Richard Dawkins on the Big Debate 4 of 6
Richard Dawkins, Jonathan Dimbleby on the Big Debate BBC
January 29, 2008
Jonathan Dimbleby and a panel of experts come together to debate the controversial subject of religion in Britain’s schools.
The role of religion in education is a subject rarely out of the headlines. Despite Britain’s multi-faith society, schools are still required to include a collective act of worship of a Christian nature, while faith schools and religious academies have raised fears about community cohesion and covert selection.
Claims by some religious educationalists that faith is the best way to teach moral values is challenged by others in schools who believe religious morality to be outdated and dangerous.
Dimbleby is joined by Professor Richard Dawkins, Schools Select Committee chairman Barry Sheerman MP, and a multi-faith studio audience.
Full video can be found here: http://richarddawkins.net/
Duration : 0:9:58
[youtube HtUd7-tha_w]
Sweetie, you have …
Sweetie, you have just demonstrated that you know less than nothing about evolution by natural selection. So why exactly are you attempting to engage in the debate? Be quiet and stop embarrassing yourself. Oh, and btw, your garage anaology doesn’t work because car parts are not living organisms that reproduce.
Wow, if this debate …
Wow, if this debate were to take place in the states, people would be yelling and screaming at each other. I love how Europe is much more open to opposing ideas. Much more calm people in my opinion. Thanks for posting this debate.
richard dawkins is …
richard dawkins is funny. “God knows we don’t want scriptural teaching” For an atheist to evoke the name of God, funny.
Car parts are not …
Car parts are not self replicating machines you dimwit.
Your idea that nature cannot “produce” information is also completely nonsensical.
Christian religion …
Christian religion beningn???…. Mr Dawkins you should review history !!!! your are so wrong. All religions are negative and promote division by teaching different view points on our cosmos. AM not saying we should teach ONE view point, rather we need a common base to deal with our lives and universe so we can move together even when there are disagreements.
somebody laughing …
somebody laughing at 0.19 and 0.25
here’s some more, …
here’s some more, when I see leaves shaking that contains information that wind is blowing, does wind require a designer? no. when I go out in the morning and everything is wet, it means that it’s been raining, did rain need a designer? no. DNA is just a arrangement of nucleotides that synthesises right proteins at right time. so stop it already.
oh the information …
oh the information argument. first of all, you need to clarify what you mean under information. here’s a sweet quote from a certain video: ” dog shit, with enough tools and knowledge, from you can find out what the dog ate, how much of it ate, are there any parasites in the shit, also lots of stuff about dog’s medical condition”, I.e information did need an intelligent designer? no.
“If we left car …
“If we left car parts in a garage”
Honey that’s b/c car parts aren’t living systems & don’t reproduce, organisms however are living systems & do reproduce.
Inside the human …
Inside the human body exists a cell. Thousands of cells make up the human body. Each cell is a tiny machine that causes every other cell to work. We know that nature can NOT produce information, but our body is composed of information in our DNA. If we left car parts in a garage, we cant expect in 100 years that it will turn into a car without any intelligent input fixing it up. The same goes for creation. Nothing that has an end can be made from nothing.
1tabligh , “Is your …
1tabligh , “Is your denial of God”
I feel sorry for you man, you’re offering the same empty rhetoric regarding my answers on the same series & you’re expecting different answers from me, does that even begin to make sense? =) If you propose X, explain how X did it, or some details on how we can objectively know X did it, otherwise your claim hollow & about as useful as tits on a nun.
Is your denial of …
Is your denial of God, then is, because, you have not felt Him with the senses given to us for knowing objects?
“Is it possible, …
“Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?”
yes. Given the magnitude & time scale of the universe & life on earth, yes.
“precise hereditary …
“precise hereditary system”
Uhhhhh, it’s not that precise buddy, a full 1/3 of all conceptions (zygote) end spontaneously b/c of replication errors, say nothing of all the polygentic diseases which afflict organisms of all scale if they make to birth.
Don’t let the fact that they’re replicating interrupt your comment earlier that nature prohibits replication.
Dodging ALL the …
Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!
The precise hereditary system and the astonishing power in the minute genes, which gives direction to all the cells of the body and provides an animal with its personality and traits.
Is it possible, according to human sentiment, that all of this occurs haphazardly and by chance?
“Matter or God?”
…
“Matter or God?”
1tabligh, as I eluded to earlier on another part in this vid series, I’ll take matter every time b/c from a philosophical view we can be more certain matter exists & studying it we can at least propose natural solutions to natural questions. How can we even begin to study a god?
Inserting a sky being which itself requires an explanation only defers the ignorance, it’s a shell game, a slight of hand in a coy attempt to explain something only to make a decry by fiat.
1tabligh ” …
1tabligh “Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed*”
I think the materialists position is humbler b/c we don’t over indulge in externals which themselves require the form of explanations that your external is attempting to explain, simply saying ‘Gaawd dun it’ logically will not suffice. You need to further explain how this god did it & how you know it occurred as you claim, if you cannot fufill this you haven’t offered anything but a shell game.
God and Empirical …
God and Empirical Logic.
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.
But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!
Belief in the …
Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays. …
Is it logical to …
Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man’s composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man’s growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man’s existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?
No, it is not …
No, it is not logical at all.
Science has already shown us that there is no need to include an intelligent creator to explain the existence of the human kidney. Simple processes in nature have shown to result in great diversity and complexity.
I’ve already shown …
I’ve already shown you how it is not more logical to assume the existence of intelligence. It you selectively ignore points when they are presented to you. Typical.
Your argument is …
Your argument is past pathetic at this point. Your question also doesn’t make sense, the main reason being that you’re stealing quotes from that book WITHOUT understanding what they even mean.
Why haven’t you formed a single rebuttal to anything that I have presented. Instead you keep floating around approaching the matter from some of the most insensible perspectives which even you yourself do not understand.
Therefore when YOU mention logic, I can hardly keep from busting out in laughter.
Is it not more …
Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?
Materialism looks …
Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!
Can the dialectic show us that if this dialectical progression were to come about in an essential and dynamic form, why then is it limited to a specific quantity of the two elements, and does not occur to every hydrogen and oxygen [atom]?