Your Views on Dawkins?

[Cato]

I do not claim to be a scientist.

No shit. Bypassing Dawkins' credentials and work on the matter was a dead give away.

I'm just investigating whether or not Dawkin's views hold up logically.

Oh, the anticipation is killing me. Renowned evolutionary biologist's words vs. some dude that takes at face value the words from some asshole that speaks from a riser and the wisdom of CARM.

Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God. The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation." This does not follow. Why should I pick the former if both are exceedingly improbable? Couldn't one say that one could remain agnostic on choosing between the two?

Uh, evidence!!! There's a plethora of evidence for speciation through natural selection (evolution) and absolutely no evidence for your god. Dawkins wrote a book in 1996 titled Climbing Mount Improbable . Is it a fair assumption that you didn't read it? How about The Selfish Gene (1976), The Extended Phenotype (1982), The Blind Watchmaer (1986), or The River Out of Eden (1995)? Dawkins published two more books before penning The God Delusion .

In The God Delusion he argues that the existence of God is monumentally improbable—about as probable as the assembly of a flight-worthy Boeing 747 by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Now it is not monumentally improbable, he says, that life should have developed by way of unguided Darwinism. In fact the probability that the stunning complexity of life came to be in that fashion is greater than the probability that there is such a person as God. An explanation involving divine design, therefore, is less probable than the explanation in terms of unguided Darwinism; therefore we should prefer unguided Darwinism to an explanation involving design; but these two are the only viable candidates here; therefore by an inference to the best explanation, we should accept unguided Darwinism.

You are a disingenuous cunt, but I guess lying for Jesus is ok, right? You seperate the argument with a dash, but leave the reader assuming that Dawkins made the 747 claim when in fact he destroyed it in the same book you pretend to be quoting. Only an ignorant creationist hack uses the term 'unguided Darwinism'. You know fuck all about natural selection, unguided...dolt.


I won't bore the forum with your laundry list of plays that would elicite a Notre Dame crowd to cheer, but will tell you that any example you give for their cheer has been obserevable and not outside the realm of possibility. Your god has never been observed. Also, Plantinga's an idiot. I fear the 1920's Notre Dame four horseman more than those dreamt by John of Patmos.