Introduction: The Illusion of Design [Richard Dawkins]

Natural History Magazine ^ | November 2005 | Richard Dawkins

[snarks_when_bored]

I've enjoyed Dawkins's writing for quite a while, but I'd probably get exasperated with the guy myself were I around him for very long. But he's not a candidate for prom king or sainthood, so I try to judge whether what he says makes sense or not. More of it does than doesn't, in my estimation.

[chronic_loser]

And, as a young man, Darwin was himself a pious believer;

Darwin's defection from Xty had nothing to do with HMS Beagle or Origin. He fled orthodox Xty long before he first said "hmmmmmm" over finch beaks.

[js1138]

Aquinasfan seems to be under the illusion that "laws of physics" are something other than human constructs that describe and condense experimental data. All such laws have limits to the range of phenomena for which they are accurate, and therefore fall somewhat short of being TRVTH.

[dread78645]

> " So the cardinals wanted to fund a mathematical model that had no relationship to reality?" If it helped them to better predict the movements of the planets and stars, absolutely.

And then what? They could develop a missile system to attack scientists?

No. To bring the date of Easter back into conformity with the season.
Copernicus' work showed that the Julian calendar would eventually put Easter into December. This led to the reforms of Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 --our modern calendar: leap-year if divisible by 4, unless divisible by 100, unless divisible by 400.

> He was tried for heresy...
Because he claimed that Scripture erred.

And it did.

However, Cardinal Bellarmine left the Church an "out" by conceding that if proof of the Earth's motion could be shown then scripture would still be correct, -- just the Church's interpretation was wrong.

[Aquinasfan]

This is simply an appeal to emotion.

It's a logical argument. A person who, unprompted, publicly boasts about serial fornication is most likely someone who regards fornication lightly. Most men who sleep around do so for pleasure, and regard their partners as conquests. I have no reason to suspect otherwise with Mr. Ruse.

Therefore, his ability to dispassionatley judge between the theories of materialistic evolution and intelligent design as explanations for human origins is unlikely, since affirmation of ID entails acknowledgement of a Designer of both physical and moral laws, the latter of which would be repugnant to a whore.

Or are you contending that anyone who has sex with more than one person necessarily treats others as disposable by definition?

And raises his sins in an article putatively dealing with biological science? Yes.

BTW that little nugget of yours' Purity of heart and wisdom goes hand in hand' is a pretty wild assertion.

It's empirically demonstrable. Good people make good philosohers and evil people make bad philosophers. See Marx, Nietszche, Satre, etc. OTOH, the greatest philosophers, Socrates, Aristotle, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and St. Albert the Great, were also virtuous people. The books "Intellectuals" and "Architects of the Culture of Death" present an overwhelming case.

Want to tell me what this 'purity of heart' means,

Good. Virtuous.

and how wisdom is not possible without it?

Evil people regard sin as "good" for them. This is false. But from this false assumption they attempt to build a philosophical system that won't contradict their sinful practices. Philosophy based on lies can go in any direction, but never an ultimately good or true direction.

[snarks_when_bored]

I think you'll find that Darwin was still a believer when he embarked on his Beagle voyage.

[snarks_when_bored]

I fear so. Early on, I tried to make that point, to no avail.

[Aquinasfan]

Sometimes 'assumptions', such as the noninterference of the supernatural, must be made to enable certainty of conclusion.

That's a reasonable assumption to make when performing scientific investigations generally, but the assumption should not be regarded as certain since such an assumption would rule out miracles a priori, whereas there exists much evidence for miracles.

Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Blood of St. Januarius
The Tilma of Guadalupe
Incorrupt bodies of the saints
Fatima
Shroud of Turin
Sudarium of Oviedo

[frgoff]

We don't know many of the details of how life began on this planet.

But we do know the chemical processes required and we know the chemicals required by life require life.

There's a reason smart evolutionists whistle loudly and proclaim the theory doesn't talk about origins of life. The hard, cold, impenetrable wall of physics stands guard there and none may pass.

[js1138]

Speaking of Laws: Godwin's Law alert:

"Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell… And in this hour we sink to our knees and beseech our almighty God that He may bless us, that He may give us the strength to carry on the struggle for the freedom, the future, the honor, and the peace of our people. So help us God."

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith…"

"We were convinced that the people need and require faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

[Aquinasfan]

Maybe you could state for us what you think it is.

Massive things pull things towards them? Inverse square law? Something like that.

[Right Wing Professor]

I read Intellectuals. On first reading I was impressed. On second reading, I realized this was just tendentiousness wrapped around Johnson's prejudices.

Peter Singer, by all accounts, is an exemplary human being. I'd hate to extrapolate from that to an endorsement of his moral philosophy.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"There's a reason smart evolutionists whistle loudly and proclaim the theory doesn't talk about origins of life."

Because it's true.

[Aquinasfan]

Apparently you do not have a grasp of evolution.

I guess not. 12 years of public school down the drain!

[BelegStrongbow]

I am aware that Dawkins says that evolution is a fact in the paper cited at the top of this exchange. Are you aware of that? Or shall we decide that Dr. Dawkins is not speaking as a scientist when he pens an introduction to an evolution textbook for the purported instruction of collegiate heads full of mush? That must be quite convenient.

And common sense always looks rambling to those who lack it.

[snarks_when_bored]

A person who, unprompted, publicly boasts about serial fornication is most likely someone who regards fornication lightly. Most men who sleep around do so for pleasure, and regard their partners as conquests.

Aquinasfan, you don't know whether any of this is true. You're manifesting very little respect for the need for evidence.

[Right Wing Professor]

Massive things pull things towards them? Inverse square law? Something like that.

That's very classical, and there are exceptions. General relativity is a more general way of treating gravity, and it's a theory.

So did God give us GR, or was it Einstein?

[snarks_when_bored]

...we know the chemicals required by life require life.

I don't know what you mean by this. Plenty of organic compounds have been spotted floating around in space. You're not suggesting that they're alive, are you?

[frgoff]

Whistle louder, Dawkins can't hear you.

[Aquinasfan]

You mean, like common law? The laws of grammar?

Yes. The former reflects a universally recognized moral laws (i.e., theft is wrong). The fact that all people recognize the natural moral law as binding on all people at all times indicates the existence of a timeless moral authority, since only an authority can bind someone to a law.

The laws of grammar correspond to universally recognized first principles of reason, such as the law of non-contradiction. Only minds can reason, so the source of eternal principles of reason must be an eternal mind.