Posted on 11/25/2009 1:26:24 PM PST by Pyro7480
CNN correspondent Max Foster’s short report about Richard Dawkins on Tuesday’s Situation Room played more like a commercial which promoted the militant atheist’s new book. Despite Dawkins’s past inflammatory statements about Christianity, Foster only labeled him “an outspoken critic of creationism....[whose] atheist views have put him at the center of controversy” [audio clip available here].
Anchor Suzanne Malveaux’s introduction for the correspondent’s report highlighted the 150th anniversary of the printing of Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species,” and how Dawkins was a “controversial successor [to Darwin] carrying the torch for evolution.” Foster gave a very basic description of Dawkins’s career during his report, only mentioning his controversial stances only in passing. Video straight from the Richard Dawkins Foundation ran on-screen as Foster, an anchor for CNN’s sister network CNN International, gave his voice-over....
A CNN graphic during the report also described the biologist as “Charles Darwin’s Rottweiler,” but this doesn’t describe the extent of Dawkins’s intolerance for religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. MRC President Brent Bozell highlighted one key quote from the atheist’s best-selling book, “The God Delusion” in a 2008 column:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I should point out that video of the CNN report is available at the link above.
Not a creationist fan but Richard Dawkins definitely is preaching atheism, he is very unprofessional and deserves scorn.
God of Isreal is not PC... huh who would have thought that?
Well....what would you expect from the ‘Charlatan News Network’?
Warning - Language:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpCH31eO1Kk
Interestingly enough, CNN also published a pro Intelligent Design OpEd by Dr. Stephen Meyers. I was very surprised to find it on CNN of all places. Do you suppose they allowed it to appear “fair and balanced” while pushing Richard Dawkins screed?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2393961/posts
Well there’s the perfect marriage.
>>Not a creationist fan but Richard Dawkins definitely is preaching atheism, he is very unprofessional and deserves scorn.<<
Gotta go with you on this one. Dawkins knows his Evolution, but his sneered lip when talking about religion in general and Christianity in specific is difficult to take. He is, in short, a first class jerk and shoul stay the heck out of theology.
Oh come on. That had to be a comedy skit. I mean really. That is just too fake. The guy who puts on the gas mask is a hoot. The other guy puts on a helmet and is looking around like a lost puppy. Can’t be real.
One vocal jerk, given a platform by the MSM serves to discredit in may peoples minds the positive effect of many thousands of scientists who quietly do their work in humble acceptance of the divine will of God, and hope to serve HIM and reveal to humanity more of HIS glory, by the diligent application of the scientific method.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
and the guy saying this comes across as oh so sweet.
... which could make him arguably the most unpleasant character in all nonfiction.
lol
Very simple Mr. Dawkins, just show us in excruciating detail, leaving no chemical step out, the molecular step-by-step process in the development of the human eye. I want to see every protein, every mutation, every chemical process involved in the RANDOM development of this structure. Leave nothing out.
I’ll add a me-too, as well. Dawkins is obviously a very smart guy and I have a lot of respect for many of his ideas, but when it comes down to it, he’s an a-hole. I once saw him verbally beating-up some 80 year-old bishop in a debate, and I’ve never been able to stomach him since. The main reason Dawkins can’t face the idea of a God is that he can’t accept that anyone is more important or perfect than he is.
Projection on the part of Lucifer. Apparently Dawkins is so taken with autofellation that he thinks he's the first one to have thought of these accusations.
...and is he willing to compare to Allah, who inspires beheadings, female slavery, genital mutilation, acid-throwing, and impalings, even in the civilized 21st century?
Because there are a *lot* of Middle Eastern countries who *are* run by theocracies.
Maybe Dawkins should go to Islamabad or Kabul and spread the "good news" that he *knows* there is no Allah, to set the people free from their fetters.
I'll even chip in for the plane ticket.
Incidentally, what's Dawkins' take on AGW?
Cheers! Cheers!
Here you go.
Evolution of the Eye:
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin’s theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye — the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth — since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history — and the human eye isn’t even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it’s easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an “intelligent designer” doesn’t hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here’s how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made “vision” a little sharper. At the same time, the pit’s opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists’ hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist’s calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
“according to one scientist’s calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.”
ummm ....... bull$h!t. Not that there isn’t some dope out there who would argue for 364,000 years. Interesting that it’s 364,000 and not 365,000 or 363,000, or even 364,523. Personally, I believe that this scientist is off by a quite a lot. I think it would take at least 368,000 years.
You are presenting an argument from personal incredulity and reductio ad absurdum
A double shot! I am quite impressed, however with out supporting evidence your argument fails.
Just because it is too complex for you to understand that does not prove that God did it
Actually, I didn’t present an argument at all, it was almost entirely ridicule.
Now, since you wanted to play logic police, let’s take a look at what a bigshot you are for taking down that straw man. I never mentioned God, and you have no idea what I am capable of understanding. Classic straw man from you. You are illogical. If you are courageous enough to admit to that fallacy, we could then examine your appeal to the authority of the piece you linked, or the numerous such appeals in it. “Scientists” oh my! It must be settled. Maybe I could find a “scientist” who thinks it would take 364,001 years, and we could tie!!!!!!!!!! That extra year might be too complex for you to understand, so feel free to attribute it to God. Oh, crap, reductio ad absurdum is far too tempting for me. Of course there is nothing fallacious about reducing a proposition to it’s absurd conclusion.
So, a double shot for you, and very nearly a triple. I am quite impressed. Perhaps you could try to hit for the cycle in logical fallacies next time.
So we have failed with the argument from personal incredulity and reductio ad absurdum so now we move on to the ad hominem.
Without any supporting evidence your assertion falls flat.
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.