43
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 69:
Line 69: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)
Finally! Proof that Dawkins has no idea what he's talking about! I find it amazing that people still support him after all his blunders. --[[User:Bdor24|Bdor24]] 12:15, 19 February 2012 (EST)
This is important: I can't remember the full titles of some of my own papers. I still know what they contained. Even if I didn't, it wouldn't provide any evidence to say that their contents were erroneous. Perhaps you should all try and find some evidence to support ID instead of whining incessantly about evolution, and Dawkins' in particular. Why on earth are there so many articles about him? Does his website really need its own separate article? It's senseless.
I find it disheartening that so many people here appear to conflate an individuals actions with the credibility of the theories which they support. Richard Dawkins saying 'Oh, God' is not telling at all. What is telling is that you're willing to consider that to be evidence of anything at all. It is very difficult to debate those who do not depend on evidence in order to determine what they should believe. Whether he 'wins' or not in these pointless debates is entirely beside the point.
Even if Dawkins were somehow 'defeated', it provides zero evidence in favour of ID, nor does it discredit evolution. Science is not a competition, nor is it a game. It isn't about winning or losing, and the only agenda real scientists have is to determine the truth. I'm also sick of hearing ID conspiracy theories that their papers are not accepted in real journals due to conniving scientists. It really doesn't work like that. If some ID research had any vague application of the scientific method, or even some evidence of the smallest sliver of insight and critical thought, it might not run into the same problems. Unfortunately for ID, if such standards of intellect were to be applied, the work would be self-defeating.
These specialist 'ID journals' that have popped up are just embarrassing. If I developed a hunch, and no papers would accept the paper, I would take on board the reviewers comments and try again. What I would NOT do is create an open access journal with some half-hearted, twisted ecclesiastic peer review process. It is ironic that these journals would refuse point-blank to publish a paper on evolution. Doing PRECISELY what ID proponents complained about, toward evolution. It's exceedingly hypocritical.
Disclaimer: My own views are not disclosed in the above. My issue here is not with ID, it is with the misapplication of logic. Evidence negating A does not prove B, and in no way can the actions of one individual, beyond their scientific literature, provide evidence for or against anything. Anything RD does or does not do, or says in a debate, has absolutely no bearing on either evolution or ID. Having a poor memory at 74 doesn't, either. Get a grip. If you would like ID to be taken seriously, at least try and treat it like a real science yourselves and with a little respect. If the proponents don't, the critics certainly won't. Finally, science functions through conflict. Every theory has its critics and its fans. Never until ID did this devolve into continuous ad-hominem attacks on the character of scientists. This is demonstrated by the sheer number and length of articles on Dawkins.
Why is his article longer than Jesus'? Longer life-span? More worth talking about? More significant contribution to humanity? More interesting? Better looking? What is it about Richard Dawkins, an agnostic evolutionary biologist, that warrants so much more of your time than Jesus and articles about the proponents of ID?
[[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 22:20, 9 July 2012 (EDT)
== Why does Dawkins matter so much to you? ==
== Why does Dawkins matter so much to you? ==