“Evolution is accepted as scientific fact by all reputable scientists”. However, a theory like evolution may be composed of facts but it must always extend beyond logical boundaries into the unknown - such are the 'facts' of logic on which science rests"

This is called 'making predictions'. It is followed by another step called 'testing predictions'. If the predictions match the results -- and so far they do for Evolution, every time -- then we keep the theory. If not then we try and find a better theory.

I'm not sure what Baker's alternative to science is supposed to be -- though the article does have the smell of closet Creationism -- but if it doesn't verify its results then I'm not going to trust it one inch.

A J Philips, Fractelle

I think maybe "we have a failure to communicate".
I was NOT agreeing in any way with “Intelligent design” (sic) nor was I saying what Dawkins is saying is a waste of space. ( given I have most of his books and find them interesting/informative) I was making a simply rational critique of what in my mind is a flawed and unnecessary aggressive style.
I remember his TV show where he on a number occasions he took an unnecessarily confrontatous stance with others why? AJ , Was this conciousness raising? Was he trying to show the people up or get an on camera conversion? All that came across was that he was a bombast. Surely a more fact finding approach might have revealed more.

EVERYTHING has a context without which they are merely data. Look at it this way, a lock of hair is just that. However, give it provenance(context) i.e. it belonged to Elvis it becomes valuable.
As I've said to Yabby genetics doesn't totally explain humans (the determinist/ nihilist approach) . We are more than the sum total of our electro chemical reactions.

NB. This does NOT mean “intelligent design/religion” is science or is any more than a discretionary activity like Upper Volga Vampyre hunting or (yuk) footy. I reject them taught as science in schools or the basis for governance either!
Likewise, I defend religious devotees the right to their DISCRETIONARY “beliefs”, Dawkins clearly doesn't.

In reality Dawkins books sell to two kinds of people.....Those who basically believe what he says anyway but find the facts either informative (me) or conformational.
I would suggest it is to this audience he writes. His style is to differentiate him in this...marketing environment.
Or: those who want to find flaw in order to bolster a rival belief i.e. “ID”. Clearly a minority therefore, I reject the 'raising consciousness' argument.

I was making the point to Andrew that while agreeing that the style was IMO is unnecessarily shrill/pugnacious , this doesn't discredit the fact that “ID” isn't science

There is only one conclusion when you look at the 25,000 genes that make up the human genetic code - humans evolved gradually over many millions of years just like every other DNA based life form. If you cannot grasp that fact then you are either a moron, or you are brainwashed by the literal interpretation of your ancient monotheistic text. A text which originated in the mind of Bronze Age man and no more valid than ancient Greek stories about Aphrodite, Paris, Helen, Achilles, and the war for Troy. There may be a God of some description but his name is most definitely not Jehovah or Allah. Jehovah and Allah are 'logical impossibilities' and cannot exist by definition.

This is the thrust of Dawkins argument - and he is 100% correct

*We are more than the sum total of our electro chemical reactions.*

Nobody claimed that we were, Examinator. But there are no "ghosts"
in there either, so to speak.

See it more as an interaction of the product of our genes, with our
environment.

Now hopefully we have finally put your stupid "sum" argument to
bed for once and for all.

Examinator,

<<I was NOT agreeing in any way with “Intelligent design” (sic)...>>

I realise that, Examinator. Please be aware though, that my responses often start out between 1500-2000 words, before I prune them to fit into 700 words over two posts. So I apologise if it sounded like I was accusing you of supporting ID. My posts don’t always condense as well as I’d like them to.

<<I remember his TV show where he on a number occasions he took an unnecessarily confrontatous stance with others why? AJ , Was this conciousness raising?>>

I don’t know. You would have to link me to the video, or give me more detail as to what this stance was.

I’m not sure what “confrontatous” means, but if you meant “confrontational”, then yes, it probably was consciousness raising.

<<...I defend religious devotees the right to their DISCRETIONARY “beliefs”...>>

So do I.

<<...Dawkins clearly doesn't.>>

Dawkins’ doesn’t overtly “defend religious devotees the right to their DISCRETIONARY “beliefs””, but that doesn’t mean he rejects them.

All Dawkins is saying is that “enough is enough”. Why should the beliefs of the religious be considered virtuous, or a subject that is too taboo, or a “no go zone”? But why put the word “belief” in quotation marks? What do you mean by “beliefs” then?

Considering the damage religious belief has caused throughout the ages, and the shear lack of evidence for any of it, Theists should consider themselves lucky that most of us still value their right to believe in it.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...those who want to find flaw in order to bolster a rival belief i.e. “ID”. Clearly a minority therefore, I reject the 'raising consciousness' argument.>>

In the scientific community, yes, they are an extreme minority. In the general public? Not so much.

Why?

Firstly, because there are many religious people out there, and secondly, because the noisy Creation “Scientist” minority out there have done a good job of creating a sense of confusion and propagated the false idea that the Creation Vs. Evolution issue still hasn’t been resolved - when it has.

But ID is just one of many facets of Dawkins' consciousness raising. One other that I could mention is his claim that indoctrination is child abuse. Most of us who grew up in a religious household don't feel abused, but the term is used for the sake of consciousness raising and in many ways, is quite accurate too.

That being said, you are wrong to reject the “consciousness raising” argument. Creationists may be a minority, but I wouldn't be so sure about the amount of parents (whether they be Creationists or not) that indoctrinate their children by scaring them with the threat of eteranal damnation.

But while we are on the topic of your heart-warming tolerance this repugnant behaviour, would you feel just as comfortable with our Prime Minister declaring his faith in the Greek Gods?

I’d doubt it.

The only reason you’re so comfortable with the three main monotheistic religions is because they’re everywhere and you’ve been conditioned to think that their existence is normal.

Think about that...