Richard Dawkins
May 24th, 2007 by Michael Krahn
|
Reading Richard Dawkins - A Blog Series on “The God Delusion” |
| Preface “Relusional” Christian Reads Atheist’s Book |
| Part 1 Is this the dawning of the age of Atheism? “But I didn’t know I could” - “Killing - and profiting - in the name of…” |
| Part 2 “Teach Your Children Well” - “Hey you idiot - read my book!” |
| Part 3 More on Childhood Indoctrination |
| Part 4 Pick a Side, Einstein |
| Part 5 Money, money, money |
| Other useful and interesting links: |
| Transcript of a conversation between Rick Warren and Sam Harris (April 9, 2007) |
| Books Bashing Faith - The Britannica Blog looks at why books by Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are so popular today. (June 3, 2007) |
| I Sold My Soul on eBay author Hemant Metah’s posts on Bad Christians and Bad Atheists |
subscribe
[…] 2nd, 2007 I ran across an interesting discussion at Michael Krahn’s blog on the God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. (Krahn pinged my piece of religion below.) The God […]
I put a link to this post on my Saturday Review of Books (www.semicolonblog.com) because I think your thoughts on Richard Dawkins’ book are quite insightful. You’re welcome to add your own links to reviews of future reading any Saturday.
I tried to assemble all the interviews of Richard Dawkins at my blog.
http://horizonspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/05/25/81/
I have not read Dawkins book because I read in Paleonotology, Geology, and Quantum Physics. Not only myself but many scientists have come to question Darwin (which I have read). So far there has been no evidence presented showing how species develop and certainly Darwin’s book doesn’t address the issue. Quantum Physics is stuck on the first singularity — The Big Bang - because there had to have been a place for that tiny little bundle of energy to exist. The Big Bang included the creation of space as well as mass. Then we have the actual creation of life, which we are led to believe happened by chance, but that accident never repeated itself, which doesn’t lend it a great deal of credibility does it?
Royce,
I think you should read both Dawkins book because he does address your issue. In short, your conclusions are not a true scientist if you doubt evolution (I could understand you might have doubts about Evolution Theory through Natural Selection but that are two different things). Big Bang could just as well be result of collision of two large objects (and evidence points us to such) thus no creation of space and mass occurred at that point. There is no evidence things appeared out of nowhere (thus being created somehow or auto appear). The Universe we know now looks just like it was not a result of design.
As far as evolution is concerned, it doesn’t deal with creation of life and any decent scientist should know that. Abiogenesis is completely different story. Or is it too much to ask for you to understand separation?
Plus, even if science nowadays can’t explain Big Bang or abiogenesis or evolution… who cares, it doesn’t automatically make it “god did it” type of thing. Instead of spending all time and energy trying to claim evolution theory is not correct or any other… you can simply come up with your own that would explain what we see int he universe right now. I am sure that you can’t thus you are only limited to bashing things you don’t really understand. Saying “invisible man in the sky” did it is even less credible then any scientific theory unless you can come up with good theory to describe this better then ones we have now.
It is truly amazing how bloggers throw around pseudo-statistcs without ever being challenged to define or explain. “Not only myself but many scientists have come to question Darwin (which I have read).” (italics mine) Really? Many scientists question Darwin. How many? Enough that Evolution will be turned over as a scientific fact? What do you mean by “come to question”? Are you implying that these scientist believe Evolution to mostly be provable, but that there are still a few wrinkles to be ironed out? Or that these many scientists now disbelieve Evolution because of conflicting facts?
You’ve read Darwin but state, “there has been no evidence presented showing how species develop”. No evidence. No evidence. Are you sure you read the book by Charles Darwin?