Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
74
Richard Dawkins’ new book, “The Greatest Show on Earth,” is aimed squarely at the evangelical American Creationist’s ridiculous arguments that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and evolution is a lie. And – like many of us, Dawkins is horrified to discover than a scarily large segment of the American population believes this - and they believe it for religious reasons.
Fortunately, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and the proponents of “creationism,” are increasingly desperate to throw a shadow of doubt over the theory of evolution. There are in fact a number of these people here at hubpages who are prepared to argue that evolution is not a valid theory because it is “just a theory,” and there is “not enough proof,” for this theory. This is merely semantics – of course evolution is a theory, but it is a theory in the scientific sense in that it is the best explanation we currently have for how we came to be and it is supported by millions of pieces of data. If another theory presented itself that appeared more valid and had evidence that overwhelmed and dis-proved the theory of evolution, science would discard it (usual politics aside) immediately. But a god breathing life into a handful of dust 6,000 years ago? Bronze age myth - nothing more, nothing less and time we left it behind.
 | Amazon Price: $0.39 List Price: $30.00 |
Creation vs
- Creation vs Evolution
God apparently took 4.5 billion years to create Adam. Not sure what his problem was - If I was all powerful, I could have done it in a day....
To then propose an alternative theory called “creationism,” which is supported by absolutely no facts in the real meaning of the term and argue that because, “absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist.” Therefore there must have been a creator, and this creator was the creator in the bible rather than any of the other gods and not only that but also concoct a rather ridiculous supporting argument for dinosaurs being on Noah’s Ark……… The really entertaining thing is how many of them insist on “proof,” that god does not exist immediately after stating that they have only “internal” proof.
The best we could call that is embarrassing and quite
honestly, these people are only taken seriously because of the damage they are
allowed to do to their children by teaching this to them. Which is where
Dawkins’ book, The Greatest Show on Earth. The Evidence for Evolution,” comes
in. It is written in such a way as to appeal to children, so if you know a
creationist with kids – do those kids a favor and buy them a copy of this book. And let's face it - it would make an extremely appropriate Christmas present.........
Dawkins – when he can stop himself from creationist-bashing – which I must admit is difficult at times – has a way with words that very vividly brings to life both his frustration at the willful ignorance of creationists and the obvious truth of the theory of evolution.
He does keep on claiming that evolution is a fact – and really he needs to be clear. There are numerous facts that prove evolution happens. The theory is a theory still and the choice of the religionists to (as usual) use semantics to attack this word should not mean we drop the term. It is a scientific theory – which is a completely different use of the word when compared to your Grandpa Irving’s theory of why Ford stopped making the best automobiles in 1977. As far as I am concerned, evolution proves god does not exist. At least the god of the bible etc.
Great book – well written and possibly his best work to date if you ignore the obvious frustration he feels at the deliberately obtuse religionists who are unable to see that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory based on measurable data – not a philosophy.
 | Amazon Price: $5.17 List Price: $15.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $16.56 List Price: $29.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $8.96 List Price: $19.95 |
| Amazon Price: $6.78 List Price: $30.00 |
CommentsLoading...
lol
Thanks - I am sure there are a few who will though :)
Mark - Nice (rabid religion)and book review. Today's world is full of fanatics. One might wish that they would knock it off, but that would quite defy both history and direct observation. Call it an evolution of snake-slinging and the like. Gus
Education is the answer, but sadly you are right.
I wonder what is the "HOPE" of the atheist ?
No need for "HOPE" here. Just living it as it comes. Too bad huh? You need me to be skeered 'a' death? :lol:
You could take some heat on this one. The controversy should make for lots of comments.
No need to fear death as I do not have any nor do I wish any upon you Mark.
So you have never had any hope for something ?
No - I have no need to "hope" for something that does not exist.
Sorry. I am what I am and anything I want I can make happen if I choose to.
I was pleased to hear that this book is suitable for children. I love Richard Dawkins and have enjoyed his other books so look forward to reading this one.
Okay then I will conclude that the atheist is hopeless ?
I did not mention anything in particular you had hope in,
just asked if you had anything to hope for.
Well Mark, I have to agree a lot with you. I am very religious, and believe in creationism, but I feel most religions have it wrong.
There were dinosaurs millions of years ago. Purpose, to prepare the earth for us. We need the ego system back then to create coal and other resources for us.
These religions have lost the prophets and people who can actually interpret the Bible and the meanings of what it is all about. We have scattered writings of the history, but are not able to piece everything together, i.e. the three blind men and the elephant story. We only have fragments bits of information of it, and have not pieced it all together.
If I did not have my religion, I would probably an atheist, too.
The religions miss the statement that in the Bible about 1 minute being equal to 1000 years of God's time (2Peter 3:8,10). . Do the math, and you will find the 6000 years is about about 3.5 billion years (Note the Bible as we read it says days, but there are scholars that claim it should have said minutes.) Wikipedia says the earth is about 4.5 billion year old. So the two match up.
Just my thoughts, for information.
Keep on Hubbing!
I am fully in agreement Mark. The fist "god" was the Sun.
Even our earliest ancestors were aware of the life-giving nature of the Sun. It's cycle brought renewal of food and warmth and drove away the darkness.
Since no other explanations were available at the time, the Sun was worshiped as the source of life.
All other deities and saviors since have been nothing more than "customizations" of the original Sun god.
It is astounding, when so much is now known about our universe and all its wonders, that so many people should cling so desperately to primitive superstition.
As far as hope is concerned, we all have hopes.
I hope for peace, an end to poverty, an end to oppression and a united and prosperous human family.
No god will attend to these things for us. If they are to be realized, it is we who must make it so.
Though this doesn't have much to do with what you wrote or the video, essentially I feel more focused and in place when I look up on a clear night, when there are as many stars in the sky as there is darkness, I breath it and feel my place in the world.
So insignificant in reality that even with that I have trouble getting my mind around it. In much the same way as Dawkin's notion of the human incapacity to really comprehend 100 million years.
What seem particularly horrifying to me isn't so much whether or not a person understands evolution but that some religionist notions that because I see the world as it is, and in it, my mind is happily a wonder... that somehow I am a lesser "creation" or less grateful for what we have or I have then them.
In my own mind it seems backasswords, to know that what time I have is barely a blurp in time makes me feel that life is all the more important and I feel all the more grateful (even when sick to death of what goes on in it) to be a blurp. :D
I think you are real good people Mark.
Thanks for the comments guys.
@ loud and un-trust worthy - Yup that is me - hopeless. lolol Semantics huh? lolol
@ eovery - Sure, why not?
@ cwb - I wish for those things also - but I would be a fool to ignore the lessons I have learned in the last 48 years. That is how religion gets you. lol
@ sandra - Thanks. At least I can have a little fun as well - these guys ?? Lol
Very decent hub. I think this book should be in ALL the schools, don't you?
Most religions accept evolution, it's theory and the evidence behind it, without too much of a problem. Most people who have religion in their lives don't reject science and are much more moderate in their views than the fundamentalist extremists.
There isn't that much of a contradiction, and it doesn't bother a lot of people, to have faith in an amorphous power in the universe and still accept the tenets of science that we have gathered so far.
I'm just as much against the extremists and their very small, closed-minded view of the world as you are, though I don't express myself very adamantly on this subject. I also think it's a shame a child's science education can be adversely affected by the parents' small viewpoint and rigid beliefs. There is something VASTLY not right about THAT!
In an ideal world, our children would have ALL the information available on every subject that's interesting to them.
If you want a real eye-opening experience, watch the documentary "Jesus Camp".
If you have a rational bone in your body, it will give you nightmares.
Phew. Absolute truth means "1+1=2" in my mind.
When I read that phrase in a religious context, my brain goes all static-y.
It's buzzing white noise.
Reminds me of arguing what the word "is" is. :-P
Thanks for the review!
Jen
I'm not sure it is such a problem for Dawkins to insist that evolution is a fact. The evidence for is simple overwhelming. Is it a theory that the Earth is a roughly spherical object, turning on its axis in about 24 hours, or is it a fact?
Great hub, though.
I'm a follower of Christ, but not blind! - Evo -v- Creation, no problem,whatever happened (and we just don't know) God made it happen.
Richard Dawkins, loved the God Delusion, had me 'at it' for the first few chapters, then I read the bit where Dick rejected the 'voice talking to him' as a wind through the keyhole, and WHAM God told me where he had lost it, Dick is spiritually dead, can't accept that there is a spirit world, stuck in a science religion and chief Pharisee of that religion, so in reality both sides CAN see the truth, but only if they are open to Gods guidance.
BTW I read somewhere that one 'UNIVERSAL' year (i.e. the time that it takes for the universe to rotate) was 350,000 earth years... how does that fit in with the evolution THEORY.... let's see 6 x 350,000 = 2,100,000 years... just a theory (but then so is evolution, just as science is a religion!
You read somewhere?
God told you?
No one says there is not a spirit world. Do they?
Pretty darn sure the ridiculous religionist crap you push is worthless though which includes a divine creator. ;)
Look before you leap aguasilver.
The term "universal year" is meaningless scientifically. Generally, the only references to it are from religious sources, numerology or astrology, not exactly recognized "sciences".
Since there is not a known boundary to the universe, its speed of rotation, if in fact it rotates, can't be calculated.
However, the galactic or cosmic year is the period of time required for the solar system to orbit once around the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
If you don't know the difference between a galaxy and the universe, you should check before offering up alleged "data" as "proof" for your argument. Stick with "faith". It's the only safe harbor you'll find.
The length of one galactic orbit is calculated to range from 225 to 250 MILLION terrestrial years.
The present age of the solar system is estimated at between 18 and 22 galactic years. 225M x 18 = 4,050,000,000.
That's four BILLION, fifty million years. That's the low estimate.
At an orbit of 250 million years, that's 250M x 22 = 5,500,000,000 or five BILLION five hundred million years.
Either is close enough for the accepted age of Earth at somewhere between 4 and 4.5 billion years.
This information is readily available to anyone who cares to learn.
Although there may be some slight variations from different sources, they are inconsequential when dealing with such large numbers.
Bottom line, virtually the entire global scientific community and most rational non-scientists are in agreement regarding this information.
You may be sure that, unlike religious fundamentalists, if valid scientific evidence is produced that is contrary to the currently accepted thinking, scientists will put it to the test. If the new information proves to be correct, the scientific community will discard the previous information and proceed with renewed investigations within the new paradigm. Change, new discovery and continued learning are the entire purpose of science.
The church, on the other hand, has consistently expunged, denied, hidden and censored any documents or other evidence discovered by archaeologists or other scientists that put the lie to the god myth.
Stagnation, the suppression of change, knowledge and free will are more in line with religious dogma.
The theistic argument is groundless.
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
--Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.
Hi MK, Nice ot meet you, first time you've attacked me I think, ;o) though it seems you may have multiple personalities so who knows?!
Anyhow, thanks if you were confirming that you do accept the existence of a spirit world, because if that's accepted fact, then we are not at odds.
CWB, also gets thanks, for giving me the run-down on 'galactic or cosmic years' - never bothered to sort that out myself, so thanks for putting in the work for me, I'll now research it as you've provided the baseline to work from.
To me, as I said, however we all got here, God did it, He started the whole thing.
Now I believe in the God of the bible, others make science their god, some opt for a spaceman (I started with that concept, it fitted what I wanted to (and could) believe at that time) - I care not a jot what anyone chooses to believe.
My ONLY responsibility is to ensure that nobody that I have met stands before God and states that they never heard the truth from me.
If I'm wrong, so be it, I ain't lost nada, 'cos there's either:
Nothing there.
Some pantheist god who accepts anybody whatever they've done.
Michael Jackson saying "Welcome to Hell"
LOLOL
I do not care what ridiculous responsibilities you think you have Daddy.
I do not care how scared you are. So scared in fact that you try and scare other people with threats, Daddy.
I have seen you all over the forums with "You will meet GOD eventually - then you wile see I was right and you will wish you had believed what I said."
"If I am wrong," lololololololol
Of course you are wrong, Daddy,
You are thje worst sort of religionist Daddy,
You are a child abuser - Daddy,
I despise child abusers - Daddy.
Like I said to you before - Think yourself lucky you were not trying to fill my head with these threats when I was 8 years old. ;)
Right on!
The other day, a guest on the Daily Show proposed that science be an "all or nothing" package. Believe the world is only 6,000 years old? Then you don't get to use a cell phone, internet, computer, airplane, etc. I love it! Why should people get to pick and choose?
LOL
Love it - I have been making fun of the guys here who use a computer to spread the idea that the earth is 6000 years old.
They are too stupid to understand why it is funny. :)
Evolution will deal with them eventually. A couple of thousand year sago - it was the religionist that was the fittest and likely to breed. Not any more.
'Cept in Salt Lake City maybe,
Another book from the world's most famous zoologist. The God of the atheists. Maybe one day a few of them will actually read it rather than summarizing the dust jacket.
LOL
The idea is to get other people to read it - See how that works?
That lets you off the hook. Feel free to crack the spine and explain a little of the science in your own words. Or you can obfuscate by attacking. It all works out in The Land of Situational Ethics.
Attacking? Oh - you mean attacking proven scientific facts because they contradict your 2000 year old religious tome? Hmmm. I see what you mean.
Sorry your beliefs have been proven garbage. If you want my explanation of evolution it is here:
Funny that anyone thinks scientists will jump right on new evidence that counters what they "knew" before - do you know how HARD a scientist has to work to get their new evidence even looked at? Well, of course you know, it's just that I've been reading too often that scientists are open minded and will do that but they don't. We're all human.
You're incorrect TMinut.
There are often temporary disputes regarding transitional data. That's as it should be. That's the whole point of the scientific method. Things are not taken on faith but must be sufficiently supported by verifiable data and repeatable experimentation. No serious scientist will "jump right on" anything. Once such a process is completed however, if an old theory is proven wrong, it is discarded.
I don't think the same can be said for theism.
That being said, it doesn't really matter. Believe what you like. Just don't let it interfere with the pursuit of Peace and equality. If you live in a community and everything is falling apart, it doesn't matter whether you believe in god or quantum theory or both. It only matters that you believe it is right to work together with your neighbors for the good of the community, the country and the world.
Belief won't feed the children, cure the ill, or end conflict unless it is belief in each other and what makes us the same. All other belief gives false power to what we think makes us different.
Unconditional love comes first. Not for some tooth faerie or technological idol but for each other. If that can be achieved, everything else will be a walk in the park.
Love the illustration of genetic drift at http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572. An unlabeled drawing in two colors. No text, no numbers, no data.
With all due respect; have you read the book yet?
Of course I have read it sweetheart. You should to. :)
Yes - the drawing - Too simple for you? Prefer something a little more complex?
Course of exercise of your unique hub I have been confined with these quotations, “absolute truth implies that truth cannot be subject to one's own mind, but is rather established by an absolute and common Creator, therefore proving God's existence. If there is no absolute truth, it cannot be absolutely held true that God does not exist.”
Really it is great one.
I have a question or two. I believe in evolution to the extent of micro evolution, simply because it is the only kind that has actually been proven (ie: all the different breeds of dog, along with the fact that the dog, the wolf and the coyote all most likely had a common ancestor. On Noah's Ark.) My first question for you is this: the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot, in itself, be created nor can it be destroyed. And yet, you are claiming that "18 to 20 billion years ago, all matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been smaller than the period on this page." (that's really small) and "For some unknown reason, the region exploded." So, basically, nothing created everything...that takes a great deal of faith to believe in. Need I remind you that nothing means...nothing? "In the realm of the universe, nothing means nothing...from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a giant explosion." I'm not entirely sure how this tiny ball of nothing managed to pull that off. I am also wondering where the matter that made up the ball of, obviously something, came from, if all around it was pure nothing. Forgive me, but this makes no sense, and I would like you to explain to me how it possibly could. You know, Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation Evangelism company is offering a quarter of a million dollars for anyone who can come up with any kind of proof for any of the first five definitions of evolution. It's been out there for ten years, I'm surprised, that this Dawkins man hasn't snatched it, if he's provided all of the evidence you claim he has.
My next question is this: according to the Conservation of Angular Momentum, if you take an object and spin it clockwise, (say a dot of energy) and things spin off of it, (par example stars, planets, etc) then everything that came off of the original object would be spinning clockwise as well. So then why are two of the planets spinning backwards? Why are galaxies spinning backwards? Why are there two moons on one planet, both spinning in opposite directions? Why do the planets and the sun all have different compositions from each other, if they came from the same little period of matter? And what about the fact that the moon is getting farther from Earth, moving a few inches every year? If the earth was truly BILLIONS of years old, the moon and our planet would have had to be dangerously close, causing unfortunately high tides. Also, if the Big Bang were true, then matter would be evenly distributed, yet there are clusters of stars and vast empty voids.
These are only a few points I plan on bringing into my own hub, which I will hopefully be publishing soon if you are interested in a debate, because, with all due respect, I'm not buying into this "millions of pieces of evidence" bit.
-manda
LOLOLOL
Millions of pieces of evidence, but you will go with Noah's ark for which there is no evidence.. LOLOL
You are welcome to your ignorance.
Did you read the book? Oh no - that is right - you do not need to.
Sorry your ridiculous beliefs have been proven to be utter garbage. Too bad huh? Now you have no ethics to follow.
I am not interested in debating with you because with all due respect - you have nothing but an irrational belief.
mandamarie, an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Rotational and orbital directions can be changed by any number of forces.
Scientists, at least most, have not stated that the big bang theory is final, carved in stone and never to be refuted. It is, in fact, still hotly debated by the scientific community. Furthermore, science will continue to search for the answers to your questions while you are content to accept a fairytale for the solution. I guess that's the path of least resistance for those who need quick, simple answers.
Theism allows no debate. Regardless of any factual data that may be provided to the contrary, the "word" is the only truth, end of discussion.
Scientific theories are constantly amended, discarded when refuted factually and new discoveries bring continues changes to light.
Changes, new information and factual refutation are blocked, ignored, deleted and censored by theists. All truth is contained in a single work of fiction and must be believed without question.
Science practices free will whilst theism stifles it. Don't you find that just the least bit ironic?
Well, Mr. Knowles, I can only hope, for your sake, you are correct and that all that awaits you beyond the grave is the vast nothingness that the world once faced. I'm not going to waste my own scarce funds, but if you provide any evidence yourself from the book, I'll read it with an open mind. As for my beliefs being "proven to being utter garbage," you haven't given me any reason to believe so, except for your own arrogant opinions. As for my "ethics," a question I have for you is: how do you, Senor Atheist, tell right from wrong?
ColdWarBaby, of course not all of the inqueries in the universe can be simply found if Scriptures are regarded as a myth, and scientists will struggle with their discoveries until the end of time. But the fact remains that everything is laid out, plainly, in Scripture and that questioning and defying it only leads to empty lives in which every solution leads to another problem. People who are constantly searching, discarding the truth right in front of their faces as fiction, will never find one solid truth, but, rather, many little truths with gaps in them, which can only be filled with that which they think they must reject. Using shifting of the burden of blame, circular reasoning, and other such "fluff science" has become the way of most, forcing pieces of the puzzle where they don't belong, created a warped perspective of the world. I guess it's the path of most resistance for those who will lead deceived, disappointed unfulfilled lives. Give me REAL hard-core evidence, besides micro evolution, which I do not doubt (variations within kinds) that does not include asking me to prove it wrong or carbon dating junk, and I will no longer argue.
-Manda
well panda - I am not sure what intention is here - but you have clearly stated you have no intention of reading the book, and think that the fact remains that LOLOLOL everything is laid out plainly in Scripture. LOLOLOL
What is this "burden of blame" garbage?
If you already have all the answers. Without doing any work apparently. Why did you even stop by to leave a comment?
Sorry your beliefs have been proven to be total garbage. I realize that you are happy with zero evidence in favor. Yet react against anything less than 100% perfect evidence against.
And I tell right from wrong in a number of ways. Some of which come from 48 years of experience. And I certainly do not need some religionist who has all the easy answers telling me what is right or wrong. LOLOL
bye bye now. Don't go sullying your total knowledge by reading this book or anything. LOLOLOLO
But you want real hard core evidence? LOLOLOLO
But you will not read the book? LOLOLOLO
Funny - and you wonder why I laugh at you?
Otay, see ya :)
-Manda
P.S. I may be young, but I am capable of thinking for myself. And I can't say "religionist" is a word that describes me. In fact, in most ways, I take do take the path less traveled when it comes to my beliefs. Like I said, I prefer to have an open mind, but I remain unconvinced that any of them have been proven, in any way, to be "garbage." Just sayin'. Well, I am certainly no longer free to state my opinions on this hub. So, good luck in life, I guess, since luck's all you've really got going for you. Bye :)
You know what? I am having a tough time reconciling "open mindedness" with refusing to read this book and the using the term "fluff science" LOLOLOL
You are free to state whatever you like and I would never censor what you have to say. But - you go ahead and make that "persecution" LOLOLOL
And I will continue to make fun of it.
Odd how most religionists consider themselves to be "open minded" because they "believe something that there is no evidence for" LOL
ciao
"Give me REAL hard-core evidence..."
You first mandamarie. You can't. There is none.
My evidence is deposited in thousands of years of learning, research, experiment and study conducted by the greatest minds humanity has produced.
Here is my solution. You believe what you like as will I. We can simply agree to disagree. Because people do not share the same ideology is no excuse for war. We can have different beliefs and still live in Peace, cooperation, equality and equanimity.
If you prefer to accept authority as the truth rather than truth as the authority, that's your prerogative.
I know Mark can be a little extreme in his comments sometimes but what would you call the crusades, the inquisition and witch burning?
I am extreme in my comments. I try and be as absolute as whomever I am speaking to. :)
CWB - I really appreciate your moderation. I can't help but show them as I see them...
Is LOLOLOL a scientific term? I'm not familiar with it. Never read it any science of math book. Perhaps it's latin?
Could it be a vestigial term used by trolls in order to incite traffic to their hubs?
No _ it is a genuine expression. I am actually laughing out loud at some of this stuff. Not really sure how else to respond. I am a big fan of honesty and it is funny.
Pretty sure reason and logic will not work, so you leave me little alternative. LOL
I can certainly relate to your confusion. When I was granted my 2 science degrees, each diploma included a rider: "reason and logic excluded." LOLOLOL
Hey, you might want to bolster your credibility by blocking AdSense ads from nefarious places such as ChristianColleges.net. Or, could it be that you simply want to make a buck by raking muck?
LOL - No - Hubpages pay me for everything I write here and I am obliged to leave the ads on "high". I do block a few of the more obvious advertisers - but I have no control over the other 40% of impressions.
Can't wait to read this book. I read "The God Delusion" and it made a whole lot of sense to me. Exactly my sentiments.
What are other good books that don't get distracted on religion bashing? This is my problem with him, I think he gets distracted too easily, then it brings up questions of whether his intentions are to inform and educate or to simply destroy religion.
Actually - his earlier books are pretty good for that - Try the Blind Watchmaker. I think he must get attacked a lot by religionists and is really going after them now. :)
Thanks Mark. I just bought "Why evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne that I have to read first then I will read your suggestions. Have you read this one yet or heard anything about it?
Think about this, maybe that was the religionists plan to upset him so he would spend his time arguing with them rather than learning and teaching what he knows. If he reacts how they want him to react, they win.
LOL - You may be right. I have not read that one I must admit. I did enjoy the blind watchmaker as a good argument against the need for a designer.
I'm curious about something.
If evolution is "supported by millions of pieces of data", why not let the evidence speak for itself? Why must Mr. Dawkins resort to ad hominem attacks on Creationism and people of faith? He leaves science behind to practice his own religion: atheism.
Ad hominem? Oh he does that does he?
Well - willful ignorance is a terrible thing - especially when it is used as an excuse to abuse children.
Don't you think these people deserve to be rebuked for abusing children? Or is child abuse OK with you? ;)
What does child abuse have to do with my post? I was talking about why Mr. Dawkins attacks Creationism to prove his belief in evolution. Doesn't he feel confident in his evidence? His book is "The Greatest Show on Earth. The Evidence for Evolution" isn't it?
So where is the "ad hominem" attacks then?
I thought you meant he was attacking the morons who push creationism on their children as a fact when it is bullshit.
He is presenting the evidence for evolution. How is that an ad hominen attack?
If I'm ever on trial for murder I want 12 evolutionists on my jury.
I agree with you. At least that way they will have looked at the evidence before making a decision.
Or is that not what you meant? ;)
Evolutionists can be convinced that anything is possible, given enough science. 99.9% don't even understand the science, they simply take someone's word for it. They think the term "peer reviewed" is somehow holy. If they accept spontaneous generation of life, then they will surely buy any sciency mumbo-jumbo offered up by my defense attorney.
Now Mark, when you respond to this please refrain from your typical nyah nyah nyah diatribe on how the other side might behave. The gullibility of evolutionists is not relevant to your perceived gullibility of Christians. The two issues are unrelated.
Sweetie pie - what are you trying to convince me of? That evolution is not possible? By all means suggest an alternative, present your evidence and I am open to the possibility that there is some other explanation.
Evolution does not attempt to explain the very beginning of life as we understand it. What do you not understand about that?
But - the invisible super being with the majik and the dust blowing and the eternal life if I just grovel to it and the church nonsense? Not buying it.
As for the 2 being unrelated - LOL
That did give me a good laff I must admit. Unrelated? Dear me. LOLO
Sure - the religion scientist has no vested interest. LOLOLO
It is all about seeking truth. LOLOLOLO
Maybe I should have used the term "ad hominem argument" instead of attack.
You just called me a moron, since I teach creation to my children. He (Dawkins) calls those who reject evolution a "pack of ignoramuses". However, calling us Holocaust deniers? Shame on him. Why even use such a horrific event to describe anyone?
A true scientist will never make an absolute statement like:
"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust."
Again, comparing a scientific theory to the extermination of millions of human beings? Double shame on him.
Science is a quest for knowledge is it not? A scientist presents his findings for the scientific community to review, study, test and make their own determination as to the validity of those findings. If they can't be "proven", then they are classified as "theory" or if they can be "disproved" then they are rejected. There may be much evidence that could support evolution, but there is also much evidence that supports creation. The jury is still out.
Calling evolution a fact over and over and over isn't going to make it a fact, and calling those of us who reject evolution morons, ignoramuses, or Holocaust deniers isn't "evidence for evolution".
By the way, his reference to the Holocaust is rather telling. Evolutionary principles are what gave the Germans the reason they needed to remove the "unfit" from society. Natural (in this case, artificial) selection, the survival of the fittest. Intentional or a slip of the pen?
What a ridiculous argument. Yes - you are abusing your children and as far as I am concerned - you should be arrested.
Your obvious lack of knowledge of the scientific process can be only one of two things - either willful ignorance or just plain ignorance. I suspect the former.
Evolution is a fact - the theory that explains it is the best explanation we have so far.
You teach your children that religious garbage with no evidence is a fact and then question actual facts and scientific data?
Triple double disgusting shame on you - child abuser.
Creation as a fact? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Evolushun be a unproven theory? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO
I am sure jeebus would be proud though. Keep em ignorant and they will follow. ;)
I have read The Greatest Show on Earth and I must say it is probably the best book on evolution I have read. As for those asking for evidence that evolution occured here (excerpt from my own article):
Retroviruses, rogue genomes of RNA encapsulated in protein, they infect a host through weaknesses in cell "lids". Once inside a cell they hijack the genomic machinery in order to churn out copies of their own coding. They do this by translating their RNA into DNA inside the infected cells genome. Then normal cellular processes turn that DNA back into RNA copies, which seek out other cells to infect. This hijacking does not harm the infected cell, it continues its normal functions, it just has a little bit of new code integrated into its copy of the hosts genome. (RVs such as HIV harm the host by suppressing the immune system.) However sometimes the cell hijacked in this way is not your ordinary cell, but a germ-line cell. This germ-line cell, with its extra bit of coding, goes on to fill its normal function in the hosts reproductive processes and so the altered genome is inherited by the hosts offspring and may eventually become fixed in the gene pool of the host species. The genomes of vertebrates, including humans, contain hundreds of such retrovirus sequences (ERVs).
The size of vertebrate genomes exceeds 1x 10 to the power of 9 BILLION PARTS. The nature of retrovirus insertion into a genome and subsequent fixation is essentially random. Therefore the probability of two such identical events occurring, at the same loci of a hosts genome, and of the same sequence being integrated, is so small that it would be impossible. This means that if two organisms share the same endogenous retrovirus sequence in their genome, they must be related. In the past they must have shared a common ancestor in whom this retrovirus became fixed within their genome. Humans have many such ERVs in their genome. Many of these are identical to ERVs found in primates. The closer the primate species are to humans, the more ERVs they share. This proves without a doubt that, at various times in the distant past, humans and primates shared various common ancestors. The genomes of these ancestors were hijacked by an RNA retrovirus and the offspring, carrying the ERVs, then went on their separate evolutionary pathways. There is no other way to explain this data
Random mutations acting on a single individual can only cause small alterations to an already existing code. Over time these mutations, guided by natural selection, will cause larger changes in a species gene pool. However returning to the individual, these small alterations do not create new organs or limbs, they only affect structures already possessed. This is why humans are sometimes born with extra fingers but never a pair of wings. Wings are just not in a humans genome and the probability against a mutation creating one from scratch is comparable to a freak wind assembling a Boeing 747 from junkyard scrap. However sometimes people, and other animals are born with limbs and organs not usually found on that species. For an example we shall look at dolphins. Sometimes, a dolphin is born which has a tiny set of back legs complete with pelvis. Since dolphins do not usually have legs at all, and we know that mutation could not have created them from scratch, we must assume that the instructions for building these legs must be present somewhere in a dolphins genes. When we examine a dolphins genes we find that this assumption is indeed true, parts of a dolphins genome code for legs and even weirder (for a creationist) these parts are switched off so that under normal conditions a dolphin wont actually grow legs. Dolphins that do grow legs experience only a small mutation affecting switching in the genes so that particular stretch of genes is activated. Literally thousands of examples of this type have been found. Chickens have genes to grow a proper jawbone and teeth, humans grow gills and a tail, snakes also can have back legs. How can this be explained inside the framework of a special creation. Clearly in the past these organisms had and used these now useless features. The dolphin walked, the snake walked, the human had some use for a tail. They clearly were not then dolphins, snakes and humans. These vestiges are fingerprints, the fingerprints of evolution branded into the flesh of all life. To ignore such powerful evidence for the sayings of illiterate Arab goat herders is the worst form of madness.
Thanks for the comment - I am sure it will fall on deaf ears. A belief in an invisible super being in the sky is a powerful belief. stretching all the way back to those bronze age goat herders.
Mark:
Unfortunately, the MAJORITY of the extant human species is profoundly "deaf" and at this stage of its continuing evolution, will not be here long enuf to to enjoy the complete, necessary and enlightening effect of that sensual gift!
The "invisible super being" phucked up! :-)
Yes - seems this invisible super likes playing with us. LOL
I really enjoy reading everyones comments. Its funny how a lot of so called beleivers speak as if they are atheists. Its quite alright to just call yourself an atheist. I am! There has been a rapid increase it seems of people coming out.
I enjoyed the article and found a sampling of the comments both entertaining and instructive. I am presently writing an article on altruism and came across this article when looking for a link to Dawkins - I useful and welcome diversion. Thanks
It is a very good book.
I have just one real criticism of Dawkins ~ and some other atheists ~ and this is that I feel it is wrong to insult people for their beliefs. They are entitled to hold them.
Disagree with them; argue logically against them, but don't insult them or call them names.
We cannot know, for certain, whether God exists in some form, or whether 'God' created life.
I find the Bible miracles impossible to believe, but I am agnostic as far as the existence of God ~ as might be defined one way or another ~ is concerned :)
I tell them I am certain to laugh at them when they tell me it is stupid to have faith in something that cannot be proven.
fortunerep Level 1 Commenter 2 years ago
Great hub, I will never argue with the "wise one" Mark Knowles, you make alot of good points, and yes you are definately correct.
dori