Richard Dawkins Downed by Ben Stein. Yes. Ben Stein.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The self-promoted lighthouse of everything anti-Christian/Jew was recently featured as a central figure in a film by Ben Stein.

In the film, Ben Stein sets up basic common sense premises for discussion and interviews a myriad of different scientists on the subject. Included among the international sampling of PhD's was atheism's beloved: Richard Dawkins. I dont believe that I have seen a supposed intellectual fail so completely in debate as I saw Dawkins fall in front of and be run over by the intellectual giant known as Ben Stein (Bueller? Bueller?). He wouldnt have won Ben Stein's Money.

To give a little background to the conversation, Ben Stein's movie is called "Expelled", and is a documentary that tries to get to the political heart of the philosophical war between devout Darwinists and anyone who would dare challenge their position.

For anyone who isnt familiar with the debate, the central theme revolves around the only tenet of Darwinistic Evolutionary theory that is considered near law status in scientific circles: natural selection by descent with modification, and the subsequent philosophical meandering that one takes around that philosophical pillar of modern naturalism, particularly Darwinism.

Stein does a pretty decent job covering the subject and gets to Stanley Miller and beyond with these guys.

That's where it gets really, really good.

In an interview with Stein, Dawkins not only admits that intelligent design is possible and probable in what we know about the complex systems of molecular biology, but that he thinks it rational that ALIENS DID IT!

Hilarious!

Dawkins dug his own grave, dove in, and covered himself with dirt.

Stein just showed the guy to be exactly what anyone with an open mind and a scientific background realized that he was from the beginning: a philosophically irrelevant, dull, bitter, angry caricature of a serious scientist.

If anyone hasnt seen the movie, but is interested in the subject matter, I would recommend checking it out as it provides a decent snapshot of what the situation is really like.

Stein and the other producer do a good job at showing you how truth is elusive, and how these guys made collective choices about inventing their own truth politically. Its not about truth, but about power.

[Spider]

Meh.....you went in watching this with your mind already made up .......Ben Stien is becoming the Michale Moore of the right

[epicSocialism4tw]

Meh.....you went in watching this with your mind already made up .......Ben Stien is becoming the Michale Moore of the right

Nah, I went in knowing the issues at play and that the battle isnt about truth.

Also, the difference between Michael Moore and Ben Stein is this: Ben Stein isnt an idiot.

[Spider]

Also, the difference between Michael Moore and Ben Stein is this: Ben Stein isnt an idiot.
sure he is ......

[epicSocialism4tw]

sure he is ......

Says the trucker about the lawyer. ;D

[BroncoInferno]

Have you actually watched Stein's film? It is an absolute joke. He compares the alleged suppression of "intelligent" design to the Gulags and the holocaust. I also find it interesting that folks like Dawkins appeared in this ridiculous film to answer his pathetic, loaded questions even though part of the central thesis is they don't want debate. The movie is good for a laugh, though.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The movie is good for a laugh, though.

So you must have seen Dawkins go down in flames in the famous "THE ALIENS DID IT!" interview. That itself was worth the price of admission.

[epicSocialism4tw]

He compares the alleged suppression of "intelligent" design to the Gulags and the holocaust.

His purpose is to show that there is no consensus scientific cosmological explanation for complex molecular formations, that an inentional design cannot be ruled out or dismissed, and that atheists have made a concerted effort to unite in power to deny tenure positions to anyone outside of the circle of bitter atheists who cling to Stanley Miller's failed experiment like dogs to the last bone on the planet.

The Nazi references are purely in rememberance of what closed-minded socialists do to those who do not fit in to their great naturalistic ventures. By all accounts these crackpot socially-motivated atheist pseudoscientists are socialists in sheeps clothing.

I also find it interesting that folks like Dawkins appeared in this ridiculous film to answer his pathetic, loaded questions even though part of the central thesis is they don't want debate.

The central thesis is that they do not want scientists who are not atheists to hold tenured positions.

I think you misunderstood.

[Spider]

Says the trucker about the lawyer. ;D

;D well Ben Stein did kiss alot of Reagan ass to get where he is ....

[BroncoInferno]

Here's a funny and accurate review of this trash from Rotten Tomatoes (it received 9% by the way Ha!)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (PG)

Ken Hanke | 04/23/2008

Genre: Faux-Documentary Propaganda
Directed by: Nathan Frankowski
Starring: Ben Stein

Junk science meets even junkier filmmaking in Nathan Frankowski’s Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—a no more shameless, stupid and loathsome piece of propaganda has ever skulked its way into the theater. Frankowski really should have chosen a different subtitle for the film (my vote is for Win Ben Stein’s Brain Cell), since he seems to have succumbed to the “no intelligence allowed” credo in attempting to make his point.

Former Nixon speechwriter, droning movie personality, game-show host and eyewash shill Ben Stein—who cowrote the film—schlepps his way through this undertaking like the lead in some bargain-basement 1930s serial, which is to say that the man wears the same clothes throughout the entire film. He must have been as aromatic as the film by the end of the shoot. And what is Stein’s quest? Why, to find out the “truth” about why intelligent design isn’t being taught in classrooms and to expose why it isn’t taken seriously by the scientific community. At least, that’s the tenuous claim Expelled makes in an effort to attain some stature as a documentary.

The reality is that the film is as phony as Stein’s “just folks” posturing. This is nothing but stacked-deck religious-right propaganda palmed off as a serious debate on intelligent design—a concept that the film itself never actually explains. There’s a good reason for that, since any explanation of the concept immediately proves that intelligent design isn’t science, but a philosophical or religious proposition, the very basis of which rests on the existence of a supreme being. As a friend of mine noted, intelligent design isn’t anything but creationism “in a cheap tuxedo.” Frankowski and Stein both realize this, and rather than deal with the issue, they trot out the smoke-and-mirrors legacy handed down to them by Spiro Agnew with his “liberal media” and the standard right-wing outcry of oppression. (Anyone care to explain how it’s possible to be the “silent majority” and an oppressed minority at the same time?)

One of the problems with this film is that the filmmakers can’t even stick to their own dubious agenda. They spend the first part of the film trying to paint intelligent design as a scientific theory, only to spend the last third of the film railing about atheists—and falsely presenting all Darwinists as atheistic, while making no distinction between scientific Darwinism and social Darwinism. True, all documentaries and documentarians have some kind of agenda, and they all make decisions that support that point of view, but Expelled uses tactics that would make even Michael Moore cringe. In fact, the film attempts to use the Michael Moore approach. Alas, Stein lacks Moore’s intelligence, wit and—God save us—acting ability. (Well, we are talking about a guy who essentially parlayed saying, “Anyone? Anyone?” into some kind of career.)

But really what’s so base and corrupt about the film lies in its dazzling intellectual leaps. These start with linking the scientific community and the media to Stalin and Khrushchev—insert stock footage and create unfounded, historically spurious connection. A little more stock footage of bullies and some shots of the Berlin Wall represents the scientific community of Darwinists keeping out (or in) those freedom-loving intelligent-design folks—more guilt by filmmaking association. (The irony is that this is all grounded in Soviet filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein’s theory of montage.) This sort of thing is interspersed with interview footage of intelligent-design martyrs—whose martyrdom becomes sketchier and sketchier the more you check into their actual histories. (I never really did figure out the identity of the über-effete—think Rex Reed times 10—expert in Paris who spent most of his interview reclining.)

All this builds to the film going completely nutzoid as it proceeds to link eugenics to modern-day Planned Parenthood and the theory of evolution to Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust. Stein—who at this point is making an issue of his Jewishness—is determined to equate genocide to Darwinism, despite the fact that genocide predates Charles Darwin by some considerable time. In fact, the Old Testament has its fair share of the practice. This may be the most morally vile exploitation of the Holocaust on record. Not content with the inserted horrific clips, we’re also treated to Stein pretending he’s just heard about Dachau for the first time and burying his face in his hands after the fashion of a 19th-century manual of dramatic gestures. It’s one of the most stomach-churning moments in the history of film. By the end of this thing, Stein is being intercut with footage of a Reagan speech to apparently make some kind of equation between the two. Funny thing is, you could replace the Reagan footage with, say, Mussolini footage and make a very different impression, but that would be dishonest, wouldn’t it? And the filmmakers would never want that. Rated PG for thematic material, some disturbing images and brief smoking.

http://www.mountainx.com/movies/review/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed

[epicSocialism4tw]

It's always great to look at a completely biased film review for a film that will undoubtedly be reviewed poorly simply because of the political biases of the critic.

Go see the film for yourself. Dont depend on these people for an opinion.

Also, lets not distract ourselves from the simple fact that Ben Stein makes Richard Dawkins into a bumbling idiot in this piece.

As anyone who looked at Dawkins as anything but a savior could discern before he was ever used to wax the floor of lunatic philosophy by a game show host, this movie finally puts his self-promoted, self-aggrandized pseudoscience to rest for good.

See ya Dawkins. Everyone can see how irrelevant you are now. They cant be fooled by your facade any longer. When Ben Stein demolishes it with one simple set of premises, you dont have anything to hide behind anymore.

[W*GS]

His purpose is to show that there is no consensus scientific cosmological explanation for complex molecular formations, that an inentional design cannot be ruled out or dismissed, and that atheists have made a concerted effort to unite in power to deny tenure positions to anyone outside of the circle of bitter atheists who cling to Stanley Miller's failed experiment like dogs to the last bone on the planet.

Uh-hunh. You creationists are having such a tough time of it.

It's not a conspiracy - it's because creationism is bull****.

[gunns]

Says the trucker about the lawyer. ;D

Says the elitist to the truck driver.

It's always great to look at a completely biased film review for a film that will undoubtedly be reviewed poorly simply because of the political biases of the critic.

Kind of like Michael Moore?

There is no fact in this movie it's merely what you believe and choose to believe. Everything here is your opinion and a movie critics opinion. I think both sides are intertwined, it's too bad people have to make a debate out of it and stake victory where there is none.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Uh-hunh. You creationists are having such a tough time of it.
It's not a conspiracy - it's because creationism is bull****.

I dont think that you understand the argument.

Unfortunately, this is one of those issues where everyone has an opinion, no matter how uneducated they are on the subject and its subtleties.

This is precisely why nincompoops like Dawkins sell books.

[W*GS]

What "argument"?

That creationists aren't selling and are being properly depicted as the whacked minority that they are?

Right-wingers tend not be impressed by argument-from-victimization; why are you buying the IDers claims to the same?

[BroncoInferno]

Don't bother, W*GS. The general public has rejected this piece of crap by running it out of the theaters. It's a shameful sh*t pie that only a moron would take seriously for more than a second. However, if you like Ed Wood type movies, by all means go see this lying turd bomb. It's good for a laugh.

[epicSocialism4tw]

What "argument"?

If you dont understand what the issues are, then you shouldnt enter the conversation.

Clearly you are only interested in the same juvenile tactics that Dawkins is. Namecalling is the name of your game.

It doesnt pay intellectually to lean on "fact" where there is none to be had...this is what makes your position weaker than that of the Intelligent Design proponents interviewed in Stein's movie. If you cant figure out why that is the case, then there is no helping you in this issue. The least one could hope for is intellectual honesty and an open mind, of which you have shown to posess neither by your stance on this issue.

You have shown no understanding of the issue, and until you do, you should probably mind your own brain before engaging in discussion with others.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Don't bother, W*GS. The general public has rejected this piece of crap by running it out of the theaters. It's a shameful sh*t pie that only a moron would take seriously for more than a second. However, if you like Ed Wood type movies, by all means go see this lying turd bomb. It's good for a laugh.

:rofl:

This type of dismissal is for the scared.

[Pseudofool]

I wouldn't suggest that an onscreen debate with THE MAKER OF THE FILM as a litmus test for one of the most celebrated science-writers of the last fifty years. Pick up the Selfish Gene and learn something. Dawkins is truly approachable, and uniquely innovative.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I wouldn't suggest that an onscreen debate with THE MAKER OF THE FILM as a litmus test for one of the most celebrated science-writers of the last fifty years. Pick up the Selfish Gene and learn something. Dawkins is truly approachable, and uniquely innovative.

Most celebrated?

He's not writing about anything but propaganda for scientific philosophy.

He may be celebrated by angry atheists, but nobody else really cares in the scientific community. Especially in molecular biology.

He's a personality. Not known for his work, but for his disposition.

That should be obvious by the way he was easily dissected and exposed by a lawyer who chooses to make commercials instead of working cases.

[orangeatheist]

The self-promoted lighthouse of everything anti-Christian/Jew was recently featured as a central figure in a film by Ben Stein.

In the film, Ben Stein sets up basic common sense premises for discussion and interviews a myriad of different scientists on the subject. Included among the international sampling of PhD's was atheism's beloved: Richard Dawkins. I dont believe that I have seen a supposed intellectual fail so completely in debate as I saw Dawkins fall in front of and be run over by the intellectual giant known as Ben Stein (Bueller? Bueller?). He wouldnt have won Ben Stein's Money.

To give a little background to the conversation, Ben Stein's movie is called "Expelled", and is a documentary that tries to get to the political heart of the philosophical war between devout Darwinists and anyone who would dare challenge their position.

For anyone who isnt familiar with the debate, the central theme revolves around the only tenet of Darwinistic Evolutionary theory that is considered near law status in scientific circles: natural selection by descent with modification, and the subsequent philosophical meandering that one takes around that philosophical pillar of modern naturalism, particularly Darwinism.

Stein does a pretty decent job covering the subject and gets to Stanley Miller and beyond with these guys.

That's where it gets really, really good.

In an interview with Stein, Dawkins not only admits that intelligent design is possible and probable in what we know about the complex systems of molecular biology, but that he thinks it rational that ALIENS DID IT!

Hilarious!

Dawkins dug his own grave, dove in, and covered himself with dirt.

Stein just showed the guy to be exactly what anyone with an open mind and a scientific background realized that he was from the beginning: a philosophically irrelevant, dull, bitter, angry caricature of a serious scientist.

If anyone hasnt seen the movie, but is interested in the subject matter, I would recommend checking it out as it provides a decent snapshot of what the situation is really like.

Stein and the other producer do a good job at showing you how truth is elusive, and how these guys made collective choices about inventing their own truth politically. Its not about truth, but about power.

Nothing makes me happier than to see another creationist who falls for the scoop of lies that other creationists peddle in order to make a buck. It just goes to prove the old adage is true: There's a sucker born every minute.

And who from our forums, other than angry, would be so gullable as to think Ben Stein's disaster film was actually worth a damn? And who, other than angry, would believe the tripe and lies this film advances?

To the point, what evidently tickled angry's funnybone was actually a dig at morons who reject evolution. Rather than let angry, or the heavy-handed editors of "Expelled" tell you what Richard Dawkins said and meant, why not let Dawkins tell you himself:

Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity -- and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently -- comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings.

This 'Ultimate 747' argument, as I called it in The God Delusion, may or may not persuade you. That is not my concern here. My concern here is that my science fiction thought experiment -- however implausible -- was designed to illustrate intelligent design's closest approach to being plausible. I was most emphaticaly NOT saying that I believed the thought experiment. Quite the contrary. I do not believe it (and I don't think Francis Crick believed it either). I was bending over backwards to make the best case I could for a form of intelligent design. And my clear implication was that the best case I could make was a very implausible case indeed. In other words, I was using the thought experiment as a way of demonstrating strong opposition to all theories of intelligent design.

Well, you will have guessed how Mathis/Stein handled this. I won't get the exact words right...but Stein said something like this. "What? Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN." "Richard Dawkins BELIEVES IN ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins

SUCKER!

Keep it up, angry. Tell us what else was so intellectually stimulating about the film? Hilarious!

[W*GS]

If you dont understand what the issues are, then you shouldnt enter the conversation.

The issue is that the creationists are clinging (like a turd created by too much Taco Bell) to their fantasies and fears.

ID is just the latest myth they've created to justify their aberrant beliefs.

[orinjkrush]

creationism seems a child's explanation for the reason for everything;
evolution THEORY seems a linear projection for the reason for everything, at least everything bio-logical. Except we haven't seen many NEW creatures in the last 10,000 years of human history. Maybe NFL linemen, though.
intelligent design seems an amalgam of the above two: after all evolution just might be God's man-tool! Or God might be Man's evolution-tool!
none of the above works well nor explains much. Like arguing about UFOs.

[orangeatheist]

...we haven't seen many NEW creatures in the last 10,000 years of human history.

Define what you mean by "creature".

[Pseudofool]

Most celebrated?

He's not writing about anything but propaganda for scientific philosophy.

He may be celebrated by angry atheists, but nobody else really cares in the scientific community. Especially in molecular biology.

He's a personality. Not known for his work, but for his disposition.

That should be obvious by the way he was easily dissected and exposed by a lawyer who chooses to make commercials instead of working cases.He's a main stay on college syllabuses throughout the sciences. Atheism is a very small part of what he writes about. You really don't know what your talking about. I read his book in a Theoretical Genetics class, so you really don't have a clue to Richard Dawkins standing in intellectual community.

I imagine he has slightly less standing among hate-mongering sheep.

[TheDave]

Oh look, the beginnings of an ID vs. evolution thread. This should go real well. :thumbs:

[TDmvp]

;D well Ben Stein did kiss alot of Reagan ass to get where he is ....

he started with Nixon Spider

Stein began his political career as a speechwriter and lawyer for President Richard Nixon, and later for President Gerald Ford. On May 3, 1976, Time magazine speculated on the possibility of Stein having actually been Deep Throat.

[Spider]

he started with Nixon Spider

Stein began his political career as a speechwriter and lawyer for President Richard Nixon, and later for President Gerald Ford. On May 3, 1976, Time magazine speculated on the possibility of Stein having actually been Deep Throat.

I know where he started , but Stien kissed the hell out of Reagans ass to get back on top ........No one really Believed Stien was Deepthroat , Harry Kissenger was the one everyone was pointing fingers at , then Diane Sawyer , and then some other goofball Sears , I think his name was .Then there was Linda Lovelace ......

[TDmvp]

I know where he started , but Stien kissed the hell out of Reagans ass to get back on top ........No one really Believed Stien was Deepthroat , Harry Kissenger was the one everyone was pointing fingers at , then Diane Sawyer , and then some other goofball Sears , I think his name was .Then there was Linda Lovelace ......

AHHHH so the fallout from Nixon about killed him and used Reagan to climb outa it ??? gotchas ... didn't know the Stein Reagan connection , carry on heheheh

[Spider]

AHHHH so the fallout from Nixon about killed him and used Reagan to climb outa it ??? gotchas ... didn't know the Stein Reagan connection , carry on heheheh

Yeah , during that time anything Nixon related was shunned ..... Stien came out sucking off Reagan and Reagan's 4 pillar of economics plan .....And no one really Knew G Gordan Liddy when Liddy went off to be Bubbas Bitch

[Bronco Bob]

I dont think that you understand the argument.

Unfortunately, this is one of those issues where everyone has an opinion, no matter how uneducated they are on the subject and its subtleties.

This is precisely why nincompoops like Dawkins sell books.

And nincompoops like Stein make movies.

[epicSocialism4tw]

And nincompoops like Stein make movies.

The difference between Stein and Dawkins:

Stein isnt operating under the same delusion of grandeur that Dawkins is.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The issue is that the creationists are clinging (like a turd created by too much Taco Bell) to their fantasies and fears.

ID is just the latest myth they've created to justify their aberrant beliefs.

That's not the issue at all.

The issue is over what one's ideas are after all available information ends.

It is particularly telling in the piece that the atheist fascists tended to become very agitated by the idea that considered among the possible contributors to any sort of complex design perceived by man at the molecular level could have been done by a god.

Were not talking about Jesus here, were talking about any living being by standards defined or otherwise that exhibited conscious contribution to the design of any sort of life on this planet or any other.

This is where Dawkins proved how uneducated he is.

He claimed that an intelligent designer was possible, but that it was not Intelligent Design (as he understands it), God, god, or gods.

He claimed that it was likely that aliens had done it, and that is hilarious.

What Dawkins neglected to realize is that he willingly gave in to Stein's premise without struggle...and he didnt understand that he had made a philosophical leap into being a proponent of the actuality of the premise of Intelligent Design as well.

Not only is he a fool, but he is extremely undereducated in the field that he claims superiority in: philosophy. This is the arena that Dawkins has made the jump to. Unfortunately for him, he sucks at it. So bad that a game show host made him look like an idiot with very little effort.

[epicSocialism4tw]

He's a main stay on college syllabuses throughout the sciences. Atheism is a very small part of what he writes about.

Simply not true.

Dawkins writes Philosophy of Science books...this is his "contribution" if one sees much of a contribution there.

These books by Dawkins all revolve around central themes of theoretical and philosophical rationalism in argument for stated or inferred atheistic Darwinist syntheses:

The God Delusion, The Blind Watchmaker, The River Out of Eden, The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Devil's Chaplain, and Unweaving the Rainbow.

There is not a single piece of Dawkins' work that doesn not deal with the conflict of Darwinism and creationism either directly or indirectly.

Most all of Dawkins' talks, debates, appearances in documentaries, and other public writings are all Philosophy of Science issues.

Not to mention that Dawkins holds a chair at Oxford in Scientific Public Relations, which I might say he is using as a tool to set science/public relations back 500 years at least.

You really don't know what your talking about. I read his book in a Theoretical Genetics class, so you really don't have a clue to Richard Dawkins standing in intellectual community.

Oh, did you study memetics?

It should be noted that Dawkins is only elaborating on two other scientists' work there.

It should also be noted that Theoretical Genetics is an extremely young science and that it is not only difficult to teach truth in that class (by definition), but that it is difficult to even find material. Dawkins is a public figure so of course you will be taking a look in that class.

[JPEZ]

http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/ben-stein.jpg

Bueller,.............. Bueller,........... Bueller..........

[Pseudofool]

Simply not true.

Dawkins writes Philosophy of Science books...this is his "contribution" if one sees much of a contribution there.Stating something isn't true doesn't make it so. You will find Dawkins on interdisciplinary and theoretical syllabuses in many, many college courses.

These books by Dawkins all revolve around central themes of theoretical and philosophical rationalism in argument for stated or inferred atheistic Darwinist syntheses:

The God Delusion, The Blind Watchmaker, The River Out of Eden, The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Devil's Chaplain, and Unweaving the Rainbow.
I doubt you've read all these books, I know I haven't the one to which I was referring is bolded, which is a study of altruism as it occurs (or doesn't occur) in nature. It's also where the Meme stuff is. Maybe he's expanded on that since.
There is not a single piece of Dawkins' work that doesn not deal with the conflict of Darwinism and creationism either directly or indirectly.

Most all of Dawkins' talks, debates, appearances in documentaries, and other public writings are all Philosophy of Science issues.
Science needs an ethical and philosophical counter balance to the hard research. Every good scientist needs to be informed about how and why they experiment and hypothesize the way that they do.

Not to mention that Dawkins holds a chair at Oxford in Scientific Public Relations, which I might say he is using as a tool to set science/public relations back 500 years at least.Who cares? A myriad of successful writers, science writers, hold similar quirky positions because of their publishing status and the fact that they are already established. Why mention this--sounds like a strawman to me.

Oh, did you study memetics?

It should be noted that Dawkins is only elaborating on two other scientists' work there.

It should also be noted that Theoretical Genetics is an extremely young science and that it is not only difficult to teach truth in that class (by definition), but that it is difficult to even find material. Dawkins is a public figure so of course you will be taking a look in that class.This was close to ten years ago. The notions of "memes" was really sidepoint, rather the notion of altruism as evolutionary necessity or detriment was on Dawkins. To be honest, not much else from the class has stayed with me beyond Dawkins book, since I've switched disciplines completely and am earning my doctorate in something else. But I often think of the Selfish Gene as groundbreaking book in my education, much more so than a lot of the crap I was given to read as I was trying to earn my Microbiology degree.

[BroncoInferno]

He claimed that an intelligent designer was possible, but that it was not Intelligent Design (as he understands it), God, god, or gods.

He claimed that it was likely that aliens had done it, and that is hilarious.

Do you have any integrity at all? OA posted Dawkins own words in post 21 explaining exactly the point he was trying to convey in what he intended as a thought experiment...a thought experiment that he states quite clearly he does not believe but was offering as a hypothetical demonstrating the unlikihood of intelligent design in ANY form. You read that post and yet continue to try and sell the lie the filmakers constructed through dishonest editing. You are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.

[orangenblue2]

For any interested parties...www.expelledexposed.com/

They do a pretty fine job of dismantling the movie. Despite Ddrama's protestations, ID is "creationism" in sheep's clothing. Check the site out...and discuss.

[orangenblue2]

You are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.

...and the biggest "apologetic" as well.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

...and the biggest "apologetic" as well.Mad Yak also owns the title of the biggest hypocrite as well.

[Kaylore]

Meh.....you went in watching this with your mind already made up .......Ben Stien is becoming the Michale Moore of the right

Ben Stein is a svelte, brilliant Jewish man. Michael Moore is big fat guy. They are not at all the same.:approve:

[Pseudofool]

Ben Stein is a svelte, brilliant Jewish man. Michael Moore is big fat guy. They are not at all the same.:approve:Well we can see you judge people at more than face value--oh wait. At least Spider, even if he might agree with Moore, can admit the tactics he uses in his films are tenuous at best. I'm not sure why it's so hard for people on the right to admit that proponents of ideas they agree with might try to prove them dishonestly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

At least Moore provides sources and hard data to back his claims. For example, you can go to his website and find a long list of references supporting all of the key claims in "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Sicko."

How many times have the kind of right-wing disinfo artists people like Kaylore and Angrydrama cite been caught red-handed peddling outright lies and fabrications?

[Pseudofool]

How many times have the kind of right-wing disinfo artists people like Kaylore and Angrydrama cite been caught red-handed peddling outright lies and fabrications?Unfortunately that evidence was destroyed when the Mane went down earlier this month.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Unfortunately that evidence was destroyed when the Mane went down earlier this month.

How convenient is that? ;)

http://www.male-space.org/alberto/clown/koolaid.jpg

[W*GS]

How many times have the kind of right-wing disinfo artists people like Kaylore and Angrydrama cite been caught red-handed peddling outright lies and fabrications?

Getting caught in "outright lies and fabrications" hasn't stopped you from continuing to post...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nor has lack of evidence to support your unfounded accusations stopped you.

[Pseudofool]

Nor has lack of evidence to support your unfounded accusations stopped you.You know the asterisk in W*GS name is for RON, meaning WRONG more times than once: W"RON"GS. But this should be obvious to everyone.

[W*GS]

Nor has lack of evidence to support your unfounded accusations stopped you.

I've asked you to provide proof of any number of claims you've made over the years; all you've given in return is more bluster, name-calling, slurs, smears, personal attacks and the occasional bartcop bitmap.

So **** off.

[W*GS]

You know the asterisk in W*GS name is for RON, meaning WRONG more times than once: W"RON"GS. But this should be obvious to everyone.

You're just sore that I've showed that you're a pretentious pseudo-intellectual whose views wither under the gentlest of arguments.

[orangeatheist]

Do you have any integrity at all? OA posted Dawkins own words in post 21 explaining exactly the point he was trying to convey in what he intended as a thought experiment...a thought experiment that he states quite clearly he does not believe but was offering as a hypothetical demonstrating the unlikihood of intelligent design in ANY form. You read that post and yet continue to try and sell the lie the filmakers constructed through dishonest editing. You are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.

Inferno, that's how it is with ALL apologists. Just keep selling the lie. It's the only way creationism has continued into the 21st century. There are still IDiots willing to be suckered. Angry is just a willing stooge.

[OrangeDoofus]

Clearly you are only interested in the same juvenile tactics that Dawkins is. Namecalling is the name of your game.

....

You have shown no understanding of the issue, and until you do, you should probably mind your own brain before engaging in discussion with others.
Well this post was fun to read, at least.