Posts Tagged ‘Richard Dawkins’

IS RICHARD DAWKINS REALLY A SCIENTIST?

September 21, 2014

Atheists often claim “atheism is the default position; atheism makes no claims, it just disbelieves in God or gods.” This statement is a lie unto itself, containing several claims: 1) Atheism makes no claims; 2) It’s doubtful there is a God; 3) It’s doubtful the universe is created; 4) Atheism is the default position; 5) The Encyclopedia Britannica definition of atheism is wrong.

Rather than providing evidence for his baseless positions as required by the rules of science and evidence, Richard Dawkins instead attempts to ridicule and marginalize Francis Collins and other scientists who believe in God. He compares their scientific positions to belief in the spaghetti monster, while branding everyone who believes in God as delusional.

This is a gross contradiction of logic, science and reason and the very worst example of trying to compare apples with oranges imaginable. The obvious reason being, if we eliminate the spaghetti monster, we aren’t left having to explain our existence along with the rest of the universe.

The true default position of science is that there is a physical reality called “universe”. The default question of science then becomes, how and why is there a universe? Even Richard Dawkins agrees with this, stating that the “God question” is “central to all of science” and cannot be ignored.

Mr. Dawkins then contradicts himself, claiming the “onus” belongs on those who say there is a God. The “onus” remains on every human being to explain how and why there is a physical reality called universe. Atheists and agnostics don’t get a pass on the “God question” any more than the rest of us.

And, the history of science clearly demonstrates that the onus belongs on anyone contradicting previously held positions of the majority of scientists. To say atheists aren’t required to provide supporting evidence for their baseless superstitions, is to say Copernicus could have just stood up in a roomful of his peers, claimed the earth goes around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any supporting evidence.

This is exactly the position many modern atheists take, a clear violation of the rules of science and evidence and established history of science. Another well-known Richard Dawkins position is that the universe “represents nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”, exactly as one would expect if there is no God.

This statement openly contradicts the known evidence of Isaiah, Jesus, Gandhi, Schweitzer, Tubman, Keller, Parks, King, Chavez and literally billions of people who demonstrate the opposite of “blind, pitiless, indifference”. Obviously if people, who are part of the universe, have concepts of both good and evil, the universe clearly does not represent nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

What is called “science” rarely represents 100% proven fact. Rather, science when applied accurately, is the best conclusion based on the known evidence. And, science requires evidence to overturn previously held scientific positions.

Is Richard Dawkins really a scientist? Would the Greeks allow someone making such claims into the Academy or ban him for life? You Decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Music Video relating to this article

Advertisements

CAN CHARLES DARWIN BE TRUSTED?

April 3, 2014

Historical people, like the rest of us, sometimes contradict themselves and often change their minds over time.  It is generally fair to conclude what scientists say in their older age represents their true lifetime professional opinion, rather than what they might have said when they were younger.

Human language definition often changes over historical time and words sometimes develop multiple meanings.  To be fair and accurate, one must consider how words were defined when they were spoken, rather than how those same words might be defined today.  Careful historians apply a discipline called “philology” to help understand human language in historical context.

For example, broad-brushing the American founders as “deists”, a consistent bad habit of modern educators, is a historical lie.  The majority ascribed to some form of Christianity and, the very few who claimed to be deists apparently believed God hears prayers and interacts with human affairs.  There is no evidence any American founder was a deist as the term is normally defined today.

Charles Darwin, in the opening sentences of his final revision of “On The Origin of Species”, is humble enough to credit our Creator for being behind whatever universal processes and reality there may be. This edition was published about five years prior to Darwin’s death and thus, it represents a lifetime conclusion.

Some ‘scholars’ today, pretending they can somehow know Darwin’s intentions, claim that he only mentioned God to make his wife and family happy and to otherwise appease the religious leaders of his day.  Because Darwin throughout his lifetime consistently openly debated with religious leaders and others concerning his ideas, such a claim has no historical merit.  One might fairly ask, if we can’t trust Darwin regarding this most fundamental of human beliefs, how can we trust anything else he said?

Perhaps Darwin made no mention of our Creator in his first edition because the overwhelming evidence for creation was agreed to by the vast majority of scholars of his time.  Maybe only after the publishing of his theories had caused considerable controversy, did Darwin then find it necessary to place our Creator where he, like Einstein and Jefferson apparently believed God belongs, far above all human science, reason and understanding.

In a letter published two years before his death, Darwin strongly denies being an atheist, saying his mind was “mainly agnostic but not entirely”.  Because agnostic at that time sometimes referred to distrust in religion and human claims about God, rather than questioning God’s existence, Darwin could attest to our Creator and still remain agnostic but not entirely without contradiction.

Is it fair to pretend one of human history’s greatest scientists can’t be trusted to be honest regarding what he fundamentally believed?  Is it fair to just arbitrarily ignore various words ascribed to Jefferson, Einstein and Darwin because modern liars don’t like what they actually said? Is it fair to speak for historical people, rather than allowing their own words to speak for them?

Can Charles Darwin be trusted?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for this article

Video for this article