The selfish gene is basically creatonism in disguise.. his crationism of course.
Nothing about metabolic network, nothing about complex dynamics, nothing about ... well nothing.. jsut a book about non.-science pretneding it is about science.
If you want I can give you a point by point rebuttal of his book.. but I am tired, I have done it in other places..and sicussed them here.
And again.. I am not addressing his points which are related with his views about science and religion.. here I think like brit.. it is not how I look at it.. it is not how I would approach the topic..I think it will backfire... but I am happy that everybody has a different opinion... excellent.
His science... outside some animal behavior.. sorry.... he is just a bad scientists outside his field.. that's all... but I guess that hat pissed more people in the community is that.. well his theory makes no sense whatsoever.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
I'm sorry you're tired it shows - how you have the nerve to criticise him with junk like this I don't understand - but, like you, in this case, I'm too tired to go through your drivel. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
It was no my intention to hurt you.. nor directly nor indireclty. it is clear you ahve invested a lot of personal attachment to Dawkins.. or at least this is how it looks.
One day I am sure, we will sit down happily discussing why you think he is very good at science, and I will defend the opposite... probably we will not convince each other but we would have a great time
But I think here now it is clearly not the moment.
Let me in any case, ask you personally for excuses if I ever hurt you or say something that you thought was an indirect attack.
I deeply apologize.
But I would suggest you apply this sort of tone to those outside ET too. No, I don't have a "personal attachment" to Dawkins, beyond respecting him as an obviously very intelligent, generally well-informed, courteous (see the Lynchburg Q& A video), witty guy who has deservedly received many awards and honours (see the diary). A bit of the Christian virtue of humility would seem appropriate in your case.
However I have nothing against informed, reasoned criticisms of him, just as he wouldn't. I DO object to uninformed attacks without even the pretense of any evidence. I object even more to unsupported insults like "asshole" (nanne) and your own absurd claim that "He doesn't know a jot about science".
But I would also defend others who were attacked in these ways. Thus I would defend Hitchens against unjustified criticisms or mere insults, although I despise his support for the attack on Iraq. That he was wrong about that does not cancel the fact that he is a very bright, extremely erudite, witty guy - which makes his loss to the left (in some important respects) all the more regretable.
Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
We say the most vile things about Bush, Blair and everybody outside here.
I do not see why Bush should be different than Hitchens or Dawkins.
I did not realized I had hit a soft spot and that by attacking Dawkins I was attacking you, and your perecpetion of him. The moment I saw that you were attached to him I apologized.
But this does not change my point of view. I think BVvush is a bastard, adn I do think Hitchens is a bastard and I do think Dawkins is wrong on this fight back agaisnt religion but I think he should be doing what he thinks is better and commend him for it.. and I also think he is a very very bad scientist.
It is just my humble opinion. But please, please, in no way take it personal, actually if you think he is right about his approach to religion, great, we can discuss it. And if you think he is a very good scientists..w ell I doubt anything or quote I can bring here will convince you otherwise.
But please, please, do not take it personal. he is not here in ET.. adn we deserve respect to people here always and to epople outside ET that we think they deserve it. And while Dawkins as a social commentator deserves my respect (though not my agreement) Dawkins as a scientist does not.
Huge hug ted.
This Blog has been created for the purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity. We are ex-Christians, ex-ministers, and even ex-apologists for the Christian faith. We are now freethinkers, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists. With the diversity of our combined strengths we seek to debunk Christianity. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
This Blog has been created for the purpose of debunking Evangelical Christianity. We are ex-Christians, ex-ministers, and even ex-apologists for the Christian faith. We are now freethinkers, skeptics, agnostics, and atheists. With the diversity of our combined strengths we seek to debunk Christianity.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/
But that isn't basically what he's trying to do - I made clear in the diary what he IS trying to do.
So, criticism based on the idea that he's mainly trying to convert fundamentalist or even very committed moderate Christians is entirely irrelevant - see the damned diary.
As I've said I have no problem with reasoned criticism, with argument and evidence, which takes the trouble to be accurate about what Dawkins actually says, and particularly what he says in "The God Delusion" and what he has said in videos of readings, Q&A sessions and interviews. I have yet to see any which does this and makes valid criticisms.
I don't think this is one of the more attractive aspects of ET - while confessing that I have been guilty of it myself - but generally I try to back up any strong criticism with some reasons and evidence.
I would even defend Bush if he was blatantly misrepresented - there is plenty of scope for attack without sinking to that. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
