9 Responses to “Creationists are like Holocaust deniers, and they are destroying science education”
on 16 Mar 2010 at 4:18 pm 1.Aaron said …
Wow, can you believe this guy takes the most horrific event of the last century and attempts to equate it to those who believe a deity created in the beginning? We have Jews who survived the event like Elie Wiesel, eyewitnesses of the event and tremendous photographic and written records of the event. An event all generated by hate for a group of people.
The comparison is SO ridiculous, off base and offensive to all Jews it is not even worth the time to denounce. Any respect I had for him as a biologist is now completely gone.
on 16 Mar 2010 at 5:01 pm 2.Observer said …
Aaron- You are a reflexive simpleton. Not once does Dawkins equate the Shoah’s perpetrators to the rabid dolts braying for ID to be taught in school science classes. He compares and draws parallels between today’s holocaust deniers with deniers of evolution. Your self-righteous indignation over a sleight that does not exist and is entirely your fabrication would be mildly amusing if it were not born of staggering stupidity or crude dishonesty.
And how does a cretin such as yourself presume to speak for all Jews?
on 16 Mar 2010 at 6:30 pm 3.Horatio said …
This is what you can expect like a narcissist like Dawkins (read his book). The guy has this tunnel vision about everyone viewing the origins of life through his spectrum of reason. He actually believes it is now a fact! It can not be observed, tested or recreated but he know is to be fact.
Intelligence but no wisdom with this flake. Let him blather on with his emotional pleas. Science will be fine regardless of how the scientist views origins.
on 17 Mar 2010 at 8:16 am 4.Severin said …
“This is what you can expect like a narcissist like Dawkins (read his book).”
I read more than one book from Dawkins. I did not find any narcissism, just very nice parallels to explain evolution and to explain that people need no gods.
Contrary to “lawyers of religions” which offer no arguments but expect people to believe bullshits they “teach”, without any arguments, evidences, far from logic, far from reality, far from science, Dawkins IS a scientist. If he shawed some narcissism, he would have much more reasons to do so than uneducated idiots claiming nonsenses and expecting us to trust them.
Why don’t you negate GPS? Why don’t you call Einstein or Howking “narcissists”?
Where can you find bigger narcissist than Jesus? He expected his followers to hate their parents as a condition to join him, not to share their attention with anyone.
A sic narcissist!
on 17 Mar 2010 at 11:29 pm 5.Observer said …
Horatio- Your blather “This is what you can expect like a narcissist like Dawkins (read his book).”
Do you know what the word narcissist means? How do you get narcissism from Dawkins? It just cracks me up that someone so gifted and accomplished can be so derided by folks so lacking gifts or accomplishments.
“The guy has this tunnel vision about everyone viewing the origins of life through his spectrum of reason.”
You should learn how to write English. What do you intend this mess of unrelated metaphors to mean? Does Dawkins expect folks to view the origins of life through the prism (spectra can result from these if used properly) of reason? Given the ample examples, such as yourself, to the contrary, the answer would have to be a resounding “NO!” Nevertheless, his selfless aim is to change that.
“He actually believes it is now a fact! It can not be observed, tested or recreated but he know is to be fact. ”
Let alone writing English, do you know how to read it with the comprehension of an average fourth grader? You claim to have read one of his books. Try reading “The Greatist Show on Earth”. If that doesn’t get through to you, go back to watching sitcoms.
on 21 Mar 2010 at 3:28 am 6.Loi said …
I do not believe Dawkins intended to equate the creationism/evolution debate and the holocaust. I believe he meant to say, “Not believing in evolution is as ridiculous as not believing in the holocaust” and, “Not believing in the holocaust is just as damaging as not believing in evolution”.
on 21 Mar 2010 at 9:00 pm 7.Horatio said …
“What do you intend this mess of unrelated metaphors to mean?”
English must be your second language. Let me simplify so that even you can understand. He desires for everyone to believe what he believes. I hope that is clear enough?
“Try reading “The Greatist Show on Earth”.”
I think you meant Greatest? For one who derides other grammar straighten up and get a spellchecker!
Why is that the new gospel according to Dawkins? I suggest you read “Faith of a Physicist” or “The language of God” and stop worshiping the secular priest Dawkins. You guys who bury your head in the sand are such a frustrating bunch.
on 22 Mar 2010 at 1:43 am 8.Observer said …
“For one who derides other grammar straighten up and get a spellchecker!” an attempt at humor? I am guilty of the typo.
Polkinghorne is a way more than a legit intellect, scholar, etc. and when I have suggested to folks in these forums to look at the best of Episcopalian theological he was what I had in mind. He is brilliant, and his ideas are worth working through, but it still boils down to God being the catchall for human ignorance. To his credit, he even readily admits that he is operating on the very strong effect of the psychology of faith.
Collins is something of the opposite to Polkinghorne. “The Language of God” is an embarrassing mess. It is utter rubbish. He also argues for a God that is outside of the universe otherwise there is not chance of a God. There is a theorem for that, but it gets back to the unprovability of God. Also, keep in mind we are talking about the universe here…
on 22 Mar 2010 at 7:16 am 9.3D said …
6.Loi said …
I do not believe Dawkins intended to equate the creationism/evolution debate and the holocaust. I believe he meant to say, “Not believing in evolution is as ridiculous as not believing in the holocaust” and, “Not believing in the holocaust is just as damaging as not believing in evolution”. ”
The person you are replying to is not arguing in good faith. He knows what Dawkins meant but is just trying to create an outrage dust cloud to obscure the issue.
The “mistake” was intentional and does not need correction.