« Superstitious capitalistsHomeGo to (virtual) Hell! »

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Design

Wishful Thinking

A look at Intelligent Design:

The current confusion is the result of a decade of campaigning by a group of Christian academics who work for a think-tank called the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Their guiding principle — which they call Intelligent Design theory or ID — is a sophisticated version of St Thomas Aquinas’ Argument from Design.

Over the last few years they have had a staggering impact. Just a few weeks ago, they persuaded an American publisher of biology textbooks to add a paragraph encouraging students to analyse theories other than Darwinism. Over the past two years they have convinced the boards of education in Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia and Georgia to teach children about Intelligent Design. Indiana and Texas are keen to follow suit. ...

Unlike the swivel-eyed creationists, ID supporters are very keen on scientific evidence. They accept that the earth was not created in six days, and is billions of years old. They also concede Darwin’s theory of microevolution: that species may, over time, adapt to suit their environments. What Intelligent Design advocates deny is macroevolution: the idea that all life emerged from some common ancestor slowly wriggling around in primordial soup. ...

Professor Richard Dawkins sent me his rather different opinion of the ID movement: ‘Imagine,’ he wrote, ‘that there is a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters, implacably convinced that the Roman Empire never existed. Hadrian’s Wall, Verulamium, Pompeii — Rome itself — are all planted fakes. The Latin language, for all its rich literature and its Romance language grandchildren, is a Victorian fabrication. The Rome deniers are, no doubt, harmless wingnuts, more harmless than the Holocaust deniers whom they resemble. Smile and be tolerant, just as we smile at the Flat Earth Society. But your tolerance might wear thin if you happen to be a lifelong scholar and teacher of Roman history, language or literature. You suddenly find yourself obliged to interrupt your magnum opus on the Odes of Horace in order to devote time and effort to rebutting a well-financed propaganda campaign claiming that the entire classical world that you love never existed.’

Mary Wakefield, The Spectator: It is becoming fashionable to question Darwinism, but few people understand either the arguments for evolution or the arguments against it

Comments

Dr. Dawkins is an amazing scientist. I started reading his books during my undergraduate years. I should say he is been my HERO since then. I did my masters in computer science but my thesis was very much related to evolution. I do read his books whenever I get chance. I hope to meet him and listen to him very soon in US. He should give some extra lectures in USA so that people can be shown the right path.
dawkins teory had been broken!! there's a Punk band named "SeeMs LiKe IdiOt band" ( from Tegal- Mid Java- Indonesia) who made a law about mattery. that law has broken Richard dawkins teory. this is the law called "First Idiot law": "Every mattery, how small it is, must be contains of its parts that form it to be one" its a big commotion here ( Indonesia)!!
Evolution does not qualify as a theory either. the fact is this: if you believe in evolution, creation, intelligent design, alien colinization, any combination of these or something else your beliefs are based entirely in faith. Yes evolution can be falsified, and it has been proven false: none of the assumptions that could validate it have been borne out. All beliefs regarding origins are exactly that,- beliefs, matters of faith. Is evolution a religion? well it certainly has it's zealots who preach the dogmas of their own brand. (may I use the word denomination?) After all with so many different and often opposed schools of thought within the larger framework, Darwinism often more closeley resembles the fractured churches of Christendom than the objective truth we expect to see from the hallowed halls of science.

How do you feel?

Feel free to share your feelings about Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Design. Please stick to the theme of the entry. Disagreement is fine. Homophobia, racism, and kindred expressions of hatred will be deleted. This site is one of my hobbies. I genuinely enjoy hearing from people and hate moderating or killing comments. Forthright disagreement is fine as long as it is civil.
My thanks,
Richard