The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. A Review.

New Statesman ^ | 28 August 1992 | Richard Dawkins

[Tomalak]

This guy can write!

[Khepera]

I believe God created the heavens and the earth as well as all that is upon it. He even gave it the appearence of great age. In fact he created it with great age so it would be appropriate for sustaining the kinds of life he put upon it.

[RaceBannon]

Write what? Trash? Constant ridicule and insult? This writer would make a nice liberal.

[That Subliminal Kid]

I hate to break it to you- all but the most foam-at the mouth, fire breathing, anti-religious nut jobs think Rick Dawkins is a mental case.

He's been quoted as saying (among other absurdities) that people who question Darwinism are "either insane, stupid or both (or perhaps wicked but I'd rather not consider that)".

For a real treat, check out ID'er Phil Johnson's critiques of Dawkins. Some can defend Darwinism quite well. Dawkins is not one of them.

Another one of his big gafaws is that he tries to use Darwinism to prop up his atheism. A greater betrayal to objective science I cannot think of.

For further fun, read his debates with prominent neo-Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould. They were mortal enemies because Gould dared to question traditional Darwinian orthodoxy and once even lamented that "darwinism is on its way out".

[spqrzilla9]

To the contrary, Dawkins makes several substantive comments on the work.

[kpp_kpp]

"i believe" -- faith, not science... nothing wrong with that but it needs to be discussed separately.

i believe that it is pointless to debate "evolution", age of the earth, etc. there is no "scientific" method of "proving" anyone's theory on the matter. and the important question of where did the first piece of life, in the form of bacteria (?), come from is never addressed. because it is too difficult to scientifically consider. and then, even if advances over the next 10, 100, 1000 years allow the addressing of that very important question you still have to ask where the atom in its intricate detail "came from".

we live in the confinement of time - birth to death - and have no ability to answer questions outside of that realm, although the questions come in abundance.

[ko_kyi]

Anyone for a Creation/Evolution moratorium in FR? Speaking for myself, I find following the convolutions in creationist thought very tiring.

[spqrzilla9]

The question of how life started - aka "abiogenesis" - is separate from evolution. Evolution proper does not make claims on how life started, only how life has behaved since.

[Khepera]

I have no care to discuss "Science". There is no real way to change someones mind via argument. I believe what I say is true because God told me the truth. I will act on that and ignore any heathens who wish to argue foe what do they know but the smell of their own flatulance.

[That Subliminal Kid]

I find narrow minded people who think a complex subject like evolution has only two sides to it are tiring. I vote for a moratorium on stupidity. You with me?

[Frumanchu]

This guy can write!

(from article) Want a bet?

Um, that would be "wanna bet?" as in "want to bet?" That's about as annoying as writing your instead of you're.

And yes, he can write. It's the condescension and smug arrogance behind the words I take issue with. Bullsh*t, however eloquently stated, is still bullsh*t.

[TightSqueeze]

I believe God created the heavens and the earth as well as all that is upon it. He even gave it the appearence of great age.

Ain’t America grand, a place where people are free to believe whatever they choose, right? Unfortunately, if taught in schools the net result would leave the next generation at the mercy of those countries that build their science on a foundation of truth.

Science mixed with religion rarely produces bad religion or good science. Take islam for instance, a complete religion that dictates everything about everything, when applied to science, it leaves its practitioners at the mercy of their enemies smart bombs, while praying to its god for deliverance form evil infidels. That what happens when science is tainted by religion.

[kpp_kpp]

The question of how life started - aka "abiogenesis" - is separate from evolution

thank you. exactly my point. that is why i see the creationist/evolutionist debates as pointless. you could go around in circle for eternity (ah the elusive concept of time again) debating theories, especially unrelated ones.

[Khepera]

We do not need science to live and die. We do that in spite of science.

[Tomalak]

"Want a bet?" is short for "Do you want a bet?" not "Want to bet?".

And whoever added "bigotry" to the keywords list needs help.

[DinkyDau]

What ever happens, I hope I'm stoned at the time.

[beckett]

If being enlightened means I have to cast my lot with a nasty, snotty, cynical, know-it-all, ad hominem attack artist par excellence like Dawkins, I'd rather stay benighted.

[ECM]

Having actually read this book, I must say that this review is a bit lacking. He harps on two points and ignores the rest of the concepts argued.

Even if you don't agree with the guy (there are points, such as the age of the Earth that are very questionsable) it would be nice if this reviewer had actually proved that he'd read it...which I get the feeling he didn't.

And one other thing that gets on my nerves: you don't need a Phd to comment ably on any number of heady scientific concepts. It's simpy the ivory tower dwellers protecting their turf agains the imposition of the serfs.

[Frumanchu]

The implication was that "want to bet?" was short for "Do you want to bet?" which makes more sense than "Do you want a bet?"

Anyone else want to weigh in? Anything to avoid the CvE debate... :D

[John H K]

I believe what I say is true because God told me the truth

When? Have a recording? How do you know it was God?