Great Quotes by Richard Dawkins - Staunch Opponent of Intelligent Design Theory

[Seymour Flops]

I think nobody would claim that random genetic drift is capable of producing adaptation, that is to say the illusion of design. Random genetic drift can't produce wings that are good at flying, or eyes that are good at seeing, or legs that are good at running.

Richard Dawkins

 

[Hollie]

I'm not going down this rabbit hole but the "natural world" is just another way of saying God,
an all powerful being who is responsible for the laws that govern the universe, without actually
admitting to God for whatever personal reasons you may have not to.

Brilliant minds like Newton and Einstein admit as much.

I don't believe in Gods, plural and God is actually a very good explanation for the whole of our universe.
God is actually the only explanation that makes any "sense" at all and I would be embarrassed to say
otherwise.
As silly as God is as an explanation no God at all is even more silly. And dishonest.

The natural world has no connection to supernatural gods.

 

[ding]

An accidental existence seems like so much work and evolutionary coincidence for it all to be completely pointless.

If you only knew how true those words are. Our universe is considered to be unnatural because of out of all the possible universe that could exist, universes that can produce life and intelligence are extremely rare. In other words, out of all of the different types of universes that they can imagine none of them would contain life.

 

[ding]

Molecular machines exist because the laws of nature are finely tuned for life.

 

[ding]

The natural world has no connection to supernatural gods.

This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

 

[abu afak]

Richard Dawkins

""The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, NO Design, No purpose, No evil, No good, Nothing but Blind, Pitiless Indifference.""

`


PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on Ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat/already answered One-Line baits. Recently following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie,
(now 26, 36, 46? and counting) vengeful out of control/one-line/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog must last-word.

 

[ding]

Richard Dawkins

""The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, NO Design, No purpose, No evil, No good, Nothing but Blind, Pitiless Indifference.""

`

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

Both Marx and Hitler were dedicated apostles of Darwin . . . and socialists.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Any entity capable of intelligently designing something as improbable as Dutchman's Pipe (or a universe) would have to be even more improbable than a Dutchman's Pipe. Far from terminating the vicious regress, God aggravates it with a vengeance.

Richard Dawkins

This is how arrogant Dawkins is. Translation: If there is a God, that god is not as smart as I, Richard Dawkins.

 

[abu afak]

Both Marx and Hitler were dedicated apostles of Darwin . . . and socialists.

Yes, they misused genetics.
Darwin too.
That means there's no evolution right Goofy?
LOL FRAUD boy.
Low IQ smear attempt.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, they misused genetics.
Darwin too.
That means there's no evolution right Goofy?
LOL FRAUD boy.
Low IQ smear attempt.
`

Darwin misused genetics?

This I have to see.

How did Darwin misuse genetics?

 

[ding]

Darwin misused genetics?

This I have to see.

How did Darwin misuse genetics?

He had no idea of genes at the time. If he had it might have changed the way he thought about the so called gaps in the fossil record that he dismissed as an imperfect record.

Ironically there was another scientist of his day doing experiments in genetics, Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics. But Darwin had no knowledge of his work. It wasn't until much later when Mendel received the credit he deserved.

 

[ding]

Yes, they misused genetics.
Darwin too.
That means there's no evolution right Goofy?
LOL FRAUD boy.
Low IQ smear attempt.
`

There is evolution. Just not the way it is presented. Long periods of stasis followed by rapid change is the norm.

 

[abu afak]

Darwin misused genetics?

This I have to see.

How did Darwin misuse genetics?

No not darwin, the people you tried to smear him with did.
Always difficult to figure out when You are playing stupid, when all you posts are.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

No not darwin, the people you tried to smear him with did.
Always difficult to figure out when You are playing stupid, when all you posts are.

`

How did Hitler "misuse" Darwin and Genetics?

Darwin claimed that some members of a species are more fit than others. Hitler merely applied his philosophy.

 

[ding]

No not darwin, the people you tried to smear him with did.
Always difficult to figure out when You are playing stupid, when all you posts are.

`

Are you drunk?

 

[ding]

An accidental existence seems like so much work and evolutionary coincidence for it all to be completely pointless.

Philosophically speaking, if life had no meaning we shouldn't be able to discover that life had no meaning. It's like fairness. We know that fairness exists and thus have an expectation for it. If we didn't know that fairness existed then we would never have an expectation for fairness.

 

[ding]

No not darwin, the people you tried to smear him with did.
Always difficult to figure out when You are playing stupid, when all you posts are.

`

Saying his theories do not match observations is not smearing him, dummy. Long periods of stasis followed by rapid change is the norm.

 

[DudleySmith]

It's because of his writing style. It's hard to describe it.

Dawkins, like many writers who appeal to the keyboard warriors of the world, writes in a style that provides almost no actual information, but is heavy on ridicule for anyone who might consider disagreeing with his opinions. The idea is to make the reader feel that they are in on the ridicule, not on the receiving end.

The key is to make the readers believe that they must always agree with Dawkins in order to avoid themselves becoming targets of the ridicule. This induces the credulity so important to a low-information content provider.

Dawkins is at his best when he is writing books that he knows will be hailed as genius for ridiculing religion. I have to think he has learned to avoid interviews with skeptics since Ben Stein reduced him to babbling about ancient aliens "seeding" life on Earth as a legitimate scientific theory.

He's a cult leader. He turned his message board into a cult worship club and only his opinions are to be espoused, never mind he lost most every debate he ever had on the subject of 'evolution' and the fake 'science' that cult promotes as 'fact'.

 

[DudleySmith]

I'm not going down this rabbit hole but the "natural world" is just another way of saying God,
an all powerful being who is responsible for the laws that govern the universe, without actually
admitting to God for whatever personal reasons you may have not to.

Brilliant minds like Newton and Einstein admit as much.

I don't believe in Gods, plural and God is actually a very good explanation for the whole of our universe.
God is actually the only explanation that makes any "sense" at all and I would be embarrassed to say
otherwise.
As silly as God is as an explanation no God at all is even more silly. And dishonest.

It is a matter of definitions, how one defines the concept of 'God'. We do know for sure there is no chain of empirical evidence supporting 'evolution' and it isn't remotely a 'proven science', more of a political wish list for assorted deviants and sociopaths to dispose of Judeo-Christian moral hindrances and brakes on mindless self-indulgence, as evidenced by the sudden popularity of 'social Darwinism' among the robber barons and the media campaigns they financed promoting that silly stuff and simultaneaously people like Marx jumping on the same 'Darwinist' bandwagon as their corporate partners.