The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Querying the Dawkins view of science > Comments

Querying the Dawkins view of science : Comments

By Andrew Baker, published 4/9/2009

We cannot explain the process of modern science using reason alone as Richard Dawkins would have us believe.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All
*give an example of a genetic mutation..or an evolutionary process..which can be seen to increase the information..in the genome?*

Actually UOG, that is not even a difficult one, if you know anything
about modern plant breeding. When they insert a gene for say
Roundup resistance into a plant, they use a virus to do it. The
resulting offspring then carry a gene for Roundup resistance, which
they never had before, doing exactly what you are on about.

The problem is that they have also discovered that the same can
happen in nature, although far less common. Viruses can actually
move genes from one plant to the other.

It is one of the reasons why people like me are concerned about
so called Roundup ready canola. Eventually those genes will be
moved around to other species, making them roundup resistant. That
is really bad news for agriculture, as we depend so much on
Roundup.

But UOG, Richard Dawkin's new book is only days away from launch,
read it and you'll have 480 pages of evidence to refute, which
should keep you busy for the next 3 lifetimes :)

Just imagine, if you could actually refute his evidence, you would
be a hero in the eyes of all the other religious nuts!

Go for it UOG, read it and show us what you can do!
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 7:30:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Yabby, the book is out now, got it at Target for $21.99 and its a great read. I would recommend it to everyone on both sides of the so called 'fence' as it is comprehensive and easily readable.

I would also love to hear that OUG has read it. He really should stop criticising Richard Dawkins when he hasn't even read one of his books.

Now that would be enlightening OUG given that you always seem to think you know more than everyone else, get his latest book and do tell us what you think...i wont hold my breath waiting though LOL
Posted by trikkerdee, Tuesday, 15 September 2009 7:56:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yabby...Most viruses tend to be rather host-specific,

Viruses infect all cellular life and,..although viruses occur universally,..each cellular species has its own specific range that often infect only that species.

SO FOR YOUR THEORY TO WORK...please explain how the vires...havnt evolved us...we all still look the same..,virus afects genotype not phenotype..[evolution is about phenenotypical progression]...lol

Diseases such as Foot and Mouth Disease and bluetongue are caused by viruses...Companion animals such as cats,..dogs, and horses,..are susceptible..to serious viral infections.

Fortunately,..most viruses co-exist harmlessly in their host..and cause no signs or symptoms of disease

when..finite populations..with high mutation rates are considered,..a significant proportion of the mutants should be deleterious...In that case a kind of irreversible ratchet mechanism..gradually will decrease the mean fitness of the populations..Chao..provided the first experimental evidence..for the action of Muller's ratchet..in RNA viruses.

there is a common pattern of fitness decline,..but the magnitude of decline strongly depended on the virus studied...We documented variable fitness drops after 20 or more plaque-to-plaque transfers of VSV...The relevance of these findings for evolutionary biology is clear:..whenever bottlenecks occur,..fitness decreases.

virus means dead/sick..not fittest surviving..or as if of null affect..not evolution

DNA shows there is God,..as does mother nature,..the miracle of birth,..and the love of man...and for those with eyes to see...love expressed even by beasts

http://www.blogcatalog.com/group/popular-science/discuss/entry/dna-proves-the-existence-of-god

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyf2vokOo88
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 9:56:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,
You seem to challenge me to write “what I actually believe God to be”. So let me try.

You are right that it is easier to say what God is not (c.f. Via Negativa or Apophatic theology) than to say what He is. Many such statements fall into the trap of being self-referential hence self-contradictory (c.f. Russell’s paradox - the set of all sets that are not members of themselves - or the “barber who shaves everybody except for those who shave themselves”). So let me start differently by repeating what I wrote in an earlier post:

There are in principle only two presuppositions, what one can believe about reality (actually three, if you count “sitting on the fence”):

(1) The physical universe is all there is (as Carl Sagan put it), and either
(a) it is without cause and without purpose, or
(b) it is its own cause and purpose (c.f. Paul Davies), or
(c) it does not make sense to ask for its cause or purpose,
or
(2) there must be Something (different religions model It differently, we call Him God) not reducible to the physical universe, which is its own cause and purpose, and is (the carrier of) the cause and purpose of the physical universe, including us, humans.

There is no rational way to decide “logically” in favour of the one or the other presupposition. There are only arguments and predilections that can support one’s preconceived preference. [One of them might be the Occam‘s razor principle that would favour Sagan. For a believer, his/her preference comes from some other sources, outside metaphysical speculations. For instance, a personal (religious) experience or just simple marvel at the world around him/her or the enigma of his/her self-awareness, that he/she simply cannot accept as being without cause and without purpose, combined with level education and cultural environment.]

So the FIRST step in my belief in God is my option for (2). - ctd
Posted by George, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 5:01:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ctd-
Since God is also the purpose of MY existence, the SECOND step in my belief is that I can communicate with Him, hence I assign to Him the attributes of a person. (Something like a three-year old assigns to his/her father (or mother) the attributes of a three-year old, although he/she somehow feels that the father is much more than that, without understanding why and how). Here the “I” is embedded in the cultural environment I grew up in, so my communication with God depends on that, which in my case is Christianity.

This brings me to the THIRD step in what I believe about God: Although He is inscrutable, and although He possibly communicates with other cultures in different ways, it is binding for me to accept the image of Him as He revealed Himself to the cultural tradition and environment that determines what I am, how I view existence. This “revelation” is through Scripture, Church doctrines and intellectual insights, including philosophy and science, as they evolved through centuries. So to Galileo’s “two books written by God” - the Book of Revelation and the Book of Nature - one might add a third book, that of (our) Culture.

pelican,
One should never say never, however there are many books I know I could learn from and haven’t got the time to read them. Dawkins is an expert on evolutionary biology, I learned a lot from him (and I wish I could more), however I do not think he is an expert on topics that are closer to my interests, and - I am afraid - neither an expert who can provide new insights into things like religion or the intellectual underpinning of the educated Christian’s belief in God. Also, it is a bit rich to call a group of world-views based on centuries of intellectual endeavour to understand reality and the human condition a delusion. Nevertheless, I believe Dawkins’ book serves its purpose as do some Christian apologetic books helpful for those who need confirmation in their faith or “unfaith” respectively.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 5:10:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Since God is also the purpose of MY existence, the SECOND step in my belief is that I can communicate with Him.....'

Dawkins would call this a "God Delusion". Mainly because it is.
Posted by TR, Wednesday, 16 September 2009 5:49:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy