The Route Of All Evil

[fuddam]

The progression is from light sensitivity, to several areas of sensitivity, to a compound eye similar to an insect's, which has no musculature or focus, to a motive eye with only far distance focus, similar to that of a gecko, to the focus control of mammals. The steps are very small, but each one is of benefit to the organism..

lol. circles, circles, circles. each eye works as it IS, not as your conjecture has it evolving. All your examples are of working eyes, suiting each organism; no examples of some in the halfway stage then? or any of the millions of stages between each level? shame.

We aren't going to go on like this, because you are a moron. Please don't vote.

arrogance and insults - quite to be expected when arguments fail. you just let yourself down.

[herulach]

lol. circles, circles, circles. each eye works as it IS, not as your conjecture has it evolving. All your examples are of working eyes, suiting each organism; no examples of some in the halfway stage then? or any of the millions of stages between each level? shame.

You wont see half working eyes, primarily because they decay, so theres no fossil record of them, thats what the darwin quote earlier was about.

[joshwa]

never heard of a buddhist wanting to kill the infadel

buddhists have attacked christians in sri-lanka:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3434145.stm

there are exceptions and extremists in all religions and all walks of life (the none-religious as well).

[kalniel]

Dawkins unfortunatly holds the view that unless you can explain something to him using his own language and terms he can understand, it doesn't exist.

I am a Christian, and I am a biological scientist. But you cannot describe either of them in each others terms. We do not (since Popper) accept the results of scientific experiements based on faith rather than scientific studies, likewise it is impossible to describe religion using only scientific paradigms.

Dawkins is essentially hiding in the sand with his hands over his eyes saying that because he can't explain it it can't be true, without any consideration that his paradigm might be inadequate. (An analogy is to say that quantum physics doesn't actually exist because we can't describe it in terms of classical physics).

[Flibb]

Actually many cave dwelling species of fish have eyes, but cant see. They dont go blind from lack of light they are born blind, breakdown of the eye takes place before they hatch, hows that for a non working eye?

[Alex]

Oops, double post.

[Alex]

I think this article from the Guardian pretty much sums up what I thought about these programmes:

The Guardian: Richard Dawkins' latest attack on religion is an intellectually lazy polemic not worthy of a great scientist

There's an underlying anxiety that atheist humanism has failed. Over the 20th century, atheist political regimes racked up an appalling (and unmatched) record for violence. Atheist humanism hasn't generated a compelling popular narrative and ethic of what it is to be human and our place in the cosmos; where religion has retreated, the gap has been filled with consumerism, football, Strictly Come Dancing and a mindless absorption in passing desires. Not knowing how to answer the big questions of life, we shelve them - we certainly don't develop the awe towards and reverence for the natural world that Dawkins would want. So the atheist humanists have been betrayed by the irrational, credulous nature of human beings; a misanthropy is increasingly evident in Dawkins' anti-religious polemic and among his many admirers.
This is the only context that can explain Dawkins' programme, a piece of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage. More irritatingly, he doesn't apply to religion - the object of his repeated attacks - a fraction of the intellectual rigour or curiosity that he has applied to evolution (to deserved applause). Where is the grasp of the sociological or anthropological explanations of the centrality of religion? Sadly, there is no evolution of thought in Dawkins' position; he has been saying much the same thing about religion for a long time.

Link to article

I actually agree with a lot of what he's saying: hell is not a good thing to be scaring children into religion with, and children should be exposed to varying ideas about what truth is, for example. Religion has been and will no doubt continue to be abused for personal and political gain, but this does not mean that this is it's purpose. Science should be taught as such - the facts we know and our best working theories about physics, biology, chemistry etc should be taught for what they are. So should religion.

the problem with this program is that Richard Dawkins so obviously oversimplifies things as for it to become painful, asks questions about bible verses with no question of context, and gives no-one the oppertunity to reply, and as soon as one of his interviewees starts saying something he doesn't like, he simply talks over them. Goodness knows how many interviews he didn't include because they said something he didn't like. I really can't remember all the things he said - but there were one or two that were just blatantly untrue- like the accusation that only people brought up in a faith believe in it, and that it is from this that we can draw the conclusion that faith is entirely irrational.

If this program is the best that one of the most famous atheists in the world can come up with then I really think Christianity has very little to be worried about.

[Kumagoro]

The programme was never going to be infallible. You cant discuss something with someone
who cannot understand what you are talking about.

I dont think the programme was saying that all evil derives from religion even though that
was the title. The last thing he said was a quote from some other nobel prize winning
bloke. good people will do good things evil people will do evil things and religion can make
good people do evil things. Which for all to see happens a lot. Not saying that it cant happen
in other ways.

Since when has the human eye been perfect then? Why do i need to wear glasses is it
because god is a cucking funt?
Anyway a change which occurs doesnt have to aid fitness as long as it doesnt hinder
you to death.

[DaBeeeenster]

I actually agree with a lot of what he's saying: hell is not a good thing to be scaring children into religion with, and children should be exposed to varying ideas about what truth is, for example. Religion has been and will no doubt continue to be abused for personal and political gain, but this does not mean that this is it's purpose.

This was the prime driver behind the spreading of religion; as a means of social control. In many countries (Southern parts of America, places like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Isreal and Palestine) this continues to be the case.

Science should be taught as such - the facts we know and our best working theories about physics, biology, chemistry etc should be taught for what they are. So should religion.

But relegion consists of no "facts" or "working theories". If someone sits down and writes a book, the contents of that book are no more "fact" than anything else. If they can be proven, then that's a different case entirely, but the, er, fact of the matter is that, and I think I can say this without exception, religion is 100% devoid of fact.

the problem with this program is that Richard Dawkins so obviously oversimplifies things as for it to become painful, asks questions about bible verses with no question of context, and gives no-one the oppertunity to reply, and as soon as one of his interviewees starts saying something he doesn't like, he simply talks over them. Goodness knows how many interviews he didn't include because they said something he didn't like. I really can't remember all the things he said - but there were one or two that were just blatantly untrue- like the accusation that only people brought up in a faith believe in it, and that it is from this that we can draw the conclusion that faith is entirely irrational.

What precise context of murder and rape would you have liked to have been included?

If this program is the best that one of the most famous atheists in the world can come up with then I really think Christianity has very little to be worried about.

One thing that I did get from the program was that those bound up in their religious self-obsessions are simply not going to be moved by the musings of arguably the greatest biologist alive today.

[DaBeeeenster]

always have been wars over differences of opinion, and always will be

using religion as a scapegoat is naive; power is usually the prime motivator.

Huh? Religion IS power.

The night before the last US election, the exit polls should Kerry slightly ahead of Bush. The democrats were eagerly anticipating victory. 24 hours later and Bush had won a second term. Why? Because the Christian religious "right" trotted out of their homes in huge numbers and marked a vote down for the born again Christian.

That's power.

[TeePee]

A little off topic, but statistically, republicans vote later in the day than democrats. Democrats tend to vote before work or during their lunch hour. Republicans vote after work... Just an interesting quirk of american culture.

[Flibb]

If this program is the best that one of the most famous atheists in the world can come up with then I really think Christianity has very little to be worried about.p

Well Bush is one of the most famous Christians, need I say more

[fuddam]

One thing that I did get from the program was that those bound up in their religious self-obsessions are simply not going to be moved by the musings of arguably the greatest biologist alive today.

lol

here's a hint: stop being so angry at the world. Stop being so angry with difference. Learn a little tolerance, let people believe what they want to believe - have YOU been subject to specific religious grief in your past? hmm.........

Go read the rest of that Guardian article - I just did. Makes some very valid points, IMHO, and no, the writer does not argue for or against religion.

Dawkings is a lazy academic who surrounds himself with anyone he can find to agree with him. At the end of the day, unfortunately, his epitaph is likely to be that of the old Marx plug:

Marx: God is dead

God: Marx is dead

lol

[Flibb]

Bush: Oil/God told me to do it

[RVF500]

Back to the eyeball....

Plants have photosensetive cells. ....now they've been around at last as long as we have.....so where's the eyeball?

[Flibb]

The eye thing is a really good one as its used equally to prove evoluion and disprove it.