Dawkins Supports Intelligent Design... just not by God.

[Scuba Pete]

From Ben Stein's EXpelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Dawkin's statement:
Richard Dawkins: ...if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Himself - Host: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Himself - Host: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Himself - Host: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
Richard Dawkins: We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Himself - Host: And what was that?
Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Himself - Host: Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Himself - Host: So you have no idea how it started.
Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone.

This is simply AMAZING stuff to come out of Dawkin's mouth. Too stinking funny! Dawkins can believe in Aliens but not in God.

 

[Smoke]

From Ben Stein's EXpelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Um ....

This is simply AMAZING stuff to come out of Dawkin's mouth. Too stinking funny! Dawkins can believe in Aliens but not in God.

From Dawkins' website:

Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.
​

However, if your seething hatred of Dawkins has grown so great that you're prepared to sign up with the creationists, have fun with that.

 

[YmirGF]

Frankly, Pete, if you think that Dawkins is offering tacit approval for ID in this conversation, then you need to re-read it. It sounds like he was asked a leading question and merely wanted to be polite. When speaking in hypotheticals, well, anything can be possible and many things might yield interesting results but that isn't quite the same as saying such research should be taken up.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I don't think that postulating that there is a possibility that the intelligent design concept could be correct and supporting research into it are quite the same thing. Dawkins was certainly just doing the former.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Frankly, Pete, if you think that Dawkins is offering tacit approval for ID in this conversation,

I HEARD the conversation, and that is precisely what he meant. Rent the video. Absolutely amazing. His aim is to destroy religion and nothing else.

 

[YmirGF]

His aim is to destroy religion and nothing else.

And the problem with that is?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Nothing, if you accept bigotry as a good thing.

 

[YmirGF]

Nothing, if you accept bigotry as a good thing.

Yes, Pete, religious bigotry is a problem.

 

[Scuba Pete]

[/INDENT]However, if your seething hatred of Dawkins has grown so great that you're prepared to sign up with the creationists, have fun with that.

Bwahahahaha! I have "seething hatred" of Dawkins? Please demonstrate how DISAGREEING with him can be construed as hatred. But then, it's just like the religious right telling us that disagreeing with Shrub was being unpatriotic. No, I do not blindly worship the man as you seem to do, but I DO NOT hate him. Talk about a Red Herring.

But then, that's the problem. You see this as some sort of a WAR. A war against what? Religion. That's the beginning of the end of free thought in this country!

BTW, if I were Dawkins, I would do some quick damage control as well. The man has been outed and his kingdom is starting to crumble. If you haven't seen the movie, I would suggest that you do so. You have been duped by Dawkins.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yes, Pete, religious bigotry is a problem.

Then why support someone who writes a book to be a "frontal assault against Religion".

 

[gnomon]

Who would post Expelled as evidence of anything.

The only fans of that movie are those who basically will not read the works of Dawkins, Harris or Dennett and seem to have no problem with the film implying that evolutionary theory is National Socialism and genocidal.

So yes, anyone a fan of this film is basically admitting their own bigotry.

Thanks for the heads up.

Richard Dawkins: ...if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Himself - Host: What do think is the possibility that there then, intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics... or in evolution?
Richard Dawkins: Well... it could come about in the following way: it could be that uh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization e-evolved... by probably by some kind of Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto... perhaps this... this planet. Um, now that is a possibility. And uh, an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um, at the detail... details of our chemistry molecular biology you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
Himself - Host: [voice over] Wait a second. Richard Dawkins thought intelligent design might be a legitimate pursuit?
Richard Dawkins: Um, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself would have to come about by some explicable or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Himself - Host: [voice over] So professor Dawkins was not against intelligent design, just certain types of designers. Such as God.
Richard Dawkins: We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Himself - Host: And what was that?
Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Himself - Host: Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Himself - Host: So you have no idea how it started.
Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone.

No where in this conversation is an explicit or implicit statement for intelligent design.

The beginning of the end of free thought in this nation already started. It began with the millions of people needlessly arrested every year in the drug war, the arresting of people for photographing police, etc.

Not stroking the egos of worthless religions.

 

[YmirGF]

Then why support someone who writes a book to be a "frontal assault against Religion".

I meant it in terms of religious bigots, Pete. Dr. Dawkins has my full and unwavering support.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Who would post Expelled as evidence of anything.

Have you seen it?

 

[gnomon]

Have you seen it?

Yes, I have.

Never mind its attempt to discuss evolutionary theory with such individuals at Dawkins which would have made the film at worst a routine biased documentary but the misinformation regarding the individuals highlighted who supposedly lost their jobs for challenging evolutionary theory smacks of too much Michael Moore twisting (a.k.a. lying) for effect.

The later sequences involving the touring of concentration camps and even the allusion that Darwinism goes hand in hand with Nazi genocide was completely irresponsible. The film lost any illusion of being a documentary about professors in academia and the evolution/ID debate. Using the memory of the Holocaust as an argument against the theory of natural selection ....... doesn't get much lower.

Not to mention, of course, the complete historical inaccuracy of such an argument. It's no better than the claim that Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So please, present the facts for us. Simply denying them is just so trite! Give us the facts about the misinformation. It's so easy to SAY that, but I want evidence.

It seems that the only way people are "debunking" this movie is by simply using condescension and nothing else. Ben Stein does not seem one who would stoop to distortion. Are you suggesting that he is a rabid young earther? Perhaps a closet religious righter?

What underlies this movie, is the OBVIOUS anti-theist that I have seen for so long and that is rampant on this forum.

So far, I have been called a hater and a bigot for bringing this up. What's the matter? You guys don't want to talk about this?

 

[gnomon]

So please, present the facts for us. Simply denying them is just so trite! Give us the facts about the misinformation. It's so easy to SAY that, but I want evidence.

It seems that the only way people are "debunking" this movie is by simply using condescension and nothing else. Ben Stein does not seem one who would stoop to distortion. Are you suggesting that he is a rabid young earther? Perhaps a closet religious righter?

What underlies this movie, is the OBVIOUS anti-theist that I have seen for so long and that is rampant on this forum.

So far, I have been called a hater and a bigot for bringing this up. What's the matter? You guys don't want to talk about this?

Use the search function.

In other words, there are already six threads on the film totaling over 700 replies. So before you make your usual hate mongering claims check out those threads rather than wallowing around in a new one.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Use the search function.

This is translated into: I can't do it, but I am not about to admit it!

Hey, but this is the Slap down that the movie talked about. You challenge anything Darwin or Dawkins and you are a Pariah here. Minds are closed because you are challenging the premise for THEIR religion. Kinda funny. Way sad, but kinda funny!

 

[gnomon]

This is translated into: I can't do it, but I am not about to admit it!

Hey, but this is the Slap down that the movie talked about. You challenge anything Darwin or Dawkins and you are a Pariah here. Minds are closed because you are challenging the premise for THEIR religion. Kinda funny. Way sad, but kinda funny!

No, I'm asking you to use a simple search function before hoisting your cross.

 

[Darkness]

For centuries, mankind knew all there was to know about the shape of the Earth. It was a flat planet, shaped roughly like a circle, with lots of pointy things hanging down from the underside. On the comparatively smooth topside, Europe sat in the middle of the circle, with the other continents scattered about the fringes, and parts of Africa hanging over the edge. The oceans lapped against the sides of the Earth, and in places ran over, creating currents that would pull over the edge ships that ventured too far out to sea. The space beyond the edge of the world was a dark realm inhabited by all sorts of unholy beasts. Fire and brimstone billowed up from the very depths of hell itself and curled 'round the cliffs whose infinite length jutted straight down to the darkest depths . . . .
Then, in the year of our Lord fourteen-hundred and ninety-two, it all changed. For decades a small band of self-proclaimed "enlightened" individuals had been spouting their heretical nonsense that the Earth was in fact round. Citing "proof" based on nothing more than assumptions, half-truths and blind guesses, they dazzled the populace with their " . . . undeniable mathematical and scientific evidence . . . that the world is shaped not like a pancake, but an orange!"
Rightly wishing to dispel notions regarding the alleged citrus-like shape of our planet, the Church was able to either silence or execute nearly all the fanatics. But a small handful remained, continuing to spread their blasphemous speeches and to promote their heretical ideals involving the very center of the universe. One of their number, who called himself Grigori Efimovich, would later be known to the rest of the world as Christopher Columbus. Using an elaborate setup involving hundreds of mirrors and a few burlap sacks, he was able to create an illusion so convincing that it was actually believed he had sailed around the entire planet and landed in the West Indies. As we now know, he did not. What Efimovich actually did was sail across the Atlantic Ocean to a previously undiscovered continent, North America, and even then only to a small island off the coast. It took him several years more even to "discover" his blunder and claim it as a " . . . new world". But the damage had already been done, and mankind entered into what we now call its "Dark Ages" . . . .

 

[painted wolf]

Pete, I have to admit I'm surprised that you would cite Expelled as evidence of anything but misleading cherry picked quotes and blatant fear mongering.

I'm not a fan of Dawkins but, knowing what I know about how Expelled was put together and his and other scientists experiences, I have to say his "interview" was a scam.

The problem with claiming that he supports ID if done with aliens is it buggers the question... where did the aliens come from? Dawkins and other have repeatedly said that (just like the same argument turned to god). It's a bogus cop out by ID to appear non-secular.

Regardless of his views on religion... he isn't stupid enough to claim ID by aliens is more valid than ID by god... they are equally invalid as they are equally unscientific.

wa:do