Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[Rick O'Shez]

He hasn't shot any saint.

It's sounds like he'd like to shoot him though.

But then Saint Dawkins would be the first New-Atheist martyr! Hail Saint Dawkins!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

One of our friends here gave an opinion that Richard Dawkins is not a scientist.

What is your opinion? Please

he's an evolutionary biologist-
That's a bit like calling yourself a 'socialist economist' .. When the conclusion is already in the field description, that's not a particularly objective, scientific approach to a subject!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

he's an evolutionary biologist-

Because evolution is what scientific observation supports, and he's a scientist. Theologians can promote creationism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because evolution is what scientific observation supports, and he's a scientist. Theologians can promote creationism.

evolution is what atheism supports, and Dawkins is an atheist

There are many scientists who are skeptical of atheism and are free to examine the evidence in fields like biochemistry- without the explicit predetermined conclusions

 

[Rick O'Shez]

evolution is what atheism supports, and Dawkins is an atheist

Evolution is what the science supports. Dawkins is entitled to be an atheist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Who said that Dawkins isn't a scientist? Lol! He's said some things that smack of being sympathetic to eugenics but, other than that, he's a fine scientist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolution is what the science supports. Dawkins is entitled to be an atheist.

If you are an evolutionary biologist, 'what the science supports' is irrelevant, because by definition you have a predetermined belief in evolution

just as 'paranormal investigators' by definition are the least qualified to objectively test the existence of ghosts. They have no choice

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you are an evolutionary biologist, 'what the science supports' is irrelevant, because by definition you have a predetermined belief in evolution

just as 'paranormal investigators' by definition are the least qualified to objectively test the existence of ghosts. They have no choice

You wouldn't be much of a biologist, period, if you didn't accept evolution. An evolutionary biologist studies evolutionary processes. It's a subfield of general biology.

Let's stop pretending that evolution is a matter of belief in the first place. It's not. It's a matter of fact that you either accept or you don't.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You wouldn't be much of a biologist, period, if you didn't accept evolution. An evolutionary biologist studies evolutionary processes. It's a subfield of general biology.

Let's stop pretending that evolution is a matter of belief in the first place. It's not. It's a matter of fact that you either accept or you don't.

Lemaitre was not considered much of a cosmologist, because he didn't accept steady state
Max Planck was pretty unpopular at the time for not accepting the immutable 'facts' of classical physics

Progressing past institutionalized academic consensus is what makes a great scientist- that's a little tricky if adhering to consensus is part of your job description!

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Lemaitre was not considered much of a cosmologist, because he didn't accept steady state
Max Planck was pretty unpopular at the time for not accepting the immutable 'facts' of classical physics

Progressing past institutionalized academic consensus is what makes a great scientist- that's a little tricky if adhering to consensus is part of your job description!

Great, so let us know when evolutionary theory is disproven. Well, you wouldn't have to, because it would be HUGE global news, but anyway...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Great, so let us know when evolutionary theory is disproven. Well, you wouldn't have to, because it would be HUGE global news, but anyway...

disproven by science and accepted as such in the community.... has quite a long lag time

the BB was not fully accepted as replacing steady state etc until Lemaitre was on his death bed in the 60s,
Fred Hoyle rejected it till his grave in 2001

'science progresses one funeral at a time' ( Planck )

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

disproven by science and accepted as such in the community.... has quite a long lag time

the BB was not fully accepted as replacing steady state etc until Lemaitre was on his death bed in the 60s,
Fred Hoyle rejected it till his grave in 2001

'science progresses one funeral at a time' ( Planck )

We're not talking about cosmological theories (which still isn't a settled question), we're talking about evolutionary processes. If evolutionary theory was disproven, it would rock, if not destroy, the very foundations of modern life sciences and medicine. Calling it revolutionary would be a pale understatement.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We're not talking about cosmological theories (which still isn't a settled question), we're talking about evolutionary processes. If evolutionary theory was disproven, it would rock, if not destroy, the very foundations of modern life sciences and medicine. Calling it revolutionary would be a pale understatement.

I don't see it being a big deal outside of the academic minority- like 'evolutionary scientists' but they would be the last to change their minds, if ever anyway.

But in the real world, practical reality- people at the cutting edge, the pinnacle of medical practice- neurologists like Dr Carson, seem to do very well without it already.
And overall belief in Dawkins-esque evolution is<20% in the US

similarly with the BB, most people never believed academic steady state anyway- they believed the universe began in a creation event all along.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't see it being a big deal outside of the academic minority- like 'evolutionary scientists' but they would be the last to change their minds, if ever anyway.

Er, genetics? Virology? Biology in general? Anthropology?

But in the real world, practical reality- people at the cutting edge, the pinnacle of medical practice- neurologists like Dr Carson, seem to do very well without it already.

You don't need to understand evolutionary theory in order to be a surgeon or physician. That's akin to mechanics or engineering. However, if you're doing medical research in various fields, an understanding of evolution is a must.

And overall belief in Dawkins-esque evolution is<20% in the US

Americans tend to be pretty ignorant, yes. The state of education in this country is in the toilet.

similarly with the BB, most people never believed academic steady state anyway- they believed the universe began in a creation event all along.

Why do you keep bringing up cosmology? That's irrelevant to evolution and the big bang theory is not conclusively proven. The physics of it are a mess.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Er, genetics? Virology? Biology in general? Anthropology?


You don't need to understand evolutionary theory in order to be a surgeon or physician. That's akin to mechanics or engineering. However, if you're doing medical research in various fields, an understanding of evolution is a must.

He was an absolute pioneer in aspects of neurology and related research, an academic also yes, professor of neurosurgery at John Hopkins, wrote in many peer reviewed journals, but he has more real life practical understanding of the pinnacle of biological design than any 'evolutionary biologist'.

I agree understanding is important, why have we hit a wall in trying to cure so many basic ailments? , kinda like we hit a wall trying to understand physical reality with classical physics?

we should never shut the door on our understanding, never consider anything 'immutable fact'

I mention the BB and quantum physics as examples of sacred academic consensus being spectacularly wrong- and for the same reasons I would argue-

the temptation to prematurely close the case on the 'simplest suspect' - for many also the best candidate to make 'God redundant'. This has proven to be a very poor guideline in tackling the greatest questions

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

He was an absolute pioneer in aspects of neurology and related research, an academic also yes, professor of neurosurgery at John Hopkins, wrote in many peer reviewed journals, but he has more real life practical understanding of the pinnacle of biological design than any 'evolutionary biologist'.

When it comes to Carson, specifically, it needs to be clarified what exactly he does believe in. There's various forms of creationism, most of which accept forms of evolution and natural selection, such as theistic evolutionism. I'm unsure of what exactly he believes in this regard. If he's a Young Earth Creationist/Biblical literalist, then he's a lunatic, quite frankly. But I doubt that's what he is. He may be a crank when it comes to some of his views, but I doubt he's that much of a crank. (But Johns Hopkins has employed cranks before, like Paul McHugh and John Money, however.)

I agree understanding is important, why have we hit a wall in trying to cure so many basic ailments? ,

Such as?

we should never shut the door on our understanding, never consider anything 'immutable fact'

Of course. That includes our philosophical and religious views, such as the notion of a creator deity.

the temptation to prematurely close the case on the 'simplest suspect' - for many also the best candidate to make 'God redundant'. This has proven to be a very poor guideline in tackling the greatest questions

"God" and the "greatest questions" tend to be more the purview of philosophy and not natural sciences.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When it comes to Carson, specifically, it needs to be clarified what exactly he does believe in. There's various forms of creationism, most of which accept forms of evolution and natural selection, such as theistic evolutionism. I'm unsure of what exactly he believes in this regard. If he's a Young Earth Creationist/Biblical literalist, then he's a lunatic, quite frankly. But I doubt that's what he is. He may be a crank when it comes to some of his views, but I doubt he's that much of a crank. (But Johns Hopkins has employed cranks before, like Paul McHugh and John Money, however.)

a 'crank' like Lemaitre, Planck, and Einstein- seems to almost be a prerequisite for being a great ground breaking scientist.

Hawking, Dawkins are not cranks, they are highly respected, they follow exactly what they were taught in their fields. can you tell me their greatest contribution to science?

Such as?

common cold? viruses? cancer?

Of course. That includes our philosophical and religious views, such as the notion of a creator deity.

we agree on something! I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, do you?

"God" and the "greatest questions" tend to be more the purview of philosophy and not natural sciences.

greatest questions like the origin of the universe (creation not static) the nature of physics (complex, unpredictable not simple, immutable)

'nature is the executor of God's laws' this philosophy allows us to continually explore ever deeper layers, no matter the unfashionable implications, by removing the goal of making God redundant

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

a 'crank' like Lemaitre, Planck, and Einstein- seems to almost be a prerequisite for being a great ground breaking scientist.

I'm using "crank" in the negative sense, not in the "misunderstood genius" sense.

Hawking, Dawkins are not cranks, they are highly respected, they follow exactly what they were taught in their fields. can you tell me their greatest contribution to science?

They've made many contributions to science, especially Hawkings. I couldn't say what their greatest has been.

common cold? viruses? cancer?

Are you saying that if scientists believed in God, we'd be curing the common cold and cancer? Huh?

we agree on something! I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, do you?

I don't have much faith in anything and my beliefs are subject to change.

greatest questions like the origin of the universe (creation not static) the nature of physics (complex, unpredictable not simple, immutable)

'nature is the executor of God's laws' this philosophy allows us to continually explore ever deeper layers, no matter the unfashionable implications, by removing the goal of making God redundant

How exactly does God remove any barriers? How is evolutionary theory a barrier at all? The Abrahamic deity cannot be empirically verified, so it's irrelevant to the natural sciences.

 

[SkepticThinker]

a 'crank' like Lemaitre, Planck, and Einstein- seems to almost be a prerequisite for being a great ground breaking scientist.

Hawking, Dawkins are not cranks, they are highly respected, they follow exactly what they were taught in their fields. can you tell me their greatest contribution to science?



common cold? viruses? cancer?


we agree on something! I acknowledge faith in my beliefs, do you?



greatest questions like the origin of the universe (creation not static) the nature of physics (complex, unpredictable not simple, immutable)

'nature is the executor of God's laws' this philosophy allows us to continually explore ever deeper layers, no matter the unfashionable implications, by removing the goal of making God redundant

What? Not a day passes that I don't read about some new breakthrough in cancer research.
Are you saying that if we all believed in your god we'd be making more headway in the treatment of diseases?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm using "crank" in the negative sense, not in the "misunderstood genius" sense.


They've made many contributions to science, especially Hawkings. I couldn't say what their greatest has been.

two high school dropouts from Ohio contributed powered flight, arguably the greatest scientific contribution of all time- how about the greatest living scientist- you can't name anything of substance? me neither

Are you saying that if scientists believed in God, we'd be curing the common cold and cancer? Huh?

if scientists had a little less belief in atheism, the origins of the universe would have been established far earlier- the same applies to any scientific study.

I don't have much faith in anything and my beliefs are subject to change.

blind faith is faith which does not acknowledge itself

How exactly does God remove any barriers? How is evolutionary theory a barrier at all? The Abrahamic deity cannot be empirically verified, so it's irrelevant to the natural sciences.

as above, atheism has been the barrier to answering the greatest scientific questions of all time[/quote][/quote]