Skip to comments.
RICHARD DAWKINS WORLD
TeleoLogic ^
| 12-22-04
| Mike Gene
Posted on 12/30/2004 5:47:37 PM PST by Heartlander
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: Heartlander
2
posted on
12/30/2004 6:10:58 PM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Secularization of America is happening)
To: Heartlander
3
posted on
12/30/2004 6:12:42 PM PST
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
To: LiteKeeper
IMO, Dawkins is in the same class as
Alfred C. Kinsey or
Peter Singer.
And the philosophies of these men are taught on campus to the future generation.
To: Puppage
To: Puppage
6
posted on
12/30/2004 6:17:00 PM PST
by
dennisw
(G_D: Against Amelek for all generations.)
To: Heartlander
7
posted on
12/30/2004 6:17:16 PM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Secularization of America is happening)
To: LiteKeeper
Yes. Its science with an agenda (propaganda) which these men supposedly oppose.
To: Heartlander
Is being Professor of the Public Understanding of Science a real job???
To: Heartlander
It's "pseudo" science with an agenda
10
posted on
12/30/2004 6:29:46 PM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Secularization of America is happening)
To: Heartlander
How can you say that? Dawkins is Britain's No. 1 public intellectual!!!! (jeez England what happened to you???)
If this article is correct, though I think he may be jumping to conclusions, Dawkins has just slid into the land of crackpots.
To: Puppage
12
posted on
12/30/2004 6:38:16 PM PST
by
cmsgop
To: escapefromboston
…Dawkins has just slid into the land of crackpots. Apparently his hypocrisy only goes so far… He champions arguments against a fundamentalism that does far less damage than his own fundamentalist beliefs.
To: Heartlander
What's wrong with using democrats for biological experiments??
To: Heartlander
Dawkins theological and political writings were always slightly embarrassing but he was a decent writer of science for the general population (though Gould was WAY better). He now seems to becoming anti-science himself.
To: escapefromboston
I agree with you in regard to Dawkins but I am curious… what is 'anti-science' in your opinion?
To: Heartlander
If it is true that he is against animal testing then he is anti-science. While I don't have any numbers right in front of me, I suspect quite a few discoveries have been made because of animal testing. To be against animal testing is to be against science.
Though I would suspect a person like Dawkins isn't totally against animal testing. He always struck me as the type who would enjoy it.
To: escapefromboston
Though I would suspect a person like Dawkins isn't totally against animal testing. He always struck me as the type who would enjoy it. Whoa… I don’t think anyone would or should enjoy animal testing. It might be necessary in limited cases (a total absence based on natural philosophy leads us down a slippery slope) but why would you think Dawkins would enjoy animal testing?
To: Heartlander
Just joking with you, I am sure Dawkins wouldn't enjoy it.
To: Heartlander
A He champions arguments against a fundamentalism that does far less damage than his own fundamentalist beliefs. That would be a matter of opinion.
20
posted on
12/31/2004 9:13:19 AM PST
by
balrog666
(The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
