let’s change that quote a bit, without really changing the meaning–

dawkins:
“newton, kepler, mendel, pascal, faraday, Copernicus, and scores of other famous scientists are unsophisticates and children, because they believed in the virgin birth, resurrection, and raising of the dead by Christ.”

i have to say it again, does dawkins think before he speaks EVER? does he realize the amount of arrogance in this statement? does he realize that such a statement makes him sound like a child and an “unsophisticate”??

“It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe”.-The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.316

This may be my new favorite. “find it hard to believe”

That’s what we call common sense and intuition.
It shows us that it’s still possible, though, if we try very hard, to stand on our head.

This may be my new favorite. “almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism”

That’s what we call common sense and intuition.

“In any case, the belief that religion and science occupy separate magisteria is dishonest. It founders on the undeniable fact that religions still make claims about the world that on analysis turn out to be scientific claims. Moreover, religious apologists try to have it both ways. When talking to intellectuals, they carefully keep off science’s turf, safe inside the separate and invulnerable religious magisterium. But when talking to a nonintellectual mass audience, they make wanton use of miracle stories-which are blatant intrusions into scientific territory.

The Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the raising of Lazarus, even the Old Testament miracles, all are freely used for religious propaganda, and they are very effective with an audience of unsophisticates and children. Every one of these miracles amounts to a violation of the normal running of the natural world. Theologians should make a choice. You can claim your own magisterium, separate from science’s but still deserving of respect. But in that case, you must renounce miracles. Or you can keep your Lourdes and your miracles and enjoy their huge recruiting potential among the uneducated. But then you must kiss goodbye to separate magisteria and your high-minded aspiration to converge with science.” (“Snake Oil and Holy Water”, Forbes ASAP, Oct. 4, 1999, pp235-38).”

What are the rules for this site? What is allowed and what is not? I
ask this because my earlier post was deleted (as well as my old acocunt)
when I tried to explain why some people view the Dawkins quote as an
out-of-context quote, and I specifically tried not to use any ad-homs,
foul language, or accuse Dembski (or anyone else) of purposely
misquoting Dawkins. Yet it was deleted. So I am curious if there is a
somewhere that has a set of rules or guidelines for posting on this
site so that I can view it and hopefully not make the same mistake
(whatever that mistake was) in the future and have my posts and account
deleted. Thanks in advance for any answers.

[Go here: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....archives/9 --WmAD]

That’s amusing.

One might add: It is almost as if the typology and anti-sequential ordering typical to Nature was designed to communicate, “Darwinism can only be clung to if you have the urge to merge like Darwinists do.”

Or it is almost as if there is a biotic message designed to communicate, “There is one common designer of fundamental types, yet see how I make things hard for those who want to argue for sequence and common descent.”

It is little wonder that Darwinists rely on their Mommy Nature and the womb of Naturalism in the face of numerous “gaps,” separation, convergence, teological emergence combined with mountains of anti-sequential empirical evidence in need of some form of merging. Yet crawling into the womb of Naturalism seems to be little more than a shift into a philosophical debate about what is “natural” and so on which avoids dealing with empirical evidence of the natural typology of Nature. I doubt that they are being purposefully dishonest in all the shifting and merging, as their own psychological dynamics seem tightly bound to such shifting. Mommy Nature probably scientifically selected such shifting for them by her au naturale natural selections, naturally enough. Apparently that is just the science of things if one murmurs the term science enough.

This fellow Carl Zimmer has a funny passage where he seems to be going back to the womb and merging with fishs. We probably had gill slits in the womb of Mommy Nature, don’t you know. I’d like to write about this fellow, perhaps some other time.

Dawkin’s quote above, “These are sky-god religions.”

This won’t suit his Cosmic Oedipus complex, I suspect, oh no, no indeed!

So of course:
“They are, literally, patriarchal — God is the Omnipotent Father — hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates.”

Yes all theistic husbands and fathers through the ages have loathed women but Dawkin’s knows the feminine just as Mommy Nature selected for him. He’s quite a fortunate fellow in that way because Lady Luck gave him a chance Or did she? Sometimes to have a chance you have to take a chance. Some fellows are not used to doing that.

“The sky-god is a jealous god, of course.”

Why are they always such crybabies about things? I think one psychologist described a dynamic typical to effeminates this way, “Tends to cry about nothing…”

I should go no farther as psychoanalysis is all ad hominem, like satire. I don’t feel bad about that because he lit the rhetorical fire and besides, what is left to deal with if you take the sapience out of the Homo sapiens? Those left will have diminishing intelligence and a lack of purpose by design. Then all that will be left is a bunch of little fellows with brain events which are fodder for some type of analysis based on the nurture and nature of Mother Nature herself. They shouldn’t mind analysis, as they’ve lost their mind of the synaptic gaps in her.

If mankind is nothing more than a physical organism then Darwinism is its excrement.

So psychoanalysis seems apposite, as “Psychoanalysis is an occupation in whose very name “psyche” and “anus” are united.”
(Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus’s Criticism of
Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry, By Thomas Szasz)

There you can see directly from Richard all the impossibility of Darwinism (between “surviving” and “transforming” there is a terrific abyss).