OK, this is frickin' hilarious

[swansont]

Richard Dawkins — Beware the Believers

 

 

Yeah he's the Dick to the Doc to the phd,

he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!

[iNow]

That's Brilliant!

 

The funny thing is that I think it appeals to both sides of the debate.

[CDarwin]

Richard Dawkins — Beware the Believers

 

 

Yeah he's the Dick to the Doc to the phd,

he's smarter than you he's got a science degree!

 

Haha! I was just about to post this.

[thedarkshade]

This is awesome and the last 10 seconds are just [math]10^{\infty}[/math] funny.

[CDarwin]

I'd like to know who the guy smoking the cigarette and the young one with the hat are. I recognize PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, and Daniel Dennett.

[blike]

Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris

[CDarwin]

Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris

 

Ok, I didn't know what they looked like. Thank you.

[antimatter]

Nice...

[Geogal]

THAT was just too funny!

[CDarwin]

There's some chatter at The Panda's Thumb that apparently this was Creationist in origin. *shrugs* I suppose it's still funny, if a little more mean-spirited and less ironic in that light.

 

As has been amply pointed out there, though, it seems unlikely that Creationists could really be this funny.

[Severian]

I thought it was a load of rubbish to be honest. The instant you attempt to counter logical arguments with ridicule, you have lost the debate. (I can't believe I am defending Dawkins here!)

[Phi for All]

The instant you attempt to counter logical arguments with ridicule, you have lost the debate.

I agree with you in general but how is ID a logical argument? The whole thrust of the movement is that there is a controversy which should be made public in public schools over evolution and the origins of life. ID proponents are taking a conflict between religious beliefs and secular schooling and claiming it's a controversy which the kids should decide.

 

How can there be a logical argument for teaching religion (and one religion in particular) outside a religious setting, especially in a public school system?

[iNow]

How can there be a logical argument for teaching religion (and one religion in particular) outside a religious setting, especially in a public school system?

There's only one that I know of, but it's quite different from what you mean here. I am referring to Dan Dennett's proposal that we teach kids about all religions, in an almost archeological way, without suggesting that any one is better than another. For more on that, see the link below.

 

[Phi for All]

There's only one that I know of, but it's quite different from what you mean here. I am referring to Dan Dennett's proposal that we teach kids about all religions, in an almost archeological way, without suggesting that any one is better than another. For more on that, see the link below.

 

I know that argument and it's preferable to what ID wants. History of religion is very different from the religions themselves. What religions have done historically is documented (though contradictory in some cases). An objective overview would be illuminating as a public school course.

 

ID's "controversy" stems from inaccurate science ("We're descended from monkeys", "Nature couldn't randomly come up with something as complex as the eye", "The fossil record is incomplete"). There is no need to teach the "controversy"; it's much simpler to debunk the bad science in it's proper setting, a science class.

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree with you in general but how is ID a logical argument? The whole thrust of the movement is that there is a controversy which should be made public in public schools over evolution and the origins of life. ID proponents are taking a conflict between religious beliefs and secular schooling and claiming it's a controversy which the kids should decide.

 

Well, at one point ID was a logical argument on equal footing evidence-wise with evolution. But that is long past, especially now that we can read DNA. The only way ID could still be viable now is if the intelligence used an evolutionary algorithm for their designing

 

Not that any ID proponents that I know treat it in a scientific manner. Especially the ones that know the name and schedule of the designer.

 

How can there be a logical argument for teaching religion (and one religion in particular) outside a religious setting, especially in a public school system?

 

Perhaps because religion has a huge impact in one's life, society's morality, politics, history, etc, and one religion in particular usually will dominate in a country? But the teaching would have to be more of a historical, current events/debates, etc rather than a fire&brimstone sermon.

[iNow]

I know that argument and it's preferable to what ID wants. History of religion is very different from the religions themselves. What religions have done historically is documented (though contradictory in some cases). An objective overview would be illuminating as a public school course.

 

ID's "controversy" stems from inaccurate science ("We're descended from monkeys", "Nature couldn't randomly come up with something as complex as the eye", "The fossil record is incomplete"). There is no need to teach the "controversy"; it's much simpler to debunk the bad science in it's proper setting, a science class.

 

We seem to share a very fundamental agreement on this topic, I was just putting that out there to assist in the dialogue.

[Pangloss]

I think it's important to distinguish between honest people, new to these subjects, who attempt to take a reasoned, logical look at the ID issue (perhaps motivated by their religious beliefs), and the organized, deeply-partisan people who manipulate those newcomers with false information. Scientists and scientifically-minded people can (and should) welcome the former, inviting them into discussion and politely pointing out the errors, helping them to find their own path to the truth. It's the one thing I regret about our banning of creationism discussions here (though I support that decision, in the interests of time and focus).

[iNow]

ID is not science, so I guess I'm missing your point, P.

[Mr Skeptic]

ID is not science, so I guess I'm missing your point, P.

 

Anything that you can gather data on can be studied in a scientific manner.

[CDarwin]

Well, at one point ID was a logical argument

 

Was it now? I'd say Paley's Watchmaker was flawed from the start. If you see a watch lying on the heath, you don't know it was created because it is complex. What if you saw a lightbulb? That's just a globe of glass with a little metal filament and a metal cap on it. Some complexity.

 

You'd know a watch was made by a watchmaker because you had previous experience with watches and watchmakers. You know broadly how watches are made, and you know what clues to look for to tell you that a human made the watch. No ID-type argument ever suggested any legitimate clues that an observer could look for in nature to see that a supernatural creator (especially the Christian God) was specifically involved.

[Phi for All]

ID isn't science but I see Pangloss' point. In terms of the IDers we've had here, they were of two distinct classes. The first are the OWTs, the One Way Thinkers. They think information should pass one way, from their mouths to your ears. They also think their way is the One Way. I, for one, don't think they think very much at all, by the way.

 

The other person who spouts ID here is the guy who listened to a OWT. Since the OWT misrepresented science purposely in the first place, his ID arguments make sense to the person that doesn't know any better. These people are (hopefully) looking for better truths than they've gotten elsewhere.

 

It's our duty to recognize which of the two we're dealing with and respond appropriately.

[Realitycheck]

I agree with you in general but how is ID a logical argument? The whole thrust of the movement is that there is a controversy which should be made public in public schools over evolution and the origins of life. ID proponents are taking a conflict between religious beliefs and secular schooling and claiming it's a controversy which the kids should decide.

 

How can there be a logical argument for teaching religion (and one religion in particular) outside a religious setting, especially in a public school system?

 

I thought that ID was an attempt to reconcile the two, providing evolutionists an avenue to let kids keep believing in God, saying "God made it happen."

 

I, for one, take it all with a grain of salt. God is defined as something that is greater than you and unexplainable (still waiting, drum roll ).

[ydoaPs]

agentchange, I thought that was "theistic evolution."

[Realitycheck]

could be

[iNow]

Thank you, Phi, for the clarification. ID is not science, yet I can see a difference between a) the one way thinker and b) the person who is genuinely curious and willing to learn. To that point, Pangloss is spot on in that we will sometimes miss the opportunity to help those in group 'b' to realize the faults in their thinking, but if they truly are willing to learn then I'm sure it won't take them long to arrive at that understanding on their own.