I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Richard Dawkins goes off the deep end


The pretentious title of demagogic "New Atheist" Richard Dawkins' soon-to-be-released new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution", sounds like something out of a P.T. Barnum circus. And the book is going to give the "accommodationists" (those who believe in "accommodating" the anti-Semitic Darwinist Cafeteria-Christian goyim who interpret the Christian gospel as literal while at the same time rejecting the bible's much more credible Jewish creation story) -- who are already very unhappy with him -- conniption fits.

A Publishers' Weekly editorial review of the book says,

. . . Dawkins also came to realize that a disturbingly large percentage of the American and British public didn't share his enthusiasm for evolution. In fact, they actively abhorred the idea, since it seemed to contradict the Bible and diminish the role of God.

As I have pointed out many times, religion is not the only reason why people question evolution -- a belief that the scientific evidence is poor is another important reason.

So Dawkins decided to write a book for these history-deniers, in which he would dispassionately demonstrate the truth of evolution beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt.

Darwinists "prove" evolution by cherry-picking evidence.

After only a few pages of The Greatest Show on Earth, however, it becomes clear that Dawkins doesn't do dispassionate, and that he's not particularly interested in convincing believers to believe in evolution. He repeatedly compares creationists and Holocaust deniers, which is a peculiar way of reaching out to the other side.

Comparing creationists and Holocaust deniers? Dawkins sinks to a very low level of demagoguery here.

Elsewhere, Dawkins calls those who don't subscribe to evolution ignorant, fatuously ignorant and ridiculous.

But Dawkins refuses to accommodate Darwinist cafeteria Christians.

All of which raises the point: who, exactly, is supposed to read this book? Is Dawkins preaching to the choir or trying to convert the uninformed? While The Greatest Show on Earth might fail as a work of persuasive rhetoric — Dawkins is too angry and acerbic to convince his opponents — it succeeds as an encyclopedic summary of evolutionary biology.

The National Center for Science Education posted a review of the book. The review, written by Douglas Theobald, an Assistant Professor of Biochemistry at Brandeis University, says,

In a book on evolutionary evidence, it is hard to avoid a few nods towards debunking the common creationist fallacies. Nevertheless, unlike many other popular books that cover the evidence for evolution, this is not primarily a refutation of creationism or 'intelligent design' arguments.

How can evolution theory be "proved" without refuting creationist and intelligent design arguments?

Theobald continues,

Rather, Dawkins's latest book is a positive commemoration of the triumph of a grand arching theory that has withstood the continuous onslaught of 150 years of new data, including the tsunami of molecular, genetic, and sequence data from the past fifteen years.

The past fifteen years has also seen a "tsunami" of new data against evolution.

Theobald continues,

In the final analysis, The Greatest Show on Earth will take a deserved place alongside other "must-read" evolution books. No other book currently available approaches Dawkins's comprehensive yet accessible treatment of the extraordinarily diverse and massive body of data that drives ineluctably to the same conclusion, the only conclusion that makes sense of everything in biology: that all the "endless forms" of known life share a common genetic kinship, as they have been, and are being, evolved.

And there we go again with that nonsense that evolution is "the only conclusion that makes sense of everything in biology."

The accommodationist NCSE endorses the book despite Dawkins' opposition to accommodationism.
.

Labels:

3 Comments:

Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Whether or not evolution of the Darwinist variety "makes sense" of biology is irrelevant, since the proper aim of science is not to "make sense" of things, but to discover whatever facts and laws can be verified by independently repeatable experiments. A flat earth might make sense, but experiments show that it is wrong. Quantum physics can be verifed by experiments, yet appears to make little sense. If the Darwinist claim that all life evolved by perfectly mechanistic processes could by verified by repeatable experiments, there would be no controversy.

Monday, September 14, 2009 4:00:00 PM  
Blogger Andrew said...

w8, the bible has a jewish creation story? i thought that it had two separate stories borrowed from babylonian antecedents through centuries of oral tradition ...

Sunday, September 27, 2009 2:47:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> w8, the bible has a jewish creation story? i thought that it had two separate stories borrowed from babylonian antecedents through centuries of oral tradition ... <<<<<<<

Yes, there are two creation stories in the Old Testament, Genesis 1 and 2. It has been claimed that they are inconsistent because their chronological orders of creation events appear to be different. However, the order of creation events in Genesis 2 is not expressly specified -- it has only been arbitrarily assumed that the chronological order of events is the same as the order of events in the text.

Sunday, September 27, 2009 3:19:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home