Darwin, the Idol of Richard Dawkins and His Followers

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 2-1-2019 | Jerry Bergman, PhD

[fishtank]

Darwin, the Idol of Richard Dawkins and His Followers

February 1, 2019 | Jerry Bergman

Richard Dawkins’ God is Charles Darwin

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

Besides owning almost every book Richard Dawkins has authored, including his newest 15th book (2017), I have watched him in many video interviews. I consider the most honest interview he gave to be the one with Ben Stein in the movie Expelled.[1] Dawkins is very frank about his beliefs and is not afraid to buck against society’s norms. His upcoming book, Outgrowing God: A Beginner’s Guide to Atheism (2019), is aimed at children.

[Louis Foxwell]

Evolution is the development of a species. one species does not become another. A cat does not become a dog. A cucumber does not become a carrot. There are all manner of cats, dogs, carrots, and cucumbers. They are still cats, dogs, carrots, and cukes. There is no evidence that any species became a different species.

[TexasGator]

Here is your conclusion:

“Hence, the offspring of those apes and monkeys would have also evolved...and so on and so on.

Or to put it another way, the general human horniness would have left no monkey behind. “

Which is totally without basis since human/monkey matings would produce no offspring.

[VinnieCCT]

You changed the meaning of “evolve”, therefore your argument is fallacy. Please try again.

[Big Red Badger]

Anton,,,
Of the Satanic Bible?

Never heard of him.

[RoosterRedux]

At least you get credit for trying.

Here's my conclusion:

A species evolves in a slightly more developed state. It breeds with the species slightly beneath it and from which it evolved. They produce a more evolved (that is an offspring which is slightly more evolved than the ape but not quite as evolved as the more evolved parent). Interbreeding continues with older less evolved species dying off and the newer hybrids continuing to breed and moving the whole basket of what are now hybrids up the evolutionary ladder.

Because the least evolved females continue to bear more evolved offspring and they die, the whole mixed/hybrid tribe(s) keeps moving up over time.

No humans yet...

Get the picture?

[Songcraft]

"Darwin was notorious for being incredibly flatulent. Everyone he met said he stank"

Maybe that is somehow enigmatically related to the way his book "evolved" from this

       

to this

       

[TexasGator]

“Here’s my conclusion:

A species evolves ...”

I didn’t think you were an evolutionist. My bad.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

Your post is supposed to be funny? Child abuse is funny?

[Paal Gulli]

"If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?"

All mules come from horses and jackasses, so are we just imagining there's such a thing as mules, or is it the horses and jackasses that are imaginary?

[21twelve]

That’s a great answer. Just because something “evolved” to fit into another niche doesn’t mean it had to force out what it evolved from. It is a poor argument by creationists. BTW - I am a creationist. Not that it was all created in just 6 24-hour days, but it was created.

[tophat9000]

Question For evolutionist

Created species by genetic manipulation do exist that's why you can even now patent

And certainly as science advances completely genetically engineered species from scratch will exist..

Science will be capable of pure intelligent design species

So by what Scientific methodology will you be able to test whether a species is intelligently designed/created or Naturally evolved

If you don't have such a test something was created versus something evolved you can't make the assertion that you've proved anything

2nd question

how does evolution address gay(and all are other new none reproducing new gender) as gay don't reproduce they can't be passing on that genetic trait to create more gays.

Non reproducing you can't for participate in the natural selection lottery

[alstewartfan]

hmmm; as opposed to organized religions, for instance...?

Yes, exactly, except that some religions, such as Islam, are cults. No Truth involved.

[alstewartfan]

Ultimately, it comes down to whether you believe that inanimate matter can spring to life, and that that “paramecium” can develop hearts, brains, kidneys, sex organs, wings, etc. over millions of years.
I call rubbish.

[daniel1212]

Boghossian: What would it take for you to believe in God?

Dawkins: I used to say it would be very simple. It would be the Second Coming of Jesus or a great, big, deep, booming, bass voice saying “I am God.” But I was persuaded, mostly by Steve Zara, who is a regular contributor to my website. He more or less persuaded me that even if there was this booming voice in the Second Coming with clouds of glory, the probable explanation is that it is a hallucination or a conjuring trick by David Copperfield. He made the point that a supernatural explanation for anything is incoherent. It doesn’t add up to an explanation for anything. A non-supernatural Second Coming could be aliens from outer space.

[Peter Boghossian begins to speak and is in full agreement with Dawkins, arguing, for example, that if the stars spelled out a message from God, we would first have to rule out alternative explanations, like an alien trickster culture.]

Dawkins then agrees with Boghossian.

Boghossian then asks him: So that [stars aligned into a message] couldn’t be enough. So what would persuade you?

Dawkins: Well, I’m starting to think nothing would, which, in a way, goes against the grain, because I’ve always paid lip service to the view that a scientist should change his mind when evidence is forthcoming. - https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/richard-dawkins-admits-that-nothing-can-persuade-him-god-exists/

[fishtank]

God would only need to speak in a still small voice into Dawkins’s heart, convince him of his sin, call him into the Life, and of course then Dawkins would be a believer.

If Dawkins is among the elect, then he would be brought to faith at some point.