So kent is "quite" annoyed..... Geez, what are we going to do about that? If a caught fish could talk, would the fish blame the bait?
I would elaborate by suggesting that the view Z intends to parlay from any exchange, is the extreme faith he has in the God of his invention. Not sure what he thinks to gain by belittling darwinian thought modes, but the purpose is to herd the crowd into a debate about the necessity of faith in the neo-god he borrowed from christianity and fixed up with some elmers glue, scope mouthwash, rightguard deoderant, glitter and watercolor paints. So let the debate begin! JohnnyK
Very straightforward. The confusion arises from the fact that many people: (1) don't understand what constitutes knowledge of a scientific kind; (2) have been indoctrinated by three centuries of atheist (read devilish) propaganda in "believing" in anything labelled "scientific"; (3) put their conscience to sleep by eradicating their innate search for God. Drowning this search forces one to keep furiously arguing on web forums. Indeed, belief in God has nothing to do with science. Science only enables one to predict the outcome of experiments. nononsense
Here is what the other side says: By Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society, Oxford Don and author of many popular books on Darwinism: 'It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)'. In case you think he regrets that statement: Dawkins: "I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true. "
Dawkins has masterfully and succinctly demonstrated the dogmatic lunacy of the rabid followers of Darwinism who claim "scientific" reasoning. Dawkins is a scientist? He sounds more like Pat Robertson commenting on the belief system of Muslims.... There is a reason we call it "Darwinism." We don't call it Newtonism, Einsteinism, Plankism, Hawkinsism, Crick and Watsonism, etc. ...... ism Quick definitions (ism) # noun: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school Yep, so we have a true believer in Darwinism bombastically condemn those with different belief systems....
but notice he said "believe". That statement of his can be read in two ways. You could also read it as saying --- that those who assert that Evolution is scientifically proven...
Of course he said believe, because Darwinism is a belief system....which requires the same mechanics of belief as theists employ in maintaining their belief system in the absence of material fact. Dawkins position is essentially: "If you don't hold my beliefs, you are ignorant, stupid or insane." I have nothing against people holding belief systems, or following the belief systems of others....it is the dogmatic proselytization of those belief systems, especially when they are funded by public money, and used to indoctrinate students into that belief system.
But evolution is actually a fact . As a fact it is scientifically proven. Do you say a scientifically proven fact is still a belief ? Do you consider there to be any intrinsic difference between a proven fact and a belief , or when it is a scientifically proven fact then it can only be a belief??
False. Science and religion are different precisely because of their different "mechanics" of belief.
Mechanics of belief are exactly the same. Both require a suspension of doubt in order to maintain the belief system.