wande quoted the rabble rouser-
Quote:Dawkins still stressed the importance of not buying the logic behind the design theory.
There is no logic to design theory. It has possibilities of interpretation which depend on the motives of those using it.
Remove it and we are left naked with the severe logic of evolution science which has no possibilities of interpretation.
Why does Dawkins never speak on the logic of evolution theory. Why is he always negative about the other side and never positive about his own?
Is the Marquis de Sade to be castigated because he was positive about that?
What logic does Dawkins want us to have. We can't have none. That's about the only possibility that doesn't exist given, and it is a given, that humans have an insatiable curiosity about origins and destinations.
He plays on ignorance and pretends it hasn't been thrashed out years ago by better men than he is.
Quote:Design proponents, Dawkins said, believe that any flaw in evolution theory means that biological design by a higher power must be the answer.
That's a lie. And he knows it. I'm surprised that he underestimates his American audience to that extent. Even an evolutionist would object to such a hopeless statement.
Of course he will "fight the good fight". He's making money off mugs. Did he punch his fist in the air on that phrase?
He's compromising science before a Christian public. It is a Christian public isn't it? Is it wande?
Even Darwin wouldn't go into the witness box for Bradlaugh despite pressure to do so.. The mere thought of doing had him spewing up.
Darwin even refused the honour of having Aveling's book dedicated to him because it would have associated him with Bradlaugh and Besant.
He actually told a lie by saying about the International Library of Science and Freethought (an assertion) -"about which I know nothing". He did know about it and plenty. He knew Bradlaugh and Besant were the editors.
Darwin wrote in rejecting Aveling's honour-
Quote: Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects (which he wasn't) , yet it appears to me, whether rightly or wrongly (there now being such things as right and wrong) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardlly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.
I've cleaned the punctuation up a bit and what's inside the brackets is mine.
And Dawkins is no Bradlaugh. When Bradlaugh was re-elected MP for Northampton, his first election being declared void in the Commons because to swear him in would have mocked the oath of office, he arrived to take his seat accompanied by Aveling and Besant, who was the office bike, he was "dragged down the lobby stairs and flung into Palace Yard by a mob of messengers, policemen and Tory MPs."
What does Dawkins get for a gig? $5 grand plus expenses?
