Schadenfreude]

My enduring impression of Dawkins is condescension.

 

[light]

He asks the questions that no one else is willing to ask. Not only that, he uses all available resources to prove his point, often quite convincingly. I rate his knowledge and evaluation/analysis skills but sometimes he crosses lines which shouldn't be crossed.

 

[Gnostic]

He asks the questions that no one else is willing to ask. Not only that, he uses all available resources to prove his point, often quite convincingly. I rate his knowledge and evaluation/analysis skills but sometimes he crosses lines which shouldn't be crossed.

He hardly ever provides a balanced un-biased assessment of evidence. He is an opinionist like any other, better eductaed maybe but still and opinionist and Fraude says I find him condescending and totally intollerant.

 

[matty_k]

Gnostic can you please explain how you can have a balanced unbiased view when discussing evolution versus intelligent design? Which is his usual topic.

 

[light]

He hardly ever provides a balanced un-biased assessment of evidence. He is an opinionist like any other, better eductaed maybe but still and opinionist and Fraude says I find him condescending and totally intollerant.

His opinion is at least justifiable and presented along with evidence, I have time for him provided he analyses both sides of the story.

At least someone is questioning the evidence, more than what can be said about those who sit behind computer screens criticising him.

 

[Gnostic]

A journalist should in all cases just present the evidence and allow the reader/target to assess. Dawkins has valid claim to be a scientist but this whole debate is on opinions (IMO ) on both sides, and in this he is purely a journo. I know which side I sit on (and I wonder if you can guess which side it is), but I find it needlessly offensive, inflamatory and intolerant to many people the manner in which his prosecutes his arguments. I formed an opinion that he is just as intolerant as the Religious radicals he rails against so I do tend to avoid him like some Rugby writers unnamed and those people who knock on my door with their kids in tow.

 

[matty_k]

He's an evolutionary biologist who had written a few books. Hardly a journo.
Also on the other side of the fence there is hardly any balance or non bias. e.g. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (yes that Kirk Cameron).
So why should he?

 

[Joe Mac]

Sorry for my ignorance, but is there any evidence for intelligent design?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Sorry for my ignorance, but is there any evidence for intelligent design?

No. There isn't even a hypothesis. It's not science.

 

[Joe Mac]

No. There isn't even a hypothesis. It's not science.

Then how do the above posters expect him to provide a "balanced view" about this topic?

 

[matty_k]

Then how do the above posters expect him to provide a "balanced view" about this topic?

Exactly

 

[light]

One would have thought that an atheist would be the ideal person to examine these kind of issues...

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

And even once an idea does qualify as science, it doesn't automatically qualify it for 50/50 media coverage with all competing ideas.

If The Australian decided to print a 2 page lift-out on how to get rid of a cold. You would expect it to be full of of medical opinions, ie: stay hydrated, eat this food, wear certain clothes outside, if worse, see your doctor, get a prescription for either drug X or Y...

If they printed one page of professional opinion and one page of homeopathic opinions there would be outrage, and rightly so. We shouldn't be misinforming people for the sake of "balance".

And biology is just as important as the study of medicine. You need to understand how diseases change over time in order to fight them. People who breed animals need to understand genetics work in order to get the desired result. There are tons of practical uses of biology that people who outright reject it probably use themselves. I'll never understand...

 

[Scarfman]

Dawkins is a giant galaxy-sized tool. He knows nothing about anything. Even his work in his own field is extreme and greatly disputed. His work outside his field demonstrates an absolute and unpardonable ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Science is a child of philosophy - a subset of all possible ways of figuring things out. It's a good method for proving things to be unlikely to be true, but quite poor at proving that things are definitely true. Personally, I think science is fascinating and incredibly useful, but only in the hands of scientists who are more humble about its scope and limitations.

 

[Karl]

Jeese, what's with the Hawkins hate. You sound like Sheldon Cooper.

 

[Scarfman]

I had to look up Sheldon Coooper. Nice pop culture reference, I'm sure.

What's with the Dawkins hate? I thought I explained that.

 

[Joe Mac]

Im confused Scarfman.
Are you saying that intelligent design is true or just that Dawkins is a pelican?

 

[Scarfman]

Intelligent design is IN MY OPINION a load of cobblers. Richard Dawkins is a flock of pelicans with very little respect inside his own field, and popular support only from those with an anxiety to have their prejudices confirmed by someone in a lab coat.

 

[Cutter]

Intelligent design is IN MY OPINION a load of cobblers. Richard Dawkins is a flock of pelicans with very little respect inside his own field, and popular support only from those with an anxiety to have their prejudices confirmed by someone in a lab coat.

Is The Selfish Gene really so ridiculed?

Why is it just your opinion that intelligent design is cobblers? If there is no evidence for it, surely it is fantasy?