Log In | Register
He is a militant atheist and the country’s foremost champion of Darwinist evolution – and he was on the radio to accuse Christians of being ignorant of the Bible.
When the tables were turned, however, an embarrassed Richard Dawkins was momentarily unable to name the full title of his scientific hero’s most famous work.
In his frustration, he even invoked the name of the deity in which he does not believe, resorting to a helpless: ‘Oh God.’
So Mr 'Atheist' Dawkins, what's the full title of your hero Darwin's seminal work? '... erm, oh God!
Seeded on Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:33 AM EST
Article Source: the Mail online
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (46)
The survey of those who describe themselves as Christian was carried out by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. It was designed to demonstrate that few people are truly Christian and so their beliefs should have no part in schools or the state machine.
It claimed that one in six Christians have never read the Bible, and only 28 per cent believe in Christian teachings.
On the Today programme, Dawkins said: ‘Many of them don’t go to church, don’t read the Bible, and an astonishing number couldn’t identify the first book in the New Testament.’
- 3 votes
#1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:33 AM EST*sigh* this is why atheists need to get there heads checked
- 2 votes
So because he didn't get the name entirely correct he gets crap!?Talk about grasping at smaller and smaller straws!!
- 8 votes
Naturally Christians always see any reference to the word God, as a reference to their god, unless of course, it's in a separation-of-church-and-state court case :D
Dawkins may be a pantheist, fcs, in which case, everything is god. Now, you were saying, what?
If any of you would actually read the OoS, you might be able to follow along. Darwin was the first to recognize the mechanism of natural selection, which is so astonishingly simple, and yet no one else had been able to see it. He was a marvelous writer too, and he laid out his thoughts meticulously, and with all honesty. I have to say, he is one of my greatest heroes too.
- 8 votes
Artie-3438207 "If any of you would actually read the OoS, you might be able to follow along. Darwin was the first to recognize the mechanism of natural selection, which is so astonishingly simple,"
Hmm, some one needs to read some documents from different cultures, so many have had odes of " evolutionary creatures that changed, some at will " Come to think of it did not the Greeks have the half humans and half animals of all types, so much for " Darwin being the first " another one with " Darwin and Einstein as their God " :-) I wonder where the word " automatons " came from, was that the " steam powered robots" and while at it did they not discover a mechanism that goes back a few thousands years, made of bronze, that had the Solar system working eclipses and all, Darwin the " first" sure, sure ( Antikitharon Mechanism )
- 1 vote
Come to think of it did not the Greeks have the half humans and half animals of all types
Obviously you've never taken a biology course in your life.
- 6 votes
Hmm, some one needs to read some documents from different cultures, so many have had odes of " evolutionary creatures that changed, some at will " Come to think of it did not the Greeks have the half humans and half animals of all types, so much for " Darwin being the first "
Where did Darwin state people were half human and half animal? Last time I checked, humans are animals, and a part of the animal kingdom. Nor does evolution state animals change at "will".. This is like talking to a 5 year old on particle physics..
another one with " Darwin and Einstein as their God " :-)
Please state where any of them state Darwin and Einstein are "GODs".. I don't recall them worshiping either of them as GOD's..
I wonder where the word " automatons " came from, was that the " steam powered robots" and while at it did they not discover a mechanism that goes back a few thousands years, made of bronze, that had the Solar system working eclipses and all, Darwin the " first" sure, sure ( Antikitharon Mechanism )
It helps to be coherent when trying to make an argument. Your post here is about as coherent as the 4 corner time cube.
And btw, life is an electromagnetic phenomenon.. And so is steam.. And guess what, clocks today are atomic clocks.... But it seems you like to base your argument on a clock work universe to which only holds water under Newtonian physics.. That's right up till we discovered feedback in systems and order from chaos. When ever forces meet in harmony you have order from chaos... In other words: Existence = energy = information = force = cause = you, me, the stars, and everything else.
- 8 votes
It's not really a valid comparison, though, because Darwin's work is important to modern biologists only in a historical sense. As a biologist, I've only read portions of Darwin's writing, out of personal curiosity. If all copies of his books were somehow lost, it would not matter one bit to evolutionary theory, which is suported by the mountains of evidence that have accumulated since Darwin's time.
- 12 votes
#2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:23 AM ESTThe value of Darwin's work is that he was in the right place to observe the differences in a species, most notably finches, and catalog those difference and then derive a scientific statement from his observations.
It must be noted that evolution generally does not happen within one life cycle of the species, but fruit flies have such short life cycles that evolution can actually be observed.
Simply saying Darwin made mistakes in his treatise does not mean his work has no value - it does, if only to get others to start thinking "out of the box".
- 9 votes
I agree with all of that, Michael - I was merely pointing out that the importance of Darwin's work to evolutionary theory is not analogous to the importance of the Bible to Christianity. Darwin was the first to formulate and articulate the foundational ideas behind evolutionary theory, but we don't accept it just based on his work.
- 9 votes
Belfrey
We are on the same page. I apologize if you took my post as criticism - it was meant to be!
- 3 votes
I assume you mean, "it wasn't meant to be!" :D
No worries, I was just making sure I'd come across right.
- 2 votes
Is this the best that the christians can do to deconstruct the theory of evolution - catching a tired old man at being unable to recall a 21 word title of a book from 120 years ago like some super charged Jeopardy contestant?
Professor Dawkins' knowledge of the excessively verbose title of "Origin of Species" has absolutely no bearing on the subject at hand and is but a pathetic attempt at deflection away from the meat of the issue. The book could be called "The Three Little Pigs" and the information inside would still be as important. Knowledge of the science of evolution is what matters. Likewise, Dawkins' point that most christians lack knowledge of christianity is important when they argue that "god did it." Knowing the title of the book does not give one an understanding of its contents, nor does knowing the snarky retorts give one an understanding of the details of the "debate."
This amounts to a schoolyard mocking. I think science is pretty far above that. But if it's a mocking they want then I guess a few childish taunts about how the most recent creationist bill failed in committee in Indiana wouldn't be out of the question.
Haha, your stupid bill failed. Na nanny poo-poo, stick your head in doo doo. Evolution is right and you smell bad too.
I hope that was a sufficiently childish response to this childish attack on Prof. Dawkins.
Christians - grow up.
- 9 votes
Everyone has brain farts. My latest one was yesterday when I couldn't remember the name of the project I was presenting to senior management of my company - oops!
Rick Perry is famous for his "oops" moments, but his brain farts are not the real reason he is no longer in the GOP race: is it?
- 5 votes
Is this the best that the christians can do to deconstruct the theory of evolution - catching a tired old man at being unable to recall a 21 word title of a book from 120 years ago like some super charged Jeopardy contestant?
I don't think it is because he forgot. They seized on it because of the irony of him momentarily appealing to a God he says doesn't exist!! :o)
- 2 votes
OMG - is that what the issue is.
jesus christ, get over it already!
/s/s/s/s/s/s/s/s
- 4 votes
I don't think it is because he forgot. They seized on it because of the irony of him momentarily appealing to a God he says doesn't exist!! :o)
He was never appealing to a God he says doesn't exist... Please try again.
- 5 votes
He was not appealing to a God he was using a common expression most likely. I often say" Oh God or " Oh Gawd" and I am an liberated atheist. The expression is as meaningless to me as* Oh Shi-t , or Oh Fudge* It's just an expression of frustration or quick response not having a better choice on the end of ones tongue.
- 8 votes
Yeah, it wasn't an appeal... it's an expression. It's like saying "oh, those silly Christians having dinner on Thursday -- named after Thor..."
Dawkins, and all the Christians know better than to appeal to any god(s) because nothing fails like prayer.
- 3 votes
They still do NOT get it do they? it is the fact that " Oh God " was stated that is the KEY, in short " reliance on a Devinne being " being also a subconscious thought.
- 1 vote
it is the fact that " Oh God " was stated that is the KEY, in short " reliance on a Devinne being " being also a subconscious thought.
So when people say "Shoot" they are also displaying an subconscious desire to be shot?
When people ask "Cat got your tongue?" Do they have a subconscious feeling that an invisible cat is actually grasping it?
- 2 votes
In a way yes part of the inbuilt " Fight or flee " mechanism.
- 1 vote
And when they SH.. then they... oh.. they don't mean it as fight nor flight nor the like. Unless it's some other god... Ian - the grand lord of feces?
- 1 vote
So when people say "Shoot" they are also displaying an subconscious desire to be shot?
In a way yes part of the inbuilt " Fight or flee " mechanism.
I Just thought I would quote this and just let people look at it. No comment needed.
- 2 votes
The exclamation "shoot" by the way, is short for.. umm.. poop (another word, think scatalogical euphemism).
They still do NOT get it do they? it is the fact that " Oh God " was stated that is the KEY, in short " reliance on a Devinne being " being also a subconscious thought.
Oh GOD I'm an Atheist!... Err, thank GOD I'm and Atheist..... Curious, I'm still an Atheist. These are not appeals to a GOD.. Worst yet, there are thousands of GOD's to which include the Pantheist GOD.. So lets play your game.. He was appealing to the Pantheist GOD. You do know what the Pantheist GOD is right? It's reality / existence itself.. And guess what, that GOD actually exists, and is the only GOD ever proven to exist. What's even worse, you can't exist without reality / existence. Fun stuff!...
Must suck the be slave to require someone else's GOD just so you can even exist at all. So I guess I can just tell you his appeal is similar to "Oh for reality's sake!.." you are really ignorant.
<---GAME OVER--->
- 2 votes
yes apes and monkey have a lot of those " moments "
Yep, and some are more intelligent and far less ignorant than others. Though I'm sure you don't know which to go by.. Great Ape, or monkey? Though I'm sure you like to shake your cages and throw your @!$%# around when you think nobody's looking.
- 2 votes
" don't think it is because he forgot. They seized on it because of the irony of him momentarily appealing to a God he says doesn't exist!! :o) "
Same as a study that showed " The Brain Hard Wired for Religion " and another " Brain has prayer section " and I believe a resent article in science shows that prayer as with meditation has a positive effect, so true for those that Know we KNOW nothing but are searching with a search light, in comparison to those that THINK we know it all and like being in darkness.
who was it that said " No Atheist in foxholes "?
- 1 vote
#4 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:26 PM ESTSame as a study that showed " The Brain Hard Wired for Religion " and another " Brain has prayer section " and I believe a resent article in science shows that prayer as with meditation has a positive effect, so true for those that Know we KNOW nothing but are searching with a search light, in comparison to those that THINK we know it all and like being in darkness.
who was it that said " No Atheist in foxholes "?
This is a load of crap.
http://www.militaryatheists.org/expaif.html
So of course intellectual laziness on the part of theists here is no surprise. Religion born and bread on pure ignorance.
- 9 votes
who was it that said " No Atheist in foxholes "?
An ignorant, self-righteous preacher in the military?
The statement is false, and very offensive in how it shows disrespect for our armed forces personnel who are nontheisitc.
- 9 votes
" The Brain Hard Wired for Religion "
Yes, great ape primates including ourselves do have a propensity to worship, hold things in awe and preform rituals, especially for things that are majestic or not understood. Chimpanzees regularly preform rituals and/or worship waterfalls and thunderstorms.
and I believe a resent article in science shows that prayer as with meditation has a positive effect
Correct, meditation, prayer, and even doing puzzles has a positive influence on the mind; just as regular repetitive exercise does for the body. Mindfulness meditation has been shown to have the most benefit of all those though. It's not strange to exercise the mind. No god(s) required.
- 9 votes
Though I could have played along with his ignorant post and said:
Oh, so it's only Religious people waging wars and killing people
I'm sure that would have pissed em off to.
- 5 votes
And, What Ms. cyprah fails to tell in this silly seed is that god, as usual, failed to provide any assistance. god is no more real than the tooth fairy.
Although the tooth-fairy will leave the occassional quarter, or so. god? Not so much!
- 6 votes
#5 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:59 PM ESTOn the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
That is the full title of the work in question.
Matthew
That is the correct decision on a multiple choice question about the bible that so many people have based their entire lives around.
I don't see how this moment of sly trickery by the good reverend has discredited Dawkins. Except for his slip of the tongue usage of common vernacular.
- 6 votes
#6 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:05 PM ESTNot to mention Dawkins got it right! It just took him a few seconds to recall the whole thing, unsurprisingly. It's a rarely used title that has been shortened in many recent publications. It is certainly not the equivalent to the very simple question from Dawkins. It's a very poor smear attempt, and not just because he correctly answered the question.
- 3 votes
I'd actually invite any person to fully name the bible. I mean it.. From Beresh(t) to the Apocalypse of John (actually, an untitled work)... It's only 66 books give or take 10-30ish. Most Christians cannot even name the first five books in either the old nor new testament.
The "(on the) Origin of Species" is an accepted title.
Kind of funny that conservatives would think this is significant... guess it's cause they haven't got any real challenges.
It's Expelled all over again LOL.
- 1 vote
I wouldn't equate ignorance of the title which has been shorten over the years to "The Origin of Species" with ignorance of evolution. Nor should one equate belief in evolution with atheism.
I am looking at the Coverslip on a facsimilar of the original and the is titled "Origin of Species". It is not till you open the book that you see the full title.
The Origin of Species and then in much smaller type the rest of the title.
P.S darwin is not a easy read, the prose in quite Victorian and the scientific language archaic.
- 4 votes
#7 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:36 PM ESTP.S darwin is not a easy read, the prose in quite Victorian and the scientific language archaic.
That's very true. You can't be in a hurry, and I was very selective of chapters and passages:) It just really helped me to appreciate the history of the science and the man, from 150 years ago, as he really launched it off! I also came from a geological background, so his work and words, which I dearly struggled with, helped to inspired me to survive paleontology class, where I was grateful for my C.
- 4 votes
Funny. Are some people actually thinking him using blasphemy means he is religious?
He spoke of God as a profanity. That same word in context could be replaced with "Oh crap!" or "Oh @!$%#." or "@!$%#". If anything, this affirms his staunch position against the idea of a God by stripping the word of it's true meaning and using it as a profanity.
Secondly, A physicist doesn't need to be able to tell you the full title of the paper Einstein wrote on relativity. He just need to know the relevant information inside. Though if one did indeed know that name, but couldn't come up with it on request, I imagine a similar expletive would be uttered.
- 3 votes
#8 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:04 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
