September 6th, 2012
09:52 AM ET

Dawkins: Evolution is 'not a controversial issue'

Atheist. Biologist. Writer. Thinker. Richard Dawkins has developed an international reputation of spreading the word that evolution happened and that there is no "intelligent design" or higher being, as you might gather from the title of his book "The God Delusion."

But no matter what you think about his convictions, his ideas have gone viral - including the word "meme."

CNN caught up with Dawkins while he was passing through Atlanta earlier this year. His next U.S. tour is in October.

Here is an edited transcript of part of the conversation. Watch the video above for a more focused look at Dawkins' ideas about evolution vs. intelligent design.

Today, a lot of people think a "meme" is a LOLcat or a photo that's gone viral. How do you feel about that?
In the last chapter of "The Selfish Gene," I coined the word "meme" as a sort of analog of "gene." My purpose of this was to say that although I'd just written a whole book about how the gene is the unit of natural selection, and that evolution is changes in gene frequencies, the Darwinian process is potentially wider than that.

You could go to other planets in the universe and find life, and if you do find life, then it will have evolved by some kind of evolutionary process, probably Darwinian. And therefore there must be something equivalent to a gene, although it may be very, very different from the DNA genes that we know.

I wanted to drive that point home. And rather than speculate about life on other planets, I thought maybe we could look at life on this planet and find an analog of the gene staring us in the face right here. And that was the meme. It's a unit of cultural inheritance, the idea that an idea might propagate itself in a similar way to a gene propagating itself. It might be like catchy tune, or a clothes fashion. A verbal convention, a word that becomes fashionable, like "awesome," which no longer means what it should mean.

That would be an example of something that spread like an epidemic. And the word "basically," which is now used just to mean "uhh." That's another one that's spread throughout the English speaking world.

These are potentially analogous to genes in the sense that they spread and are copied from brain to brain throughout the world, or throughout a particular subset of people. The interesting question would be whether there's a Darwinian process, a kind of selection process whereby some memes are more likely to spread than others, because people like them, because they're popular, because they're catchy or whatever it might be.

My original purpose was to say: It's not necessarily all about genes. But the word has taken off.

There are people who use meme theory as a serious contribution to the theory of human culture and I’m glad to say that the idea of things going viral has also gone viral.

How do you think evolution should be taught to children?
You can't even begin to understand biology, you can't understand life, unless you understand what it's all there for, how it arose - and that means evolution. So I would teach evolution very early in childhood. I don't think it's all that difficult to do. It's a very simple idea. One could do it with the aid of computer games and things like that.

I think it needs serious attention, that children should be taught where they come from, what life is all about, how it started, why it's there, why there's such diversity of it, why it looks designed. These are all things that can easily be explained to a pretty young child. I'd start at the age of about 7 or 8.

There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. It’s not that there are two different theories. No serious scientist doubts that we are cousins of gorillas, we are cousins of monkeys, we are cousins of snails, we are cousins of earthworms. We have shared ancestors with all animals and all plants. There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact.

Why do people cling to these beliefs of creationism and intelligent design?
There are many very educated people who are religious but they’re not creationists. There’s a world of difference between a serious religious person and a creationist, and especially a Young Earth Creationist, who thinks the world is only 10,000 years old.

If we wonder why there are still serious people including some scientists who are religious, that’s a complicated psychological question. They certainly won’t believe that God created all species, or something like that. They might believe there is some sort of intelligent spirit that lies behind the universe as a whole and perhaps designed the laws of physics and everything else took off from there.

But there's a huge difference between believing that and believing that this God created all species. And also, by the way, in believing that Jesus is your lord and savior who died for your sins. That you may believe, but that doesn't follow from the scientific or perhaps pseudoscientific that there's some kind of intelligence that underlies the laws of physics.

What you cannot really logically do is to say, well I believe that there's some kind of intelligence, some kind of divine physicist who designed the laws of physics, therefore Jesus is my lord and savior who died for my sins. That's an impermissible illogicality that unfortunately many people resort to.

Why do you enjoy speaking in the Bible Belt?
I’ve been lots of places, all of which claim to be the buckle of the Bible Belt. They can’t all be, I suppose. I enjoy doing that. I get very big audiences, very enthusiastic audiences. It’s not difficult to see why.

These people are beleaguered, they feel threatened, they feel surrounded by a sort of alien culture of the highly religious, and so when somebody like me comes to town…they turn out in very large numbers, and they give us a very enthusiastic welcome, and they thank us profusely and very movingly for coming and giving them a reason to turn out and see each other.

They stand up together and notice how numerous they actually are. I think it may be a bit of a myth that America is quite such a religious country as it’s portrayed as, and particularly that the Bible Belt isn’t quite so insanely religious as it’s portrayed as.

In situations such as the death of a loved one, people often turn to faith. What do you turn to?
Bereavement is terrible, of course. And when somebody you love dies, it’s a time for reflection, a time for memory, a time for regret. I absolutely don’t ever, under such circumstances, feel tempted to take up religion. Of course not. But I attend memorial services, I’ve organized memorial events or memorial services, I’ve spoken eulogies, I’ve taken a lot of trouble to put together a program of poetry, of music, of eulogies, of memories, to try to celebrate the life of the dead person.

What’s going to happen when you die?
What’s going to happen when I die? I may be buried, or I may be cremated, I may give my body to science. I haven’t decided yet.

It just ends?
Of course it just ends. What else could it do? My thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings are all in my brain. My brain is going to rot. So no, there’s no question about that.

If there were a God that met you after death, what would you say?
If I met God, in the unlikely event, after I died? The first thing I would say is, well, which one are you? Are you Zeus? Are you Thor? Are you Baal? Are you Mithras? Are you Yahweh? Which God are you, and why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us?

Where did morality come from? Evolution?
We have very big and complicated brains, and all sorts of things come from those brains, which are loosely and indirectly associated with our biological past. And morality is among them, together with things like philosophy and music and mathematics. Morality, I think, does have roots in our evolutionary past. There are good reasons, Darwinian reasons, why we are good to, altruistic towards, cooperative with, moral in our behavior toward our fellow species members, and indeed toward other species as well, perhaps.

There are evolutionary roots to morality, but they’ve been refined and perfected through thousands of years of human culture. I certainly do not think that we ought to get our morals from religion because if we do that, then we either get them through Scripture – people who think you should get your morals from the Old Testament haven’t read the Old Testament – so we shouldn’t get our morals from there.

Nor should we get our morals from a kind of fear that if we don’t please God he’ll punish us, or a kind of desire to apple polish (to suck up to) a God. There are much more noble reasons for being moral than constantly looking over your shoulder to see whether God approves of what you do.

Where do we get our morals from? We get our morals from a very complicated process of discussion, of law-making, writing, moral philosophy, it’s a complicated cultural process which changes – not just over the centuries, but over the decades. Our moral attitudes today in 2012 are very different form what they would have been 50 or 100 years ago. And even more different from what they would have been 300 years ago or 500 years ago. We don’t believe in slavery now. We treat women as equal to men. All sorts of things have changed in our moral attitudes.

It’s to do with a very complicated more zeitgeist. Steven Pinker’s latest book “The Better Angels of Our Nature” traces this improvement over long centuries of history. He makes an extremely persuasive case for the fact that we are getting more moral, we are getting better as time goes on, and religion perhaps has a part to play in that, but it’s by no means an important part.

I don’t think there’s a simple source of morality to which we turn.

What might come after humans in evolution?
Nobody knows. It’s an unwise, a rash biologist who ever forecasts what’s going to happen next. Most species go extinct. The first question we should ask is: Is there any reason to think we will be exceptional?

I think there is a reason to think we possibly might be exceptional because we do have a uniquely develop technology which might enable us to not go extinct. So if ever there was a species that one might make a tentative forecast that it’s not going to go extinct, it might be ours.

Others have come to the opposite conclusion: That we might drive ourselves extinct by some horrible catastrophe involving human weapons. But assuming that doesn’t happen, maybe we will go for hundreds of thousands, even million years.

Will they evolve? Will they change? In order for that to happen, it’s necessary that a reproductive advantage should apply to certain genetic types rather than other genetic types. If you look back 3 million years, one of the most dramatic changes has been in the increase in brain size. Our probable ancestor 3 million years ago of the genus Australopithecus walked on its hind legs but had a brain about the size of a chimpanzee’s.

Will that trend continue? Only if the bigger brained individuals are the most likely to have children. Is there any tendency if you look around the world today to say that the brainiest individuals are the ones most likely to reproduce? I don’t think so. Is there any reason to think that might happen in the future? Not obviously. You can’t just look back 3 million years and extrapolate into the future. You have to ask the question: What kinds of genetically distinct individuals are most likely to reproduce during the next hundreds of thousands of years? It’s extremely difficult to forecast that.

What are you working on next?
I’m thinking of working on another book and it might be some sort of autobiography, but it’s very much in the planning stage.

Post by:
Filed under: CNN Ideas • Human ancestors • On Earth
soundoff (3,789 Responses)
  1. Common Sense

    Oh good old Dick Dawkins. Nobody Cares

    September 7, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • snowboarder

      from the nearly 3000 comments on this article i would say you are incorrect.

      the religious feel very threatened.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
      • Common Sense

        Threatened???

        Certainly not.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
      • Wha?

        exactly

        September 7, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      Actually you do care. You care very much. That is why you are sitting there right now with your computer reading this

      September 7, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
  2. pingpong

    God give me the arrogance to assume that my understanding of anything, at any given point of time, is the absolute truth.

    The faithful - who close their mind to science because it does not fit with their chosen belief, their chosen version of a man-written book and/or what they have been told to believe - are idiots.

    The scientists - who close their mind to the concept of God because they cannot reproduce it in their labs - are idiots.

    I will not pretend to know the answer. Maybe the truth holds components of both. Maybe it lies outside our senses and/or in another dimension. But it most certainly lies outside the current comprehension of our arrogant little minds. One only needs to watch the insults being ping-ponged back-and-forth on this blog to doubt that any of us is going to figure it out.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:33 pm |
    • Common Sense

      "the faithful who close their mind to science........"

      1) The scientific method was developed by Theists

      2) Science is not omniscient and cannot prove everything. Intelligent people realize that science cannot account for all knowledge.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:43 pm |
      • snowboarder

        the scientific method was developed during a time when religion had overwhelming control of society. suggesting that scientists were religions during that time is about as significant as suggesting that they ate, breathed and defecated.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
      • Common Sense

        I find it laughable that you claim to know the "level of faith" of those who lived 100's of years ago. You knew these people personally then? wow

        September 7, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
      • pingpong

        So... Are you agreeing with the statement that followed: 'The scientists – who close their mind to the concept of God because they cannot reproduce it in their labs – are idiots'?

        or

        Did you choose to not read my post in its context?

        My point was simply that either perspective taken without consideration for the other is idiotic [in my humble opinion].

        September 7, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
  3. Rich

    Actually Mr. Dawkins, there is something religion CAN teach you...

    Humility

    September 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Scientists are humbled by the tremendous volume of what they don't know. It's the religious who seem to have the haughty "I know everything" air, and all of the answers in one book.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:28 pm |
    • Wha?

      You do not need religion for humility. There are countless people who use their religion to abuse or humiliate others, while extolling themselves. The choice of humility is not connected to the choice of religion.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
  4. carm

    He will fry in hell, unless he repents and asks Jesus for forgiveness & salvation.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
    • snowboarder

      hell is an imaginary place with which to frighten the children.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Where is hell, by the way? Can we dig to get there? If you could prove the existence of hell, it'd go a long way to bolstering your argument.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      The religion may be more convincing if the devout did not hang the threat of hell as punishment for non-compliance over people's heads. Wait, no it wouldn't

      September 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      Religion may be more convincing if the devout did not hang the threat of hell as punishment for non-compliance over people's heads. Wait, no it wouldn't

      September 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
  5. Andrew

    For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

    Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

    For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

    For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

    But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

    But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

    Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
    • snowboarder

      a convenient passage to simply dismiss challenges to their dogma. nothing more.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • Wha?

      Question 1. Did you get that from the Bible, or did you make it up?

      Question 2. Have you ever been diagnosed with schizophrenia?

      Funny how almost all of the religious comments on this article closely resemble schizophrenic thinking. Disjointed language, insequential thoughts, connecting dots with no connection, etc.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
    • carm

      Amen. Preach it, brother!

      September 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm |
    • JFCanton

      Take two seconds and look it up-it's 1 Corinthians 1. Probably something is garbled in translation, but the better-known passages of this book are usually described as typical for literary form of its day.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
  6. snowboarder

    one man makes a stand against the elevated position of religion in our society and the religious attack.

    they sound very insecure in their beliefs.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:20 pm |
  7. Valence

    Are you in denial or what?? You DON'T KNOW anything for SURE!! By proxy, you have FAITH that there are no "gods", whatever that means. Everyone has a reason to believe any theological or rational thought they want, but that doesn't mean it is true.

    Science is a valuable tool. The scientists pursuit of scientific knowledge will never end and never be completed, but scientific theorems/hypothesis' will change, as morals do, over time.
    .
    NO ONE knows the true nature of reality for sure. We "know" what we can observe and that's it. Don't be so prideful in our LIMITED knowledge.

    But I get it. Your rationale is meaningful because it's an educated guess. The only problem with rationalizing is that our own brains do it to hide deeper trues in our own psyche. Your rationale is RELATIVE not absolute... especially when talking about unknowables like God/no god. Sheesh!?

    September 7, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
    • snowboarder

      religion is based on the myths of ancient people. there is no reason to attribute any veracity to it whatsoever.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
      • Valence

        I'm not arguing for religion. I just think atheists need to come out the closet and claim their FAITH.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
      • Weheardyou

        Yeah! Those who claim humans descend from chimps tend to act likewise, and actively reccomend that other people should behave as such – chimps – no rules, no feelings, no moral, no spirituality. Frankly! That's "reverse evolution" – regressing not evolving, going backwards, loosing all the knowledge and good things humanity learned over time. Dismissing all the self preservation mechanisms acquired over thousands of years... Sell your car and go back to the jungle! x-(

        September 8, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
      • snowboarder

        valence – adherents to all religions have a inherent atheistic view of all opposing deities. as soon as religionists realize why they summarily dismiss all those other deities they will understand an atheist view.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:55 pm |
      • JFCanton

        Not correct...
        You have to distinguish 1) between thoughtful people and non-thoughtful people, and 2) between universal and immediate contexts. Most people are in the quadrant of the non-thoughtful and immediate; they will never make the attempt to project to a universal context. And people who are thoughtful and interested in universality will congregate around something like the Hindu story of the blind men describing an elephant by touch... they will all draw different conclusions about what they are touching because the elephant is so much bigger than them.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      There is no such thing as "faith" in science. You are confused

      September 7, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
      • Smoley

        Maybe you wouldn't call it faith, but you do have to believe that it is possible for random accidents to produce more positive change than negative. Unfortunately for most, this requires going against what is commonly observed in science. Random mutations produce much more bad than good. In many cases the random mutation kills the organism or at least prevents it from propagating itself.
        It may not be faith, but it is wishful thinking.

        September 7, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • JFCanton

      What else fills in beyond the limits of our perception? With science odds are you will get a lot further toward objective truth than the Jehovah's Witness (to pick an extreme example). But there are still odds involved, and you still can't get all the way there.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
  8. Alex

    Organized religion – last bastion of the ignorant

    September 7, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
  9. Wha?

    People. Darwin's theory was of evolution by natural selection. The evolution part is not a theory. It's a fact. The theory part is "by natural selection". Evolution can not be refuted. I have a very hard time with the type of thinking that attempts to refute natural selection at this point in human history. It seems based on ignorance to me.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:10 pm |
    • Smoley

      Natural selection takes the ideas and picks the good ones. That is not my problem with the theory.
      My problem with the theory is that I do NOT believe that lucky random accidents produce that many good ideas to pick from. There is proof that random mutations cause cancer, but it is hard for me to believe that cancer like random mutations are the cause of beauty and health. Is that ok?

      September 7, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
  10. Robocop4000

    Atheist says, "WAHHHHHH!!!!!!! NO BODY BELIEVES ME!!!!!!!! YOU ALL HATE MEEE!!!!!! WAHHHHH!!!! I'M SUPER SERIAL GUYS!!!!!!

    September 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • Wha?

      Please read the article and get back to us with a report.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
  11. Gloria

    Dawkins is a very bright man. Is he beyond human? I doubt it. He falls into the same humaness as the rest of us and his opinions, while stated better than most of us are able and his knowledge, while deeper than most of ours, is built upon that beofre him. Should any of that information he relies upon be wrong, then the entire system wavers. So, since since does indeed support the idea of intelligent design: humans creating new forms of life to carry out functions such as desease control, manufacture of elements, etc. then I would say science does indeed support the idea that there may be an intelligence that creates life (that assuming we are intelligent beings). Which takes one to scale. In all our humanity we ARE the center of the universe STILL. Yet that presupposes that we, and our size, is the standard and we view all things based upon that. In reality we may be the six of a virus or bacteria in comparison to other things and would our telescopes and tools show us just how small we are? So, while it is fun to presuppose and to believe we know even that which we cannot fathom, I do not dare say something is or is not but still believe in anything is POSSIBLE and anything we prove is muddied by the very nature of what and how we are. Science can be totally wrong but still correct in that the observer is not simply an oberver but a filter and manipulater and egotistical being.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • Wha?

      You have a profound misunderstanding of science. When a hypothesis is disproven, then we gain GREATER confidence in our understanding, since we have eliminated one more possibility. Religious thinking is the opposite. You can never gain confidence in any religious belief, since none of it can be disproven. All of the options are equally likely. Only the dense believe that an undisprovable theory is the most correct one. How about the theory that all people are alcoholics? That's the religious belief held by AA. There is no way to test the hypothesis. Hence, there is no way to discern its correctness. Can't go by that.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
      • Smoley

        So, if I can not disprove that random accidental mutations created all things, then that theory must be a religion?

        September 7, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
    • Nat Q

      Do you honestly, HONESTLY, believe it is "possible" that water molecules are formed by really tiny invisible fairies slamming atoms together in some sort of ritualistic mating ceremony?

      Either you do or you don't believe anything is possible. Are you saying that you really believe the above to be possible or do you draw lines after all?

      September 7, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
  12. Philosophy

    Atheism...it's just so fashionable.

    September 7, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Reality is always in fashion.
      Unless what you define as fashionable is .. we're all doing it.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
  13. PaulC

    Religion can be very dangerous to people and other living things. Beware the self appointed holy man who claims to speak to and for God.
    We have Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and other dictators killing millions for pleasure or profit but to have someone control your body, bedroom or torture you to save your soul is really unnecessary.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • Robocop4000

      Religion isn't dangerous. Its the people who abuse it who are dangerous.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
    • JFCanton

      Poor examples given that they were essentially atheists, no?

      September 7, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
  14. Andrew

    1 Cor 1:18-25 – Please read with an open mind – Maybe it is God's word to YOU!
    18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
    20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • snowboarder

      a convenient passage to use to discredit those who discredit religionists.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
  15. Smoley

    So God tells him which God He is and why He was hidden. Then what?

    Mr. Dawkins knows about the God of the Bible. IF he was to meet Him on the other side, do you think his opinion of Him would change? Not likely. Finding out that God exists is not going to change Mr. Dawkins' heart.

    So what does Mr. Dawkins have to lose by denying and encouraging others to deny the One that he hates?

    God's agenda is not to prove His existence, not at all, really- creation is all we need for that- but God's purpose is to know the heart of a man, to know whether he chooses for or against Him. Mr. Dawkins' choice is clear.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • Wha?

      Mr. Dawkins also knows about the other Gods, which are not in that one little contrived book thingie that you call "The Bible". What will happen when you die and find out that god is a hippopotamus, and his purpose was to enslave humans, but you foiled him? Then what?

      September 7, 2012 at 11:57 am |
      • Smoley

        If you don't like someone, then you just hope that they will stay out of your life, right?

        Did your god of hippos randomly create DNA by super lucky accidents? I mean, I know it sounds funny when I say it that way, but is your theory really any more serious than that?

        Maybe if one of the gods that you worship, which are also human scientists that control your brain, would attempt to explain the exact process of the random accidental creation of DNA with all of its functions to me instead of resorting to name calling, then I would take you more seriously.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • snowboarder

        smoley said "If you don't like someone, then you just hope that they will stay out of your life, right?"

        what is to dislike? a disbelief in the imagined deities of ancient men is not dislike. we both disbelieve in a great number of deities and no one would be silly enough to label that "hate" or "dislike".

        September 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
      • Wha?

        Smoley:

        I want to reread what you wrote, and try to explain to yourself how each thought follows from the next. Your thoughts are completely disconnected from each other. Furthermore, your response is completely disconnected from my comment. There are so many people proposing legislation based on their religion, that people like Mr. Dawkins have a need to refute the concepts they are pushing. This is not a matter of just "ignoring people you don't like".

        If you are asking for a description of the data that have lead to the theory of natural selection, then you are more than welcome to review your elementary school text books. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of other data points available for review at any time by any person. It's called the field of science. It is all based on mutually observable facts.

        I do not worship any human, so how can it be that I worship humans called scientists? You just made that up. Don't you see how you are clinging to beliefs based on nothing but your own strange emotional state?

        September 7, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
      • Smoley

        So there is no harm in believing ancient fairy tales? You just disbelieve in them... but for some reason you are compelled to attack them? Are you sure that there isn't something in these fairy tales that you don't like?
        You don't have to believe my Book, but don't expect me to go swallow everything written in your books either. Lucky random accidental mutations did not build that. Putting the label of 'science' or 'evolution' on the lucky random mutation theory does not make it a fact.
        You've obviously read the books though, so why don't you give me a quick overview of how DNA formed from random lucky accidents?

        September 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
    • snowboarder

      god he hates? where do you people come up with this trash?

      disbelief in the imaginings of ancient men is not hate.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
      • Smoley

        You've heard about the God of the Bible, right? Is He someone you would love?

        You don't have to think He's real to answer the question.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • snowboarder

        smoley – i've heard and read about any number of deities. love or hate is not an emotion i associate with the imagined.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
      • Smoley

        You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:04 pm |
      • snowboarder

        smoley – that is funny. because my answer is not to your liking you pretend it didn't happen.

        atheists neither love nor hate the imagined deities of the masses. how is that difficult to understand.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm |
      • Smoley

        I asked you specifically about ONE God, not the deities of the masses, and you did not answer me.

        Would you love the God of the Bible if He happened to exist? Can you answer that? Or should I expect another I-refuse-to-even-consider-the-possibility answer?

        September 7, 2012 at 2:23 pm |
      • shimmernrot

        @Smoley
        It's asinine questions like that that makes it null to argue intelligently with a religious person. "If god exists would you ... etc" You may as well ask if unicorns exist would you ride one to the end of the rainbow to steal that pot of gold from that conniving leprechaun. Science: no proof of existence of god; religious nut: gobble gobble gobble; how can an intelligent person argue with that?

        September 7, 2012 at 3:26 pm |
  16. Jhon

    I wonder if Dawkins thought about Hutchison effect when he made his comment; strange how a mad scientist can make anti-gravity studying poltergeists. Oh I get it now, the devil exists, but it is god that is in question. I wonder who we will send the thank you note to when he uses it to make perpetual energy. Take strength brothers, now is the time the devil comes to test the world. We must remain strong in Christ’s love.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • Wha?

      THAT DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE!!!

      September 7, 2012 at 11:58 am |
      • Robocop4000

        Of course it doesn't to you.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:06 pm |
      • Wha?

        Roboflop:

        It doesn't make sense to anyone with a functioning brain that is capable of logic. If you can't see that, then I'm afraid you are impaired.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
      • JFCanton

        I hadn't heard of this either, but these are competing views::
        http://www.world-mysteries.com/hutchison_e.htm
        http://www.skepdic.com/hutchisonhoax.html
        Rather crazy in my opinion. But the thing about assessing the realm of the possible is that however real a unique occurrence is, it can't be tested for proof or disproof. You need to get another one. If he was attempting to do something weird, there's a limit to how much one can rationally doubt the story that he got an unrelated weird effect.
        What this has directly to do with God (or with Satan!)... nothing more than anything else...

        September 7, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      Jhon, Robocop, that really did not make any sense.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
  17. Wha?

    All of you antiscience people are really, really unintelligent. The humans that will survive in the future will be the ones with the most successful cultures. That will NOT be the ones who reject observational thinking.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • t3chn0ph0b3

      Perhaps not unintelligent, but definitely willfully ignorant, which is much worse.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
    • JFCanton

      How did we get here, then? It's unlikely that more than a thin slice of us would be literate if there had not been Judeo-Christian religion.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
      • shimmernrot

        What has the history of judeo-christian religion got to do with literacy? Remember massive burning of books? Come on

        September 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
      • JFCanton

        Ability to read religious texts has for most of history been the main reason to teach real literacy to common people. You don't need to be all that functionally literate to practice any traditional occupation; you only need bits. I couldn't find a systematic estimate of literacy in Roman times, but it is reported as about 10% overall and no more than 20% in cities.

        September 7, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
  18. JAB62

    "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
    Isaac Asimov

    September 7, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • JFCanton

      Not a controversial statement considering that it turns on what "properly" means...

      September 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm |
  19. ObjectiveGuy

    After watching the DNC, I'm not at ALL convinced that human brains are getting bigger!

    September 7, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Wha?

      Where in the article does it say that human brains are getting bigger? What would compel a person to say something like that in this context? Could it be a lack of reading comprehension combined with a huge does of bias and a touch of hubris?

      September 7, 2012 at 11:51 am |
    • JFCanton

      What it says is that we are getting more moral, right after he says that we have large brains. The editing is a bit misleading.

      I have a massive problem with the former conclusion based on Bolshevism, Hitler, the French Revolution, etc. It seems tenditious. Perhaps the conclusion is reachable because it takes the past out of context?

      September 7, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
  20. ObjectiveGuy

    Great, ANOTHER scientist who knows more than God, and all of the rest of us. Who would have ever seen THAT coming? Amazing how atheists are such a small percentage of the population, but to look on this blog, you would think that half of the world doesn't believe in God. Guess we'll all find out when we're dead, but keep in mind, "If you live like there is no God, you'd better be right!".

    September 7, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • nojinx

      And it there is a god, you better hope it is the set of gods that you chose among the infinite number of possible gods.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Half of the world doesn't believe, they're just afraid to admit it .. even to themselves. The rest (like you I suspect) are just hedging their bets.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:48 am |
    • snowboarder

      know more than god? what god? it is certain that he has greater knowledge than those who actually believe the imaginings of ancient men who created stories to explain the natural world that they were unable to grasp.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:52 am |
    • Wha?

      Dewd, what makes YOU think that you know what God thinks? Isn't that just slightly arrogant? What about all the other people who know that God disagrees with you? I think you are less objective than you pretend to be. What is so hard about admitting that you DON'T KNOW? Ego problem?

      September 7, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Primewonk

      " to look on this blog, you would think that half of the world doesn't believe in God.

      Less than 30% of the world believes in your god. And when you divine him up amongst the 30,000 different Christian denominations, not many of you believe in the same version of your god.

      By the Pascal's Gambit was refuted as soon as he postulated it.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:53 am |
    • Earthling

      Actually, we won't find out. Finding something out requires a functioning brain and beating heart. That's the worst part about it. That none of you thumpers will ever come to realize that death is the end.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
  21. Want a Challenge?

    You have everything around you as proof that there is a God. If you want something in your hand (besides anything you can pick up) that's proof, I CHALLENGE you, to pick up the Book of Mormon and really read it. TAngible proof that God speaks to man, thus he is. Don't be afraid of faith. http://www.lds.org

    September 7, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • snowboarder

      book of mormon? serously?

      September 7, 2012 at 11:54 am |
    • Wha?

      You did not form a complete thought in your comment. I think it's odd that you seem to think you did.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:56 am |
      • Earthling

        He said everything around you is evidence of god. How is that not a complete thought? Stick to the evolution stuff. You've got more than enough ammunition there.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
      • Wha?

        Earthling. He did not say how it is evidence of God. Where is the connection between "there are things around you" and "those things are evidence of God"? That's why it's incomplete, see? It's not really a thought, it's two half-thoughts combined into one.

        What if I were to say "The oranges in this vineyard are proof that oranges are grapes"? Would that seem like a complete thought to you, or just a statement that appears to be incorrect, with no connection between A and B?

        September 7, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • Wordsmith

      I do not need to read the book of Mormon. After I die, your crazy cult will baptize me and send me up to your heaven regardless of whether or not I subscribe.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • mk

      And the book of fairytales is tangible proof that there are fairies, trolls, mermaids, giants, etc.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      Jesus Christ! You must be joking. Book of mormon. That's a laugh

      September 7, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
  22. snowboarder

    the religious constantly and publicly proclaim that their particular religion is the truth and condemn those who disbelieve.

    one person stands up with an opposing view and the screams from the religious reach the rafters.

    the hypocrisy is palpable.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:43 am |
  23. CRasch

    Science is a philosophy of discovery and Religion is a philosophy of ignorance.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:36 am |
  24. Righton

    Dawkins may be pompous, but he is correct. Religion is poison.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:35 am |
  25. Dan, TX

    While I disagree that religion has nothing to teach us, I do think religion should continue to evolve. Modern Christians no longer teach that Jesus supports slavery as they did in America 150 years ago. If Jesus and the Church can evolve so rapidly on that issue, they should quickly accept evolution. Evolution is a fact of nature. Any religion that refuses to accept fact will lose credibility and eventually that sect will fade away.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Glen

      Dan, there is absolutely zero objective evidence that any one species of creature ever naturally turned into another species of creature. Therefore it is theory and not fact.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:36 am |
      • bff

        If you are saying evolution is not a fact, then you need to pull your head out of the sand and at least start watching the Discovery Channel.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:39 am |
      • nojinx

        All science is theory, not fact. Gravity, chemistry, physics, geology are all theory, not fact.

        Come on, people, this is basic Middle School stuff.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:41 am |
      • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

        Vestigial limbs .. Aquatic life that cannot "breathe" underwater .. fossil record .. etc ..
        sorry, until we have a time machine that can follow a creature for millions of years you'll never have the "evidence" you need, even then I suspect you'll still not believe it.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:41 am |
      • Dan, TX

        Glen you are incorrect. The creation of new species has been observed in quite a number of cases. You should know that. Of course, you are correct if you think all monocots are a single species, for example. But then you wouldn't be speaking the same language as I am. That tends to cause a lot of confusion.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:43 am |
      • Glen

        BFF.....Oh, we should all learn the truth from TV. And everything on the internet has to be the truth. Your arguments have been negated.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:45 am |
      • Dan, TX

        Glen, for example, look up the how a new species of fungus evolved to cause Tan Spot disease of wheat. The new species was created by evolution in 1941 in Australia when a member of the ancestral species started to make a new toxin that it had never made before. The new species differs from gaining several thousands of new nucleotides of sequence. I know you'll say its not a new species, it just adapted by suddenly being a pathogen of a host to which it had never been a pathogen before. But again, just changing the meaning of words will always allow you to believe you are the winner in any argument.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:51 am |
      • Wha?

        Glen:

        There is an abundance of objective evidence that one species has turned into another species. You just choose to deny all of it, rather than learning about it. It really is just a sign of a lack of intelligence. You feel that religion is a convenient tool, so you use it as a crutch rather than turning your eyes toward reality.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
      • shimmernrot

        Glen, I think bff suggested that you watch Discovery channel because watching tv might be easier for you than reading a scientific book. Seems like he was being kind

        September 7, 2012 at 2:18 pm |
    • OOO

      It sounds like you are asking religion to adopt the scientific method. 🙂

      September 7, 2012 at 11:36 am |
      • Glen

        Seems to me I never said anything about religion. If you want to venture into implied meanings I guess you could imply I mean so called SCIENTISTS should employ the scientific method.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:42 am |
  26. JAB62

    "You can't convince a believer of anything; for
    their belief is not based on evidence, it's based
    on a deep seated need to believe."
    [Carl Sagan]

    September 7, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • snowboarder

      i lifetime of indoctrination and groupthink is a difficult yolk to throw off.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:36 am |
  27. Glen

    It amazes me when any man thinks science is the be all, end all of knowledge. What foolishness. If that was the case then every scientific venture could be done with no negative impact to the surrounding environment. None are. No man can even predict all possible outcomes of any action. Only the universe is in perfect balance with the universe. This guy is just another fool who goes around making money spewing his foolishness to those who waste their time listening.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Sounds like you just described a Pastor, Priest or other such "fool who goes around making money spewing his foolishness to those who waste their time listening."

      September 7, 2012 at 11:31 am |
      • Glen

        Atheism is a defined religion too. So, they too have their preachers.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:38 am |
      • nojinx

        No, atheism is the absence of defined religion. By definition.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:39 am |
      • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

        Glen pulease .. that's just embarasing.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:44 am |
      • nojinx

        Glen: spot on.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:46 am |
    • Earthling

      How does it follow that if science is the "be all, end all of knowledge" that every scientific venture can be completed without harm to the surrounding environment? So, if you know everything, then everything must be hunky dory? What a strange way to think.

      September 7, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Wha?

      Glen:

      You are continuing with the status quot of connecting two UNRELATED thoughts. "Nothing can be done without uncontrolled consequences. Therefore, science must be lacking, and should be replaced with some other type of belief system, which would of course be religion (specifically, Glen's religion)."

      See, thing B does not follow from thing A. The fact that you cannot control the universe? That has nothing to do with whether or not science is the best method for answering questions about nature. Only a schizophrenic would be incapable of noticing that little logical problem in your statement.

      Also, you keep trying to say that you are not talking about religion. We can all see through that ruse. You are commenting on an article about atheism, making comments about science, and we are supposed to believe that your comments are not intended to discuss religion? Of course they are. You are merely rejecting science because you incorrectly believe that science and religion are incompatible.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm |
  28. hoosierbengal1961

    Everyone's missing the point about this clown - it isn't about evolution; it isn't about creationism - it's about MONEY. It's ALWAYS about money, that's why he goes into the "Bible Belt", because he knows people will PAY MONEY to hear his dribble. He'd say anything he has to in order to draw a crowd and make.....say it with me.... MONEY. He's not an evolutionist, he's a capitalist.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • OOO

      He's both. Some people can chew gum and walk at the same time you know.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • snowboarder

      once you fool the populace into believing everything is about the money, you can convince them to denounce anything.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:31 am |
    • Wha?

      If you conclude that this "clown" is incorrect because he wants to have money, then you must also conclude that the "clown" who preaches at your church is also incorrect because he wants to have money too.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
    • shimmernrot

      The bible belt is called that for a reason, you know - a truckload of religious people. If he really just wanted to make money by denouncing religion he would not go to such a place. Your statement is just silly. Or are you implying that the bible-belt are so gullible, pliable, illogical that they would pay to have their beliefs refuted? Are you?

      September 7, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
  29. TG

    Mr Richard Dawkins has fallen prey to "higher learning", that says that man evolved. He has shown a lack of reasoning in this regard, following along the lines that accepting creation means that basically a person is "stupid" and that educated people believe in the theory of evolution. He obviously has failed to do his "homework".

    First, The earth has not been here some 10,000 years, as creationists assert, but perhaps some 4.5 billion years. And the "creative" days were not 24 hours long, as creationists have proposed, but rather several thousand years long. This can be seen from carefully looking at Hebrews chapter 4 in the Bible, for the apostle Paul wrote that the "seventh day" or God's "rest" day (Heb 4:1-5), was still ongoing some 4000 years after the end of the sixth "creative"day (Gen 1:31), and was far from complete.

    In addition, the theory of evolution has failed to consider the odds of life arising by chance. For example, concerning proteins, that are essential to the structure and function of all living cells, the odds of one protein occurring at random has been calculated as 10 113. Mathematicians has said that anything above 10 50 is impossible. For a protein to form requires that 20 specific amino acids to be in a precise order and twisted in a certain shape, but there is a catch, for all must be "left-handed" amino acids, no "right-handed" ones allowed.

    Then factor in some 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes within a cell. What are the odds of obtaining all of these at random ? One chance in 10 40,000, a possibility that even British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle clearly recognized as impossible, with him once stating that this is "the same as the chance of throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice!” (The Intelligent Universe, F. Hoyle, 1983, pages 11-12, 17, 23) Thus, reasonable individuals recognize that the evidence around all of us is of a Supreme Designer, Jehovah God.(Isa 42:5)

    September 7, 2012 at 11:25 am |
    • snowboarder

      if there is in fact a deity that is responsible for the initiation of life it certainly bears no resemblance to the fables of ancient men.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Dan, TX

      Travel 6,000 years into the past to view the dawn of history. Enjoy a dramatic reading of Genesis chapter one as the first Six Days of Creation are illuminated in this panoramic theater. This four-minute, brief but powerful presentation will move you to consider the wonder and diversity of God’s Creation.

      Go learn at the creation museum that the earth is 6000 years old. It is estimated 25-40% of American children will be taught that Science is not to be believed and that the creation story in Geneis is somehow literal fact. America will continue to fall behind in Science and Technology if we allow this to continue. You are in self-denial if you think these creationists aren't doing everything they can to inhibit science education.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:39 am |
    • Wha?

      Higher learning does not say what you just said it says. You just think that because you have avoided information throughout your life.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm |
  30. Donald

    Watch your mouth for commenting about religion.It's not religion,it's the facts.Read Bible first b4 commenting about religion don't teach.BUT it is said that some people WILL go to hell.I guess you just might be one of them IF you don't accept JESUS as your LORD and SAVIOR. (JOHN chapter 1 in the Bible and start reading sir)

    September 7, 2012 at 11:20 am |
    • snowboarder

      i am uninterested in the imaginings of ancient men who's ignorance of the natural world caused them to create their own explanations.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:23 am |
    • Dan, TX

      Don't mistake religion for God. They are not the same.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:40 am |
  31. John

    So religion has nothing to teach us? Interesting. Perhaps science can explain then how my father attended my combined military promotion and college graduation party . . . 7 years after he died.

    Science is great, unless it BECOMES one's religion. There are things that science says are not possible that simply ARE true.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Why don't you explain it first?!

      September 7, 2012 at 11:21 am |
    • bff

      I can explain it!!!
      It didn't happen.
      If you say it did, prove it!

      September 7, 2012 at 11:27 am |
    • John's Dad

      I'm not dead, I just left and am living happily in Albuquerque these past 7 years.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Earthling

      What are these so-called truths that science refutes?

      September 7, 2012 at 12:52 pm |
  32. mk

    People who argue that we should believe in god rather than science because when you are on your deathbed, you'll wish you had some deity to pray to. I say, believe in science so that when you are on your deathbed, science might be able to fix what ails you.

    September 7, 2012 at 11:18 am |
  33. John Wilson

    Religion is so pernicious – because it halts all meaningful human growth – that it will eventually destroy all of humankind...

    September 7, 2012 at 11:11 am |
  34. Arno

    The hypocrisy of this moron astounds me. He is a man of faith above all else. The biggest fool ever, because he has invented his own make believe religion of nonsense (read his book). I'm still waiting for one of these militant atheists to show me where we can ditch some of the expensive technology we have and find smart phones and computers in nature without us working hard to make them. I mean after all they could be made by accident cause they are not really order at all, we just imagine they are order, when they are really chaos. Dawkins actually believes that life is chaos and not order. So I say, make believe and nonsense accurately describes everything that comes out of that man's mouth.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • Turp Griswald

      Aren't most religions make-believe. Only one can be right (or more likely, none of us has it exactly right). Impossible to know.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:11 am |
      • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

        I disagree that "only one can be right", no reason to believe that "any" are right.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:15 am |
  35. Jason McPherson

    As a Christian I can completely respect what he has to say, minus the last 20 seconds of this video. As he stated the questions he would ask God, it was with a pride and/or arrogance as oppose to "Forgive me for thinking that my own limited human reasoning/logic/research was the end all." I wonder what humbles him.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:59 am |
    • nojinx

      Or why he would bother being humbled, for that matter.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:03 am |
    • John Wilson

      Humility should be for you BELIEVERS, as something major is truly missing from your makeup... could it possibly be your ability to THINK and REASON?

      September 7, 2012 at 11:14 am |
  36. Lindsay

    For the arguement of "science kills more people that religion" and vise versa, I believe the best comclusion is this:
    People can be religious, scientific, neither, or both. People can, at the same time, be a**holes or not. Your religious or scientific affiliation does not dictate whether you're a bad person. You do.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:57 am |
  37. If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

    What is more likely .. God, Gods, Thor, Zeus, John Frum, Zoroaster, Ra, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Carlton (an invisible stegosaurus orbiting Pluto for 65 million years)? None .. the only one that is ever remotely likely is Carlton since we have proof of both Stegs and Pluto .. the rest have nothing.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:57 am |
  38. Turp Griswald

    I'm the President of my church, and have no problem with the idea of evolution. Live with it. Actually, you are living with it whether you choose to admit it or not.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:56 am |
  39. HypocritesOnParade

    Sean's view of self-righteousness is by far the most prevalent: "As an atheist, I have lived the best life I can, and I do everything I can to make sure that the good that I do outweighs the bad..." The difficulty with this philosophy lies in the definition of 'good.' What seems 'good' to Sean may not be seen 'good' to Richard Dawkins. Christians are humans who accept the hard truth that their attempts at being 'good' enough fall far short of anything near perfect, resulting too often in pain and misery for themselves and others. Christians no longer desire to be the 'masters of their own fate', instead trusting in the risen Christ, the Lord and Creator of the universe and all it contains. This forum is proof there is a spiritual battle being waged, has always been waged and will continue to be waged until the day the Lord returns to end this age as we know it. Although many in this forum will remain in unbelief, there are some among you whom the Lord will resurrect from spiritual death unto eternal life, a miracle he performs for all His sheep.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:56 am |
  40. lolCAT2000

    Oh stop this stream of stupid sounds from your mouth already!
    It's just a brain for God's sake... you are not really there.
    It's all just happening *automatically*.
    There is 0 evidence to the contrary.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:54 am |
  41. razorwolf

    Yay!!! Another scientist gone darkside. (lol) Fortunately for him, I will be within his field of academia to be able to challenge some of his ideas. I definitely plan to do so.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:52 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Please do so! But at least have something to back you up other than "faith". Nothing and no one should be beyond questioning and I'm sure Dawkins would agree.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • John Wilson

      Yeah, you sound just like the kind of godcar that has the intellectual wherewithal to do that...

      September 7, 2012 at 11:19 am |
    • lolCAT2000

      whatever, that's all just "your brain talking". 😐

      September 7, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • Earthling

      You're going to study evolution in hopes of one day debunking it? If you plan to become a scientist, you'd do better to have an open mind and abandon any preconceptions not based on evidence. Good luck.

      September 7, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
  42. Michael Rosenberg

    Mr. Dawkins says that if he met God that he would ask why God concealed himself. This question has been answered many times. Free will simply would not exist if we were constantly aware of an all-knowing omnipotent being around us at all times. For a sociological explanation, read If You Were God by Aryeh Kaplan. As for his statement that it is ignorant to think that the universe is less than 10 thousand years old, it is in fact ignorant to think that we know objectively how to measure time. Einstein showed that measuring time is relative and that one observer could measure a day while another observer measures millions of years. Relativity is much more established by experiments than evolution. Yet Mr. Dawkins seems to have a non-relativistic world view. How can he call himself a scientist?! He must work to change his view of time to the correct modern relativistic view rather than the antiquated view of an objective measure of time.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:48 am |
  43. Keith

    It is the fool that has said in his heart [ the seat of consciousness], there is no God (Psalm 14:1). The bible calls this man a fool, and rightly so. This man will see Jesus to be judged, just like the rest of us, but his judgement will not be pleasant neither his final resting place.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:45 am |
  44. LG

    "It will be given to each according to his faith" Mikhail Bulgakov

    September 7, 2012 at 10:43 am |
  45. Mike

    Science has not failed us or ever has, rather, it has been our understanding and use of it which has been a failure. Have scientists helped to improve life for humanity in general or is it just benefiting a select few. History will show that so far, more problems have been created than resolved.

    Most scientists in their search for truth and understanding become quite intolerant and many base their findings and results not in science itself, but in the pursuit of fame, wealth and power. Many deny the existance of God or a god because it would make them accountable as humans and answerable to a higher power. So, they become intolerant to the idea of "could there be more?" or "what if?". Many refuse to think outside the box and to admit that there are many things we do not and probably never will understand because they go beyond our own human capacities. So they put their (do I dare say it) "faith" in theories and ideas in order to make themselves feel superior and cover up the notion that we are so tiny and insignificant in this universe. Despite that, the notion of a God who challenges us to seek him out through our own intellegence and free will is there, and the vast majority on this planet do exactly that.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:42 am |
  46. Mike from CT

    "You could go to other planets in the universe and find life, and if you do find life, then it will have evolved by some kind of evolutionary process, probably Darwinian"

    That is a very faith based statement

    "Of course it just ends. What else could it do? My thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings are all in my brain. My brain is going to rot. So no, there’s no question about that."

    And then there is this that has already been disproven with study with brain-dead patients, so ...

    This about sums it up

    "I get very big audiences"

    September 7, 2012 at 10:40 am |
    • lolCAT2000

      "Of course it just ends. What else could it do? My thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings are all in my brain. My brain is going to rot. So no, there’s no question about that."
      Are we sure it is even there *right now*... after all, it's just a brain for God's sake!
      What would "it be" / why would "it be" / How "is it"?

      September 7, 2012 at 10:48 am |
    • John Wilson

      Yes, and they all wear white coats in your padded room...

      September 7, 2012 at 11:22 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        dude, it's *your* padded room, not mine
        🙂

        September 7, 2012 at 11:23 am |
  47. sumday

    Wow I’ve never heard so much contradictions from someone who is suppose to be intelligent. “children should be taught where they come from, what life is all about, how it started, why it's there, why there's such diversity of it, why it looks designed”- Well we don’t know where life came from and we can’t even explain how it happened (but only happened 1 time and all other life sprang from just that 1 time), Since evolution is suppose to be a random accident life is about anything you want it to be bc for life to have a purpose it would first have to have a planned design/intent, so if there was no design or intent of life in the beginning there is no purpose to life now. Not only why it is so diverse but why this diversity led to such a fine tuned balance of an ecosystem. How the predator did not out evolve the prey (or vise versa) how the plants managed to evolve first to support the insects to support the animals ect and all during this billions of yr of evolution this complex system did not collapse on itself but instead expanded in it’s complexity. I find it very ironic that he embraces evolution- a belief that over time small random changes in genes leads to new species and he believes that other life including intelligent life most likely exists in this universe and then makes the conclusion that life on earth could not have been created by any intelligent life else where in this universe. If you can believe in evolution then it's not a far leap to believe in another more knowing and powerful being creating us- it just strikes me as unintelligent for people to believe in evolution but then assume that evolution reached it’s highest form with humans and assumes no other higher intelligence exists beyond what our 3.5 lb brains can comprehend. If you believe in evolution why do you assume that it stopped with humans? If humans without knowledge will splice, clone, and mess around with dna why do you think no other intelligent being wouldn’t do the same thing?

    September 7, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • nojinx

      "...for life to have a purpose it would first have to have a planned design/intent... "

      Please provide support for that claim.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:41 am |
      • John Wilson

        Other than to live and then to die, life has no purpose... only that which, while alive, we may temporarily give to it.

        Think of a light switch: ON...OFF.... [NO REPEATS!]

        September 7, 2012 at 11:28 am |
      • nojinx

        That is a great way to put it: We have the power to put the meaning we choose into our lives. That is a great way to describe the human condition.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:43 am |
    • lolCAT2000

      OK, here is how it works: If you're a good kid, you will survive and procreate.
      If not, you'll die alone.
      That's all ... have some fun along the way lol

      September 7, 2012 at 10:43 am |
  48. Tammy

    His problem is his faith is in his brain, not his heart- It blows my mind how someone so intelligent can not see that there is a living GOD that created this world and us- God has not hidden himself from the world, he is always present waiting for us to just ask for his help and he will step in. Jesus is our savior and he is our hope to those who believe- I will continue to be someone that will always have faith in a higher power or spirit- The world needs to wake up and realize that Satan is a real spirit and he controls this World for now- his purpose is to kill, steal and destroy all man kind because he knows God and Jesus are living and will return for the faithful very soon. Some day he will stand before God and Jesus and I pray " mercy" on his soul and everyone else to takes what this mans says as the truth- it's not. GOD and Jesus are living and have control of the world and he is only holding his Holy Spirit back because of the numerous " unsaved" he is waiting and knocking at the doors of our hearts wanting to come in. Don't dismiss God almighty.
    '

    September 7, 2012 at 10:36 am |
    • John Wilson

      MAN made GOD... and, my dear, dear Tammy, the heart is a muscle that pumps blood throughout our body... only that and nothing more…

      September 7, 2012 at 11:31 am |
  49. tacc2

    "Will that trend continue? Only if the bigger brained individuals are the most likely to have children. Is there any tendency if you look around the world today to say that the brainiest individuals are the ones most likely to reproduce? I don’t think so. Is there any reason to think that might happen in the future? Not obviously..."

    Yep, the human race is doomed to get dumber. That's kind of sad really.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:25 am |
    • Wordsmith

      I wonder why some religions continue to encourage their women to pump out babies as quickly as possible...

      September 7, 2012 at 10:31 am |
      • lolCAT2000

        they do that because Darwin is right... it's all about survival.
        :/

        September 7, 2012 at 11:25 am |
  50. omeany

    If you want to see if religion has had an adverse effect on our society just look at the jacked up political policies of the GOP. This is 2012 yet they are hell bent on turning women's reproductive rights and wages (or lack thereof) back to the 1950s. Telling women that their bodies will simply expel a rapist's sperm if it's a "legitimate" rape. They believe in protecting the unborn but could care less about the children living in poverty now and proposing cutting the social programs they depend on even further. I'm sure that's what Jesus had in mind when he charged his disciples "Feed My Sheep".

    I'm not against religion but I don't want it's hypocrisy when it comes to making the laws I have to abide by. Until these guys get up to speed, we will continue to be held back as a nation.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • lolCAT2000

      Granted.
      But what about Michelle Obama's "success isn't about how much money you make, it's about the difference you make in people's lives"? Scientific? Religious? "True"? Stupid? ... why?!?

      September 7, 2012 at 10:36 am |
  51. can't we all just get along???

    Everyone has a religion, it just may not be organized, and it may not be spritual. whatever you put your time and money and emotion into is your god. the time, money and emotion are your worship.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:23 am |
  52. HenryMiller

    "What kinds of genetically distinct individuals are most likely to reproduce during the next hundreds of thousands of years?"

    There's a planet-wide inverse correlation between birth rate and degree of education and accomplishment. Scary thought.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:23 am |
  53. Creation Man

    Can someone point me to a published experiment that proves that you can go from a simple organism to a more complex one without information being input?

    September 7, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • HenryMiller

      http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

      September 7, 2012 at 10:25 am |
      • Creation Man

        Interesting, but it's one thing to create a molecule, quite another to create a living organism.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:08 am |
    • tacc2

      We could run one. But do you have a few million years? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong as I'm no evolutionary biologist, but the time spans involved for an organism to evolve into a different distinct species is simply too long to seen during a human lifetime or even thousands of them. However, it's possible to observe some of the evolutionary changes within species. Especially microbes. Why do you think we have antibiotic resistant bacteria? How about corn? The corn we eat today is nothing like it's native ancestor which we've been selectively breeding for thousands of years. Look at the fossil record. Organisms are always changing. Also, you are wrong in thinking that no information is "put in" to the process. The information is the species' environment. The species will evolve based on "information" from the environment. No need for your magic sky daddy. Now go back to 6th grade and pay attention to science class this time!

      September 7, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • nojinx

      I don't know that any have been done yet. That is something we still don't know, which says nothing about either 1) what we do know about evolution and 2) the fact that it is illogical to believe in things without evidence.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:40 am |
  54. lolCAT2000

    Sorry, there really is no evidence that this tastes like chicken at all – it must be an illusion.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:22 am |
  55. kasct

    Hitler WAS deeply religious, in fact he developed a state religion that was a mix of Norse/Aryan mythology and was DEEPLY devoted to the occult.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:21 am |
  56. amanda

    So an athiest is mad everyone is ignoring him because no one believes what he believes...hahaha...

    So if Jesus was just a man, or a dude hanging out back in the day....why did the entire world reset the calendar around his birth? They didn't have facebook and twitter to pass the news? Seems like Jesus was pretty important for people to reset the world calendar 2000 years ago eh?

    If you want to believe you came from monkeys...that's fine...you behave like them anyway.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • HenryMiller

      Jesus, if the man really existed, had nothing to do with resetting the calendar. That was done by a bunch of guys at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. It was the same bunch of misogynists who made women second-class citizens in the church and decided to throw out bits of the Christian Bible they didn't like.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:33 am |
      • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

        Even Russia didn't switch to the current calendar until the 20th century (1918), Turkey (1917), Serbia (1918), etc .. and that was only because it was easier for international trade.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • tacc2

      Do you have any idea how gullible and ignorant people were 2000 years ago? Just l look around you now. You can still fool people pretty easily. And we have the internet and ALL of this information at our fingertips. 2000 years ago, I could have staged the Jesus hoax myself with a few illusionist's tricks. If Jesus existed at all (and there really is no solid proof he did), he was just a man. Maybe an enlightened man and a philosopher. But still, just a man.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:51 am |
  57. Dan586

    Religion = God created the Universe that is a fact if you doubt it you will go to H E L L. (Talk about a lockde door)
    Science = Is always asking How, What, Why.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:14 am |
    • amanda

      Unfortunately for you, God and Science are not mutually exclusive nor at opposing ends of the spectrum. Are you so ignorant you actually believe a complex human body could have grown from an cell in the water to a lizard to a monkey to a person? LOL

      September 7, 2012 at 10:19 am |
      • nojinx

        I don't think anyone would fall for what you just wrote. But the point is the theory of evolution answers some questions and we don't respond to the unanswered questions with gods. We just say we don't know, then try to find out.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:25 am |
      • kasct

        Absolutely they did, maybe not in that specific order but evolution occured, but who's to say God didn't create that process? It amazes me how many deeply religious people say God is omnipotent and no one can know what he's thinking but then proclaim that they know God created Adam and Eve and thats the end of the discussion. How do you know? Because a book written by men said so? How do you know he is not the one behind evolution?

        September 7, 2012 at 10:29 am |
      • tacc2

        Do you have any understanding of how evolution works and exactly how LONG a few BILLION years is?

        September 7, 2012 at 10:53 am |
  58. Dan586

    Everything has to come from some where. Neither science or religion can answer that question. BUT the difference between science and religion is religion is a locked door and your not supposed to ask questions just except everything as fact, based on faith. At least science is always opening locked doors and is always searching for the truth.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • tacc2

      If you except everything as fact, then nothing can be true.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:07 am |
  59. wdgmartin1

    There’s only one game in town as far as serious science is concerned. . . . There is no serious scientist who doubts that evolution is a fact.

    So Dawkins says there is no God but then he adopts the "I am God" position by saying here's the way it is and no one (who is legit) can disagree with me.

    I would say that there are serious scientist on both sides of the equation. That's a simple fact. Don't be a noob.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:04 am |
  60. Striker

    I bet you want say there is a higher being when you pass on to your other life, you will wish you had praised the one and only Lord Jesus Christ.

    September 7, 2012 at 10:02 am |
    • mk

      Right, because if i don't worship YOUR all-loving god, he will banish me to a fiery place for all of eternity.
      Which god is that again? Are you sure it's the right one, Striker, cuz I don't want to be wrong and take a risk. Are you double sure?

      September 7, 2012 at 10:22 am |
    • tacc2

      If you're right and there is a Jesus Christ, and I get to meet him after I die, I'm kicking him square in the balls for forcing this game of "you have to believe in me with no evidence" on us. Then I'm going straight to Hell to party with the devil, because all of my friends will be there and I'd rather burn for all of eternity than spend it with people like you.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:11 am |
  61. Ray

    we use to call modern theoretical physicists, science fiction writers. now we call them the end all be all of human knowledge. i take comfort in the fact scientists are never wrong. ever.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • tacc2

      There's a big difference. Scientists are wrong...a lot. Most will readily admit they were wrong when presented with cold hard evidence that flies in the face of what they thought was true. You religious crazies won't accept you were wrong no matter what the evidence shows.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:15 am |
  62. Vartan

    All of this postulating is foolish. There isn't any real proof otherwise science wouldn't call evolution a theory or hypothesis.

    In religion, it's a bit different in that 'God' reveals Himself through power, through action, by deed. Indeed, both the Revelation of John and the writings of Daniel foretell (i.e. prophesy) a coming tribulation period during which the entire world will suffer trials never before experienced. Jesus spoke of this and said that unless those days be shortened no life would survive. This age is like that of Noah; we warn the masses of the coming judgment and show them the Ark, Jesus Christ. Many fools will ignore the warning until the flood comes and its too late; nothing new here.

    So.. science is great. I have always enjoyed science and the many wonders it brings us closer to understanding. Ultimately, there is a creator of this universe; only fools suppose all space, time, and matter come from nothing. All things have an origin; intelligent life, demonstrated by people who have the ability to reason about the past, present, and future and formulate decisions which greatly affect themselves and the world around them, this intelligent life didn't evolve from nothing it was replicated from an existing pattern. Somewhere, there is a source of knowledge, wisdom, understanding that proportionally is given to living organisms; to suggest otherwise is the wishful thinking of unreasonable, arrogant men who in their ignorance would rather be their own gods (e.g. Dawkins).

    Nonetheless, God has spoken; judgment has been delayed not forgotten. A condemned man awaiting his sentencing to be carried out shouldn't confuse his furlough on earth with an absent judicial figure who is in hiding or otherwise unable to carry out the due punishment to its fullest. In a short while, God will reveal Himself. This is why the last book is named Apocalypse or Revelation (note: singular not plural). This is called the great and terrible day of the Lord; it will be great for some and terrible for others. Which camp you reside in is determined by you and you alone.

    Be careful to not get swept up with these false prophets of our time; there have been many like Dawkins throughout the ages; they all pass-away and yet the truth of Christ and of a living God is attested to by billions and billions.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Your post is evidence of why we need more people like Dawkins.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:01 am |
    • mk

      But no one worships Dawkins, or says he's a prophet, or is afraid if they're not believing what he believes that he'll throw them into a fiery pit. Like your god.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:25 am |
      • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

        excellent reality check!

        September 7, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • tacc2

      "All of this postulating is foolish. There isn't any real proof otherwise science wouldn't call evolution a theory or hypothesis."

      Please go back to 6th grade science class and pay attention this time to what the words hypothesis and theory actually mean in a scientific context.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:19 am |
  63. JoanE

    How sad for all who choose not to believe in the Lord. Open your hearts, not your minds. If you've never experienced the smallest of miracles, it can make believing more difficult. And I regret all those people who gave you a poor example of real faith, and caused you to become so cynical. They/we have much to atone for.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:58 am |
    • bla

      Shouldn't you be out sacrificing cattle to your god?

      September 7, 2012 at 10:02 am |
  64. Shenzhou

    Theory of evolution's impact is not just in science. For example, on the surface Hitler would misquote bible to hide his true belief that they are the elite and superior human race. Other races are weak and inferior and ought be terminated. Wow, that sounds a lot like he took natural selection and survival of the fittest too far.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:53 am |
    • snowboarder

      pure fallacy. were hitIer to actually believe in survival of the fittest and natural selection he would not have actively tried to subvert the process.

      by taking an active role in the process he clearly shows that he does not lend any credence to natural selection and evolution.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:01 am |
  65. TiredoDaCrap

    I just love smug science folks who are never wrong...Brings to mind 2 different examples.

    When I was boy, I was amazing how stupid and fat dinosaurs were. That's what was KNOWN and what was taught. Recently, I've noticed the shift to amazingly intelligent dinosaurs, who hunted in packs, and loved their young. Oh, and they weren't fat lumps of lard – they were basically the muscular body-builders of the animal world with less than 5% body fat. Where did this info come from? The time machine finally was built and someone went back and saw them in action? NO – It's a guess. The best guess that could be thought of at this time – which again, went against everything that was previously known. Don't even get me started on how "they were not like reptiles, but more like birds".
    Also, how about the building blocks of everything. Atoms. Back in the day, it tooks years to figure out these were the smallest possible particles. That was it, nothing could possibly be smaller – forget that they can't be seen. Then, WOW – We discovered that there is something smaller – subatomic crap! AMAZING. We KNOW that there is nothing smaller than these!
    Funny that science "discovers" things that have already been there forever, or that without any proof can make a 180-degree turn in their FACTS about certain life. And, even though there are obviously little green men somewhere in the vastness of the universe, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that God exists. Couldn't be that man isn't quite as intelligent and exceptional of a species as some would like to think, could it??

    September 7, 2012 at 9:51 am |
    • mk

      You're right. Believing something because someone at the pulpit told you to believe it is WAY better than a scientific experiment that produces a scientific theory. (Note the word 'theory' there.)

      September 7, 2012 at 10:28 am |
      • TiredOdaCrap

        Not claiming is better to listen to someone in a pulpit, am I? Just find it funny that there is such smugness from a man who is living his life based on his theories and beliefs. Wait, isn't that what Christians do?? Could it be that we are more similar than anyone thinks.
        Oh, and although you stated "theory", not all do – starting with the one the article is about...

        September 7, 2012 at 10:59 am |
  66. imvotingforObama

    His smugness will fade when he stands before the Lord Jesus Christ on Judgement Day. Hopefully he will realize the error of his thinking before that day comes and repents.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • kasct

      These are the scare tactics that turn people away from religion and create zealots. It is no longer God will love you and you will find peace in belief in him, it has become BELIEVE IN MY GOD OR ELSE, which do you think is more important to God, to believe in a god and go about your life in as just a fashion as possible or believe in the name brand God men created to gain power?

      September 7, 2012 at 10:47 am |
  67. Tim

    Dawkins represents a new breed – not scientist but high priest of science. Their job is not to contribute to the body of knowledge (although some do, I'm sure) but to protect it from the great unwashed – like a Cardinal of the Inquisition. They're pretty common breed: Neil DeGrasse Tyson and even Bill Nye the Science guy has taken the new holy orders. Like their evangelist counter parts, they have to speak with conviction come across well on camera. To them, scientific theory is scientific dogma. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      I think bringing science to the masses (pun intended) is a great thing. Many cannot understand the reality of it & need a simplified version .. it's like having a spokesperson. However I don't think of Dawkins as representing science, I look at him as representing common sense and the fallacy of theistic religions .. he has the gnads and wherewithal to say what the rest of us know but can't say out loud.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:55 am |
      • Tom

        A true rational being would concede to the fact that we live in a world of possibilities and that anything from the existence of God or a creator to the existence of aliens are not farfetched. What's more, a true rational being would concede to the fact that the scientific method as well as all the sophisticated tools of science, although helpful, are limited in aiding us investigate the complexities of our world. Also, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that just because science can offer a "logical" explanation to things do not necessarily mean they are true (the evidence for this statement lies in the very history of science). Moreover, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that the human mind is limited as to what all it can comprehend or know. Dawkins, if he were truly rational, would be aware of all the aforementioned characteristics and acknowledge them. In his attempt to paint himself as a rational and intelligent being, he has become irrational.

        With that said, friends, the truth is that man was born into the position of ignorance. While it is our duty to move from this position to the position of enlightenment during the course of our lives, we should always be aware of false knowedge, which masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance. Keep enjoying everyday life.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:11 am |
      • nojinx

        "A true rational being would concede to the fact that we live in a world of possibilities and that anything from the existence of God or a creator to the existence of aliens are not farfetched."

        Define "farfetched". I would state that anything that is only imagined is far-fetched. This statement of yours is not substantiated.

        "...we should always be aware of false knowedge, which masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance. Keep enjoying everyday life."

        Agreed. False knowledge is generally called a lie. Theological tenants are a good example.

        Given that science is our only method of finding truth, best to stick with that method moving forward. Otherwise you are likely to believe anything, having no way to discriminate the veracity of a claim.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:33 am |
      • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

        Tim, a true rational being wouldn't believe in something just because someone told them to take it all on faith. A true rational being would not "believe" something without the benefit of having a rational reason to believe it. There are infinite possibilities in the universe and we must choose rationally what is most likely .. and God(s) are far down on the list of reasonable probabilities. I do enjoy everyday since I live everyday in reality and have no delusion there is any reason to believe there will be more. Thoughts?

        September 7, 2012 at 10:34 am |
      • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

        ** meant to respond to TOM **

        September 7, 2012 at 10:36 am |
      • Tom

        So you believe that life came from microbes from space or through lightning striking carbon... Where's your evidence? Were you there when it was happening or did you see a single proof of it take place in a lab? Or has any scientist provided any shred of genuine evidence to support that position? You believe such a farfetched story about the genesis of life and yet you find it hard to believe that a devine or intelligent being could have created this world? Or have you passed your "thinking" over to false scientists who are driven in their experiments and observations by their own warped believes?

        The fact, friend, is that no matter what we do, none of us can ever know with certainty how our universe originated or how life began in it. Besides, we humans were born into the position of ignorance. While it is our duty to shed that ignorance and move from that position to enlightenment, from darkness to light, we should be very wary of false knowledge which has no more blinding power than ignorance.

        September 7, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
  68. roseternal

    God, Jehovah, is not hiding. He told Adam and Eve because they have sinned to fill the earth with people and when Eve said she wanted to be like God, then he sent them out of the garden to see if man can run the earth and themselves withoutloo him because it raised a question if man can rule themselves without him. Therefore, man is trying to rule themselves on their own and are ruining the earth. The Bible says that if he does not step in, that men will destroy themselves. Also, Satan the devil is making things even worse. He is the ruler of this earth. When Jesus was on the mountain of his 40 day walk in the wilderness, Satan offered him all the Kingdoms of the earth if he would bow to him. How could Satan offer Jesus all the Kingdoms of the earth if he wasn't in control of them and just like he is today. The answers are all in the Bible. It is just that Jehovah God is letting man rule themselves until he knows that they are going to destroy themselves, but Jehovah will not let that happen. There is your answer Mr, Dawkins.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:47 am |
    • snowboarder

      wow. a biblical literalist.

      there is no excuse for such silliness.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:50 am |
    • mk

      Once upon a time...the End!

      September 7, 2012 at 10:30 am |
    • tacc2

      If you believe that, there's a fat bearded guy dressed in red at the North Pole you should go visit.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:40 am |
  69. Mark

    What a miserable wretch...

    There are two things that are certain...

    1. It's not a matter of "IF" but "WHEN" he stands before God (the God of the Bilbe). The Bible is very very plain about this fact. EVERYONE (yes....even Richard Dawkins) will stand before God and give an account of their lives. Dawkins can choose NOT to believe that, but it doesn't change it one iota. God makes the rules, not Richard Dawkins.

    2. God will be the one asking the questions. Dawkins' arrogance will have no place on that day. There won't be an "interrogation" as to who God is (...are you Zues, Yaweh, etc). Nor will Dawkins put God on the stand and ask Him why he went to such great pains to hide himself. Try reading the book of Job in the Bible. You get an idea about how God feels about being put "on triial" about such matters. Also, God has already answered Dawkins' question. Try reading the book of Romans in the Bible. God clearly meant for His creation to point to His true nature and to point people to Him. The very creation that Dawkins uses to make ridiculous claims about evolution.

    God will be the one asking the questions, and Dawkins will be the one answering.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:46 am |
    • snowboarder

      your god is just another of the innumerable gods created by man.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:51 am |
      • Mark

        No my friend. God CREATED man, not the other way around.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:58 am |
      • snowboarder

        mark – except there is no reason whatsoever to believe that to be true.

        it is simply the imaginings of ancient men who's knowledge of the natural world was insufficient to explain it.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:03 am |
    • Primewonk

      Except, of course, that there is zero evidence to support the existence of your god. But don't feel bad, there is just as much evidence to support the existence of any of the 10,000 gods we have invented.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:52 am |
  70. dcpintx

    I certainly wouldn't want to be in his shoes come judgement day. Just because he says it is so – does not make it so. He is free to believe what he chooses – but when you think about his cncepts – it makes absolutely no sense that all of this came from nothing.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:45 am |
  71. phprof

    Well, Dawkins, that's a nice story. Any more? I'm still not sleepy yet.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:44 am |
  72. k kim

    Dawkins' non-answer to the question of morality is telling. A critical interviewer would have reamed him on that issue.
    Bottom-line: Evolution can't answer the question of morality or love. I love how Dawkins looks down on real scientists who -unlike Dawkins- are humble enough to acknowledge their lack of knowledge.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:38 am |
    • snowboarder

      "I don’t think there’s a simple source of morality to which we turn."

      that response is by far the most realistic of any i have seen.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • If horses had Gods .. their Gods would be horses

      Would you prefer he just make up an answer? Say .. God(s) did it? Not accepting a real honest answer is very telling.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:49 am |
    • Primewonk

      Morals, just like religion and belief in gods, evolved. There are whole fields of science devoted to the study of this.

      Love is simply oxcytocin in the brain.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:55 am |
  73. ry

    I love Dawkins, but wish he hadn't said this. Antagonizing people that have been brought up a certain way is counterproductive to getting them to listen and understand facts. I'm a scientist, but I wouldn't say religion has "nothing" to teach us. I do think it has very little to teach us that can't be sought by other means. For example, the values and historical bits in the Bible might be better taught by reading a classical treatise on history and morality. But with philosophy, any path that leads to greater understanding of the self and your relations to others is valid. With science, validity is based on observable, replicable fact. Religion and philosophizing is a separate thing from scientific fact, although scientific fact can be philosophized upon to some extent.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:33 am |
  74. Tom

    So true Ed.

    "A true rational being would concede to the fact that we live in a world of possibilities and that anything from the existence of God or a creator to the existence of aliens are not farfetched. What's more, a true rational being would concede to the fact that the scientific method as well as all the sophisticated tools of science, although helpful, are limited in aiding us investigate the complexities of our world. Also, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that just because science can offer a "logical" explanation to things do not necessarily mean they are true (the evidence for this statement lies in the very history of science). Moreover, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that the human mind is limited as to what all it can comprehend or know. Dawkins, if he were truely rational, would be aware of all the aforementioned characteristics and acknowledge them. In his attempt to paint himself as a rational and intelligent being, he has become irrational.

    With that said, freinds, the truth is that man was born into the position of ignorance. While it is our duty to move from this position to the position of enlightenment during the course of our lives, we should always be aware of false knowedge, which masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance. Keep enjoying everyday life."

    September 7, 2012 at 9:25 am |
    • Aezel

      Complete nonsense. You managed to pack more logical fallacy into a few paragraphs than most. Your bulls*** dial must be turned all the way up today.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • snowboarder

      ah yes. the orbiting teapot fallacy.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:33 am |
    • Tom

      Where's the logical fallacy in the above position? Which crime in reasoning did the statement commit? Kindly enlighten me.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:41 am |
      • snowboarder

        tom – for one, regarding all possibilities as if they are equal.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:14 am |
      • Tom

        The above statement does not in any way suggest that all possibilities are equal. It rather suggests that where there's a possibility, there's a probability and that the truly rational mind should acknowledge that possibility and probability. A truly rational person will be willing to acknowledge his own irrationality and position of ignorance. Peace.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:32 am |
      • nojinx

        Agreed, but that does not permit one to draw irrational conclusions and claim them as anything more than imagined possibilities.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:34 am |
      • Tom

        The above perspective does not suggest that all possibilities are in fact equally valid. You and I both know with certainty that Easter Bunnies and Santa Claus do not exist. But what you and I do not know with certainty is whether or not God or aliens exist. Like all lawyers know, in a court of law, the presence of evidence does not necessarily increminate a suspect, neither does the absence of evidence. If we truly want to know the truth, we should hold an open mind and realize that even science with all its glory and benefits has a limit.

        September 7, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
  75. SoundFuture

    I think Dawkins is so worn out in his crusade against the religious dogmatics that he's down to repeating himself. I don't blame him, I often find myself in the face palm arrangement when dealing with people who won't accept simple facts.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:24 am |
  76. JeffC

    Common sense tells us that one of the best ways to tell if someone's teaching is of value is to observe how that teacher lives. How does this Mr Dawkins treat people (of all faiths)? What kind of "wake" does his lifestyle leave behind him? Does he use people for selfish gain or self aggrandizement? Is he abusive in relationships? If he is/has been married, how does he treat his mate? What effect does his lifestyle have on his mate? Is there genuine love or tolerance? How does he treat himself? Is he obese? Does he abuse food or other substances? is there self hatred? What kind of personal boundaries does he set and keep? Does he honor the boundaries of others? Does he approach life from a cerebral standpoint to avoid genuine relationship? In other words, who IS he? Is he even rooted in reality? Finally, what will be the end result of his teaching? Will it change lives for the better or for the worse? Indeed, HAS atheism changed lives for the better or for the worse? What is the history of those who think that way?

    September 7, 2012 at 9:19 am |
    • Aezel

      Common sense has no bearing whatsoever on scientific discovery. Many of the more important discoveries are completely counterintuitive.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • snowboarder

      none of those things have any bearing on the veracity of a scientific theory.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:31 am |
    • ry

      In science, we judge whether the discovery is valid, not the discoverer. Some scientists are good people. Some of them are awful human beings. Einstein was terrible to his poor wife. But all have the potential to discover amazing things.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:37 am |
  77. Aezel

    It's not smugness, it's knowing you're right because you can prove it. Something you lack. And yeah, you should be degraded for the lies, nonsense, and poison you spew into society.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:17 am |
  78. Creation Man

    So how does he get around the 2nd law of thermodynamics? (can't go from less complex to more complex without design information) or is it more like a suggestion than a law.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:13 am |
    • Aezel

      Herp derp. You don't even know what that law says, or understand how it applies.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:19 am |
      • Creation Man

        Entropy increases right? Can't go backwards.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:45 am |
    • Primewonk

      Is the earth a closed system?

      Seriously! Even fundiot nutter websites like AIG tell their minions not to use this argument anymore, because IT IS A LIE.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:27 am |
      • Creation Man

        See my reply to Aezel.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:48 am |
  79. Elliott Carlin

    If we were to judge all atheists by the smugness of Dawkins, or the shallowness of your comments, we'd conclude what we already conclude. You people are mean and angry.
    Try building a hospital or doing something worthwhile

    September 7, 2012 at 9:11 am |
  80. Agnostic > Atheism

    Just like to point out a few things. Evolution does not explain why life exists in the first place. Evolution does not explain the purpose of life either. It only offers an explanation for how life perpetuates itself and survives.

    Also, religion has a lot to teach us. Now we can look back and see how religious control can be used against society. We can see how religions are perpetuated (mainly thru brainwashing/indoctrination of children). We can see how without religion, strong moral codes being taught to children begin to decline. etc etc. I am not religion, but any fool, even Dawkins, can see there is MUCH to learn about religions.

    Ironically, what Dawkins and other athiests never consider is this: an evolutionary factor. You think it's just chance those early neaderthals and sapiens started developing more elaborate burial practices and adopting beliefs in 'spirits'? I'm not suggesting their beliefs were/are accurate, but one can look at a timeline of religious/spiritual activity in mankind and see that religious/spiritual ideas have always been evolving.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:11 am |
    • ry

      I agree with your first paragraph. The origin of life, the universe and matter is the realm of physics, not evolutionary biology. I don't agree that religion has evolved in any way. Burial practices and spirituality have largely stayed the same, not more elaborate. The nature of it is different from location to location, which indicates that all early peoples in Africa and Eurasia had a need to explain the world around them, including death, in a way they could understand. This says interesting things about the human brain, and is the reason why thousands of years later we have impressive science and technology that can better explain the world around us than making up stories and rituals.

      I will also say that humans aren't the only animals to bury their dead. Who's to say that we're the only ones with religion?

      September 7, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • mk

      "We can see how without religion, strong moral codes being taught to children begin to decline."

      This is SO not true. You can post the ten commandments in front of every man, woman and child in the world, make them read the bible, force them to attend a church every morning, etc. and it will STILL not curb morality issues. That doesn't work because it's already been tried for 2000+ years.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:38 am |
  81. Jason

    Dawkins speaks in tones that make him sound authoritative so people listen. He states as fact that which is theory, then says, "no serious scientist" could disagree. That is a GREAT debate strategy, but science is not a debate. It is a process to determine the truth. To dismiss the possibility of intellegent design is anti-scientific until it is proven. He obviously has an agenda and a hatred of religion.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:08 am |
    • Primewonk

      Theories exist to explain sets of laws and facts. That is why evolution, just like gravity, is both fact and theory.

      Seriously, this is stuff you should have learned in Junior High.

      Perhaps you need to get your science information from science sources, instead of the "Pastor Dave's" of the world?

      September 7, 2012 at 9:12 am |
    • snowboarder

      once a person realizes that religions are simply the imaginings of ancient men trying to explain the natural world without the proper tools, evolution becomes the only reasonable theory.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:22 am |
    • Aezel

      You don't even understand the definition of what a theory is. You don't get to make up a new one for your own pleasure, that isn't how it works. Go back to grade school and start over, that's your best bet at this point.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:23 am |
    • Jason

      I am actually a Science teacher. I know what a theory is and I know what the evidence that supports evolution is. My point was regarding his dismissive tone. There is room to believe both in evolution and in God, yet people seem to be bent on Athiestic evangelism. Personally, the more I learn about quantum physics and molecular biology, the more I see structure and design.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:31 am |
      • ry

        Jason, I'm interested in your latest comment. I'm a mol biologist and the more I learn about how the cell works, the less "design" I see. The ways signalling pathways work is so messy that it's obvious they are the result of the best available iteration and not the best possible design. Result of the messiness is diseases such as cancer. The fact that we can create better, more efficient organs in the lab where we are not contrained by the previous iteration and can design a totally new structure from scratch supports this. If a creator was responsible for observed biology, frankly that creator is incompetent. Physics is outside of my expertise though, so I'm curious what you meant by that.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:00 am |
      • Jason

        Obviously as a Molecular Biologist your knowledge of the details far outstrips mine. What I am referring to is the interlocking systems, the laws of physics themselves, string theory that allows for multiple dimensions all of these things point me toward intelligence. My youth minister in HS actually said to me if we lived in a 2 dimensional world, a 3 dimensional being would appear to be divine. For a teenage kid who was having doubts about faith, that was a great statement. It said to me that science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:26 am |
      • ry

        I love the quote from your minister, but it's interesting that we seem to take it in two different ways. I take it as saying, anything that is more advanced to us is perceived as divine. We didn't understand thunder and lightning and fire, so we created gods that made them. Now we understand these things. Zeus and Thor and Prometheus have been relegated to mythology. We have the potential to understand advanced things without deifying them or worshipping them. Let's use that potential instead of wasting time saying we're never going to understand this, it's too complex, obviously it was created.

        I don't mean for you to question your faith. I also have belief in the supernatural (not the Bible, but I'm one of those quirky few people that believes in ghosts). But when I walk into lab, I lay my beliefs at the door. Faith and science are two completely separate things. You can have both, but progress stops when you start confusing the two.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:45 am |
      • nojinx

        While there may be "room" to believe in gods (whatever that means) it still requires one to be closed minded to do so.

        September 7, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • snowboarder

      jason – deism is fine as a belief, but none of the religions espoused by the masses hold even the slightest amount of veracity.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:38 am |
    • ry

      Intelligent design by its nature is unscientific. No one can prove a creator. We can demonstrate HOW that creation was created. We can replicate it on a small scale, which is why evolution is fact. Science works by extrapolating facts to other areas and seeing if those facts are consistent with other observations. This is called "theory," as in "evolutionary theory of common descent."

      Yeah, this guy is anti-religion and is pushing science. But it's the same thing as an English teacher telling you to use proper English and stop using ebonics and textspeak in her class, or your history teacher telling you that you can't cite an Orson Wells story in your term paper. I see some value in religion, but science and religion, proper English and ebonics, history and fiction are completely separate things. Both can be useful and fun in daily life, but allowing overlap is counterproductive to advancement of knowledge.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:52 am |
    • nojinx

      "science is not a debate."

      Yes it is. By its nature science is a mutable body of theories that must be debated to keep it honest.
      To be open to other possibilities is fine, but to accept any of them as viable without evidence is the definition of closed-minded.

      September 7, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
  82. The Final Word

    No one can refute the fact that all living things on this planet are made up of cells. Another irrefutable truth is that cells only come from other cells.

    – Iron Maiden said it best....There's a time to live..a time to die..there's a time to meet your maker!...there's a time to live..but isn't it strange..as soon as your born you're dying...

    September 7, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Jason

      And the first cell(s) came from? I think Iron Maiden might have stolen that first line... from the Bible. (Ecclesiastes)

      September 7, 2012 at 9:10 am |
      • The Final Word

        @ Jason

        exactly

        September 7, 2012 at 9:14 am |
      • Aezel

        Cells didn't leap into being directly from not-existing to being a whole cell. Do you know anything about biology or are you a complete buffoon? Cells contain a myriad of chemical processes that carry on independently. These much more simple chemical processes were probably first contained in simple lipid barriers that we have observed forming in water to this day.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:30 am |
      • ry

        Yay Aezel! Very simple cell-like structures do spontaneously aggregate. Some of the features observed in cells are clearly from a cell within a cell – mitochondria and chloropasts having prokaryotic DNA for example. As long as you have containment of a chemical reaction and the potential to engulf other containers of different reactions, there is enormous potential for the development of advanced structures.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:07 am |
      • Jason

        OK, but whay is this not continually happening? Not being argumentative, I genuinely want to know.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:28 am |
      • nojinx

        It could be an astronomically improbable event. Just because it happened once in the course of our universe's history does not mean it happens daily.

        Given, it may have happened elsewhere and someone may have a theory on that. Not me.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:37 am |
      • Jason

        OK, but why is this not continually happening? Not being argumentative, I genuinely want to know.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:59 am |
      • nojinx

        It may be an incredibly improbably event, one that requires extremely narrow parameters to occur.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:01 am |
      • ry

        Jason, I had an answer to your question, but I don't see it? Perhaps because I included a link. Cell engulfment of other cells gives tumor cells a proliferative advantage, so this sort of thing does happen on a daily basis, although tumors are not "alive" – not capable of independent growth. Seeing heritable endosymbiosis in action in the wild is tricky, but one such observation made the journal Science in 2005. Google Okamoto et al. "A Secondary Symbiosis in Progress?"

        September 7, 2012 at 11:15 am |
  83. snowboarder

    religion is an imaginarly line which only divides, never unites.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:05 am |
    • Jason

      Wrong.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:11 am |
      • snowboarder

        jason – no one can look at history and declare religion to be a uniting factor. anyone who does is simply delusional.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:17 am |
      • Jason

        SB- it has united social groups throughout history. Has it united us as a planet? No. Of course not. But neither has anything else, and very few things have united even small numbers as much as rligion has. It all depends on the scope of your view on unity.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:24 am |
      • mk

        My view of unity is not excluding people because they worship the wrong god or believing what you believe. My view of unity is not creating conflict and killing others over my god being better than yours. My view of unity is not thinking that you've got the edge because you're going to heaven for worshiping the "right" god, while my poor pathetic self is doomed.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:47 am |
      • Jason

        Same old argument. Same old answer: Religion is not the exclusive cause of any of these things. My real point was that religion is as devisive and more unifying than political philosophy, nationalism, tribalism, or any number of social pressures. You can't blame religion for causing all these ills when there are clearly other factors that cause them as well.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:06 am |
  84. Dan

    You can't deny evolution and there is no proof of your imaginary friend.

    September 7, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • Jason

      Not a real strong point. You can deny evolution, but there is evidence to support it. There is also evidence (but not proof) of intellegent design. If nothing else we can continue to ask the question "What happened before that?" Even Steven Hawking, when pressed, answered "God". The "invisible Freind" reference, is just meant to belittle. That is mean and does not move your point forward. It just makes Theists dislike you.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:21 am |
      • Aezel

        "There is also evidence (but not proof) of intellegent design."

        No there is not. No credible scientist takes intelligent design seriously. Also, learn to spell.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:27 am |
      • Jason

        No credible scientists according to who? I would contend that the order and structure of the universe can be construed as evidence of design.
        Sorry I made a typo. I am sure someone as intelligent as you has never done that. I guess that invalidates all my points. I stand in awe of your superiority. (sarcasm intended)

        September 7, 2012 at 9:41 am |
      • ry

        The problem is that arguing that order and structure comes from a creator is an untestable hypothesis. No evidence can be gathered about it. Hypothesizing that order and structure arise from properties inherent in molecules is testable – we can observe and quantify properties. Ice and crystals are extremely ordered structures, but I don't need a creator to explain them. If I did, we wouldn't have freezers or synthetic crystals and cheap fashion jewelry.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:24 am |
      • nojinx

        Evidence of intelligent design? Do tell, that is an instant Nobel Prize awaiting you.

        September 7, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • Nat Q

      Clearly they can deny evolution or we wouldn't keep having this discussion.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:36 am |
      • Jason

        Exactly. Not saying they would all be correct or legitimatebut some might be.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:43 am |
  85. mtg176

    Another article by another atheist ...wow. It must be so sad to live such a disillusioned life. 😦

    September 7, 2012 at 8:47 am |
    • Aezel

      It must be sad to waste your only life you will ever get dedicated to pretend people in the sky that don't exist and thinking you will come back to life when you die when it will not happen.

      September 7, 2012 at 8:50 am |
    • Primewonk

      I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for determining that a PhD who holds a chair at Oxford to be an idiot.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:08 am |
      • Jason

        Plenty of Oxford Chairs have believed in God. They weren't idiots either. Let's get past the idea that either side of this argument are made up of morons. Plenty of people smarter than me on either side.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:46 am |
      • Tom

        This is your response:

        A true rational being would concede to the fact that we live in a world of possibilities and that anything from the existence of God or a creator to the existence of aliens are not farfetched. What's more, a true rational being would concede to the fact that the scientific method as well as all the sophisticated tools of science, although helpful, are limited in aiding us investigate the complexities of our world. Also, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that just because science can offer a "logical" explanation to things do not necessarily mean they are true (the evidence for this statement lies in the very history of science). Moreover, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that the human mind is limited as to what all it can comprehend or know. Dawkins, if he were truely rational, would be aware of all the aforementioned characteristics and acknowledge them. In his attempt to paint himself as a rational and intelligent being, he has become irrational.

        With that said, freinds, the truth is that man was born into the position of ignorance. While it is our duty to move from this position to the position of enlightenment during the course of our lives, we should always be aware of false knowedge, which masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance. Keep enjoying everyday life.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:54 am |
      • Nat Q

        @Tom:
        "A true rational being would concede to the fact that we live in a world of possibilities and that anything from the existence of God or a creator to the existence of aliens are not farfetched."

        A rational man would not concede that we should be open to irrational ideas.

        Rationality is NOT about balance or open-mindedness. It is about what is aligned with and agreeable to reason and objective reality. That's the whole point of rationality in philosophy–that the reasoning of "rational" people should derive conclusions in a consistent way only from the information actually available at their disposal. And anecdote, supposition, wishful thinking, and personal incredulity do not count as valid forms of information. Rationality is about the coherence between one's beliefs or actions and the reasons FOR those beliefs or actions.

        And beings of omnipotence and magic are simply not rational and a rational person would NOT remain "open" to those ideas. There is not a single natural law you can point to that would make the existence of a magical all-powerful being a rational possibility consistent with known, available empirical or scientific information. In fact, many such known laws would seem to rule OUT such a being as a possibility. There is nothing logically reasonable, and therefore nothing rational, about a god being.

        "Also, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that just because science can offer a "logical" explanation to things do not necessarily mean they are true (the evidence for this statement lies in the very history of science)."

        Agreed. Rationality is about information currently available. It is rational to accept the most current, up-to-date logical explanation, *even while knowing* that that explanation may change when new information becomes available. All of science is based on that understanding. Science admits it is fluid and based on current evidence ONLY and therefore subject to change. It is a stance that many who do accept the idea of god beings do NOT embrace, consistently refusing to alter beliefs even in light of non-disputable new evidence (which makes it the exact opposite of rational).

        September 7, 2012 at 11:13 am |
    • donna

      Do you know what "disillusioned" means?

      September 7, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
    • nojinx

      No, not at all. It is very liberating and empowering, a freedom from a certain kind of oppression. Why would you think it disillusioned?

      September 7, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
  86. ShawnDH

    Well, except for the most awe-inspiring art and architecture humankind has ever created, religion has otherwise been a stain on humanity and continues to be a force of oppression, a retardand to progress and a petri dish of ignorance and stupidity. Net negative for sure.

    September 7, 2012 at 8:46 am |
    • snowboarder

      all that art and architecture to honor innumerable deities over history, built literally on the backs of the toils of common man.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:13 am |
      • ry

        I like that phrasing!

        September 7, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • Tom

      Wow, I can see that you are a very "intelligent" man. It is a fact that religion is flawed, but that is only because man, whom it is intended to serve, is flawed. It's also a fact that religion has caused many pains to humanity, but is it not also true that reilgion has benefited man by aiding the evolution of his society and raising his diginity in the process? My friend, just because you hold an athiestic belief–which you are free to hold–does not mean you should deny turths in the face of glaring evidences. If you really claim to be rational, you will also be willing to acnowledge your own irrationality in the process.

      With that said, a true rational being would concede to the fact that we live in a world of possibilities and that anything from the existence of God or a creator to the existence of aliens are not farfetched. What's more, a true rational being would concede to the fact that the scientific method as well as all the sophisticated tools of science, although helpful, are limited in aiding us investigate the complexities of our world. Also, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that just because science can offer a "logical" explanation to things do not necessarily mean they are true (the evidence for this statement lies in the very history of science). Moreover, a true rational being would also concede to the fact that the human mind is limited as to what all it can comprehend or know. Dawkins, if he were truely rational, would be aware of all the aforementioned characteristics and acknowledge them. In his attempt to paint himself as a rational and intelligent being, he has become irrational.

      Friend, the truth is that man was born into the position of ignorance. While it is our duty to move from this position to the position of enlightenment during the course of our lives, we should always be aware of false knowedge, which masquerading as truth, has no less blinding power than ignorance. Keep enjoying everyday life.

      September 7, 2012 at 10:04 am |
      • ry

        Tom, I appreciate your argument, and you sound like a nice, educated guy. But your argument to me boils down to: science is limited (agreed – it is limited to observable, replicable fact. Interpretation of those facts CAN change. This is why we always use conservative language like "this observation supports this hypothesis" rather than "this is how it works."). You argue that all possibilities are EQUALLY valid because of this. The Easter bunny could have created the world, who's to say? I don't agree with this. All possibilities are NOT equally valid. Yes, there is a chance that a god (which one, I don't know), easter bunny or alien created the world. There is greater evidence that it happened by a certain mechanism. Understanding of this mechanism has led to advances in agriculture and medicine. Therefore, this mechanism should be taught in science class. Other mechanisms should be taught in religious, philosophical and history classes.

        September 7, 2012 at 10:19 am |
      • Tom

        The above perspective does not suggest that all possibilities are in fact equally valid. You and I both know with certainty that Easter Bunnies and Santa Claus do not exist. But what you and I do not know with certainty is whether or not God or aliens exist. Like all lawyers know, in a court of law, the presence of evidence does not necessarily increminate a suspect, neither does the absence of evidence. If we truly want to know the truth, we should hold an open mind.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:20 am |
      • ry

        Gah, CNN isn't posting my comments!

        In short, I replied that I don't know for fact that Santa Claus is not real. My parents didn't spoil it, and there are thousands of years worth of archaeological and historical evidence concerning belief in a supenatural being that gives gifts on winter soltice. But I use reason to conclude that it is *extremely* unlikely that some guy is coming into my house on the 25th.

        Science is not humanities or law. Absence of evidence does not fly in science. If I have evidence that proteins X and Y directly interact, I publish that. I do not publish a paper about hypothetical intermediate Q that I have no evidence for. If I later find evidence of Q, THEN I can publish it and rewrite the theory of X and Y interaction. Science is purely evidence based. Evidence increases the likelihood of truth, and you can only publish with darned good evidence for your argument.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:45 am |
      • Tom

        It is true that the presence of evidence brings us closer to the truth, but does the lack of evidence preclude truth? Did the scientists who held the view that the earth was flat not have "evidence"? How about those who held the view that the earth was round but could not prove it? What's more, how about the "evidences" held by the proponents of abiogenesis who held the view that life came from none life until their "theory" was disproved by Louis Pasteur who demonstrated that life only came from life? My point is this: you have placed your faith and staked your life in the shifting sands domain of science and fail to realize that the very science you uphold or champion has made it clear that what is considered a valid theory is likely to be falsifiable tomorrow provided a genius with a more cleverer argument comes along.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:30 pm |
    • Jason

      Honestly can't imagine where I would be without church life. Even if they are theologically wrong, the benefit far outweighs any damage they might cause. Especially in modern times. If nothing else, individual churches are great social supports. I can't honestly say that there is a net negative on society from churches or religion.

      September 7, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
  87. jed

    How can Dawkins call himself a scientist when he does no science?

    September 7, 2012 at 8:42 am |
    • Aezel

      You don't "do science" you uneducated fool. Science is a methodology you use to approach making conclusions that basically says "you can't just make up any bulls*** you want and claim it's true, you have to prove it."

      September 7, 2012 at 8:48 am |
      • Elliott Carlin

        they do with man-made global warming.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:08 am |
      • Primewonk

        Again, Elliot, no. The evidence for ACC is valid and overwhelming. It is only the deniers who claim otherwise. And of course, they never post the citations to the peer-reviewed scientific research showing that ACC is a scam.

        Anyone else notice that it's usually the ignorant fundiot nutters that deny evolution who also claim ACC is a scam? Apparently, choosing to be ignorant in one area of science bleeds over into other areas as well.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:23 am |
      • nojinx

        I have noticed that. I think it is just wishful thinking, folks who form an idea of how they wish the world works, then do everythign they can to convince themselves that is the truth.

        September 7, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
    • Nat Q

      It could be that advanced degree in Zoology he has from Oxford or the nearly 40 years he spent there as a fellow and lecturer...

      September 7, 2012 at 9:37 am |
  88. Jiang Shang

    Blaise Pascal – Pensées

    "It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason."

    "All our reasoning boils down to yielding to sentiment."

    September 7, 2012 at 8:42 am |
    • Aezel

      Philosophy has nothing to do with concrete physical attributes.

      September 7, 2012 at 8:47 am |
      • Professor

        Aezel: I can't see if my reply of a few minutes ago went through. So I'll send it again before I have to leave to teach my 10:30 philosophy class: I would really encourage you to audit an introductory philosophy course.

        September 7, 2012 at 8:52 am |
      • Aezel

        I have thanks. My statement stands, philosophy does not have any effect on concrete reality. You can philosophize all day about whether gravity is real or not but in the end if you go jump off a cliff you are going down.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:14 am |
      • Jiang Shang

        "Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

        September 7, 2012 at 6:07 pm |
      • Jiang Shang

        And what "concrete physical attributes" are you referring to?

        September 7, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
      • nojinx

        He is speaking of the metaphorical heart that Pascal refers to. There is no "heart" as Pascal describes it, that is just a notion with no foundation in reality, like "soul" or "shade" – they are concepts only.

        The actual heart we are familiar with has not been established to contain any thoughts at all, nor is it capable of experiencing notions like gods as Pascal claims.

        Frankly, nowadays it is a notion relegated to Hallmark cards.

        September 7, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
      • Slurp

        Claiming that man has no soul and that God does not exist based on behavioral changes caused in a a brain accidentally pierced by an iron rod is equivalent to conclude that a computer that has no OS and Bill Gates or Steve Jobs never existed based on changes in behavior caused in a laptop accidentally pierced by an iron rod. x-(

        September 8, 2012 at 7:17 am |
      • Jiang Shang

        Thanks for the clarification... that would explain why atheist are not particularly known for exhibiting compassion towards those in need, charity, kindness, forgiveness, respect, and understanding.

        September 7, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
  89. josephreeder@faith-assembly.org

    Evolution is not a controversial issue. Perhaps not, however the simple fact that 46% of the American population completely reject and embrace young earth creationism speaks volumes.

    September 7, 2012 at 8:36 am |
    • Aezel

      Yes, it does speak volumes, that 46% of Americans are mentally deficient and uneducated.

      More people believing something doesn't make it any more or less true. Having evidence to back up your claims does, something religion completely lacks.

      September 7, 2012 at 8:39 am |
      • Elliott Carlin

        The book of Job is the oldest book in the Bible, making it a VERY OLD book, yet it mentions the earth as a sphere. The Scriptures mention the earth's sockets (tectonic plates) and fountains of the deep.....long before scientists 'discovered' it. So i guess the Bible writers were just good guessers...............sarcasm off.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:10 am |
      • Aezel

        Ah the old "the Bible has science in it argument." You really should stop by an academic conference sometime and get up on stage and "enlighten" them. Hilarity would ensue.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:18 am |
      • Primewonk

        Sorry Elliot, but no. Your bible describes the earth as a circle. A circle is a 2-D (flat) object. They had a word for sphere (ball), but they didn't use it.

        September 7, 2012 at 9:19 am |
      • Nat Q

        @Elliot:
        No, it refers to the Earth as being hung from nothing and it is the book or Isaiah that refers to the Earth as a circle, NOT a sphere (much less the more accurate "slightly oblate spheriod"). Changing the actual language just to suit your needs is dishonest and disingenuous.

        As for timing, the Book of Job is dated in written form to between the 4th and 6th century BCE (300-500 BCE). Various parts of Isaiah date from about 500 to 800 BCE. Specifically, the parts that include the circle Earth line, date to around the destruction of Jerusalem in the 500s CDE by Babylon...a culture with circle-shaped world maps at least as old an possibly older (as we have 6th century clay tablets showing them). It is most likely that either everyone in the region used a circle motif for the earth (because it was an easy way to make a map with your city/kingdom/whatever at the center, a metaphorical position of power) or that the Jews adopted the motif from the Babylons and then said "our god sits ABOVE the circle of the Earth" as an intellectual shot at the Babylonians who conquered them by putting their god at a higher position of power than Babylon, which was placing itself as the central place in the center of its circle maps.

        We also have writings from many other cultures with no contact with Abrahamic faiths at the time that also mention circle Earth motifs, not all that surprising since the moon and the sun appear as circles in the sky...

        For what it's worth, the Bible also says a lot of things like "He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved" Psalm 104:5 and "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth..." Revelation 7:, both of which are obviously not accurate as the Earth has no "foundation" and does move, nor does it have "corners" or only four winds. If you pick and choose you can make the Bible say anything you want it to...

        September 7, 2012 at 10:36 am |
      • sumday

        Azel- interesting name from the book of Enoch describing an evil angle that taught war to mankind- I've yet to hear or see science disprove the bible. I believe 2000 yrs ago the bible said a day was like a 1000yrs and a 1000yrs like a day- turns out time is relative and that is a scientific truth stated long before E=mc^2 was ever thought of. Just saying if the bible was so much a lie it would seem science could just disprove it, but instead science has to say how could they have known that back then.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:22 am |
      • Nat Q

        @sumday:
        "I've yet to hear or see science disprove the bible."
        Well, if you believe the Bible describes a literal, 6-day origin story, then the whole of cosmology, evolution, geology, and nuclear physics disproves that view. Pick up a book. If you believe the Bible as metaphor, then you can morph it to fit whatever you want.

        "I believe 2000 yrs ago the bible said a day was like a 1000yrs and a 1000yrs like a day- turns out time is relative and that is a scientific truth stated long before E=mc^2 was ever thought of...how could they have known that back then."

        Easy, they DIDN'T know that back then. That is not at all what the verse means and no one EVER interpreted it that way (or made a scientific claim or discovery based on it) until AFTER relativity was proposed and proven and then dishonest theists went back and found a metaphor that va guely fit it and claimed they had known all along...
        That verse, 2 Peter 3:8, specifically says that "for the LORD, a day is as..."–not for everyone or for people moving at different relative speeds to one another, but for the Lord and him alone is time so essentially meaningless. It also is a clear poetical reference to time not being a factor in God keeping his promises–that even if he appears to keep them slowly from our point of view, he will keep them. It is NOT a declaration of scientific fact, truth, or lesson in ANY way. And even if it were, it is a meaningless and useless one. It is not even a complete sentence, but a mere phrase from a sentence (Einstein's first paper on relativity was over 100 pages long and has been subjected to thousands of experiments and papers since; it also spoke in clear terms, not va gue metaphor). This verse provides no detail, no mechanism, no usable information whatsoever.

        It is dishonest and intellectually disingenuous to claim that this half-sentence in the Bible was clear proof of relativity 2000 years before Einstein. It is lying and it is a sin.

        Oh, I should also point out that E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the time dilation effects of general relativity. It is a statement of the mass–energy equivalence. If you are going to pretend you get science at least try to get the basics right. Otherwise you only look MORE foolish than you already did...

        September 7, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
    • Nat Q

      "Evolution is not a controversial issue. Perhaps not, however the simple fact that 46% of the American population completely reject and embrace young earth creationism speaks volumes."

      No, it doesn't. Science is NOT defined by popular opinion.
      I can point you to a period in time right after Galileo defended Copernicus's heliocentric theory and yet probably 95% of the populace disagreed and believed in geocentrism instead. The church even went so far as to issue the Congregation of the Index declaring that the idea of the Earth moving around the sun was "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture." Galileo was even summoned to Rome to defend his writing and basically imprisoned by the church as a heretic until he would "abjure, curse and detest" his ideas that the Earth went around the sun.

      Needless to say, despite the fact the vast majority of the populace disagreed and despite the Church's best efforts to suppress and condemn the idea, none of that actually changed the EMPIRICAL REALITY of the situation. The Earth DID go around the sun and no public opinion poll or church decree could change that. Period.

      Science is based on empirical evidence, not popular opinion. That 46% of Americans don't accept the evidence for evolution ONLY speaks volumes about the basic scientific illiteracy of 46% of Americans with regards to the issue.

      September 7, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • mk

      Some of the biggest scientists in history were not believed initially. They were labeled "crazy" and were told their theories were crazy. Until it was discovered that they weren't.

      September 7, 2012 at 11:11 am |
      • Nat Q

        Yep, it's known as the Semmelweis reflex – "a reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms."

        It is named for Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis who was basically the first to suggest that a doctor washing their hands between patients would lead to a decrease int he spread of disease, especially in child fever mortality rates. However, not having discovered germs yet, other doctors were horrified that they, the healers, might actually be the ones spreading disease so they basically destroyed his work and even had him committed to a mental insti tution when the strain of the attacks caused him to drink and become irate.

        Even among scientists it is a problem, but it is especially so to anyone holding any sort of "fundamental" belief, like many religious adherents. It is strange to think that the presentation of new evidence–perfectly valid evidence–can actually drive people to embrace per-existing contradictory ideas with INCREASED furor, but it is well recognized and docu mented across all levels of society.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:29 am |
  90. Professor

    This format on a national news service's website–that is this entore light years segment–just proves how absolutely right it is (though this may cause many to cringe) to say that the mainstream media is anti-religious. I don't especially care about Dawkins: what training has he in theology? He is not credible on religious matters; I think most know that. The bigher issue is that CNN has one segment–this light years format–for pro-science views, and another–its on faith segment–that has BOTH religious and anti-religious views on it. So, if CNN were really not anti-religious, then it would allow this format to be about exloring and debating sceince, not about a "scientific view" as it claims this format is.To act in a fair manner (which may simply be asking too much, I now wearily am coming to realize) this segment of CNN.com should be about debating scientific values, as the CNN.com aboutbelief segment often has anit-religious diatribes. So when will this light-years segment showcase Prof. Paul Feyerabend's critique of science, and the critques of scientism made by numerous philosophers? Probably never, which is a BIG problem for the credibility of CNN.com to open-minded observers.

    September 7, 2012 at 8:30 am |
    • Aezel

      "He is not credible on religious matters; I think most know that"

      All you need to know about religion is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support it's supernatural barbaric nonsense.

      There isn't such a thing as a "pro-science" view. Facts defended by concrete evidence are true if you believe them or not.

      September 7, 2012 at 8:38 am |
      • sumday

        “All you need to know about religion is that there isn't any evidence whatsoever to support it's supernatural barbaric nonsense.”
        Umm that depends on what you call fact. We have plenty of written accounts of events so you claim of evidence is false there. There are plenty of strange mysteries that are disregarded like a mine in Africa being used to create nuclear material 1000’s of yrs before we had this technology, evidence to suggest a nuclear blast in ancient India- as well as written story about it, Nazca lines, the fact that ALL civilizations claim that we were created by beings from the “sky”. Just saying you people tend to dismiss any and all evidence that does not support your theory- you are not much different than religious fanatics when it comes to the way you treat different opinions/theories. We can prove that time is relative, that time travel is theatrically possible, we don’t know what causes gravity, we can prove entanglement theory making instance communication- despite distance- possible, and through quantum physics it seems almost anything is possible- all that existed before we were able to explain or observe it- it is fact as you say so why do you think none of those “supernatural” stuff happened? Exactly what evidence would satisfy you? Bc obviously written records aren’t enough for you, mining of uranium and then the remains of nuclear radiation from processing the uranium from that same mine isn’t enough for you, evidence of extremely high nuclear radiation in corpses as well as vitrified buildings in India (which correspond to the written accounts of the event describing a nuclear blast) are not enough for you, so I just don’t think any evidence will change your mind. I can produce evidence after evidence and you will simply choose to explain the evidence away or simply ignore it as an anomaly.

        September 7, 2012 at 11:16 am |
      • Nat Q

        @sumday: I'll give you evidence a read, please cite sources where I can find out the EMPIRICAL evidence for the claims you've made of ancient nuclear refinement and nuclear blasting.

        September 7, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
    • donna

      I'm not trained as a magician but I still know there's no "magic" involved.

      September 7, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
      • ME II

        Love it!

        September 7, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
      • Professor

        And you clearly haven't been trained to think clearly, either. I really do believe that the root of this is issue is the desire to AVOID critical thinking. It is hard, I know–boy do I know, having graded papers all day!–that it is very hard to think critically. But if you do, the vitriol on the atheist side will dissipate. I do not mean to be condescending when I say that it really is hard to think critically. But if you work at it, for several years, new vistas will open before you. Wow, do we really need calm philosophical analysis now as never before.

        September 8, 2012 at 12:21 am |
  91. Jorge

    The arrogant ignorance of this pompous donkey will never cease to amaze me. I began counting the erroneous statements that he makes but quickly lost count. The man is so wrong that he actually believes he is right. The sad part is that he has so many followers. The blind leading the blind into the bottomless pit. Oh well ...

    September 7, 2012 at 8:29 am |
    • Science

      Hey Jorge.............here it the real pit of despair.............no saints needed !!!

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/05/late-pope-john-paul-ii-to-get-sainthood-vatican-says/#comments

      July 5, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Science

      Jumping Snails Leap Over Global Warming

      July 5, 2013 — Snails in the Great Barrier Reef literally jump for their life to avoid predators. But will they be able to maintain these life-saving jumps, with rising sea temperatures? A new study, to be presented at the Society for Experimental Biology meeting in Valencia on July 5, shows that the snails will indeed be able to keep on jumping, even at temperatures which will kill fish.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130705101824.htm

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/03/the-white-house-vs-westboro-baptist-church/comment-page-11/?replytocom=2450828#respond

      July 5, 2013 at 4:06 pm |
    • Science

      Akira............??

      I have tried to set LL straight. And are you serious, Tom? You can't post on the first story?

      June 30, 2013 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse |

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/27/opinion-not-all-religious-convictions-are-written-in-stone/#comments

      July 5, 2013 at 4:25 pm |
    • Science

      Hey Vic

      http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/dawkins-evolution-is-not-a-controversial-issue/comment-page-7/?replytocom=95464#respond

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/conservatives-brace-for-themarriage-revolution/comment-page-38/?replytocom=2451223#respond

      will it post ?

      Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!

      Put it did not post

      July 5, 2013 at 5:36 pm |
  92. Conky

    I'm stoked. The article is basically awesome, totally.

    September 7, 2012 at 8:26 am |
  93. Danimyl

    Believe it or not, you can have both religion and evolution living in perfect harmony with each other. Evolution exists simultaneously with spiritual reality. With a slight shift in perception this is not hard to accommodate. Have a look at what a God of the entire cosmos is really like wp.newmessage.org/the-new-god/

    September 7, 2012 at 8:21 am |
  94. sumguy2006

    The main difference between science and religion is that science can, and is, proven wrong all the time.

    September 7, 2012 at 8:15 am |
    • Science

      Hey sumguy2006..............science works !

      Oldest primate skeleton fossil found in China

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJLSdUZtJao&w=640&h=390]

      July 5, 2013 at 1:33 pm |
  95. sumguy2006

    The main difference between science and religion is that religion can, and is proven wrong all the time.

    September 7, 2012 at 8:15 am |
    • shimmernrot

      Scientific hypotheses can be proven wrong because science has to be supported by evidence, verifiable experiments, countless tests. The basic principle of religion is faith. Faith by definition is exempt from evidence. There is no room whatsoever for rational thinking which is insanity. The falsifiability of science is essential which is a good thing, mind or else it would be just as insane as religion

      September 7, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
  96. Ron

    CNN loves anything that is anti-God and anti-religion. Atheists tried to get God out of the DNC platform but when will they (and CNN) realize that there is a power that is higher than them? You can try but you will never win against an all-powerful God. So give it your best shot with articles like this. Religion has NOTHING to teach us. However, a relationship with a living God will.

    September 7, 2012 at 8:08 am |
  97. Nicodemus13

    Excellent article. I do take exception to one thing which is prominent in our society. When a lot of people refer to "religion" they really only are referring to the religions of Abraham. Many other belief systems do not contradict science and do not believe in creationist mythology, fantastic creatures or prophecy (i.e. Buddhism and Sikhism). So we shouldn't assume that all religions are the same, because they are not. So, yes, belief in the old testament does require a departure from reality on behalf of the believer, but that's not true for all "religious" people.

    September 7, 2012 at 8:04 am |
  98. notolate

    Dawkins: Religion has nothing to teach us

    Is that so? It is written,

    27 Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

    Just where do these fools come from?

    September 7, 2012 at 7:56 am |
    • Science

      Hey doogie you too !

      Hey Chad,faith the peach and all creationists what color JELL- O you stuck IN. ? Star Dusts (chondrites) and water !

      Scientists Offer First Definitive Proof of Bacteria-Feeding Behavior in Green Algae

      May 23, 2013 — A team of researchers has captured images of green alga consuming bacteria, offering a glimpse at how early organisms dating back more than 1 billion years may have acquired free-living photosynthetic cells. This acquisition is thought to have been a critical first step in the evolution of photosynthetic algae and land plants, which, in turn, contributed to the increase in oxygen levels in Earth's atmosphere and ocean and provided one of the conditions necessary for animal evolution.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130523143741.htm

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/21/vatican-pope-didnt-perform-exorcism/

      July 5, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
      • Science

        Oops the video that goes with the article.

        [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lafL_mmv3EA&w=640&h=390]

        July 5, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
  99. Marianne Neal

    Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people 43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts 44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed 45 to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings 46 or birds or four-footed animals 47 or reptiles.

    September 7, 2012 at 7:54 am |
  100. notolate

    Dawkins: Religion has nothing to teach us

    September 7, 2012 at 7:53 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Contributors

  • Elizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia Dengo
    Senior Designer