Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Krok]

However do your books contain Ernst Haeckel's drawings, most college books do even after he was convicted of fraud over a hundred years ago.

You lie about this, too. My college books certainly did not have any drawings in it. They had photo's. Were you "educated" in the 1800's?

 

[Krok]

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism vs. Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48.

Oh, as a geologist, I'll answer this philosopher very quickly.

It's not worth trying to explain the intricacies of geology, which you can only pick up after many years of study, to a layman who thinks he knows more than you.

Anyway, do you think that all those hundreds of thousands of geologists, all over the world, with their literally millions of degrees in geology between them, are all stupid and that you know more than all of them put together?

Futhermore, we do have absolute dating methods, you know?

See, that was easy.

I just wonder why you, 1robin, didn't also quote some of the responses to that article. I can quote one of them, too. This from a geologist:

"Steven D. Schafersman, Ph.D. reached the same conclusion in his article, "Fossils, Stratigraphy, and Evolution: Consideration of a Creationist's Argument", that appeared in Scientists Confront Creationism, Laurie R. Godfrey, ed., 1983 (New York: Norton & Co., pp. 219-44). Calling O'Rourke's article "full of errors of fact and reasoning about biostratigraphy" (p. 222), he proceeds to give a concise description of how biostratigraphy actually works, pointing out O'Rourke's errors, and detailing the misuses Henry Morris, in particular, put the quotes to, above and beyond O'Rourke's mistakes."

Source: Quote Mine Project: Geologic Column Quotes

Why don't you quote that, too, 1Robin? We're not as stupid as you think we are. We do have an education, you know.

 

[paarsurrey]

And how, exactly, would you know that?

Its similarity with nature.

 

[Krok]

There.... I kid.

Hey, 1robin.

This is enough, so far. I hope you are going to defend your lies when you eventually decide to come back (if you do). You also told quite a few other porkies, as well. Just concentrate on those pointed out, so far.

While you're at it, get an education on what the word "observe" means. It does not just mean "directly see". The word "observe" has more than one meaning. Consult, for example, any Oxford Dictionary.

Education...education...education....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There is a big difference between numbers of Christians and every other religion. Christians claim to have had a tangible experience with a risen Christ. Other religions claim to have a superficial intellectual consent to a world view many times automatically at birth or under threat. Christians are witnesses to an event.

Muslims hold that Muhammad was illiterate and the Quran was given to him to give to man. This claim and many of the claims in your bible as well as claims in other religions are just that...claims from the faithful. Numbers of believers are hardly any indication of fact. There are many, many flat earthers. They believe tooth and nail the earth is flat contrary to a mountain of evidence that refutes their claims...yet they still believe.

It appears extent is the issue. However do your books contain Ernst Haeckel's drawings, most college books do even after he was convicted of fraud over a hundred years ago.

This argument is weak. I'm unsure why creationist keep peddling this one. Where have I ever painted the picture that ALL scientist are sincere? The reason we know what is factual and what isn't is because, like I said, science is self correcting. Scientist go back re-examine the data when new data is collected. If the old is falsified then it may be no longer valid in lieu of new discovery.

How exactly is the idea that Dinosaurs turned into birds observable or testable?

If you're seriously willing to learn then at least start here. This is one of 5 videos. Not only are birds morphologically similar to dinosaurs but we also know that on a molecular level they're related.
[youtube]NB46sz5eoZg[/youtube]
Dinosaur to bird evolution 1of5 - YouTube

Or even that we descend from any other species? Could be true but it sure as heck isn't observable.

Again, morphology and genetics shows that you're wrong. We don't have to observe the actual process in order to know if the process actually happened. How can we know that your son is actually your son? Obviously we weren't there during conception all the way up to his birth. The sure fire way to determine this is DNA from you and DNA from him. We know that chimpanzees etc. are related to us because of morphology and genetics.

Maybe only science needs to be self correcting because only it is wrong at times. Since failure is a part of the process then any particular claim is only good until it isn't.

It is self correcting. Not only is it good until it isn't but even when certain understandings are falsified it doesn't mean that data is suddenly irrelevant. Even the falsified data is important.

You may be very familiar with the public school system. (I am a senior in secondary mathematic education by the way) . However I am very familiar with the bible and you are welcome to provide a scientific claim that you think is false.

I'm not just familiar with the system. I work in the system. I'm more than familiar with what is taught and what is in the biology books. As far as the bible....I and more than familiar with it as well as the Quran. We can save the specific claims and refutations for another thread.

Your theory only counters (theoretically) a single interpretation of a few verses. It leaves probably the most accepted interpretation untouched. The fact that you are referring to a few verses that you are not apparently very familiar with as a myth is an example of what I mean

And you're wrong. I haven't even given you any specific examples so to claim that I'm unfamiliar seems to be disingenuous on your part. We'd first have to agree that the creation narrative is to be taken literally. If you don't think so then we have no debate but if you believe it to be literal then we can debate from there. I'm confident the scenario described in the bible is not scientifically possible. As far as the flood, well, no geologist that I know of agrees that there was a "world wide flood". There's no geological evidence of such a thing ever occurring as they way the bible explains it.

There are countless scientists that hold that Genesis is factual.

Only "creation scientist". I say that with tongue in cheek. They have no data that backs them up.

Accepting the conclusions based on evidence that falls short of proof is the definition of belief.

This makes no sense. You don't really seem to have an understanding as to how science really works do you? It's not about proof nor does it ever express to be able to "prove" something. It's about the current "evidence" and what that evidence "currently" reveals.

I didn't say it was a fact I said it was necessarily a fact if evolution (without God) is a fact. You can't have one without the other. Not even appeals to alien life helps.

This is a presupposition that isn't based on any available evidence. We have every indication of evolution and no indication the process was/is guided by a supernatural entity.

I am very familiar with the subject. I have watched every single debate available on the net concerning it as of last year anyway as well as having college level biology and chemistry.

Yet you're under the impression biology is about "proof". If you really did understand, and it appears you really don't, you wouldn't keep making such a secondary student level mistake.

I have yet to see a debate between a evolutionist and any other person regardless of education level who didn't at some point insinuate that the non- evolutionist was just not smart enough to recognize just how smart they were.

I think you're smart enough to understand it. The basics really aren't complicated. I think you choose to not understand it because it disrupts your preconceived notions.

Without God or abiogenesis there would be no life to evolve. Period.

This statement is based on faith and assumption. You have no tangible testable evidence for your god nor any evidence of it's biogenesis process.

Exactly what is it that makes this a fact and a common designer a false theory.
Based on what that proof?

We are genetically and morphologically related. We have evidence that supports this. We have no evidence for a common designer...be it a god or alien(s). We can only go by the current evidence.

Why would God be a lesser explanation.

Show evidence of "God"....show evidence of abiogeneis then we can go from there.

My entire family are engineers and mostly Christians. My family have one doctorate, two masters, and two bachelors in Eng. Including a winner of the national merit scholarship. If I am around we always discuss God. It is a universal consensus in the gang that the mechanics of life are so incomprehensively complicated and balanced on so many knife edges that chance alone is humorous.

And no biologist that I know of is arguing "chance". At some point in time on this planet conditions were conducive for life to evolve. It did/is. Anything beyond this is pure speculation (i.e. did a god, alien) create, seed or jump start life on the planet.....those are unknown and can't be known thus they have no place in science.

 

[McBell]

My entire family are engineers and mostly Christians. My family have one doctorate, two masters, and two bachelors in Eng. Including a winner of the national merit scholarship. If I am around we always discuss God. It is a universal consensus in the gang that the mechanics of life are so incomprehensively complicated and balanced on so many knife edges that chance alone is humorous.

So you and your family spend an awful lot of time discussing strawmen...

Do you think this proclamation helps your argument?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Its similarity with nature.

And how do you know that it's not just nature?

Just to preempt the possible 'but god is nature' argument, if god is nature, why call him/she/it 'god'?
We have a perfectly good word to describe nature.
It's 'nature'...

 

[McBell]

And how do you know that it's not just nature?

Just to preempt the possible 'but god is nature' argument, if god is nature, why call him/she/it 'god'?
We have a perfectly good word to describe nature.
It's 'nature'...

To be honest with you, I am much more interested in the distinction between God and nature.

 

[paarsurrey]

To be honest with you, I am much more interested in the distinction between God and nature.

I think anything which has not been created by man and exists is natural; its noun is nature.

Nature is deaf and dumb, in my opinion.

 

[Sunstone]

Richard Dawkins is a good scientist. Next question, please.

 

[1robin]

You lie about this, too. My college books certainly did not have any drawings in it. They had photo's. Were you "educated" in the 1800's?

I have several of these text books at home. This is not a controversial issue. Not even the evolutionist opponents in debates argue against this claim. As a matter of fact the last debate I saw one evolutionist who did say it wasn't in the textbook either. The Christian got a student (the debate was at a college) to give him a text book. It contained those drawings.

If you wish to have a discussion with me I would not insinuate I am lying again. I do make mistakes from time to time but I don't intentionaly lie. There is no need.

Then, in his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, biologist Jonathan Wells exposed just how many modern textbooks continue to use Haeckel's drawings. (For articles about some modern textbooks that use Haeckel's drawings, see here or here.)
One would have thought this outcry would have been enough to send a message to textbook publishers to stop using these inaccurate drawings as evidence for evolution. But it wasn't.
In 2003, textbooks submitted to the Texas State Board of Education (TSBOE) for adoption again contained Haeckel's drawings. This story ended well: Jonathan Wells' work led to the removal of the inaccurate drawings from the proposed textbooks during the 2003 biology textbook adoption process. Below are just a few.

I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*

III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)

V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)

VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)

VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)

VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)

X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)​

CSC - What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos?
The Textbooks Don't Lie: Haeckel's Faked Drawings <i>Have Been Used to Promote Evolution</i>: Raven & Johnson (2002) (Part 2) - Evolution News & Views

 

[1robin]

Hey, 1robin.

This is enough, so far. I hope you are going to defend your lies when you eventually decide to come back (if you do). You also told quite a few other porkies, as well. Just concentrate on those pointed out, so far.

While you're at it, get an education on what the word "observe" means. It does not just mean "directly see". The word "observe" has more than one meaning. Consult, for example, any Oxford Dictionary.

Education...education...education....

I will wait on a response from the first post before I decide whether I wish to continue this discussion. I find evolutionists somewhat unpleasant and insulting many times. Since you have already falsely accused me of lieing I will make up my mind after you respond.

 

[McBell]

I think anything which has not been created by man and exists is natural; its noun is nature.

Nature is deaf and dumb, in my opinion.

interesting how your reply does not help

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think anything which has not been created by man and exists is natural; its noun is nature.

Nature is deaf and dumb, in my opinion.

So, your answer is to not answer any of the questions posited to you? :sarcastic

 

[Krok]

I have several of these text books at home. This is not a controversial issue.

Actually, it is. For example, you lied when you said that Haeckel was &#8220;convicted of fraud&#8221;. He wasn&#8217;t. You repeating that lie doesn&#8217;t turn it into the truth. Then also, see http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud%20not%20proven.pdf

Then, I wrote:

You lie about this, too. My college books certainly did not have any drawings in it. They had photo's. Were you "educated" in the 1800's?

For some reason lots of Americans think that America is the world. It isn&#8217;t. It is just a small part of the world, you know. My college books certainly did not contain any drawings. It contained photo&#8217;s.

Not even the evolutionist opponents in debates argue against this claim.

Actually, I do. I studied at schools and Universities where no book was used with those drawings. Our books used photo&#8217;s.

As a matter of fact the last debate I saw one evolutionist who did say it wasn't in the textbook either. The Christian got a student (the debate was at a college) to give him a text book. It contained those drawings.

I think that you are lying here, too.

If you wish to have a discussion with me I would not insinuate I am lying again. I do make mistakes from time to time but I don't intentionaly lie. There is no need.

I'm directly pointing you to the fact that you do lie. And I will point those lies out for everyone to see.

And, you do lie. Intentionally. Even by referring to a web-site of the Discovery Institute is lying to people, because ID is not science. And don&#8217;t pretend that you didn&#8217;t know that, because it has been pointed out time and time again by the scientific community and also in a very well-publicized court case, where the judge specifically pointed out that ID is not science. Why do you keep on referring to them?

Then, in his 2000 book

Icons of Evolution, biologist Jonathan Wells exposed just how many modern textbooks continue to use Haeckel's drawings.

A book written by a creationist who is known for lying. His specific lies, in that book, have been pointed out by many biologists over a long period of time. Yet, creationists keep on repeating them. No thanks. Not interested in what liars have to say. I&#8217;ll just point the lies out.

(For articles about some modern textbooks that use Haeckel's drawings, see

here or here.

References to the Discovery Institute. An Institute which exists for the sole reason of lying to people in pretending that they are scientific. And then having a lawyer discussing biology.

So, 1Robin, just referencing to &#8220;research&#8221; done by the Discovery Institute, in itself, is lying to people. Please stop this. We are not as stupid as you think we are.

One would have thought this outcry would have been enough to send a message to textbook publishers to stop using these inaccurate drawings as evidence for evolution. But it wasn't.

In 2003, textbooks submitted to the Texas State Board of Education (TSBOE) for adoption again contained Haeckel's drawings. I doubt this.

This story ended well: Jonathan Wells' work &#8230;

Please don&#8217;t flatter yourself. Creationists have no standing anywhere in the scientific community, because they tend to lie about everything. They don&#8217;t work, they lie. Only some parts of the religious community think that creationists are gods.

.. led to the removal of the inaccurate drawings from the proposed textbooks during the 2003 biology textbook adoption process. Below are just a few.

I&#8217;ll have a look at your first &#8220;example&#8221;.

..

I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

Now, this is funny! Even your creationist lawyer source, just under the drawing, says, and I quote:

As seen here, the textbook uses a colorized and slightly edited version of Haeckel&#8217;s original fraudulent drawings. This version obscures the differences between the earliest stages of embryos as egregiously as Haeckel&#8217;s original drawings did&#8221;

(Emphasis added by me)

So, the drawings used were not &#8220;Haeckel&#8217;s original fraudulent drawings&#8221;. They were a &#8220;slightly edited&#8221; version! To me, they actually look more than &#8220;slightly edited&#8221;.

Creationists just want to ignore the fact that embryology provides wonderful evidence for evolution. They have to ignore every natural science, because it doesn&#8217;t fit in with their interpretation of their favourite holy books. Then they lie about it. That's all they have.

 

[gnostic]

Richard Dawkins is a good scientist. Next question, please.

I still haven't read Dawkins' works, but judging by those who have read his works, he is a great biologist, who explained evolution quite clearly.

But I think that most creationists have issue with Dawkins' atheism, which is completely different matter. Sadly, however, (some) creationists can't distinguish between science and atheism, so they lump them together as one.

 

[Krok]

I will wait on a response from the first post before I decide whether I wish to continue this discussion.

All you have to do is to apologise for lying to people. And then promise not to repeat those lies somewhere else.

I find evolutionists somewhat unpleasant.....

I find telling lies the most unpleasant characteristic in the world. Unfortunately, that's all creationists have.

.. and insulting many times.

Not as insulting as you telling lies and thinking we all are too stupid to notice.

.. Since you have already falsely accused me of lieing I will make up my mind after you respond.

Not falsely. You lied. For example, you wrote that Haeckel "was convicted of fraud". That is a lie. If you find people pointing out your lies insulting, so be it.

And, by the way 1robin, I'm not an evolutionist in the scientific sense, as I'm not an evolutionary biologist at all. Never claimed to be one. Just as I' don't claim to be a physisist.

So, in that sense, I'm an "evolutionist" to the same extent as I'm a "gravitationist". I accept those theories, because that's the consensus of the specialists on those subjects.

 

[Krok]

Richard Dawkins is a good scientist. Next question, please.

Yes, to be selected by his peers as Fellow of the Royal Society, he certainly must be a good scientist. It's based on his achievements in his field, or fields, of expertise.

No matter how many people personally like or dislike him.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, to be selected by his peers as Fellow of the Royal Society, he certainly must be a good scientist. It's based on his achievements in his field, or fields, of expertise.

No matter how many people personally like or dislike him.

But they don't authorize him to exploit these expertise on other fields not directly related to science.

 

[Krok]

But they don't authorize him to exploit these expertise on other fields not directly related to science.

"Authorize"? Do you have a clue what the word "science" means?

He was selected, by his peers, as a Fellow of the Royal Society for his scientific work. This means that his peers see him as a good scientist.