Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Kevin Myers says nice things about Richard Dawkins

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,980 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    I too have the height of respect for Prof Dawkins as a person and an academic.

    I disagree with some of his ideas ... but I have also found much of his writing to be very insightful indeed.

    Just because Creation Scientists believe that 'big picture' evolution never happened, doesn't mean that they can't be good friends with Evolutionists and acknowledge their academic excellence.

    Evolution and Creation are the two great scientific 'memes' on the origins question.
    That's pretty hilarious.


  • Options
    #33
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    J C wrote: »
    I too have the height of respect for Prof Dawkins as a person and an academic.

    So why do you knowingly quote him out of context in your signature?


  • Options
    #34
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Galvasean wrote: »
    So why do you knowingly quote him out of context in your signature?

    Is it out of context? It says "give the appearance" so I have to wonder why a creationist would quote it in their signature.


  • Options
    #35
    Pygmalion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭Pygmalion


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Is it out of context? It says "give the appearance" so I have to wonder why a creationist would quote it in their signature.

    He follows on with "but of course <entire book worth of facts explaining that this isn't the case>".

    Someone familiar with his work would know this, someone who has just heard of him casually or is purposely deluding themselves (like a certain A&A poster >.>) might think it means something completely different when stripped of context.


  • Options
    #36
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Pygmalion wrote: »
    He follows on with "but of course <entire book worth of facts explaining that this isn't the case>".

    Ah I see it now. I read it as if it were a simple comment noting how at first glance it looks like its been designed despite the fact that it isn't, which doesn't actually require "of course this is not the case" but J C is putting it as if Dawkins suggests the appearance of complication is a reason to think they actually were designed


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Indeed, it can be difficult to put yourself inside the mind of a creationist. Perhaps JC will want to change his sig now that the matter has been explained.


  • Options
    #38
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    recedite wrote: »
    Indeed, it can be difficult to put yourself inside the mind of a creationist. Perhaps JC will want to change his sig now that the matter has been explained yet again.

    Not gonna happen.


  • Options
    #39
    Duffy the Vampire Slayer
    Registered Users Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭Duffy the Vampire Slayer


    He'd probably change it to Darwin's quote about the eye.


Advertisement