Talk:Richard Dawkins
"Besides," he says, "I think it's important to remember that you're dealing with a whole spectrum here. If you've got a Creationist who claims that the world is only 6000 years old, I'd say that person was both pig-ignorant and thick - thick, because if you're that ignorant you really ought to be doing something about it. But with someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury, it would be quite wrong to say that he's thick. I'd say mistaken, put it that way."
Richard Dawkins said this in the interview of "Dawkins and the missionary position"
-- RichardT 20:09 6 January 2007
Can I please remove your reference 5? Or maybe redirect it to reference 6?
-- RichardT 20:13 6 January 2007
I linked reference 5 to the AIG server's video of "From A Frog To A Prince"
-- RichardT 20:18 6 January 2007
Moral Vacuum
The example given was simply terrible. I'm as much of a creationist as anyone else, but we have a duty to not spread mis information. That quote is taken horribly out of context and it's supposed interpretation is fallacious. I have read Dawkins' book, don't ask, and he specifically refutes that idea. --Phoucault 01:22, 2 March 2007 (EST)
I'm actually impressed at the fact that there is barely any quote mining in this article! Finally some intellectual honesty! the Conservapedia article on the other hand includes pictures of Stalin and the likes... just ridiculous and childish if you ask me... --JFrancis 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I can totally understand your concern JFrancis. Point out any other articles, especially mine, that present bias in such blatant ways please. We want encyclopedic, scientifically minded and scholarly articles on this wiki. --Tony 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment... I'm not here to point out bias though... I'm sure anyone with a brain can realise if there is a conflict of interest/POV pushing in articles... my main concern is that wikis like these try to identify creationism as scientific, when it is clearly a philosophical issue. There is NOTHING wrong with philosophical investigation! In this sense I am a creationist myself: there must be more to life than randomness and chaos! Science has been defined by people way more insightful than me and you and many others (Karl Popper was helluva philosopher :) ) Still I don't believe Christians or Muslims or anyone else, being humans like myself, can be sure of what it's all about; but science is science nonetheless, and it is materialistic by definition. And Faith is Faith, and it deserves as much respect as Science, but they are separate issues. Science has limits (the supernatural) while Faith has no limits whatsoever, and it gives reason for people to keep living and being essentially good (or trying as hard as they can to be so). --JFrancis 03:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Even evolutionists rely upon faith. We aren't dealing with philosophy ONLY when trying to support creationism, but the systematic attempts of extrapolation of the scientifically observed to support the unobserved by evolutionists. They extrapolate because the observed fits nicely within the creation model. There is nothing wrong with allowing science class to be taught in a way that students determine through their own reasoning and logic the ORIGIN OF LIFE, NOT origin of diversity of that life (i.e., evolutionary mechanisms) because that is already observed, rather then given a false sense of scientific feasibility of such things like abiogenesis. Origin of life issues is where philosophical arguments would be made, and in that case evolution and creationism are dead equal and rely on faith.--Tony 20:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Georgie Purdom AIG regarding information adding mutations
Added a quote from Georgia Purdom from AIG regarding mutations and information. Samh 23:07, 9 September 2012 (PDT)
