Maybe this should be posted in the political system. LOL. 40% of americans !!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9590895.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9590895.stm
Richard Dawkins on why science is better than myth
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
I agree
At the quantum level mass appears from nothing and the same bit of matter appears in more than one place at the same time! The next giant leap in technology will be quantum computers based on this quantum theory
Fables lack the imagination of reality
At the quantum level mass appears from nothing and the same bit of matter appears in more than one place at the same time! The next giant leap in technology will be quantum computers based on this quantum theory
Fables lack the imagination of reality
Besides Professor Dawkins being a jerk, he also seems to fail to understand that the word "myth" has several different and even almost contradictory meanings.
40%, and people wonder why the US is in decline.Besides Professor Dawkins being a jerk, he also seems to fail to understand that the word "myth" has several different and even almost contradictory meanings.
Yeah, re: missing links, reports on the finding of another missing link were aired last week. Missing link in homonid evolution. Did you hear wigglee?
The US is in decline for many reasons but believing in Genesis isn't one of them.40%, and people wonder why the US is in decline.
I beg to differ. No first world society can afford to carry 40% uneducated people, who disregard science.The US is in decline for many reasons but believing in Genesis isn't one of them.
As people like Wittgenstein note science is a form of myth itself, the point is to make myth true enough as he said
Bullshit phrase that has no real place in evolutionary theory. Still popular with the press though, they've kept it alive for far too long....missing links...
First of all, give me the definition of evolution. If you understand it properly, you should be able to do it in one simple sentence. If you're able to do that correctly, then, please, enlighten me about the "missing links." I want evidence from primary sources - peer reviewed articles. Show me.He is rather arrogant and quite willing to ignore the missing links in evolution, whilst refusing to consider the possibility that other life forms from distant galaxies may have played a part in that evolution.
Well gaps in the fossil record or non-existent intermediate forms do have a place in the study of evolution.Bullshit phrase that has no real place in evolutionary theory. Still popular with the press though, they've kept it alive for far too long.
They don't mean that evolution is not happening, or has not happened, or that natural selection is not the main cause, but they are part of understanding evolution.
Dawkins is an okay scientist, a good science writer, and a real problem for political/social issues.
He is the socially progressive version of far right "culture warriors". He sees only conflict between religion and science, and is so rabid in his beliefs he has been caught out (in his seminal work on the subject) misquoting historical figures and having huge lapses in logic in his attempts to prove how bad religion is. He has allowed his fanaticism to seriously damage his credibility.
He uses non-factual assertions and gross exaggeration as tools in his own private culture wars to satisfy what are clearly some personal needs.
IT is well known that he significantly anti-american, you can see this on the show, a BBC show, with a British scientist who quotes the American rate of believing in creationism rather than any other rate, when something like half of britain does not believe in darwinian evolution. He feels he is on a crusade against America.
He refuses to acknowledge the possibility that science and religion can co-exist, as well as simply ignoring the science showing the value of religion. You can see it in the interview when he simply glosses over the issue of how common cultural concepts, like religion hold a society together.
He is simply another fanatic, on the opposite wing of say Jerry Falwell, or other radical social conservatives, in form, tenor and honesty he is hard to distinguish from them.
He is the socially progressive version of far right "culture warriors". He sees only conflict between religion and science, and is so rabid in his beliefs he has been caught out (in his seminal work on the subject) misquoting historical figures and having huge lapses in logic in his attempts to prove how bad religion is. He has allowed his fanaticism to seriously damage his credibility.
He uses non-factual assertions and gross exaggeration as tools in his own private culture wars to satisfy what are clearly some personal needs.
IT is well known that he significantly anti-american, you can see this on the show, a BBC show, with a British scientist who quotes the American rate of believing in creationism rather than any other rate, when something like half of britain does not believe in darwinian evolution. He feels he is on a crusade against America.
He refuses to acknowledge the possibility that science and religion can co-exist, as well as simply ignoring the science showing the value of religion. You can see it in the interview when he simply glosses over the issue of how common cultural concepts, like religion hold a society together.
He is simply another fanatic, on the opposite wing of say Jerry Falwell, or other radical social conservatives, in form, tenor and honesty he is hard to distinguish from them.
Untruesomething like half of britain does not believe in darwinian evolution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationismUntrue
That is the source. It could be wrong. But my point about Dawkins dislike of American still stands.
That is shocking, if it indeed is true. But save us the comment about the poor little US, that everybody is picking on.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
That is the source. It could be wrong. But my point about Dawkins dislike of American still stands.
It is not a comment about the poor little US. It is a comment about Dawkin's bias. He has made a number of comments, even in the scientific context over the years, that show an anti-US bias.That is shocking, if it indeed is true. But save us the comment about the poor little US, that everybody is picking on.
That is one of my criticisms of him.
Regretably many of your fellow TERBites believe that if the article where about the U.S. you would believe it implicitly not wonder if it is true.That is shocking, if it indeed is true.
