Has Dawkins lost credibility?

[Acleron]

No the real question is, why does anyone reply to T'ai Chi at all?

You are probably right, but he'll go back and say 'Nobody refuted me, I'm right'.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I and others (Dr Imago, Cyborg and Hawk One...) have given you reasons why Dawkins paused, you have not responded to those reasons in any way.

I guess consider no reply me not acknowleding your reasons as having validity, considering Dawkins is a genius that should have a reply for an old questions.

If you really have some facts, please show us how the theory of evolution is incorrect,

No clue what you're talking about. How is me saying Dawkins should have an answer the same as me supposedly claiming the theory of evolution is incorrect. You're simply not making any sense here.

 

[T'ai Chi]

No the real question is, why does anyone reply to T'ai Chi at all?

Because I make good points, Alareth. That much is obvious.

 

[Biscuit]

Truthiness isnt a word?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

Please give me an example of how science was carried to the extreme at the expense of everything else?

Of course faith based movements can do lots of good but often times their religion holds them back. Look at aids relief in Africa where they only teach abstinence. Look how religious groups use their ability to help the less fortunate as a a recruting tactic. "If you had faith in god this wouldn't have happened to you." Face it when religious groups get involved their faith can and does cloud their ability to just help people. Religion always has an alterier motive, to expand. Groups like Peace Corp are not hindered by this.

I do not know of any athiest support groups but I can name hundreds of secular ones. Just because a group isn't faith based does not mean it is an athiest organization.

Science is never trying to compete with religion. Religion is terrified of science because it makes religion obsolete.

Atom bomb - Had to be created in order to stop WWII which was started by a religous madman.

Tuskeegee - A group of seriously misguided scientist. No one ever claimed just because you are a scientist you are morally untouchable.

The shooters in finland and columbine - Neither group represented science as whole just as Dawkins does not represent TOE. Insane people who happen to support TOE is no evidence at all.

Entire religions have acted as a whole to supress and kill people of other religions. This has happened time and time again. No section of science has ever acted as a group to supress or even injur another group of people. Because some random scientists have done bad things is a reflection of people and not the scientific community.

 

[orpheus]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

From what I can tell, he did just what you suggest. I've bolded your words because during the time he took, he became angry at having been deceived, and in his anger decided to cancel the interview. However, when they pleaded with him, he relented and finished the interview. Presumably he answered the question. If so, his "taking as much time as he likes" simply included some sorting out in his own mind whether or not to throw them out of his house. Net result is that he followed your suggestion exactly.

So why do we not see his answer? By his own account (my bold):
"I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content."

That's why. It was edited out. They cut it so that all we saw was him taking (as you suggested) "as much time as he likes". It was never the interviewers' intention to let us see/hear his answer. He might have answered brilliantly. There's no way they were going to let us see that. Remember, they controlled the film. They edited it. Do you really believe you're seeing the whole story?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

That is funny.

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't.

No it doesn't since it's a BS question. IDers don't have any real definition of "genetic information" just some nebulous concept. Does a change in a HOX gene making legs on a snake not develop constitute an increase in information? One could argue it does since it takes a lizard and makes it into a new type of being. Does bacteria evolving to consume nylon constitute an increase in information? Of course it does but lying creationist weasels will claim that bacteria already had the information to eat and it just started eating something new.

Until C/IDers come up with an honest definition for "genetic information" as they want to use it, it's a BS questin and a BS issue.

Go ahead and keep defending those liars though... it does wonders for your credibility around here.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You are probably right, but he'll go back and say 'Nobody refuted me, I'm right'.

But who will care and if enough of us start ignoring him, maybe he'll finally stop trolling here. (I say right after replying to him )

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

No scientist worth his salt will ever claim that "science can explain everything".

The only ones who uses this argument are Creationists - like yourself - who want to set up a strawman.

id/creationist alert. T'ai Chi finally exposed.

All the signs are finally there.

Inability to respond to reasoned debate.

Ignoring of stated facts.

Blind repeating of argument without reference to facts which make it irrelevant.

Use of the the phrase 'can only be explained by'.

Use of the word Scientism.

Oh, no. T'ai Chi has exposed himself as a Creationist a long time ago. He just enforced that with his response above.

At least it is a real word.

If you don't think truthiness is a real word, please tell us the definition of a "real word".

Religious certainly helped in the civil rights movement. I saw videos of MLK and fellow church members out there, for example. I also look at some food drives and disaster relief and see tons of religious groups doing these. I know of people who are sick or dying getting comfort provided by religion. And there are religious hospitals.

You have the gov's Faith Based and Comminuty Initiatives stuff. This is recent news:

and

These are just some examples that come to mind. I can search the internet and literally find hundreds. But can you name any corresponding promoting-atheism counterparts and their accomplishments? I'm sure some exist.

You didn't answer the question.

The question was what problems were fixed by religion. Not what problems were helped.

It's the same ruse that Sylvia Browne and her fans use, when they are pressed to answer which murder cases Sylvia Browne has solved. They say she helped, and bank on people not detecting the swindle.

Well, I personally don't think they are competing. This is proven time and time again by people who are scientists yet who are also religious.

What you deliberately leave out is that they don't base the science on their beliefs.

Like all Creationists, you don't tell the full story. You leave out the pertinent parts, because you know those will destroy your argument.

It's fraud, pure and simple.

Some examples that come to mind; we have atom bombs produced by a science program, various dehumanizing eugenics movements, Tuskeegee syphillis experiment, and numerous examples of scientific fraud. There was recently a tragic shooting in Finland, and there was a tragic shooting at Columbine some years ago. In each, the shooters were reportedly infatuated with natural selection (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-at-columbine/). And of course there are cases of invididuals who happen to be scientists who have committed various crimes of all sorts. So I'm really not sure what you're trying to ask here.

Ah, yes. Yet, another Creationist argument. Everything that is bad in society is due to science. Only a return to Creationism will save us.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is astonished by the hypocrisy of this statement coming from someone who has actually bragged about the number of people on his ignore list.

No.

I guess consider no reply me not acknowleding your reasons as having validity, considering Dawkins is a genius that should have a reply for an old questions.

....what??

No clue what you're talking about. How is me saying Dawkins should have an answer the same as me supposedly claiming the theory of evolution is incorrect. You're simply not making any sense here.

If that was the only time you had voiced criticizm against Evolution, you could defend yourself that way. But when you constantly try to attack Evolution, not just by making Creationist arguments, but also resort to the fraudulous methods of Creationists, it is justified to call you a Creationist.

If it walks like a duck....

Because I make good points, Alareth. That much is obvious.

You really believe that you are successfully attacking Evolution here? Especially when you deliberately ignore the many posts that show how wrong you are?

You are seriously deluded.

From what I can tell, he did just what you suggest. I've bolded your words because during the time he took, he became angry at having been deceived, and in his anger decided to cancel the interview. However, when they pleaded with him, he relented and finished the interview. Presumably he answered the question. If so, his "taking as much time as he likes" simply included some sorting out in his own mind whether or not to throw them out of his house. Net result is that he followed your suggestion exactly.

So why do we not see his answer? By his own account (my bold):
"I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content."

That's why. It was edited out. They cut it so that all we saw was him taking (as you suggested) "as much time as he likes". It was never the interviewers' intention to let us see/hear his answer. He might have answered brilliantly. There's no way they were going to let us see that. Remember, they controlled the film. They edited it. Do you really believe you're seeing the whole story?

T'ai Chi will not address the fact that they edited it to make Dawkins look bad.

 

[T'ai Chi]

"I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content."

That's why. It was edited out.

Well we don't know that. We only have his account.

He might have answered brilliantly.

That is all the more reason he should do some public debates.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Truthiness isnt a word?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

No, not in any real sense. There is no history of its usage, and it is only put in for purposes of being funny. Can you give some examples of its use in real life, outside a comedy show?

Please give me an example of how science was carried to the extreme at the expense of everything else?

This was already provided to you.

Face it when religious groups get involved their faith can and does cloud their ability to just help people.

No one has claimed that there aren't good and bad religous and atheistic groups. But if you're paying attention, the original query was for examples of religion doing good.

I do not know of any athiest support groups but I can name hundreds of secular ones.

Well that's nice. But I'm asking for the exact counterpart to a religious group, which would be a group that is actively promoting atheism.

Your responses to my examples were nice. You basically admitted they occured.

Because some random scientists have done bad things is a reflection of people and not the scientific community.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course, the same argument applies to religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi will not address the fact that they edited it to make Dawkins look bad.

Well we don't know that. We only have his account.

Ah, but of course. It wasn't edited at all!

T'ai Chi won't even entertain the notion that the Creationists could be cheating.

It is only those Evil-utionists that can be bad.

No, not in any real sense. There is no history of its usage

Yes, there is.

, and it is only put in for purposes of being funny.

Huh? Words used for purposes of being funny aren't words?

Can you give some examples of its use in real life, outside a comedy show?

Truthiness was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster.

There are plenty of real life uses.

 

[Dick Atkinson]

Dawkins and information

Is this really the best argument creationists can find against evolution - that Richard Dawkins paused before answering a nonsensical question?

How pathetic.

I'm just picking up this debate, and I have a number of points to make: there are a lot of worms in this can! In case anyone wants to address any of them, I'll call them (a), (b), etc, but they're not in any particular logical order. I'll limit myself to 3 issues here rather than rewrite "War and Peace". By the way, I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist.

a) This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so. Dawkins writes at great length about "information" (check out the index of "The Ancestor's Tale" for example). The issue is that (according to orthodox Neo-Darwinism) starting from some simple replicator maybe 3 billion years ago genomes containing huge amounts of information have evolved. The mechanism (the sieving of random mutation by Natural Selection) has been reagrded as inadequate by many (e.g. Crick and Orgel - see "Life Itself") - obviously a mathematical justification is necessary.

b) Dawkins is not apparently up to the task of tackling the mathematics even in a simple way. Read his "Methinks it is like a weasel" argument if you are in any doubt about this. There's no particular reason why he should be - "It doesn't make you a bad person" - but if he makes a strong claim about the adequacy of the Neo-Darwinian account of evolution, he either needs to have his own answer to the problem, or be able to rely on somebody else's.

c) Dawkins and his allies regularly sidestep this issue in at least three dubious ways. Firstly, they refuse to acknowledge that there may be some validity in the ID challenge (but see Crick/Orgel, Hoyle). They do this by refusing to accept that ID as an hypothesis is different from religious fundamentalist Creationism. (Check it out: Dawkins simply indexes "'Intelligent Design theorist' see 'Creationist'.) Secondly, they pretend that any disagreement with the Neo-Darwinian position is a denial of evolution itself. Thirdly, they pretend that any challenge from a credible scientific source - take "Life Itself" again - is actually whimsical, tongue-in-cheek mental doodling. In summary: there is a valid Design/Information challenge to Neo-Darwinism. That is an entirely different issue from Creationism vs Evolution. (Of course, you may point out that the likes of Behe and Dembski are strongly motivated by religious commitment - true but irrelevant here. Answer the argument, not the person.)

 

[Lonewulf]

Can you please define the "orthodox Neo-Darwinian" position, please?

 

[cyborg]

This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so. Dawkins writes at great length about "information" (check out the index of "The Ancestor's Tale" for example).

Yes. The word "information" is used. However when used by a creationist is sure is "nonsensical" since they have a "nonsensical" view of what that constitutes - designed in such a way as to produce a question that cannot be answered as to gain any insight whatsoever.

When someone asks you the question: "So when has there ever been example of evolution adding information?" You know that any sensible meaning for "information" and "adding" have been thrown out the window.

The mechanism (the sieving of random mutation by Natural Selection) has been reagrded as inadequate by many (e.g. Crick and Orgel - see "Life Itself") - obviously a mathematical justification is necessary.

It sure is.

Now: define information in a mathematical way.

(Note: randomness maximises information mathematically).

Firstly, they refuse to acknowledge that there may be some validity in the ID challenge (but see Crick/Orgel, Hoyle). They do this by refusing to accept that ID as an hypothesis is different from religious fundamentalist Creationism.

Anyone who denies the roots of the ID movement is either a fool, delusional or naive.

The ID "challenge" is nothing more than a false dichotomy - with not a moments thought even pondered about what "intelligence" or "design" is: just that we "know" without question what those things are.

In summary: there is a valid Design/Information challenge to Neo-Darwinism.

If there is I sure haven't seen it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Imagine you're a world class scientist in topic E.

There is a stumper question Q, that your academic 'enemies' always trot out at you about E, as if it is the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete utter debunking of E.

Wouldn't you always have an answer on hand to counter Q with? Seems the intelligent thing to be prepared for.

 

[Niobe]

Well we don't know that. We only have his account.

The video circulating has a womans voice pasted in in the start, where in actuality a man was asking him a question later on, and Dawkins is attentively listening to his question. By cutting out the man and pasting in the woman, it looks like he's dumbfounded where in actuality he's still listening to a talking person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4

 

[JoeEllison]

I think it's the ID crowd that has lost all credibility across the board to resort to this dishonesty.

They had credibility? Really?

The ID thing is a fraud and a con game, ans has been from the start. Since it is based on completely dishonest intent, created by a pack of professional liars, and founded with the sole purpose of misleading people, I suggest that it has never contained even the slightest bit of credibility.

The fact that they tell a single lie is almost irrelevant; the entire thing is a lie from top to bottom.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

T'ai seems to be completely indifferent to the method by which the film crew gained access to Dawkins' home in the first place. Not that there's anything surprising about that.

 

[JoeEllison]

Imagine you're a world class scientist in topic E.

There is a stumper question Q, that your academic 'enemies' always trot out at you about E, as if it is the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete utter debunking of E.

Wouldn't you always have an answer on hand to counter Q with? Seems the intelligent thing to be prepared for.

Imagine you have the Internet.

There is a deception that keeps getting repeated and debunked over and over again. You are provided links and explanations time and again. Failure to examine and understand the evidence results in everyone seeing that you aren't interested in reality or honesty.

Wouldn't you, T'ai Chi, actually pay attention to the evidence, and stop pretending that lies are the truth? Seems the intelligent thing to do.

 

[sol invictus]

Well I believe that's true, and they were asking for just one example. Surely there is one example in the literature that Dawkins would know of or could point them in the right direction.

Examples of actual mutations which increased the entropy of the genome? I very much doubt there are any specific examples of that in the literature.

First of all, there are several different definitions of information and they will disagree, especially when you ask about individual mutations.

Second, information isn't (at least so far) a particularly useful concept when applied to the genome, so it's not discussed much in the literature.

Third, the change in information due to a single mutation is really quite meaningless. It's a useful concept only when applied to a large set, or to changes over a long time.

It was a meaningless question.