Home
» Intelligent Design » Dick to the Dawk says: “I don’t want to discuss evidence”
Dick to the Dawk says: “I don’t want to discuss evidence”
| May 31, 2008 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
Richard Dawkins, in a face-off with Rupert Sheldrake, says “I don’t want to discuss evidence”.
As the Saturday Night Live Church Lady would say, “Well, isn’t that just precious?”
Dick: “But what worries me about you is that you are prepared to believe almost anything. Science should be based on the minimum number of beliefs.”
Rupert: “But what worries me about you is that you come across as dogmatic, giving people a bad impression of science.”
Read Sheldrake’s article Richard Dawkins comes to call to get more insight into Dick to the Dawk to the PhD’s modus operandi.
31 Responses to Dick to the Dawk says: “I don’t want to discuss evidence”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
bornagain77, great reference:
Children with half a brain:
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/…..alf_a.html
There is a sample chapter on the site of “Half a Brain Is Enough” by Antonio Battro
. The story of the three year old boy is very facinating.
In short, this child, after having one hemisphere removed, develop normal cognitive skills. And similar cases are found with other young children. Apparently the brain can remap itself in amazing ways.
I was just wondering how the Materialist/Darwinist would explain how such an incredible ability evolved through undirected genetic variations and natural selection? One can potentially understand how a feature that adds to the fitness of all or a large number of organisms could evolve. However, how how many young humans or other creatures (presumably we do not know whether this ability is found in other species) would have just the right genetic variation, happen to lose large parts of their brain, and then recover, and survive, while others do not, such that this new genetic code would expand across the population? Talk about an unlikely convergence of events!!
Does this strike anyone else as pushing the limits of credulity way beyond reasonable limits?
And then, does anyone have any idea how gene coding would possibly direct the mental affairs of such a process? Where are our Artificial Intelligence friends on this one?